This shows the CO2 levels by year for the last 800,000 years. The claim that the increased incidence of heatwaves and drought is just a coincidence is garbage.
 CRIME Shirt $21.68 |
 Ape Out Shirt $21.68 |
CRIME Shirt $21.68 |
800,000 years of data
This shows the CO2 levels by year for the last 800,000 years. The claim that the increased incidence of heatwaves and drought is just a coincidence is garbage.
CRIME Shirt $21.68 |
Ape Out Shirt $21.68 |
CRIME Shirt $21.68 |
this shows a whales vegana
>Ice core before 1958, atmospheric sampling after 1958
This is not good science, you are using two different techniques for different ranges. Of course you are going to get different results.
>Of course you are going to get different results.
Why would you get different results if CO2 was not rapidly increasing?
The CO2 in the air gets absorbed and metabolized by the oceanic microbial before hitting the polar ice. It's an aerosol about 10' in the air over 79% of the entire planet's surface containing microscopic animal and plant life that is shown to increase as CO2 levels rise, leading to a self-regulating climate.
There have been asteroid impacts, acidic oceans, cracks opening up and chunks of the entire Earth falling off. That is much more concentrated and great volume than humans burning fossil fuels.
nou
>CO2 in the air gets absorbed and metabolized by the oceanic microbial before hitting the polar ice
LOL, what are you talking about?
>It's an aerosol about 10' in the air over 79% of the entire planet's surface containing microscopic animal and plant life that is shown to increase as CO2 levels rise, leading to a self-regulating climate.
Your fairy tale hasn't been shown and makes no sense. Why has CO2 been exponentially increasing of it's being regulated?
>There have been asteroid impacts, acidic oceans, cracks opening up and chunks of the entire Earth falling off.
None of those have occurred, why are you shooting non-sequiturs?
>That is much more concentrated and great volume than humans burning fossil fuels.
Proof?
Just like temperatures...global satellite data post 1980 or so, and sparsely located thermometers in easy to reach places for the old data.
Wrong. See
..and that's a good thing
Not for your lungs it isn't
you would die of asphyxiation almost immediately if all the co2 were taken out of the air, same as with oxygen.
That's not an argument. The problem with CO2 is the climactic effects it's having, reduced rainfall, flooding, droughts, heatwaves, and so forth. These climate changes more than negate any increases in plant growth, and it'll even dilute the amount of nutrients in plant life. Insects and other animals are having to eat exponentially more plant life to get the same amount of micronutrients, it's even causing thiamine deficiencies in animals.
and why is this a problem?
We're causing vitamin deficiencies in animals, fish mostly. We eat fish.
And? Extrapolate please, because it still does not make any fricking sense.
Also check
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycles
before you talk any bullshit alright?
>hurr durr, it's the sun
megamoron detected
I'm linking you the actual thing that was proven, you're linking my random images with buzzwords.
So then you know that we're entering a grand solar minimum, right? It's not the sun and you're moronic.
>we're entering a grand solar minimum, right?
Then why it's a problem again? If we're entering the solar minimum then CO2 levels will decrease either way, cause these two things are connected according to the theory. Nothing wrong with current CO2 levels cause they will drop if
>we're entering a grand solar minimum, right
See
The solar insolation is dropping whole the temperature is rising. That's a problem. Take a minute to imagine what will happen when we exit the grand solar minimum.
>ice caps melt
>ocean absorbs CO2
>fresh water + cold water absorbs MORE CO2
>problems weren't
frick the dutch btw, i hope they all drown in the process lmao
Great, so you have no argument. Thanks for playing.
I have 1 argument.
I propose to do nothing because i don't live on the shore.
People who live on the shore should just fricking migrate inland. If they can't do it - frick them, it's their problem.
based and reality pilled. if you don't like where you life, for any reason, move. it's that easy.
>Imagine being this moronic
I guess posting meaningless insults is considered smart in whatever social circles you originate from lol.
Take a hike pleb.
Come up with a coherent argument or an adequate refutation of the observed facts, moron.
The only fact is that nothing is happening and you are a hysterical homosexual
Great, so you have no argument. Thanks for playing.
I'm not the one trying to prove something in this thread, you're the one who started it - you prove something. Burden of proof lies on someone who makes the claim.
Right now i can only tell that your points are either
A) meaningless
B) lack in value
Great so you have no argument and lack the ability to form a coherent refutation. Thanks for playing.
Prove that your theory is correct.
Learn anything about climate science or provide an adequate refutation.
Lol he's done.
Bye.
>If we're entering the solar minimum then CO2 levels will decrease either way
Why?
Fixed the plot by removing the fear mongering, unfounded projections. Not quite so scary anymore, is it? This is true for all climate change plots. The data indicates nothingburger while the projections are all wildly absurd.
Nonsense
>Fixed the plot by removing the fear mongering, unfounded projections
Wrong.
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2010GL042710
>The data indicates nothingburger
It indicates warming 25 times faster than interglacial warming.
all i did was take away the projections. same thing as your paper you just linked.
>25x
noOoOooOoOoOO NOT MY HECKIN 25 TIMESERINO
>Imagine being this moronic
>all i did was take away the projections. same thing as your paper you just linked.
The projections were neither fearmongering nor unfounded. Read the paper.
>If we're entering the solar minimum then CO2 levels will decrease either way
Why?
>the actual thing that was proven
It's proven that current warming is the exact opposite of what Milankovich cycles and solar forcing predict. Do you have any response?
Your graph doesn't prove that the sun isn't affecting temperature because the earth is the independent factor that is changing. Why does a lit match not burn you a meter away but does 1 mm away? The heat put out doesn't change, it's you.
>Imagine being this moronic
The sun does affect temperature though. The difference is CO2 forcing is much stronger than solar forcing
>ice cores measure CO2 dissolved in water
That's not true though. Do you have any specific arguments about the methodology or are you just shitposting?
The uncertainty in these measurements is about 1.5 ppm
>The uncertainty in these measurements is about 1.5 ppm
proof?
Read the paper
So you can't prove your claim. Gotcha. Recurring theme in this thread.
Are you illiterate or just incapable of finding the paper?
You made a claim. Back it up.
Start here and come back when you are less ignorant.
https://www.co2.earth/co2-ice-core-data
>https://www.co2.earth/co2-ice-core-data
>Source Graph Etheridge et al. (via CDIAC)
>http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/co2/lawdome-graphics.html
>doesn't work
so these claims are all from "papers" with broken sources, lmao.
In fact here's a more recent study that includes the error bars (they're tiny though)
you really don't know how to read that plot, do you? there are no error bars on the CO2 pp, graph.
