/sci/ - Science & Math » Thread #10985809

28KiB, 425x301, co2_ir.jpg

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO

CO2 is a poor greenhouse gas

Anonymous Thu 19 Sep 15:33:15 2019 No.10985809 View Reply Original Report

Quoted By: >>10986094 >>10986352 >>10986380 >>10986386 >>10986729 >>10987328 >>10989048 >>10990458

https://nov79.com/gbwm/ntyg.html

So why do the green lobby think its the cause of (the small) amount of warming experienced.
It may be the story has been dumbed down for public consumption.

BUT Have they got any actual good reasons to not want us to burn petroleum products ?

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 19 Sep 2019 15:33:59 No.10985810 Report

Quoted By: >>10986352

Surely more CO2 is a good thing. The plants need it.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 19 Sep 2019 15:36:48 No.10985818 Report

Quoted By: >>10990343

Wrong thread to get an extinction rebellion twonger on here, but I am up for a serious debate. Is there any other reason a bit more CO2 is actually harmful in any way?

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 19 Sep 2019 15:38:22 No.10985824 Report

Quoted By: >>10985828

Co2 stays the longest in the atmosphere

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 19 Sep 2019 15:41:36 No.10985828 Report

Quoted By: >>10986047 >>10986373

>>10985824
not really. It gets washed out by rain and becomes limestone in the sea. incidentally the hotter it gets the more water is in the air. the more water in the air, more clouds, more heat reflected back to space from white clouds and more CO2 washed out. Your point does not assist a global warming argument.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 19 Sep 2019 15:45:45 No.10985836 Report

Quoted By: >>10986048

Extinction Rebellion == Scientifically Illiterate

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 19 Sep 2019 17:33:11 No.10986047 Report

Quoted By:

>>10985828
>not really
If we stopped emissions right now it would still take, centuries for CO2 levels to naturally return to pre industrial levels. I'm afraid your point is nonsense, unless you think consider several centuries to be a short period of time. in which case I suspect you're a rock and not a human.

>incidentally the hotter it gets the more water is in the air. the more water in the air, more clouds, more heat reflected back to space from white clouds

water vapor is the most potent greenhouse gas, the increased greenhouse effect is far more significant than the slight increase in albedo. This positive feedback is one reason why CO2 has such a large effect.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 19 Sep 2019 17:34:13 No.10986048 Report

Quoted By:

>>10985836
the irony

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 19 Sep 2019 18:00:32 No.10986094 Report

Quoted By: >>10986342

>>10985809
>A small amount of something cannot heat a large amount of something without extreme differences in temperature which cannot exist in the atmosphere.
What is a "small amount" and what logic dictates that they cannot have a large effect?

>Heat cannot be trapped in the atmosphere, because it radiates away in femto seconds.
This is a non sequitur. Heat being trapped in this context means heat is being radiated back towards Earth instead of out to space. Yet the entire page is about debunking the idea of heat being kept in the atmosphere instead of it cycling through between the surface and the atmosphere. The author has no clue what he's talking about. He also does not realize that the greenhouse effect is most relevant at the top of the atmosphere where heat is lost to space.

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO Yg4vUgZf_400x400.jpg, 31KiB, 400x400

Anonymous Thu 19 Sep 2019 19:43:20 No.10986338 Report

Quoted By: >>10986344 >>10986348

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gh-DNNIUjKU

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 19 Sep 2019 19:44:22 No.10986342 Report

Quoted By: >>10986345 >>10986677

>>10986094
>the greenhouse effect is most relevant at the top of the atmosphere
CO2 is a very heavy gas, hangs close to the surface

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 19 Sep 2019 19:44:55 No.10986344 Report

Quoted By:

>>10986338
I always love an excuse to post a potholer video

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 19 Sep 2019 19:45:56 No.10986345 Report

Quoted By: >>10986349

>>10986342
you fucking idiot, go back to middle school chemistry and review how gasses mix

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 19 Sep 2019 19:46:57 No.10986348 Report

