Eat shit, foreigners. I voted for this.

>>937878748 (OP)
>Right Angle Nooz Network

>>937878748 (OP)
>>937879072
Big if true

>>937878748 (OP)
Poop Eat yourself

>>937879072
As the tweet points out, the source is the Bureau of Labor Statistics. AKA a part of the government, just like your PBS or NPR. If they told you this directly you would believe it without hesitation.

>>937879072
"And the pigs and the people all looked the same."

News is degenerate.
There are no right "reporters".

>>937880061
You mean the Bureau of Labor Statistics where Trump just fired the head of for the weak July jobs report? Meanwhile on AP News:

"US employers slash hiring as Trump advances a punishing trade agenda"

Meanwhile in reality...

>>937878748 (OP)
are you a retard?

>>937879146
yeah, it isn't. This is 100% fake pandering to racist shitheads to distract from the Epstein files and the fact that they're poorer than they were before Trump took office.

>>937882896

>>937880061
Yeah, you spend a lot of time in the lowest level of your mother's house, don't you ?

>>937880061
Oh yeah, you just told us they're a liberal source in the other thread. You have the real numbers yet?

>>937880865
>There are no right "reporters"
This

>>937880865
>There are no right "reporters".
On the contrary, there are ONLY right reporters. Case in point: NY Post was the first (and initially only) media outlet to blow the whistle on the Hunter Biden Laptop story. That was real journalism there. The laptop was later confirmed to be genuine, but at the time the CIA colluded with Twitter (this was before Musk bought it, it needs to be said) to have the NY Post banned for "Russian disinformation" as they falsely claimed at the time. But it wasn't. It was real.

And only this right-wing outlet covered the story at first. And they got martyred for it. Though eventually the suspension was overturned and the account was reinstated. Now apologize.

>>937886208
What you're insinuating is that Right=correct reporting. The reality is that we have journalists and not-journalists. Reporting facts doesn't have a left-right bent and once you introduce that bent, it's no longer journalism. Anything added to facts is activism.

NY post isn't "Right" for reporting correctly, they just did the job that they should all be doing. There is currently a saying, "facts have a Right bias", but this is ignoring the larger problem, which is activism.

>>937880061
The source hardly matters if the information is presented incorrectly. For example, climate change deniers tout a line from a research paper that states that an ice sheet had gained ice over a period of time, but they ignore the same paper pointing out that overal the ice sheets lost significant amount. There's a lot of cherry picking going around, Anon.

>>937887349
>climate change deniers
Climate change "denier" here. That's not what we claim. We point out that there's still zero correlation between CO2 and any kind of natural processes, such as ice sheet retreat or growth. The cherry picking exists only on the alarmists' side, as any additional cherry picking always leads to natural variability and strays even further from any correlation.

>>937887528
Lol

>>937887616
Do you disagree or...?

>>937878748 (OP)
>0 good jobs
kek

>>937878748 (OP)
u voted for this

>>937887723
No of course not.
It's funny to watch you larp as a science.
Like you actually understand the statistics behind any climate data.
>Guy on 4chan believes he knows more than PhDs.
Lol

>>937887935
>It's funny to watch you larp as a science
>the statistics behind any climate data
Show something in your favor that isn't based on models. You know, actual science. The actual climate data shows that none of this warming nonsense is happening. The warming only exists in the models.

I'll wait.

>>937887935
>>Guy on 4chan believes he knows more than PhDs.
There are people with PhDs that don't accept the "climate change" crap.

>>937888068
many PhDs are just as retarded as you are though

>>937888046
Yeah because I'm a climate scientist myself.
I don't need to be a chef to realize that the meal you just cooked me isn't from a Michelin star culinary artist.

>>937888068
That's so cool man.
That means we can keep denying climate change.
Kill yourself.

>>937887935
>PhDs
>Appeal to authority
Name them and show their data.

>>937887528
>>937887723
Nta.
Anon u can deny whatever u want. I grie fruits in my garden and I see some of them can't survive our climate anymore although 10 years ago, it wasn't a problem. Also the southern green stink bug wasn't a problem 10 years ago, now it is and ruins literally Everything in our garden.
If you can't see climate change is real, you should go outside more often.
Also there has never been a more abrupt change of climate as in the last 100 years as far back as we can see (millions of years)

>>937888145
Why should I?
You're not going to be convinced anyway nor am I a scientist.
Do it your fucking self.