They’re right there though. As it says in the 1996 paper, the uncertainty is small
Yes, there exists uncertainty in that plot. However, it is NOT the uncertainty in the CO2 in ppm in the atmosphere you fricking moron. Look at that plot with the error bars, and tell me what that y-axis is.
However, it is NOT the uncertainty in the CO2 in ppm in the atmosphere
It is, it's just really small. have a nice day moron, you're an embarassment.
look at the y-axis moron. that's not CO2 in ppm. imagine being so moronic that you can't even read the plot you yourself linked lmfao
google suess effect
don't tell me what to do. kys
moron detected
i accept your concession. you finally admit that the error bars aren't on the co2 in ppm. furthermore, you told me to "google suess effect" because you're incapable of explaining how the error bars on the C13 isotope is relevant. you know why? because you don't know what your own data is saying. that's why i told you to kys. stop pretending to know what you're talking about, it's pathetic.
Are you clinically moronic? The error bars are tiny but they’re there
I accept your concession since the figure is clearly labeled with CO2 ppm
You still haven’t disputed the methodology by the way
Did you miss the upper part of the plot which includes the error bars as well as the excel plot I threw together with the linked data?
>excel plot
oh, we're at that stage. nothingburger.
>still not arguments when the data is linked
>is linked data
>doesn't give an argument
hon, you're projecting again
Classic denier bullshit. Ignoring simple data with semantics
if you wanted more proof you could look at the bottom part of the graph which you're so fixated on. the bottom half is delta13c which is the ratio of c13:c12. fossil fuels are depleted in c13 relative to the atmosphere so a reduction indicates new co2 is largely from fossil fuel burning.
He’s pretending that he can’t see the labels in the y axis. Don’t be surprised he doesn’t want to talk about the isotopic signatures
>Only look at the other part of the graph, don't look at the part that proves me wrong
Are you for real, shill?
Why would I do your homework for you? The paper has the reported uncertainty in there. That's besides the point, time and time again the it's been found that there's almost perfect agreement between atmospheric CO2 measurements and ice core CO2 measurements
>no arguments
Yes anon, googling for a paper is too hard for you we know
As the anon you've been replying to has thoroughly demonstrated... motherfricker can't read. Welcome to the internet, demonstrating literacy rates sadly do not correspond with ability to learn since 1993.
You could quote a paper word for word, its abstract, its conclusions, its caveats, and you will literally get people replying as if it says the opposite of what it says. Ideology is a hell of a drug. Just ask the young earthers.
Where the frick do you think ice comes from? CO2 is dissolved in water, then water freezes as ice. You dont know shit dumb larper, way to expose yourself
Do you have any specific arguments about the methodology? You know you can download the data for yourself
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/jgrd.50668
I have a problem with you imbecile, you post things you dont understand.
>still not posting any arguments that these measurements are indeed from bubbles
>Ice samples require an extraction step to release the air sample from ice bubbles and remove water from it. The extraction of air from ice uses a dry grating technique in the Ice Core Extraction Laboratory (ICELAB) at the CSIRO in Aspendale
>Your graph doesn't prove that the sun isn't affecting temperature because the earth is the independent factor that is changing.
??? If it's changes on Earth causing the temperature change then it's not the Sun. You just agreed with him
>The problem with CO2 is the climactic effects it's having, reduced rainfall, flooding, droughts, heatwaves, and so forth.
None of this is happening
>reduced rainfall
but also
>flooding
Yes, different effects are seen in different places.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hadley_cell
There is no incentive for academics to account for the positive effects of climate change, so you get nonsense, contradictory beliefs like "decreased rainfall will reduce plant growth" and "storms and flooding will increase in frequency and intensity." Not to mention the low-effort attribution of all of the world's problems on climate change. Zimbabwe farmers chase away all of the white people and starve? Desert shithole with 100x the population that it had 200 years ago can't provide for itself? Middle eastern nation sparks a humanitarian crisis and millions of refugees flood into Europe? California does a shit job of managing its forests and forest fires start? All climate change, no accountability. I believe, on average, increasing global temperatures means more rainfall, not less. Climate will shift, plants will die, new plants will grow elsewhere.
>There is no incentive for academics to account for the positive effects of climate change
So how do you know about them?
>so you get nonsense, contradictory beliefs like "decreased rainfall will reduce plant growth" and "storms and flooding will increase in frequency and intensity."
Source?
>All climate change
Source?
>The problem with CO2 is the climactic effects it's having, reduced rainfall, flooding, droughts, heatwaves, and so forth
Correlation does not imply causation, pseud.
Well good thing CO2's effects on the climate are deterministic and not correlative, moron.
prove it
a random unrelated image from google is not a proof, bad attempt, try again
The radiative spectra have already been posted in the thread so maybe a cartoon will make you understand
1) Come up with a coherent argument or an adequate confirmation of the observed facts, moron.
>or
2) Great so you have no argument and lack the ability to form a coherent confirmation.
:^)
Only a moron wouldn't accept radiative spectra as a valid argument
You fail to show connection between two things. There's nothing we can talk about. No coherent proof = no conversation.
Frick off.
Found the morons
>unable to explain his claim
>calls others morons for failing to explain
Explain the discrepancy in the radiative spectra to me in your own words. You may look it up if you need.
>only a moron would doubt my ad hoc statement that i didn't even prove
just admit you don't know how to prove your claim is true
I'm just hoping that this 300 IQ absolute genius mastermind from 4chinkIQfy would enlitghen me, a mere caveman redneck moron on how the universe and climate works, but i guess i am too much of a lower tier scum pleb to be worthy of him actually giving me a response that is understandable.
Honestly if this guy is actually hired somewhere as a researcher (i fricking hope not), it's horrifying. Spergs like that shouldn't be allowed nowhere near any lab.
imagine if he's hired to try to educate this board. man that would be pathetic. i also hope he's not some kind of researcher in this field.
>deterministic and not correlative
Proof?
>in a controlled greenhouse
Wow truly an amazing argument here
co2 has negative cognitive impacts on humans above 400ppm.
More co2=more green shit
More green shit= less co2
Bet you libtards didn't think of that?
Your genius surpasses all. Please, good sir, publish your totally unique and profound insight in Nature to earn your Nobel prize.
>Publish your insights in nature
Nature already knows how to work moron, doesnt need to read a book like you homosexuals.
I guess when you're this moronic the only thing you can do is cope by pretending it's a good thing. Explains a lot.