Quoted By: >>10986460

>>10986338
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WLjkLPnIPPw&t=1s

I always love an excuse to post a potholer video.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 19 Sep 2019 19:47:04 No.10986349 Report

Quoted By: >>10986376

>>10986345
higher specific gravity

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 19 Sep 2019 19:48:00 No.10986352 Report

Quoted By:

>>10985809
compared to methane maybe? it is definitely driving our accelerated warming though which is going to cause a feedback loop.
>>10985810
retard.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 19 Sep 2019 19:48:01 No.10986353 Report

Quoted By:

CO2 is poor by mass but we make a shitfuck of it.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 19 Sep 2019 19:57:04 No.10986373 Report

Quoted By: >>10986377

>>10985828
>not really

Yes really fucktard CO2 is removed from the atmosphere on geological timescales

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 19 Sep 2019 19:58:18 No.10986376 Report

Quoted By: >>10986379

>>10986349
at this point i'm never sure if i'm being trolled or if someone on the science board can be this ignorant of something so basic.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 19 Sep 2019 19:58:44 No.10986377 Report

Quoted By: >>10990464

>>10986373
gets removed rather quickly by plant life

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 19 Sep 2019 19:59:48 No.10986379 Report

Quoted By: >>10986393

>>10986376
CO2 tends to hang near the surface. There is some at the upper levels but it's less.

There's a reason a hydrogen balloon floats, because hydrogen has a lower specific gravity than the air at surface level

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO tumblr_p0nxvjNDhl1slzegfo1_1280.jpg, 158KiB, 891x960

Anonymous Thu 19 Sep 2019 19:59:52 No.10986380 Report

Quoted By: >>10986381 >>10986394 >>10986399 >>10986737 >>10986864 >>10990526

>>10985809
i've read it somewhere that water vapor accounts for the vast majority of greenhouse effect and manmade CO2 doesn't even come close to any of that let alone manmade CO2 production accounts in the single sigits % wise when it comes to total CO2 produced in the world, most of which come from the oceanbeds. Anyone got a source for this?

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 19 Sep 2019 20:01:16 No.10986381 Report

Quoted By:

>>10986380
where did you read such bs

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 19 Sep 2019 20:02:30 No.10986386 Report

Quoted By: >>10986842

>>10985809
small but it's the absorption profile and its effect of filling a certain gap

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 19 Sep 2019 20:04:29 No.10986393 Report

Quoted By: >>10986406 >>10990421

>>10986379
>The homosphere and heterosphere are defined by whether the atmospheric gases are well mixed. The surface-based homosphere includes the troposphere, stratosphere, mesosphere, and the lowest part of the thermosphere, where the chemical composition of the atmosphere does not depend on molecular weight because the gases are mixed by turbulence.[25] This relatively homogeneous layer ends at the turbopause found at about 100 km (62 mi; 330,000 ft), the very edge of space itself as accepted by the FAI, which places it about 20 km (12 mi; 66,000 ft) above the mesopause.
where did you pick up such BS? please tell me you were never actually taught this.

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO CC_global carbon cycle.png, 7KiB, 400x222

Anonymous Thu 19 Sep 2019 20:04:53 No.10986394 Report

Quoted By:

>>10986380
yesyesyes this, all this warming is just because seas suddenly appeared from nowhere in the '70s

retard

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO Complete_Carbon_Cycle_500.jpg, 33KiB, 500x376

Anonymous Thu 19 Sep 2019 20:05:30 No.10986399 Report

Quoted By: >>10989037

>>10986380
never ceases to amaze me how gullible people are.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 19 Sep 2019 20:07:34 No.10986406 Report

Quoted By: >>10986410

>>10986393
turbulence is not enough to entirely overcome this. It will not be distinct layers, since temperature and convection mixes things a bit. But you will find CO2 tends to hang near the surface, enriching plant life. Each gas has a density profile with altitude

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 19 Sep 2019 20:09:13 No.10986410 Report

