Ok, I have noticed some climate "experts" on here so I have a Question for you:
Notice on the "CO2 and Temperature over time" chart that one follows the other. There doesn't seem to be any "proof" regarding which is following which, but let's assume that Temperature lags Co2, just as Greta tells us.
So, Fourier proved that Co2 traps heat by filling a tube with different gases and, in short, seeing which gas trapped heat the most. It was Co2. This is why they assume it traps heat in the atmosphere.
Ok, now for the question: In the chart, when temperature and Co2 spikes and goes to a maximum, WHY DOES IT GO DOWN AGAIN A COUPLE OF THOUSAND YEARS LATER?? If Co2 traps the heat, should it be possible for it to be cyclical at all? What happens in the chart when the Co2 + temperature goes down, and why does it fucking go down when it is supposed to trap the heat. It should just spike straight up ad infinitum, no?
I have a theory that when Co2 goes up, plants thrive and more plants = more O2 because plants take the C as a building stone and releases O2 for us to breath.
>let's assume that Temperature lags Co2, just as Greta tells us. It doesn't. CO2 lags temp, because the air is saturated with co2. In order for co2 levels to rise, temp must rise first, because warmer air holds more co2.
Jack Rodriguez
Ok, I believe this too, in a less simplified form, but there is no proofs about which follows which, except that Co2 traps heat so they assume its temp that follows Co2. I've never heard or seen any proof on any climate shitshow yet.
>I have a theory that when Co2 goes up, plants thrive and more plants = more O2 because plants take the C as a building stone and releases O2 for us to breath. Doesnt everyone already know this? Isn't there a whole book about this? Isn't this what (((they))) are trying to hide? That higher CO2 is actually better for plants?
Jack Ramirez
Yes. But why does it start to go down and then up again in the chart if the co2 traps heat?
The plants "eat" away the CO2 so there's less CO2 to trap in heat?
Brandon Rodriguez
CO2 does not trap the most heat, I believe that is water vapor. CO2 as a greenhouse gas has diminishing returns (or a logarithmic effect). So even adding a bunch won't necessarily warm the earth by much. Doubling it to 800 ppm would not double the heat increase from CO2 because the ability to trap heat diminishes the more of it you add. This is the biggest problem for me:
> they assume it traps heat in the atmosphere They do assume that, but evidence does not support it. If the earth were warming due to the greenhouse effect, then the heat is being trapped by CO2 in the troposphere. This is where the most warming should be taking place as it is the place where the heat is physically being trapped. NASA measurements do not show any warming. They have since adjusted the data to show warming by artificially lowering the past measures citing new instruments and a different calculation for atmosphere levels. The raw numbers show NO WARMING. Meaning, if the earth is warming, it is not due to CO2, or at the very least, not due to the greenhouse effect.
how can they be right when they haven't even gone out in the field and done experiments?
Blake Perez
So has Hansen? No, he just whipped up a bunch of nonsense from Venus research, called it "science", and people simply didn't bother checking him because he was the director of NASA.
So don't make me laugh.
Charles James
just because other people aren't doing science doesn't mean you are. good lord this was the weakest argument imaginable. whataboutism at its finest
Evan Edwards
>just because other people aren't doing science doesn't mean you are Ya sure?
Because there's one thing that climate scientists always seem to get confused: the order of the events. >it's not the temps getting higher and thus the jetstream breaking down; it's the jetstream breaking down and the northern hemisphere cooling down, with episodes of extreme heat in between because the broken jetstream sometimes blows from South to North
Seeing as you provided zero evidence for your case, let me just quickly post a photo of what Hansen has succumbed to (an attention whore working for dem arresting pics) and continue laughing at you.
what case? i asked how can it be science when there are no experiments or observations made? and your response to that was that it's science because some other guy is not doing science. brilliant. also your evidence is from (((scientists))) thus it's been falsified.