>I guess
shill, in time people will be spitting in face of Nobel bribe winners
I know I know you're scared to read things because the words sound pompous and homosexual
> word salad with pic
just a post, just 1$ to your account
>REEEEEE I'M A POPOUS homosexual
>STOP POINTING IT OUT
>I KNOW I'M A POPOUS homosexual, BUT IT ANGERS ME WHEN OTHERS SAY SO
>ITS YOUR FAULT FOR NOTICING I HAVE A REPULIVE PERSONALITY AND DEMEANOUR
>YOU JUST HAVE TO ACCEPT ME THIS WAY NO MATTER HOW ODIOUS AND UNPLEASANT I AM
>I HAVE A RAGING AND COMPLETELY JUSTIFIED INFERIORITY COMPLEX AND A NAUSEATING PERSONALITY AND NO PLANS TO EVEN THINK ABOUT TRYING TO IMPROVE
We get it your dick is really small and you're angry about it. Go throw a tantrum somewhere else.
Nobel bribe is very cringe. if someone got Nobel bribe you can safely dismiss all his works as total bullshit
yea but also
more co2 = more warm
more warm = less white shit
less white shit = more warm
So which of those relationships is stronger? If only we had hundreds of people worldwide who's job it is to calculate shit like that.
What? You mean a bunch of idiots who can't even read summaries of summaries of studies don't know better than a worldwide collection of professionals all vying to show up one another? Say it ain't so.
>If only we had hundreds of people worldwide who's job it is to calculate shit like that.
they can't do the calculation, they rely on literal 1800s physics to produce grossly flawed estimates.
if that weren't bad enough, they also falsify data in order to alter their results to fit a preselected narrative
MMMnope you're just an idiot. Tons of data types exist and have been verified, reverified, the margins of error only grow smaller. Cope and find a new subject to satisfy your narcissism with.
Or just keep posting like a schizo where you're copying the young earth creationist "dinosaur bones are a conspiracy" line.
>less white shit = more warm
this is incorrect because when ice melts - the oceal cools down and desalinates.
The ocean actually absorbs more CO2 than it emits.
Also cold, fresh water absorbs CO2 more efficiently.
So technically Arctic melting is not a bad thing because it means more CO2 absorbed.
What pisses off most people is that apparently it affects populations of penguins. Most speculations are using this as the main issue, aka
>poor penguins have no more ice to live on now :((
It's literally all about animal rights and similar bullshit.
A certain type of subhumans have clearly nothing else to do in their shitty subhuman lives so they choose to virtue signal for animal rights because frankly they haven't evolved much past the animals intellectually.
>this is incorrect because when ice melts - the oceal cools down and desalinates.
Not enough to counter warming from decreased albedo. Why do deniers constantly cherrypick effects without actually looking at the magnitudes of the effects?
>Not enough to counter warming from decreased albedo
Post the fricking data instead of saying it. You're not adding anything to the discussion besides unfounded opinions.
>makes claim with no data
>demands data when refuted
OK here you go. Sea temperatures are rising even though ice is melting. There's no increase in CO2 absorption from cooler water because the water isn't cooler. Also, acidification causes less CO2 to be absorbed. The only reason the ocean is absorbing more CO2 is because there's more of it to absorb! So it's not countering CO2 increase or warming, just reacting to it.
one of two things is happening here.
>1. you're googling random images and posting them here without knowing where they come from
>2. you're opening up a paper, taking a screenshot of a plot from within, but not posting the paper
i'm not sure which is worse, but in any case you're a piece of shit.
>>1. you're googling random images and posting them here without knowing where they come from
Please explain, how is SST random when we're discussing SST? The source is NOAA: https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/products/extended-reconstructed-sst
I thought the image included the caption when I saved it but it didn't. Here you go.
>Here you go
The image isn't in your link.
Okay child, since you're unaware... many organizations and individuals produce models based on data provided by other organizations. The data is publicly available, publicly verifiable. He gave you the source data for the image. The same image gives you the title of the EPA article where the chart was originally from.
Adults can do things like "read English" and "understand words", where we've these maaaagical things called hyperlinks that take you to places you want to go. When included in an image, and some dipfrick asks for what's literally in the image, we throw our heads back and laugh at the moron.
Oh wait, the moron is you in this case.
>we throw our heads back and laugh at the moron.
is this an admittance of organized shilling in these threads? interdasting
The source is in the image, cry baby.
So you admit you're just googling images with no regard to where the images come from. Absolutely pathetic.
So you’re not going to engage in an argument an just continue to whine about graphs?
>Whine about graphs
That's not what you're being lambasted about gay
>he still refuses to argue
We know it’s a common shill tactic to parrot about nonsense while refusing to actually engage in an argument
Irony, the post.
You’re still ignoring this by the way
>So you admit you're just googling images with no regard to where the images come from.
So you admit you're illiterate.
https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1318201111
How did they get an ice core sample from this year showing the CO2 levels? If they used a different method on a different sample then in the bin the graph goes.
What are you even trying to argue? The results are the same whether they're from ice cores or atmospheric measurements
>no error bars
into the trash it goes
>What are you even trying to argue? The results are the same whether they're from ice cores or atmospheric measurements
Such dishonesty. Atmospheric samples measures directly (around a volcano in Hawai), ice cores measure CO2 dissolved in water. You need to do a conversion between these two, its not the same measurement at all
>Imagine being this moronic
Hang on something feels off, shouldn't the decline in co2 from tectonic uplift be visible?
Not over a few hundred thousand years, no.
Those cycles take place over hundreds of millions of years and the direct co2 measurements from gas bubbles in ice sheets only go back to a million years
Well they stop at 1958 according to the OP
Yes that ice core record ends at 1958 and after that it’s from atmospheric measurements
Correlation does not imply causation.
Does causation imply causation?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_effect
>find correlation
>call it causation
>say causation implies causation
spare me. data after data shows that so-called global warming overstated.
Why are you posting altered graphs?
>Why are you posting altered graphs?
Any image search will show your graph has no source. The graph I posted is from NASA. Would you like to try again or are you just going to keep lying?
it's clear you don't know how to do research.
It's clear you only know how to lie. What's the source of the graph in this post?
>It's clear you only know how to lie
Speaking from experience?
Somehow edits didn't save. Here's the proper image.
Can you tell me the source of that graph, or are you admitting that it's been altered?
Obviously I altered it, moron. I removed all the outrageous projections.
So you lied. Glad we established that.
I didn't lie. I very explicitly showed the original sea levels plot, and next to it removed the projections.
Your graph had nothing to do with sea level projections. You can't even keep your lies straight.
>Your graph had nothing to do with sea level projections
stop lying.
See
And then tell me what your source is. You aren't even good at lying.
Why are they comparing current averages with past ones when in the year 18th century there weren't sensors precise or spread enough to document anything to begin with?