Quoted By: >>10986419 >>10986434

>>10986406
post source with measurements

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 19 Sep 2019 20:14:31 No.10986419 Report

Quoted By: >>10986447

>>10986410
You'd have to be somewhat science illiterate to not see this. As usual , this is not a black and white problem, its a problem of how much.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 19 Sep 2019 20:18:47 No.10986434 Report

Quoted By:

>>10986410
just say the difference there but negligible. then post source.
https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/247637/why-does-the-composition-of-the-air-does-not-change-with-altitude

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO Screenshot_2019-09-19 Comparison (...).png, 127KiB, 630x473

Anonymous Thu 19 Sep 2019 20:25:23 No.10986447 Report

Quoted By: >>10986547

>>10986419
interesting, an average variance of +10 PPM from 0-1 KM then almost completely stable throughout the rest of the lower atmosphere, I'm not sure to give this one too you, or call you an idiot for thinking a 10PPM difference means anything. What were you even trying to claim again?

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 19 Sep 2019 20:28:59 No.10986460 Report

Quoted By: >>10986486 >>10986514

>>10986348
your video seems to be debunking some other video that tony heller made. But in the video I posted he is right about everything. He exposes clear evidence that Nasa is tampering with their temperature data.

the raw data is competely different from the data they have now, which has been altered to make more warming. The cooling after the 1940's has been erased in the modern graph. This was even something they were discussing doing in the climategate emails, they were caught red handed

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 19 Sep 2019 20:34:38 No.10986486 Report

Quoted By: >>10986508

>>10986460
the main point is tony is an ignorant charlatan at best and a pathological liar at worst
His 'evidence' sounds good if you're utterly ignorant on the topic but there's countless lines of evidence as to why temperature adjustments are necessary. However if you actually believe there's a vast conspiracy between every single climate monitoring facility and organization on the planet, in order to sell solar panels you clearly aren't capable of critical thinking and I won't waste my time.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 19 Sep 2019 20:37:31 No.10986508 Report

Quoted By: >>10986704

>>10986486
no, he is posting newspaper articles and graphs from back then which directly contradict what is in their data today. News articles which reference a huge temperature drop since the 1940's, and Hansen himself putting out articles talking about things like this. Which are completely contradicted in the modern data they have, which has been "adjusted". This was in the climategate emails where they were discussing how to do this, huge scandal. You can't just write this off and pretend this never happened. It did happen, they actually are messing with their data to produce more warming. This is the truth

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 19 Sep 2019 20:38:28 No.10986514 Report

Quoted By: >>10986536

>>10986460
>climate gate
literal propaganda
>Eight committees investigated the allegations and published reports, finding no evidence of fraud or scientific misconduct.[15] The scientific consensus that global warming is occurring as a result of human activity remained unchanged throughout the investigations.[16]

tony's data manipulation to make it look like warming isn't happening is hilarious, post some graphs they make me laugh every time.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 19 Sep 2019 20:45:23 No.10986536 Report

Quoted By: >>10986569

>>10986514
No, you are wrong about this. You are incorrect.
You don't want to admit that you are wrong, so you are just hand-waving it away.

You are wrong. This is the truth, they are manipulating their data to make the past colder.
You need to admit that you are wrong.

Skip to 26:40, watch to 30:20
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gh-DNNIUjKU

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 19 Sep 2019 20:49:40 No.10986547 Report

Quoted By:

>>10986447
>What were you even trying to claim again?
That you're somewhat science illiterate to be skeptical enough of the claim
>turbulence is not enough to entirely overcome [density stratification]
to ask for a citation

anyway, you dug up your own source for him. good job.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 19 Sep 2019 20:58:48 No.10986569 Report

Quoted By: >>10986575

>>10986536
Well that was easy, every graph he displays is clearly labeled northern hemisphere, while the noaa graph is clearly global. Compare apples to oranges and they look different, not shit sherlock.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 19 Sep 2019 21:02:13 No.10986575 Report

Quoted By: >>10986590 >>10986604

>>10986569
Did they magically place new thermometers back in the past?