Daniel Howard
>your response to that was that it's science because some other guy is not doing science Filthy lies by a filthy jew, as is shown in and in pic related.
lies? >So has Hansen? No, he just whipped up a bunch of nonsense from Venus research, called it "science", and people simply didn't bother checking him because he was the director of NASA this is literally your justification for not doing experiments. also nice (((NASA))) evidence.
Jaxson Sullivan
You're right about one thing though: (((scientists))) shouldn't be trusted because they say the darnest things if you let them. Life on Mars was (((scientific consensus))) back in the day.
>and sunspot activity cannot explain this; 1920-30 were very hot, hotter than today, but today's sunspot activity is lower than it was back in the day >difference of CO2 in the atmosphere: 300 ppm in 1930 and 400ppm in 2018 >1950-1970 saw a massive cooling and the highest sunspot activity EVA
CO2 doesn't "traps the heat", some vibrational movements of CO2 molecules are excited from IR radiation (the radiation emitted from bodies at around the temperature of Earth, see Wien law). So CO2 is able to absorb IR radiation and get to a vibrational excited state. In order to return to the foundamental state CO2 emits IR radiation itself, in part to the Earth and in part to the space. In the end, the Earth recives energy both from the Sun and it's own atmosphere. To be in thermal equilibrium the radiation that comes from the Earth has to be equal to the radiation that comes from both the space and the atmosphere. To do so, the Earth has to increase it's temperature. Without Greenhouse effect the medium temperature of the Earth would be around -18 C. CO2 isn't the only gas greenhouse gas. The only requiste for a molecule to absorb IR radiation is to generate a dipole moment with one of his permitted vibrational movement. This is obviously a semplification of the model that explains how greenhouse gasses can increase the temperature of the Earth. Obviously the concentration of greenhouse gasses isn't the only factor to take into account, solar activity, for example, influences the temperature of the Earth. Look at the related image and read the full article (aviable for free) if you are interested. Sorry for my bad english.
>I have a theory I have a theory that the chart you're referring to isn't sourced and even if it has a source all of the data points are provably false
Xavier Gutierrez
why do you keep citing fake NASA jew numbers as evidence of anything? i never said it was your "only response" you lying kike
Grayson Thompson
>By 2100, global average temperatures will probably be 5 to 12 standard deviations above the Holocene temperature What is a "standard deviation"? And how are we supposed to get there if USHCN temperatures show a definitive cooling trend since 1895?
I call bullshit with extra dip.
Andrew Powell
>What is a "standard deviation"? You can't be serious... Learn some statistics and read the full article, there are more text and more graphs
Isaac Wright
>why do you keep citing fake NASA jew numbers as evidence of anything? Not NASA jew numbers. USHCN numbers. Everyone can download and check them, but don't be surprised by the E marks that are on 61% of all data sets these days; that just means that they haven't really measured the temp, but calculated it based on one of the models that have never been right.
USHCN is the only somewhat reliable temperature network, whether you want it or not.
>nd your response to that was that it's science because some other guy is not doing science. >[period] Just more lies.
>asks a question >doesn't get an answer Into the trash it goes. Yes, it's that easy. You had your chance, now it's gone.
Henry Morgan
I have a question.
Where does overpopulation come in to this? Theres 7 times the people in the world there was in 1910
James Ross
>Not NASA jew numbers. (((USHCN))) numbers congratulations you just shifted from one kike organization to another one. all you do is avoid and evade you still havent even explained how these retards, or you, are doing science without any EXPERIMENTS
Hunter Adams
LMFAO YOURE LITERALLY GUILTY OF THAT YOU ACTUAL KIKE
Austin James
What a waste of life
Luke Williams
> all you do is avoid and evade you still havent even explained how these retards, or you, are doing science without any EXPERIMENTS You are so dumb, dumb, dumb you deserve to die together with your entire family shot into the head
It doesn't exactly rhyme, but I never claimed to be a poet. To answer your extremely retarded question: this is actual data being recorded continuously for more than a century that shows how there has been no warming, but cooling.
Ah, you know what? You're too dumb for this world. I'm just gonna go to bed now after having insulted your entire gene pool one last time, you degenerate jew who needs to die in an explosion.