You mean the 19th century (1800s). A given study can present one line of data, such as ship thermometer or other data from extensive record keeping of maritime trade.This is by no means relied on exclusively, because numerous other kinds of sampling corroborates measurements. From archaeology, to other written records, organic matter, trapped gasses in ice cores, sea sediment, any kind of deposition that reliably changes with temperature. On the whole these are referred to as "climate proxies" of various kinds, of which there are easily thousands in dozens of categories.
By the 19th century barometers and other ship instruments were in widespread use, and accurate enough that significant error is mainly introduced at extremes. Ships had a lot of instruments at this time, HMS Assistance for example had 12 thermometers. The errors were exact to freezing point or 0.1 degrees off. https://bioone.org/journals/arctic-antarctic-and-alpine-research/volume-38/issue-3/1523-0430_2006_38_454_OTMIAO_2.0.CO_2/On-the-Meteorological-Instruments-and-Observations-Made-during-the-19th/10.1657/1523-0430(2006)38[454:OTMIAO]2.0.CO;2.full
Tons of publications exist collecting and standardizing measurement error to calibrate data like these. People just don't know about them because the average person is not going to be very excited about 19th century business records of ship instrument calibration. Nor laboratory composition analysis of sediment deposition rates and the testing or mathematics involved in showing a fairly strong relationship to temperature.
The fact much of the details are really boring to most people is, well, probably why some of you think it's "made up". Even though such things are used in predictions to aid archaeological endeavors all the time, and you can't know where to dig if you don't know whether people could have lived where you're digging at the time. To name one of a million other fields reliant on this sort of thing.
Just stop posting
>95% confidence
So same crap as psychology p < 0.05. why don't they use two sigma, or three sigma? Oh, I know, because then they'll get that today's temperatures are within the error bands of the past few centuries. LOL
LOL you're whining about standard uncertainty range. You're desperate.
>garbage certainty range is fine because it's standard
only "soft" sciences use 95% confidence interval as having any meaning.
>garbage certainty range
What makes it "garbage?"
>only "soft" sciences use 95% confidence interval as having any meaning.
Source?
>>find correlation
How is the greenhouse effect a correlation and not causation?
>data after data shows that so-called global warming overstated.
Where is it then?
How about this
Holes in Earth's radiation curve from where different greenhouse gasses block the escape of certain wavelengths
Sweety remember when you said this was complex? Its complex. Incomprehensible, your graph doesnt cut it.
>Imagine being this moronic
how come those gasses only block the escape of certain wavelengths, but not their entry?
how come co2 does not cause "muh greenhouse effect" on mars.
greenhouses work because they have a physical barrier which prevents heated atmospheric gases from escaping by halting convective processes, how does a free floating gas like co2 produce the same effect?
They block those wavelengths both entering and leaving. The wavelengths that the light enters at is different from that at wich they're reradiated at. You could have learned this from wikipedia.
Its a complex system motherfricker, 10 billion variables
>I don't understand it so nobody can
Cope harder
Correct you cant understand 10 billion variables. And if you do you could never explain it to anyone so its a shame that understanding dies with you
Cope harder, gay. You have no coherent argument.
>10 billion variables
Not really, you can extrapolate if you understand core concepts homosexual. This aint no probability IQfy science of hidden variables for next pump and dump.
>Not really, you can extrapolate if you understand core concepts homosexual
Sorry but thats not how complexity works
>Ok sorry but no okay, that is all
Thanks i won
>how come co2 does not cause "muh greenhouse effect" on mars.
>no answer other than a lame attempt at haughty dismissiveness
can't answer, but trying to fake your way through and be convincing with bluster only leaves you reeking of mental illness and fraudulence.
i guess fundamental physics just works different on mars, right? too the wikipedia you love and rely on for all your information is such a lame and blatant propaganda outlet that even it's founder is now disavowing it as being less than garbage.
It doesn't matter what the concentration of CO2 is in an atmosphere if it's practically nonexistent.
Mars does exhibit a greenhouse effect. Learn what you're talking about before spewing nonsense.
not according to the european space agency. who are you to contradict them? why don't you trust the science?
Hardy any =/= no
Are you even trying? How about you read this wiki page and come back
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmosphere_of_Mars
The atmosphere of Mars is colder than Earth's. Owing to the larger distance from the Sun, Mars receives less solar energy and has a lower effective temperature, which is about 210 K (−63 °C; −82 °F).[2] The average surface emission temperature of Mars is just 215 K (−58 °C; −73 °F), which is comparable to inland Antarctica.[2][4] The weaker greenhouse effect in the Martian atmosphere (5 °C (9.0 °F), versus 33 °C (59 °F) on Earth) can be explained by the low abundance of other greenhouse gases.[2][4]
imagine still trusting wikipedia
So you admit that Mars exhibits a greenhouse effect and that you lied? Great. Thanks for playing.
>the climate hysterics haven't gone through every last little bit of wikipedia and altered it to support their greedy, politically motivated narrative, wikipedia is a completely unbiased source of information.
>The weaker greenhouse effect in the Martian atmosphere (5 °C (9.0 °F), versus 33 °C (59 °F) on Earth
quantifying earth's greenhouse effect based on blackbody physics is farcically naïve, but the climate hysterics happily ignore that and do it anyway because they have no interest in science whatsoever, they only want to generate fallacies to support their greedy political narrative.
they even go so far as to assign a fixed albedo value to a planet that has highly varying snow and cloud cover, they make no attempt whatsoever to account for the fact that earth stores vast quantities of solar energy in organic processes, often for over a billion years.
the burning of organic matter like hydrocarbon fuels releases that trapped solar energy as radiation, much of that radiation then goes directly back out to space, the global warming hysterics should be cheering for all the big trucks which cool the planet by releasing trapped solar energy and allowing it to escape back out of the atmosphere.
So you admit Mars has a greenhouse effect. Excellent. Why did you lie?
>Energy stored in organic processes warm the atmosphere
Oh no... it's moronic.
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmosphere_of_Mars
>The atmosphere of Mars is much thinner than Earth's. The average surface pressure is only about 610 pascals (0.088 psi) which is less than 1% of the Earth's value.
morons. Mars exhibits a greenhouse effect, though the atmosphere is so thin water vapor so lacking that the heat just dissipates off. Of course due to warming the planet is only -80 celsius vs -200 celsius.
>Mars exhibits a greenhouse effect
That's what I said.
>no greenhouse effect
>The red planet displays hardly any greenhouse effect
Why do you lye and then refute your own lie? Are you a shill trying to make deniers look even dumber than they are?
>but not their entry
It does block their entry; however most radiation from the sun is in the visible spectrum, and CO2 mostly absorbs infrared (which is what the earth gives off)
>how does a free floating gas like co2 produce the same effect
Molecules absorb radiation emitted by the earth and then release it in a random direction. Half the time it is released away from earth, but the other half of the time it is released back towards the earth. When you have a lot of CO2 molecules in the air, radiation could be stopped by thousands of molecules on its way away from earth, with a 50/50 chance of being released towards the earth every time, so the chances of it actually escaping the atmosphere decreases exponentially
True, but what else would cause this?