No I'll tell you exactly what they did. They used computer models and homogenizing data to produce this estimated result. Which conveniently fits their purpose and erases the 1940's cooling (which they literally discussed doing in the climategate emails)

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 19 Sep 2019 21:07:11 No.10986590 Report

Quoted By: >>10986603

>>10986575
Thermometers, or some form of temperature measurement, have been possible since before the 1900s

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 19 Sep 2019 21:13:23 No.10986603 Report

Quoted By: >>10986607

>>10986590
I'm sure back then most of the measurements were happening in the northern hemisphere compared to today.

Anyway they have made the past colder using adjustements in their computer programs.
It's just nonsense, I've known this stuff was nonsense since I was a kid.

The theory of global warming might be valid, but this stuff about catastrophic temperature rise and doomsday just around the corner is not true. And the fact you are unable to self-reflect and admit some fault really exposes your own bias.

I'm sure you will not defend the ludicrious scaremongering put out by Al Gore for example. There is a lot of science abuse on that side. At my university they are advertising research positions for this climate shit in an openly political way. Maybe the older scientists involved are more rigorous, but I assure you the new crowd will be zealous fanatics.

My own opinion is that most of the carbon will be absorbed by the biosphere and not contribute too much to warming. The goal should be to rush new technologies as fast as possible using gas as our launch point. Instead we seem to be breeding up billions of useless low IQ third world people and things are spiraling downward. Even in advanced countries like the USA the crazy religious fanatics and backwards retards have triple the birthrate of anyone with a college education, it's madness.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 19 Sep 2019 21:13:39 No.10986604 Report

Quoted By:

>>10986575
once again please provide the exact "climate gate" quotes you're referring too and I'll explain how you're taking it out of context.
>Did they magically place new thermometers back in the past?
believe it or not there were people taking temperature measurements outside the united states. That weren't included in a northern hemisphere data set.
>They used computer models and homogenizing data to produce this estimated result.
both are valuble tools when dealing with massive data sets that include instrument variation and thousands of data points across the entire globe. If you can provide evidence that this is somehow inaccurate and you have more accurate means of cleaning data, by all means provide it.

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO scripps-merg-co2-mar-18.png, 110KiB, 960x720

Anonymous Thu 19 Sep 2019 21:14:42 No.10986607 Report

Quoted By: >>10986624

>>10986603
wow look at how fast it's being absorbed!

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 19 Sep 2019 21:24:59 No.10986624 Report

Quoted By: >>10986630

>>10986607
The biosphere can absorb it, but it is currently being dumped too fast. So the level will rise. I cannot argue that

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 19 Sep 2019 21:27:15 No.10986630 Report

Quoted By: >>10986637

>>10986624
Sounds like you agree that something needs to be done about the amount of CO2 humans are emitting. Or the significant warming trend already observed will only get worse.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 19 Sep 2019 21:31:22 No.10986637 Report

Quoted By: >>10986640 >>10986664 >>10986801

>>10986630
No, it is not a catastrophic thing.

The gas should be used to develop a good economy and better technologies in the future. Instead the gas is being used to breed up these vast numbers of low IQ people who consume products and waste resources.

Right now Africa is the only continent with a positive birth rate. All population growth right now is coming from Africa. They are going from just a few hundred million people 40 years ago, to 1.2 billion today, to over 4.5 billion by the end of the century. And their average IQ is in the 70's. It's total madness.

Imagine if instead Africa was properly colonized. It might be the same as America today. Landing spaceships on the Moon, contributing to scientific progress. We would be light years ahead right now. We might even be immortal by now. Instead we are on this lunatic path, where we are even flooding the advanced countries with low IQ third world people. It's total madness, lunacy

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 19 Sep 2019 21:32:17 No.10986640 Report

Quoted By: >>10986653

>>10986637
>No, it is not a catastrophic thing.
please provide your citation for this reasoning. All evidence seems to disagree with you.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 19 Sep 2019 21:37:19 No.10986653 Report

Quoted By: >>10986664 >>10986676

>>10986640
No, I think that much of this is politically biased studies, the IPCC and such has been very wrong with their past predictions. The climate goes up and down, and it will keep doing so. CO2 is a very minor greenhouse gas with only a trace effect, especially in comparison to water vapor.