John Gutierrez
>To answer your extremely retarded question: this is actual data being recorded continuously for more than a century yes, by kikes. you have nothing but a wad of falsified trash and you've done ZERO experiments of your own. suck the cock of authority some more retard
Jeremiah Wood
>calling someone else dumb HAHAH HE DIDN'T EVEN KNOW WHAT A STANDARD DEVIATION WAS
>Did I just find a glitch in the Climate matrix that will earn me the nobel prize? It would get you publicly shamed as it is a (((forbidden))) oppinion >Has noone really thought about this? I have
Owen Garcia
1. Plants at night time give off CO2, because there is no photosynthesis going on. (WHY THE FUCK DO GREENLETS NEVER TALK ABOUT THIS?)
2. CO2 does NOT trap heat. It readily gives off its heat, and quickly. It actually has a cooling effect because of the molecular structure. (They are 100% lying about this). Water molecules trap heat the best, because their molecular structure is much like a tuning fork, and the infrared is transferred back and forth between the two legs of the H2O molecule. The infrared energy gets trapped between the two legs of the tuning fork structure, causing it to reverb and "hold" the heat energy for longer periods of time. The structure is a big factor but not the only factor. Certain composite materials transfer heat between each other at different rates, some better than others.
3. Physical reasons some times/places are hotter than others has a lot to do with the shape of the earth, its tilt and wobble. Solar (not polar) regions of north and south are cooler because the light hits the earth at an angle that isn't conducive to heat absorption. (Spheres do not absorb heat uniformly, which is why we have ice in those region).
4. RESEARCH THE SUNSPOTS user. Sunspot activity has a better correlation to temperature increases than CO2, which is less soluble in water the greater the temperature increase. When the oceans heat up, they release CO2, because physics.
William Peterson
what experiments have you done to confirm any of this?
Jayden Peterson
I'll reiterate my question. The only question I wanted answered in this thread. Instead you fucking retards are just bickering over trivial nonsense.
>In the chart, when temperature and Co2 spikes and goes to a maximum, WHY DOES IT GO DOWN AGAIN A COUPLE OF THOUSAND YEARS LATER?? >If Co2 traps the heat, should it be possible for it to be cyclical at all? What happens in the chart when the Co2 + temperature goes down, and why does it fucking go down when it is supposed to trap the heat. It should just spike straight up ad infinitum, no?
What you say in point 2 is inaccurate, read my previous post . Regarding water being the greatest greenhouse gas you are right but the CO2 absorb IR radiation at wavelenghts in wich water doesn't. pic related
no shit dumbfuck. try reading the rest of my posts you thin wristed pencil necked faggot
Xavier Hall
You didn't address anything I said, nor did you counter any of it. You are scientifically illiterate and accusing others of not "doing science" correctly. This about sums up the debate form you guys.
Hudson Collins
I LITERALLY ADVOCATED FOR HIM TO DO HIS OWN EXPERIMENTS. DOESNT GET MUCH MORE "YOUR OWN CONCLUSIONS" THAN THAT HOLY FUCK YOU ARE DUMB
Cameron Jackson
im not going to address a child's argument that the moon is made out of cheese
"This relatively weak (relative to the covalent bonds within the water molecule itself) attraction results in physical properties such as a relatively high boiling point, because a lot of heat energy is necessary to break the hydrogen bonds between molecules. For example, sulfur is the element below oxygen in the periodic table, and its equivalent compound, hydrogen sulfide (H2S) does not have hydrogen bonds, and though it has twice the molecular weight of water, it is a gas at room temperature. The extra bonding between water molecules also gives liquid water a large specific heat capacity."
They are 100% lying to you. Statistics and charts are merely propaganda pieces in the science scam of "climate change". Everything has some potential to store heat energy, but CO2 is not ideal, water vapor is.
I am that him you told to do my own experiments to. You're telling me to do my own experiments on stuff I've already came to conclusions on.
derp.
