/sci/ - Science & Math » Thread #11163663

47KiB, 1152x648, conduction.png

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO

Help refute climate change denial

Anonymous Wed 20 Nov 18:52:11 2019 No.11163663 View Reply Original Report

Quoted By: >>11163721 >>11164898 >>11164995 >>11165003

How can you refute the attached poorly made by myself graphic? I have run into someone that contends that no matter how much co2 is in the atmosphere, the net thermals will achieve equilibrium throughout the system via conduction before any significantly different radiation can occur.

How do I refute the right side of this graphic and prove the left side?

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 20 Nov 2019 19:00:16 No.11163692 Report

Quoted By: >>11163705 >>11164251

I don't think either side is right. As a general rule don't bother to refute anything made in MS paint.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 20 Nov 2019 19:03:51 No.11163705 Report

Quoted By: >>11163717

>>11163692
The left is the entire framework for Greenhouse theory. If it is not correct then greenhouse theory is not correct.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 20 Nov 2019 19:08:40 No.11163717 Report

Quoted By: >>11163720

>>11163705
I don't think it is. I'm pretty sure it's just something that someone made in MS paint and has no bearing on reality.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 20 Nov 2019 19:10:26 No.11163720 Report

Quoted By: >>11163789

>>11163717
Yeah, I made it in paint, and it directly represents the basis for greenhouse theory.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 20 Nov 2019 19:10:28 No.11163721 Report

Quoted By:

>>11163663
>this formula is written on a napkin so we can disregard any merit it may have

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 20 Nov 2019 19:35:01 No.11163789 Report

Quoted By: >>11163798

>>11163720
Yeah, I don't know about that. For starters, I don't think you understand the subject well enough to be considered a valid source. Try using images from real scientists to support your arguments.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 20 Nov 2019 19:37:43 No.11163798 Report

Quoted By:

>>11163789
I should have posted this in /pol, at least the trolls would be numerous and hilarious.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 20 Nov 2019 22:21:35 No.11164251 Report

Quoted By:

>>11163692
Not an argument faggot

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 20 Nov 2019 22:34:53 No.11164300 Report

Quoted By:

ABCD
Anything But Carbon Dioxide

The problem with any argument against man made climate change is they need to explain 'if not carbon dioxide, then what?'

I'm trying to dumb myself down to the level of your graphic. If I understand it correctly it's claiming that atmospheric equilibrium will be reached because conduction? Therefore radiative forcing is impossible? Did someone literally take a high school Earth science class and completely misunderstand how the atmosphere works?

The atmosphere is not a unit. In Meteorology 101 you learn this. There are 4 basic types of air masses. Warm and wet, warm and dry, cold and wet, cold and dry. Warm and wet is created over water in the tropics, warm and dry is created over continents. Cold and wet over water in the arctic, cold and dry over continents.

And that's way simplified. How air masses interact is what creates weather. The idea that atmosphere is uniform and therefore conduction equalizes it before radiative forcing can is something I expect from a high schooler with no further education. God, I hope even high schoolers aren't that dumb.

Unless you can explain what you're getting at better, I'm going to have to chalk this up to 'uneducated'.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 21 Nov 2019 02:45:04 No.11164898 Report

Quoted By:

>>11163663
>refute denial of thing
double negatives are smoothbrain language, just say "prove thing".

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 21 Nov 2019 03:19:30 No.11164987 Report

Quoted By: >>11164992

Someone needs to come up with an idiot-simple way to explain the fact that CO2 increases dramatically *as a result of* higher global temperatures. Denialists look at the graphs and, of course, disregard the spike in CO2 preceding a warming period because the spike after that is so extreme. It almost fooled me.

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO 1532878131926.jpg, 50KiB, 615x458

Anonymous Thu 21 Nov 2019 03:23:20 No.11164992 Report

Quoted By:

>>11164987
Save the planet and log off. NOW.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 21 Nov 2019 03:26:07 No.11164995 Report

Quoted By:

>>11163663
I mean, I do this shit for a living, and I have a good understanding of the rotational-vibrational IR absorption of CO2 that leads to the greenhouse effect .. but your figure is absolute dogshit. For starters, is there a reason why you divided the atmosphere into 2 (or 3) layers? Care to label them maybe?

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 21 Nov 2019 03:35:17 No.11165003 Report

Quoted By:

>>11163663
Who gives a fucking shit? Close the tab and leave whatever shitty Facebook group you found them on and go do something actually meaningful instead of furthering the braindead political quagmire that has made denial such a problem to begin with.

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