I think that NASA and this crowd has a history of trying to push their agenda by manipulating data. This stuff is well funded and everyone is trying to dip their hands in the pot. I've even seen research papers in my astro research talking about "the effect of carbon forcing on black holes". ahahahahah, they just want to put "global warming" in the title of their paper and get funding, what a joke.

Instead of curtailing our economy right now we should be pushing it harder than ever, so we can develop new technologies as fast as possible. The big issue is not global warming, it is the population and demographics

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 19 Sep 2019 21:42:43 No.10986664 Report

Quoted By: >>10986669

>>10986637
>>10986653
You're worthless to society, remember that.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 19 Sep 2019 21:44:00 No.10986669 Report

Quoted By: >>10986684

>>10986664
society has sure spent a lot of resources training me, so you better hope not.

Who is worthless to society is these billions of sub-80 IQ people that are being produced right now and will soon overrun Europe. It's a nightmare, we could have gone to space instead we're doing this shit

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO cmp_cmip3_sat_ann-1.png, 506KiB, 2337x1891

Anonymous Thu 19 Sep 2019 21:45:46 No.10986676 Report

Quoted By: >>10987195

>>10986653
>IPCC and such has been very wrong with their past predictions.
how so? the IPCC tends to underestimate warming

> CO2 is a very minor greenhouse gas with only a trace effect, especially in comparison to water vapor.

completely wrong, water vapor can't cause any warming on it's own as the amount in the atmosphere is entirely dependent on temperature. Which Co2 increases, increasing water vapor in the atmosphere further increasing temperature. your statement just isn't based in reality.

>I think that NASA and this crowd has a history of trying to push their agenda by manipulating data.
you think, but you have been unable to demonstrate this and have to rely on cherrypicked apples to oranges comparisons.

At this point all you've proven is you have opinions which you can't substantiate with evidence. I think you need to re evaluate your beliefs and work on your critical thinking skills.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 19 Sep 2019 21:46:00 No.10986677 Report

Quoted By:

>>10986342
The atmosphere is well mixed.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 19 Sep 2019 21:51:16 No.10986684 Report

Quoted By:

>>10986669
Good, maybe we'll start spending resources on Africans and stop making them worthless, then you won't have to complain.

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO 2000 (1).jpg, 43KiB, 700x509

Anonymous Thu 19 Sep 2019 21:59:22 No.10986704 Report

Quoted By:

>>10986508
>no, he is posting newspaper articles and graphs from back then which directly contradict what is in their data today.
So we had the same data coverage 50 years ago that we do today? No. Tony simply cherrypicks and misrepresents the data to get the conclusion he wants. If you actually look at the global temperature average the net result of all adjustments is to decrease the warming trend. But you'll never hear that from Tony since it demolishes his entire conspiracy theory.

>This was in the climategate emails where they were discussing how to do this, huge scandal.
Can you show me where?

>It did happen, they actually are messing with their data to produce more warming. This is the truth
Actually it's the complete opposite, pic related.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 19 Sep 2019 22:08:24 No.10986729 Report

Quoted By:

>>10985809
I remember learning this in GCSE chemistry. It may not be as effective as other gases but that doesn't stop it being a major contributor.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 19 Sep 2019 22:11:30 No.10986737 Report

Quoted By:

>>10986380
>Alan Carr on the right hand side
keked

>>>/pol/

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 19 Sep 2019 22:39:27 No.10986801 Report

Quoted By: >>10986816

>>10986637
>Right now Africa is the only continent with a positive birth rate.
See pic.