Kayden Miller
yes, you came to conclusions, presumably without doing experiments aka those conclusions are just (((conclusions))). anyone can come to conclusions. do your own research
Hunter Anderson
>They are 100% lying to you >source: dude trust me YOU'VE DONE ZERO EXPERIMENTS LMFAO
Colton Brown
backpedaling communist climate-change faggot
James Morris
thx fren will check it out. Problem is, that the question I pose isn't about what comes first or follows what; It's about the fact that the curve is diving after every maximum. Why does it do that? Co2 traps heat. It should be a feedback loop that increses the earths' atmospheres' temperature even more. What makes it stop at every peak, and go down? Incredible that it's so hard to get across. Almost unbelievable.
>look at how he lashes out when he's been discovered kike. you literally said "come to your own conclusions" when you've done ZERO research yourself.
Levi Butler
I'm not quoting fake science, I'm a chemist. For sure water has an higter heat capacity then CO2, but this have nothing to do with greenhouse effect. The ability of a molecule to interact with IR radiation depend on their vibrational movements. >coldclimatechange.com/carbon-dioxide-is-a-cooling-gas-according-to-nasa/ This is not the NASA site, and it isn't even a scientific paper.
Nicholas Brown
what experiments have you done? lmao
don't need a broken leg to know its going to hurt dumbass. most of the experiments have already been done. Quite often if you look at the actual reports compared to the sensationalist news, the results don't match up. Such is the case of CO2.
CO2 absorbs heat in wavelengths that water can't, but, CO2 transfers heat to other molecules very efficiently. CO2 is easily soluble in water as far as gasses go, absorbs heat water can't, transfers the heat to the water, water rises and CO2 becomes less soluble in water, water releases CO2, and it's humanity's fault.
fucking dumb.
Andrew Stewart
Appeals to authority? Meh. It's "not scientific enough" isn't really a rebuttal.
How effectively does CO2 TRANSFER its heat to other molecules? (Like water)
Xavier Williams
sorry friend. I misinterpreted your question. I didn't know the answer to your question, so I tried to find it. I found this
It would seem "chemical weathering" is at play. If you google "carbon cycle" you're likely to get more answers.
Dylan Anderson
>most of the experiments have already been done >Do your own damn research ask me how i know you're a kike
Xavier Harris
>Oy vey, just accuse them of what you're guilty of.
Andrew Wright
except I'm not guilty of it all, which is why you can't explicitly quote the posts that show my guilt, like I can yours.
Elijah Turner
What am I guilty of? Telling people to research it for themselves?
research != experiments
You can, if you so choose, research the experiments of others. Because, ya know, research.
Liam Torres
>How effectively does CO2 TRANSFER its heat to other molecules? returning to his vibrational fundamental state emitting IR radiation
Logan Garcia
obviously research is not synonymous with experiments, but how else are you going to get any truth? you're going to trust the kiked scientific institutions? you're going to trust the retarded blogosphere? it's impossible to determine which experiments are valid and which aren't without doing them yourself, because for all you know they falsified all of the data regardless of who it came from. you don't get to pick and choose based on whatever is convenient for your ideology--that is a kike tactic.
Yes, let's reinvent the wheel, because we're not sure if it works... Can't be too careful now.
lol.
Kayden King
even better, let's pick and choose what parts of the wheel we think are round and accuse the other parts of being kiked corners.
Dominic Morgan
And I want also to point out that it's not heat to be transferred, but energy. Heat is a way in wich energy is transferred. At a molecular scale level you can see heat as a the kinetic energy transferred between molecules when they collide between each others. In the case of greenhouse effect, energy is transferred via radiation.
Ryder Hill
In your video they say that "orbital forcing" can be a cause. Kek. Probably unironically infinately more powerful than some greenhouse gas apparently cucked by temperature 800 years ago... ????
You accused me of being "a kike", and I merely replied in kind. Backpedal more.
Xavier Sullivan
Make calculation adjustments for things such as saturation, and the fact that energy emitted is usually different than energy absorbed.