You vill eat ze bogs and live in ze pod, cattlebrain. You've already destroyed Venus through climate change and we're gonna stop you before you destroy the Earth, too!
https://thehill.com/opinion/technology/559286-nasas-sudden-interest-in-venus-is-all-about-climate-change/
Unironically based
>calls people cattle
>sources blog that caters to low iq cattle
why are so many cuckolds on this board today?
correlation != causation
Causation = causation
https://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/174407/
>trust the experts
No.
Not an argument.
The radiative properties of CO2 make it a greenhouse gas so yes it is causation
If CO2 is a greenhouse gas, then why does Mars have no measurable greenhouse effect? Mars has over 2000% the atmospheric concentration of CO2 that earth does, Mars has 20 CO2 molecules lurking over every square inch of the planet for each one Earth does, yet no greenhouse effect is measured on Mars.
Why are you denying the basic empirical measurements of a gasses properties?
>extremely thin atmosphere
>further from the sun
>no positive feedback loops with water vapor
Look at Venus for an example of the planetary differences compared to Mars and Earth
Such a moronic disingenuous presentation of info. Mars has like 0 atmosphere, yeah it has a frick ton of CO2, but its atmosphere's overall size is like 1/100th of the Earth's. With such a small atmosphere heat escapes extremely easily despite a large greenhouse effect, compare that to Earth.
>yet no greenhouse effect is measured on Mars
Source?
>Mars has over 2000% the atmospheric concentration of CO2 that earth does, Mars has 20 CO2 molecules lurking over every square inch of the planet for each one Earth does
It's also farther away from the Sun, has very little water vapor, and much lower pressure broadening.
>The claim that the increased incidence of heatwaves and drought
Source? Who says theres more drought?
Also post the methodology, i want to know how CO2 levels are measured from these cores. In particular i want to know if the recent CO2 measurements are also measured with ice cores
Pic related is directly from the epa and doesn't seem to indicate higher incidence of drought compared to a century ago, just noise/fluctuation.
Typical climate hysteria as usual. It's time to get out of the cult and come back to reality.
https://www.epa.gov/climate-indicators/climate-change-indicators-drought
That's for the entire US. Due to Hadley Cell expansion, drier places get drier and wetter places get wetter.
Doesn't this graph inadvertently prove ancient fuel burning civilizations? Because fossil fuel can't escape its underground grave without external help.
Dont fricking move
lol. and that they recognized the problem at around 300 ppm. could also be a regular cycle of volcanic activity.
A theory is that as temperatures drop ocean water just absorbs more CO2 so theres less in the air
>could also be a regular cycle of volcanic activity.
Wrong.
https://gml.noaa.gov/ccgg/isotopes/c13tellsus.html
the main contributor of CO2 in prehistory was from plant matter decomposing on the surface of the earth and wildfires that burned unimpeded across millions of acres of land. carbon can get into the atmosphere from a number of organic chemical reactions. you’re literally exhaling it into your room as we speak, no extractive process required
Volcanoes also spew out some CO2 and some CO2 gets trapped underground in carbonates and its released/absorbed from the ocean too. Theres more to carbon than plant life
No, it proves that the oceans outgas CO2 as they get warmer.
The CO2 cycle in those timescales is mediated by the ocean
and what's the resolution of the data? we can measure the temperature by the second if we want to. what is the ice core data? is it smoothed by a year, 100 years, 10,000 years?
Human GHG emission is also causing climate change on Mars, Pluto and Jupiter.
Proof?
why do I have to worry about future events beyond my lifetime and having to listen to douchebags who pretend they do?
Because reincarnation is real and your soul will be here to live through it. although the npcs might not have one so likely won't affect you.
>itt people are still stuck in the past
In 2022 the hippest of hip hipsters speculate on the topic of methane causing climate change, not CO2.
With methane there's a lot more doomposting-article-worthy info for moronic journalists.
rev up ur engines, drown the coasties ASAP
>When defeated intellectually, post a meme!
I don't think you belong on IQfy.
It's pretty much the only reasons why these homosexuals are trying to frick us all over with paris agreements.
They know their time's up, they're gonna all drown within 100 years.
Absolutely based
plants grow faster when co2 is higher. the greenhouse farming industry pays money to have co2 concentration higher than 1000ppm.
this is the reason behind the oscillation of the co2 in your pic, ice ages mean less plants and more co2, weather heats resulting in more plants growing fast and taking co2 from air.
the world isn't ending, "worst" case scenario is that a few billion people die. current human life isn't sustainable anyway and that's how nature works.
climate treehuggers shouldn't be mad about a "natural solution to overpopulation"
>plants grow faster when co2 is higher.
Only when CO2 is the limiting factor of growth. More CO2 in a drought will do nothing.
>this is the reason behind the oscillation of the co2 in your pic
LOL, no. It's caused by CO2 being absorbed or outgassing by the oceans as the temperature changes. Why do you make shit up?
>the world isn't ending
Who said it is?
>Only when CO2 is the limiting factor of growth. More CO2 in a drought will do nothing.
good thing that global warming necessarily means that the atmosphere is wetter and less water is uselessly trapped as ice.
relative humidity is always quoted as "humidity", this confuses a lot of people into thinking that a warming climate can somehow produce less rain, which is not the case.
plants in high co2 environments need to also have a warmer environment if they are going to capture the benefit of the co2 increase because the chemical processes involved in organic co2 capture won't work faster without a warmer environment.
Nonsense
>good thing that global warming necessarily means that the atmosphere is wetter and less water is uselessly trapped as ice.
Wrong.
https://www.climatesignals.org/climate-signals/hadley-cell-expansion
>a warming climate can somehow produce less rain, which is not the case.
Of course it can, ever heard of a desert? If there's too much evaporation then the terrain can't hold onto moisture and there's no rainfall in that area.
>Only when CO2 is the limiting factor of growth. More CO2 in a drought will do nothing.
weather and climate are chaotic, how did you predict droughts?
> Why do you make shit up?
total biomass and co2 are inversely correlated, during ice ages co2 increases and biomass decreases. after ice ages biomass increases and co2 decreases
>Who said it is?
everyone
>weather and climate are chaotic
No, climate is not chaotic. Weather is chaotic because it depends on the flow of energy, which is dependent on the fluid dynamics of the atmosphere. Climate does not depend on how energy moves, but how much energy is on the atmosphere.
>how did you predict droughts?