>And their average IQ is in the 70's. It's total madness
Vast numbers of people in Africa never got an opportunity to go to school and many are living in poverty. It's hardly surprising that the continent with a lower score on tests meant to measure intelligence is the one where children grow up malnourished and without education.

>Imagine if instead Africa was properly colonized
Define 'properly colonised'.

>Instead we are on this lunatic path, where we are even flooding the advanced countries with low IQ third world people. It's total madness, lunacy
Then make an effort to put an end to the ongoing looting of Africa. Petition your government to stop oil/mining companies from endlessly doing deals with corrupt governments, raise awareness that many consumer products are sourced from African mines where all the money goes to corrupt politicians or rogue militias, protest the IMF for being so irresponsible with their projects in Africa (by their own 2003 review they hardly acted on), IMF money comes from your taxes after all.

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO World Pop Growth.png, 88KiB, 771x513

Anonymous Thu 19 Sep 2019 22:46:31 No.10986816 Report

Quoted By:

>>10986801
Whoops forgot pic

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 19 Sep 2019 22:53:25 No.10986842 Report

Quoted By:

>>10986386
This. Closing spectral gaps that no other atmospheric constituents interact with increases the overall contribution to energy absorption.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 19 Sep 2019 23:03:22 No.10986864 Report

Quoted By:

>>10986380
Yes its called humidity. But water vapor is a condensable gas, the atmosphere can only hold so much at a certain temperature and pressure before it condenses out as clouds. CO2 is not condensable, so it accumulates.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 20 Sep 2019 01:40:14 No.10987195 Report

Quoted By: >>10987210 >>10987211

>>10986676
>water vapor can't cause any warming on it's own as the amount in the atmosphere is entirely dependent on temperature. Which Co2 increases, increasing water vapor in the atmosphere further increasing temperature. your statement just isn't based in reality.
just look at this fucking moron.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 20 Sep 2019 01:48:52 No.10987210 Report

Quoted By: >>10987303

>>10987195
greentexting someone's factually correct information then calling them a moron is a pretty good way of adding yourself to the retard club.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 20 Sep 2019 01:49:15 No.10987211 Report

Quoted By:

>>10987195
are you going to provide your citations or spout nonsense like a child?

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 20 Sep 2019 02:29:48 No.10987303 Report

Quoted By: >>10987319

>>10987210
>factually correct
it's not even internally consistent

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 20 Sep 2019 02:36:45 No.10987319 Report

Quoted By: >>10987332

>>10987303
try to explain so i can laugh at you

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 20 Sep 2019 02:42:47 No.10987328 Report

Quoted By:

>>10985809
>https://nov79.com/gbwm/ntyg.html
>All molecules vibrate constantly, which causes them to emit radiation constantly. That type of radiation is called infrared, black body radiation.

Wow, get a load of that guy. I almost respect the work that has to go into writing such an amount of BS, unpaid in one's free time..

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 20 Sep 2019 02:44:27 No.10987332 Report

Quoted By: >>10987338 >>10987342 >>10987472

>>10987319

Nothing needs to be explained, simply observe the proposition/argument made, it's laughable:

>water vapor can't cause any warming on it's own

>the amount (of water vapour) in the atmosphere is entirely dependent on temperature

>co2 increases temperature

>high temperatures increase water vapor in the atmosphere

>water vapour increases temperature

Copied, almost word for word.
Present an internally consistent argument next time.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 20 Sep 2019 02:47:45 No.10987338 Report

Quoted By: >>10987345

>>10987332
>water vapor can't cause any warming on it's own >water vapor can't cause any warming on it's own >water vapor can't cause any warming on it's own >water vapor can't cause any warming on it's own >water vapor can't cause any warming on it's own >water vapor can't cause any warming on it's own >water vapor can't cause any warming on it's own >water vapor can't cause any warming on it's own >water vapor can't cause any warming on it's own >water vapor can't cause any warming on it's own >water vapor can't cause any warming on it's own >water vapor can't cause any warming on it's own >water vapor can't cause any warming on it's own

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 20 Sep 2019 02:48:21 No.10987342 Report

Quoted By:

>>10987332
I don't know what else you want that other anon to say. Water vapour in the atmosphere is mostly gouverned by Clausius-Clapeyron. You can remove all atmospheric water vapour and dump it into the oceans, it'll just reappear the next fucking week. Atmospheric H2O is short-lived, highly variable. What exactly is the issue here?