See link here:
Adrian Perez
way to completely miss the point. if you don't want to reinvent the wheel, maybe you shouldn't go around selectively choosing what experiments you're willing to believe based purely on ideology
Daniel Reyes
ironically i had some climate skeptic tell me earlier that the scientists "failed" to account for forcing, which entirely explains the phenomenon
Gavin Lewis
I knew you were a global warming homo. Only climate scaremongers call people "climate skeptic", on par with calling someone a "conspiracy theorist". Get bent douchebag. do yourself a favor and stop propagating CO2 by stop breathing. Indefinitely.
Brandon Roberts
kek no way .. wiki: >Orbital forcing is the effect on climate of slow changes in the tilt of the Earth's axis and shape of the orbit (see Milankovitch cycles). These orbital changes change the total amount of sunlight reaching the Earth by up to 25% at mid-latitudes (from 400 to 500 Wm−2 at latitudes of 60 degrees)[citation needed]. In this context, the term "forcing" signifies a physical process that affects the Earth's climate.
and even this nugget >This mechanism is believed to be responsible for the timing of the ice age cycles. case closed
it's not. I take it you didn't google "carbon cycle" like I advised.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_cycle looks pretty complicated to me, but it fully explains what happens to carbon (not just co2, which carbon obviously becomes during the cycle)
Owen Clark
and the milankovich cycle has a lot to do with the levels of co2 between interglacial periods. there are a lot variables at play affecting each other, like the sun, levels of albedo, etc etc. when the milankovich cycle reaches a certain point in its period, it will cause the earth to cool, which causes higher albedo, which causes co2 diffuing at a more rapid pace into the oceans, etc.
so no, it's not simple at all.
Xavier Evans
What goes up comes down harder. And its got nothing to do with local solar influences. It has to do with leaving the warm background radiation provided by the milky way as the entire solar system is tacking into the flow of the galaxy by weaving in and out of it.
Jose Hernandez
So are you advocating for anthropomorphic climate change? I can't tell. Going back through the thread, your replies are all over the place. Are you trying to disprove what I said, when it flies in the face of AWG?
Also, the accusation of me (basically) cherry-picking stuff that agrees with what I advocate... Is dumb. Well no shit son! You want me to advocate for carbon taxes and Islam?
"We need to kill off all the wyte pipo for greater CO2 tax returns!" ^ Is that what you want, user?
Tyler Rogers
>Also, the accusation of me (basically) cherry-picking stuff that agrees with what I advocate... Is dumb. Well no shit son! You want me to advocate for carbon taxes and Islam? are you seriously asking why it's important to have intellectual integrity and value THE TRUTH over ideology? holy fuck you literally just defended cherry picking.
Alexander Morgan
I still feel that orbital forcing is not affected by earths' own atmosphere, and if it implies that there is disturbances in the distance we are from the sun, for example, that must surely be of more significance than changes in the atmossphere.
Why make a point about something if you're not going to back it up with evidence that illustrates the point you're trying to make?
Add "Cherry picking" fallacy to the list boys and girls... Damned if you cite sources (CHERRY PICKING)... Damned if you don't cite sources (WHAT U HIDING JOOOOO!?)...
muh science.
Camden Garcia
>Damned if you cite sources (CHERRY PICKING)... >Damned if you don't cite sources (WHAT U HIDING JOOOOO!?)... You know what it means if you're damned either way? It means you're suppose to change your mind if the truth doesn't match up with your pre-conceived notions. This is called having intellectual integrity. Tt's fucking mind-boggling that i have to explain this. T can't believe this is how some people ACTUALLY think.
Your "theory" is simply truth everyone already knows. Check Jow Forums archive, this is discussed all the time. There exists infographics on it.
It's like learning the holocaust never happened We know; it's obvious.
Samuel Stewart
Similarly, I am not going to address the childs argument that reverence of the earth will save it, and our behavior is changing the climate. You have no evidence. The people that tried to provide the evidence have never succeeded. The models are wrong, the predictions are wrong, and there is no heat trapped in the troposphere. You have nothing.