See
>total biomass and co2 are inversely correlated
Source? Temperature and CO2 are correlated, so what's your point?
>during ice ages co2 increases
If by "ice age" you mean glacial period then you're dead wrong. CO2 reaches its lowest point during glacial periods and highest during interglacials. The correlation is exact.
>everyone
I didn't, so you're wrong. You can't even provide a single example.
Where did you get that graph from?
He probably got it from google, lol. Seems like the kind of moron to google a plot, pick a random one he thinks looks pretty, and not care about the source
https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Vostok-ice-core-records-for-carbon-dioxide-concentration-and-temperature-change-CO2-lags_fig2_340835138
Correlation does not imply causation, pseud.
Did you read the post? The entire point was to show correlation. Dumb parrot.
You're asking if they can read. Um... do you really need the answer to that question? It has been thoroughly demonstrated they cannot, and enough to convince Pyrrho of Elis.
don't play dumb and pretend no mainstream media or scientist is saying the world and life on earth are going to end because of climate change. my point is that CO2 isn't that bad, it's actually good in the long run. you are re releasing trapped carbon and organic matter in the world it will eventually be a part of carbon cycle and total biomass will increase.
>inb4 muh purple birderino going extinct!!!
99% of species are extinct, that's nature, environment is constantly changing and species are constantly going extinct and being replaced. we can't stop this. if we didn't have climate change we would have had a global cooling now
>don't play dumb and pretend no mainstream media or scientist is saying the world and life on earth are going to end because of climate change.
Give one example or admit you lied.
>my point is that CO2 isn't that bad, it's actually good in the long run.
Wrong.
>total biomass will increase.
This is nothing compared to negative effects of global warming.
It’s always amazes me how smart IQfy is but as soon as a topic that has to do with politics emerges they start denying data and obvious causations.
Nobody who's smart denies climate change
It looks like we are just in the right place at the right moment lol.
Life is magical...what happens down there anon. I know basic stuff about ocean currents and it may be related
>source: the voices in the wall
picrel: the talking wall
Did they measure all the samples using the same instruments? Otherwise that chart is just skewed
kek, you're my favorite poster in these recent threads. keep it up anon.
You're using their own science against them. I personally think it's ridiculous to think that ice core measurements are indicative of anything global.
>it's ridiculous to think that ice core measurements are indicative of anything global.
The atmosphere is well mixed due to wind, so CO2 in one place is the same as CO2 over the globe. See https://cdiac.ess-dive.lbl.gov/trends/co2/
Wow such a clever argument
pssh
>Now what do the numbers mean?
Try reading the thread and you'll figure it out.
>Rising temperature causes CO2 then?
Yes, except when CO2 is skyward by other processes.
>Clearly an insulator causes heat
Causes heat to what? Meaningless statement.
>why my thermos keeps my drink cool all day in the blazing heat.
It keeps your drink cool by keeping the area around your drink hot. Two sides of the same coin.
>Who wants to argue when you can accurately describe
You can't even do that either.
>Clearly an insulator causes the heat it insulates
To do what? More nonsense.
>Yeah, it has some of the coldest north/south poles in the solar system.
Due to adiabatic cooling at the edges of its massive Hadley cells. Sort of like a giant refrigerator.
>Condensation does not remove carbon from the atmosphere anymore
When did it ever?
>The carbon cycle is clearly a meme.
Doesn't follow.
>How is data an argument?
It proves the argument.
>Try reading the thread
How about an explanation from the source of the data? Why would I believe basket cases in basket weaving lobby?
>Yes, except
Oh so it's a dualism got it. So they really don't have a clue.
>Causes heat to what?
Why exactly. It's unchanged, it does nothing. By it being unchanged, the heat cannot change it as rapidly as a gas that has less insulative properties.
>It keeps your drink cool by keeping the area around your drink hot
>vacuum does something
No. Never.
>You can't even do that either.
"Rising temperatures cause CO2 to rise". This is an accurate description based on all the graphs with a lack of explanation behind them.
>To do what?
Exactly, to remain unchanged means to do something. Because it's described as such.
>Due to adiabatic cooling at the edges of its massive Hadley cells. Sort of like a giant refrigerator.
So the gasses do in fact cool and heat. So what's the issue with earth and the ice melting? We'll have more ice then you'll ever need, especially because it will take the alkalinity of it down and allow it to form easier.
>When did it ever?
Since the carbon cycle was know to exist and before, but since it's no longer relevant due to accurate descriptions we can ignore that process completely. The ocean doesn't absorb CO2 anymore because accurate descriptions deem it not to of course.
>Doesn't follow.
Clearly it follows since we're now ignoring it and replacing it with climate change accurate description rhetoric regarding Co2 causing heat.
>It proves the argument.
So where is the actual argument? Because as far as I'm concerned it proves rising temperature causes CO2. Also it doesn't prove the argument, it would be like claiming a shadow is real because you used a tape measure to measure it.
>How about an explanation from the source of the data?
No one is stopping you from reading the sources, if that what you want to do.
>Oh so it's a dualism got it. So they really don't have a clue.
What? No, there are more than two causes of CO2 increase, and they really have a clue.
>Why exactly.
Answer the question.
>It's unchanged, it does nothing.
CO2 increasing is a change. It causes more heat to be sent back to Earth.
does something
Yes, it stops heat from going past it.
>This is an accurate description
It's incomplete.
>Exactly
Exactly, you're not referring to anything anyone says.
>So the gasses do in fact cool and heat.
Which gases?
>So what's the issue with earth and the ice melting?
See
>Since the carbon cycle was know to exist and before, but since it's no longer relevant due to accurate descriptions
What are you talking about?
>Clearly it follows since we're now ignoring it
Who?
>Clearly it follows since we're now ignoring it
Try reading the posts they're linked to.
>Because as far as I'm concerned it proves rising temperature causes CO2
You mean causes CO2 to increase? No one said otherwise. What's your point?
>Also it doesn't prove the argument
Which argument are you talking about?
>it would be like claiming a shadow is real because you used a tape measure to measure it.
OK, and what's wrong with that?
CO2 and global temperatures has no causal relationship whatsoever. Prove it.
The gas properties of CO2 have been posted several times here
Correlation does not imply causation.
Why do you keep repeating the same shit when the empirically measured interactions of CO2 with infrared radiation prove it? Why are you denying simple instrumental measurements?
>correlation proves causation
Into the bin it goes.
He doesn't understand but has built up rage from being dismissed by others on the same basis. It's like a toddler who tells the parent "NO" because he's upset at being told no, and wants to do the same in return, but doesn't understand anything about doing so.
You're just an angry child who doesn't understand what's going on. Who refuses to spend the time reading or being humble enough to ask questions of people who know more than you.