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 20 Sep 2019 02:49:25 No.10987345 Report

Quoted By: >>10987349

>>10987338
Not even close to a clarification of the (currently) invalid argument.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 20 Sep 2019 02:53:46 No.10987349 Report

Quoted By: >>10987384

>>10987345
> on it's own > on it's own> on it's own> on it's own> on it's own> on it's own> on it's own> on it's own> on it's own> on it's own> on it's own> on it's own> on it's own> on it's own> on it's own> on it's own> on it's own> on it's own> on it's own> on it's own> on it's own> on it's own> on it's own> on it's own> on it's own

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 20 Sep 2019 03:20:35 No.10987384 Report

Quoted By: >>10987446

>>10987349
>https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/monitoring-references/faq/greenhouse-gases.php
Educate yourself.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 20 Sep 2019 03:55:18 No.10987446 Report

Quoted By:

>>10987384
>As the temperature of the atmosphere rises, more water is evaporated from ground storage (rivers, oceans, reservoirs, soil). Because the air is warmer, the absolute humidity can be higher (in essence, the air is able to 'hold' more water when it's warmer), leading to more water vapor in the atmosphere. As a greenhouse gas, the higher concentration of water vapor is then able to absorb more thermal IR energy radiated from the Earth, thus further warming the atmosphere. The warmer atmosphere can then hold more water vapor and so on and so on. This is referred to as a 'positive feedback loop'.
couldn't have said it better myself

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 20 Sep 2019 04:07:28 No.10987472 Report

Quoted By:

>>10987332
...geez you're not missing the part that says "on it's own" I hope.
That would be embarrassing for you.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 20 Sep 2019 05:21:11 No.10987561 Report

Quoted By: >>10987598 >>10990491

Geez, I hope you guys aren't implying that "on it's own" is of any relevance here, to reality, where nothing operates in isolation, and water vapour is responsible for AT LEAST 60% of the warming effect, caused by greenhouse gases.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 20 Sep 2019 05:35:50 No.10987598 Report

Quoted By:

>>10987561
it's entirely the most important factor when considering the warming effect of water vapor.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 20 Sep 2019 05:40:10 No.10987606 Report

Quoted By: >>10987611

>a "scientific" discipline
>only argument is muh 97% consensus
>now please let me tax you some more
You guys are like Hitler youth in 1945.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 20 Sep 2019 05:43:02 No.10987611 Report

Quoted By:

>>10987606
your inability to comprehend any scientific material is not a failing of science but is yours alone.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 20 Sep 2019 21:04:25 No.10989037 Report

Quoted By: >>10989070

>>10986399
>for the 1990s
Now that satellite images clearly show increased greening of the planet, how much has vegetation uptake increased?

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 20 Sep 2019 21:12:54 No.10989048 Report

Quoted By: >>10989333

>>10985809
You fucktard.
Tell ppl to change their ways to a regenerative civilization.
Try to tell them they need to pay more tax for changing infrastructure.
Tell ppl to use less plastic and pay more.

It is a fucking agenda dude. Ppl are stupid as fuck, so are you.
There are just a handful ppl in this world seeing the bigger picture and have actually knowledge on how to manipulate the population to a certain goal. (For their own benefits)
Ppl hardly think 2 weeks ahead, it’s just not natural.
So to sum it up it is a whole subject fused into one topic, because ppl don’t wanna research themselves.
If you scare ppl to say climate change the children will grow up in fear and it changes the culture for the benefit of civilization.
Stop being anti and appreciate what is happening. Just be angry at ppl to be that dumb.

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO Screenshot_2019-06-30 CT2017 Glo (...).png, 68KiB, 899x719

Anonymous Fri 20 Sep 2019 21:23:24 No.10989070 Report

Quoted By:

>>10989037
glad you asked.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 20 Sep 2019 22:50:49 No.10989333 Report

Quoted By: >>10990218

>>10989048
>Indoctrination based on """definitely infallible, settled science""" is A-OK
When will we be teaching children about ethnic and sexual differences? About healthy body functions? Intelligence research? Biological evolution?

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 21 Sep 2019 06:09:58 No.10990218 Report

Quoted By:

>>10989333
Witressed.
Ok tell ppl about sexual difference => create diversity in an merging society.
Really helpful!!
Intelligence research, tell ppl to found a research about that. And let them choose between a new power supply, which makes life easier for them.
Good luck with that anon.
Biology got his boom already. You want an other ok.

Dude I am also wondering, why things don’t go as you want them to go.
I mean certainly what you consider important is definitely what the retarded average person wants.

If you complain see it as a game. Earn your right to chose.
Invent or make life easier for many ppl resulting in you having money.
Found your own research.

I hate going to university still, all these ppl live in their own small bubble not understanding a bit of the world having intense lack of social intelligence.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 21 Sep 2019 07:46:14 No.10990343 Report

Quoted By:

>>10985818
>reason a bit more CO2 is actually harmful in any way
just put a plastic bag over your head and find out

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 21 Sep 2019 09:09:23 No.10990421 Report

Quoted By:

>>10986393
you're the retard anon.
The proportion of gases in an atmosphere depends on how heavy the molecules are, literally. The heavier the individual molecules, the faster the exponential decrease in density as you go higher in the atmosphere.
This is taught in freshman year in college, surely you would know about it if you weren't underage b&

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 21 Sep 2019 09:49:23 No.10990458 Report

Quoted By:

>>10985809
it's not that complicated
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infrared_window
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_equivalent

>BUT Have they got any actual good reasons to not want us to burn petroleum products ?
autarky - not being dependent on sandniggers is a damn good reason
having non-cancerous air in urban areas is another one
using petroleum for far more interesting applications, like plastics or carbon fiber is a third one off the top of my head

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 21 Sep 2019 09:55:51 No.10990464 Report

Quoted By:

>>10986377
You know that plants work more like magazines?
Sure we could decrease CO2 levels planting lot of plants on areas which don't have plants right now but that would probably mean decreasing our industrial areas.

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO subtractive-color-method-01.jpg, 345KiB, 834x834

Anonymous Sat 21 Sep 2019 10:27:49 No.10990491 Report

Quoted By:

>>10987561
water vapor is entirely dependent on temperature and water absorption band is pretty much 100% saturated anyway

You might ask, what does "absorption band is 100% saturated" even mean?
Imagine a walking around at sun in black T-shirt. Most of the solar energy in visible spectrum is absorbed and thus gets hot (molecules gain momentum). More can't be physically absorbed because it's already absorbing 100% of visible light. You can't have blacker than black T shirt.

The same principle applies in IR spectrum.
To continue with the analogy, atmosphere is already "painted" with "magenta (oxygen)" and "cyan (water) ink", adding more "cyan ink" won't do much, but adding "yellow ink (greenhouse gases)" will make it much darker

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 21 Sep 2019 11:10:36 No.10990526 Report

Quoted By:

>>10986380
I haven't even studied science for quite long time, heck I even failed all three papers achieving a D but I do know for sure that water vapor isn't in any form impacting the increased greenhouse emissions we are facing today.

Capcode	All Only User Posts Only Moderator Posts Only Admin Posts Only Developer Posts
Show Posts	All Only With Images Only Without Images
Deleted Posts	All Only Deleted Posts Only Non-Deleted Posts
Ghost Posts	All Only Ghost Posts Only Non-Ghost Posts
Post Type	All Only Sticky Threads Only Opening Posts Only Reply Posts
Results	All Grouped By Threads
Order	Latest Posts First Oldest Posts First

Your latest searches