It's like you don't understand the principle statistical quantifier of all of science: correlation NEVER implies causation. That you believe climatological correlations are causative beyond construction indicates you understand neither science nor philosophy, and should have a nice day.
>It's like you don't understand the principle statistical quantifier of all of science: correlation NEVER implies causation. That you believe climatological correlations are causative beyond construction indicates you understand neither science nor philosophy, and should have a nice day.
Experimental mechanism demonstration and predictive modeling is not that kind of correlation. You literally don't know what "correlation" means in this context, and are throwing a tantrum because people were mean to you and dismissed your ideas you couldn't defend in your ignorance.
>ideas you couldn't defend in your ignorance.
Okay, so, for all the tantrum throwing /misc/tards who are allergic to google and find reading too uncomfortable to tolerate, here's a brief lesson:
"Correlation does not imply causation" is more accurately understood as "correlation does not ENTAIL causation".
A causative factor must by definition also correlate to the effect.
The phrase "correlation does not imply causation" is missing needed context. That context is the fact a correlation ON ITS OWN is not evidence ON ITS OWN. It does not ENTAIL causation. None of you dipshits apparently ever thought to google what different kinds of causative or correlative or inductive arguments, or scientific models, are. Your failure to defend your own stupid ideas is nobody's fault but your own, nor is it grounds to dismiss evidence by parroting things you clearly do not understand.
D'aww baby entertained repeating the same joke nobody found funny the first time? I don't like babies. Maybe your mother likes you, but nobody else will.
did the other shill finally cry and quit, and call in his supervisor? or is this just the same shill revealing his MPD? i do wonder...
>"Everyone I can't argue with is a shill"
We get it you give up. Even so in my benevolence I've given you some instruction fit for your attention span. Learn from it.
Can't believe no one has posted this book yet. Go and read this, or at least the first 100 pages, then come back to the thread
Before someone calls bias on this guy... All scientists are biased towards whatever gets them continues funding.
>All scientists are biased towards whatever gets them continues funding.
Yeah it's just recently climate change speculation became so fricking astronomical it now involves large corporations jumping on board and involving themselves in this.
I myself recieve funding because of this shit. More to counter western economic manipulations like paris agreements and stuff like that. Literally getting paid to study related shit.
There's quite a deep conspiracy when it comes to corporations shilling climate change and other woke stuff. It clearly isn't profitable.
Or maybe we live in a time of such easy money and excess that their owners can afford to piss away money on this stuff.
I'm employed in oil and gas as a chem eng, but I am not convinced at all about the impending doom being shilled all the time. It's just data manipulation.
>It clearly isn't profitable.
Yeah it is profitable for hi-tech companies because they can shove their EV's down everyone's throat and make them overpriced as frick compared to normal cars.
Same with alternative energy, it's just silicon valley being at war with the oil and natural gas lobby.
I personally don't give a frick what sort of bourgeous cancer wins in the end (hopefully both kill eachother), i'm just trying to profit and leech off both of them to study shit that i love to study.
Normie morons who buy into this hype however are annoying.
>It clearly isn't profitable.
Meanwhile Biden just signed a multi-billion dollar bill giving money to electric car companies.
>The science is stronger than ever around findings that speak to the likelihood and consequences of climate impacts, and has been growing stronger for decades. In the early days of research, the uncertainty was wide; but with each subsequent step that uncertainty has narrowed or become better understood. This is how science works, and in the case of climate, the early indications detected and attributed in the 1980s and 1990s, have come true, over and over again and sooner than anticipated
Anyone who makes the soitards seethe this much must be worth reading.
>The Science is stronger than ever
What the frick does this hollow shit even mean?
Stop asking questions goy. Science is a monolith, and that monolith is getting stronger every day. That's how science works - it continuously gets stronger and stronger. You know, like a cult.
Same old bullshit
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_E._Koonin#Reception_of_2021_book_Unsettled
>ad hominem
>ad hominem
>unrelated anecdote from some random person who agrees with Koonin
>statements referring to ambiguous "scientists"
Incredible
>>ad hominem
Where?
anecdote from some random person who agrees with Koonin
Where?
referring to ambiguous "scientists"
The sources are cited.
The year is 2100. Climatologists were correct: we have increased droughts, tornados, tsunamis, etc. I have a few questions.
>where are the droughts occurring (how long do they last?)
>where are the record lows occurring (and how low does it go?)
>where are the hurricanes occurring (how many will there be?)
so on, and so forth. you know, just asking for some specifics. can you do that for me, shill?
are the droughts occurring
See
As a general rule of thumb, dry areas will get drier and wet areas will get wetter.
are the record lows occurring
Near the poles as the polar vortex gets disrupted.
are the hurricanes occurring
In the tropics, which will shift towards the poles.
>was asked for specifics
>gave general pithy comments
so you can't give me any specific answers. will Las Vegas get colder or warmer? so the polar ice caps won't melt because they'll get colder? all the while they're going to become tropics and get inundated with hurricanes?
>>was asked for specifics
I answered your questions.
>will Las Vegas get colder or warmer?
Everywhere except the Southern Ocean is getting warmer.
>so the polar ice caps won't melt because they'll get colder?
When will they get colder? You seem confused. First, the disruption of the polar vortex means that warm air enters the poles and pushes cold air out, which makes areas around the poles colder. Second, it's not happening constantly, so it doesn't create a long term cooling trend, just record lows occasionally.
>all the while they're going to become tropics
No, read what I wrote again.
If you aren't trying to speed up climate change to make scientists turn into purple soijaks, you haven't been paying attention.
>https://news.mit.edu/2012/explained-sigma-0209
>So bear in mind, just because something meets an accepted definition of “significance,” that doesn’t necessarily make it significant. It all depends on the context.
Your willful ignorance is not wit. It's a tantrum. Maybe your mother cares, but I don't. You can either learn or frick off.
Thanks for conceding, but everyone already knew you had no argument.
> Rising temperature causes CO2 then?
No, there could be moderator variables, third variables which cause both and whatnot.
Why is it always smug bastards that don't actually get how science is a complex matter?
>No, there could be
Lol. How many years has it been since they've bothered to try figuring it out?
>Why is it always smug bastards that don't actually get how science is a complex matter?
>smug
It's me relying on the accurate descriptions said scientists gave me to work with lol. Clearly the data provided shows us that rising tempuratures cause the CO2 to rise. Descriptions are explanations after all.
If you already think you know everything, then you won't learn anything. That's why. It's the pathetic existence of the child who never grew up. Narcissism is very mistakenly publicly thought of as "self love", but it's really more "self obsession" or "introspection aversion/phobia". They can't learn, because that would imply they aren't already better, and that's unacceptable to contemplate. It really is like children who just don't grow up.
So none of these people are going to learn a damn thing here, and will continue to repeat as mindlessly as before regardless of corrections given. They just live here all day because nobody in real life could stand them.
I just want you to know that it's people like you with such vitriol toward the opposing argument that made me begin to doubt. Now I'm a climate denier, and it's the fault of people like you. Keep going, you'll create more like me.
That's rich. You have to completely ignore the self evident bad behavior of your "side" in this thread to pretend my accurate description is somehow vitriol.
Either way, I don't care. Imagine being persuaded to change your mind, not because of evidence, but because someone made you feel bad. You people just keep proving that you're children.
>I don't care.
Tell me more about how you don't care, as you vitriolically continue to call everyone who disagrees with your toxic style of arguing a narcissistic child.
Aw what's the matter baby? Don't like when someone holds up a mirror to how shitty you people behave? Maybe when you're given evidence you should act like an adult and address the evidence. You know, that thing you're all terrified to do?
So which is it? You going to start acting like an adult, or you going to throw more tantrums demanding special treatment?
>climatologists have so much more vitriol in their posts than people who attack flat earthers
anyone else notice this? what can be the cause?
And yet one side keeps giving evidence while your side keeps giving the "dinosaurs are invented by conspiracy" young earth creationist speech.
I wonder which world is closer to reality, then? The one that evaluates evidence, or the one that invents conspiracy theories because they don't like the icky feelings they get?
>I wonder which world is closer to reality, then?
The ultimatum of why no one cares about green energy proponents:
See this? This is one gallon of gas. Used to its full potential it will produce 33.7 kilowatt hours. How much energy...how much work does a human being produce in its lifetime? Maybe more, maybe less, but certainly not at the rate a liquid combustible can.
This one gallon of gas will do more work than any weenie politician on a podium, any Karen with a pipe dream or any cycling nimrod taking up traffic. Not even a hippie can burn enough pot in his life to equate to the amount of energy contained in a gallon of gas. So ask me why should I care about these morons? They aren't going to be mowing my lawn, they aren't going to be driving me to work and most of them probably are too stupid to even define what energy is in the first place.
Why should I care about them and their stupid ideas? Their health? Why should I care about their health? They're more worthless than the substance doing the work that's keeping them alive in the first place. You think any one of these people can actually survive without electricity? They can't even survive without internet, they would kill themselves without the ability for their stupid fricking opinion to be heard on the internet. Think about this the next time you talk to someone who thinks they know what society needs in terms of energy production, compare that moron to a simple gallon of gas. In most instances the shit they spew out of their mouths is more noxious than the smell of petrol itself, if only we could power society on their psychosis.
>33.7 kilowatt hour
A person burns around 80 watts so thats good for 421 days
how much energy can i extract if i burn a climate alarmist though?
Wonderful, I'd rather use gas than be a battery personally.
you vill be ze vattery
Notice that the deniers when presented with basic evidence just ignore and change the subject?
The radiative properties of co2 are measured and understood. It is absolutely a casual link between the greenhouse gas rising dramatically in the atmosphere and the temperature going up along with it
Correlation does not imply causation.
Causation implies causation, moron
How did you determine the causation?
Thanks IQfy for flagging scientific journals as spam. Frick you.
There are thousands of papers on this in just about every field, and papers on those papers throughout the field of metascience to evaluate sufficiency of causal entailments. You will find such papers in every field, subfield, journal, going back as far as the use of statistics in science.
A plurality of methods are used to build a corpus of evidence. One could not be wrong in this regard in the same way one cannot be wrong about isochron dating of fossils. Physical reality would have to, with intent and by magic, change the properties of everything involved when nobody looked and then rearrange them to look as if they weren't changed. Occam's razor: That ain't what's happening.
As already explained, correlation does not entail causation. That is why you build a body of evidence from a plurality of sources independently verifying mechanisms that, like isochron dating, could not "arbitrarily change by magic" and are inherently linked to the thing being observed.
In this case, we know the effects of long term climate on multiple forces, such as solar irradiance, because again physics cannot just magically change how it behaves when nobody's looking to account for the heat difference. That is the thing deniers are completely missing: Absent magical fairy dust, there is literally nothing else that could be responsible. Nor do physical processes defy entropy and produce more energy than they've been measured to have. That is literally what would be required to deny the mechanisms proposed: Greater amounts of gasses known to retain heat in the atmosphere will result in more heat being retained and climate instability as a result. "No shit sherlock".
>flagging scientific journals as spam
Based. Now you understand why your shilling isn't well received here. How much you getting paid, glowie?
didn't read the rest of your post btw. cope and seeth
>Coping by ignoring evidence
Hey remember how you were white knighting for civility? Where are you on this guy? I smell hypocrisy.
I'm being civil. I'm civilly telling you why IQfyentists hate glowies, and also civilly telling you how I'm not reading your walls of cope.
>Has no argument
Yeah not surprised. Thanks for conceding. Next.
You will never be a scientist
>Thanks IQfy for flagging scientific journals as spam. Frick you.
It thinks it's a phone number. Break up the link into different lines to separate the numbers
Hm. I thought that I had tried that among other things, but by my 10th "post" attempt I sort of lost all will to give a frick. It is possible I did not break it up "enough" but these spam filters keep changing to get more and more broken. At this point I'm just going to start posting titles when URL's stop working.
Though it hardly matters. These people don't read anyway.
>Though it hardly matters. These people don't read anyway.
Yep. I copy bits out of papers as well as post a link when I care enough to reference them in an argument.
The properties of co2 are there regardless of its concentration on the atmosphere. This has been documented in experiments long before people knew what global warming was. We’re pumping this gas into the atmosphere, therefore in line with its intrinsic properties more IR gets trapped
>correlation observed
>call it causation
yawn.
>anything I don't like is correlation
What correlation?
Basically. Evidence given, they pivot to conspiracy. Called on conspiracy, they pivot to "Waaahhh u big meanie head".
We have these magical things called search engines that can lead you to whole dedicated teams of professionals publishing on climate modeling for planets like mars.
Your willful ignorance is nobody's responsibility but your own.
...And? What, is the implication "models aren't 100% correct therefore it's a lie"? Did you escape your handlers or something?
Take your cartoons leave
>The claim that the increased incidence of heatwaves and drought is just a coincidence is garbage.
Okay, then lets see some data from incidence of heatwaves and drought instead
I can't believe no one has posted a source to this image yet, funny since I was the one who made it on another board
https://keelingcurve.ucsd.edu/
The idiots herein spent the whole time ignoring every single source given. So why would we bother? For that matter I am surprised you are surprised, given the whole thread was shit up by illiterate morons.