>>937888139
>Yeah because I'm a climate scientist myself
There's no such thing, you can't even get a degree in it. There are geologists, hydrologists, etc, but no climate scientist.

So you have something to show me or what? No other "climate scientist" has done it yet, and I've asked dozens.

>Michelin star
This is another meaningless trophy that is heavily driven by bias.

>>937888279
It's called climatology you fucking rube.
I don't care if you accept authority or not.
You will always be a pointless retard that gets in the way of progress.
There is no convincing you of anything.

>>937888179
>can't survive our climate anymore although 10 years ago, it wasn't a problem
Like what? We are only like .001°C cooler than 10 years ago.
>If you can't see climate change is real, you should go outside more often.
I don't see anything changing, either in real life or in the data.
>there has never been a more abrupt change of climate as in the last 100 years
You mean returning to a cool period? What are you talking about?

Anecdotes aren't science. Try again.

>>937882692
lie more retard. It only serves to tighten your echo chamber

>>937888184
>You're not going to be convinced anyway
Nothing as usual. Just like everyone else.
I've never even seen an alarmist show a non-modeled graph, let alone one supporting their position.
>Do it your fucking self.
Been doing it for 30 years. Not one shred of evidence supporting AGW.

>>937880061
PBS and NPR are not part of the government, dipshit.

And Trump just fired the head of the Bureau of Labor Statistics because the jobs reports suck so he lied and said she fudged the numbers to make him look bad. Gee, I wonder how this man bankrupted a casino...

>>937878748 (OP)
No they haven't.

>>937888362
I won't try again anon. Just ask chat chatgpt, he can give you the answers you're looking for.
There are specific developments in the last 100 years that can just be explained by human influence.
That's the last reply u gonna get from me.
I know you think you're right and you're smart and we're all sheep and no one's telling you the truth because they dont give a shit about you but here is the truth: in reality you're just a fucking donkey

>>937888279
>Climate scientists aren't real because their degrees aren't in "climate science"
Jesus Christ, you people are fucking dumb.

>>937888418
I already told you I'm not a scientist dipshit.
>Been doing it for 30 years. Not one shred of evidence supporting AGW.
Yeah that's why I'm laughing. You're larping as a scientist when you obviouslt aren't.
It's like watching a self proclaimed cardiologist teach me about the hear by drawing a cartoon heart in red crayon and telling me to disprove it.
I've seen six year olds with more curiosity.

>>937888327
>It's called climatology
Not as a major.
>I don't care if you accept authority or not
That's the problem, too much authority and zero science.
>There is no convincing you of anything
Not when you have nothing and records aren't showing any warming or increase of storms or whatever. Is there even a non-model formula for how much CO2 warms? The only paper I've seen is that one guy who found .2 W/m2 per 100 ppm but forgot to measure cloud cover.

>>937888540
College majors aren't research grants.
Especially in multidisciplinary fields.
>The only paper I've seen is that one guy who found .2 W/m2 per 100 ppm but forgot to measure cloud cover.
Yeah you're stupid, I know.

>>937888486
>I won't try again anon
I know. You guys usually run away.
>Just ask chat chatgpt
Funny. Ask GPT if a consensus is scientific. Then ask if the AGW consensus is scientific. Go in circles long enough and it finally just admits it can only provide the information given to it since 2020.

>>937888500
Well, you can call anything real. Pregnant men, feminine penises, whatever, but climatology is a vague, unscientific study that ranks up there with sociology. It's not about finding facts but about taking the "data" the agenda has provided and applying it in a way companies can grift the government to inhibit beach erosion or whatever. Have you ever even questioned the data you're given every day? Be curious, anon. Ask questions. Why hasn't it gotten hotter for the last 25 years? Did CO2 take a break? Oxygen and nitrogen have been shown to be multiples stronger as a greenhouse gas, do you ever try to mitigate those gasses?

I don't need to be a genius to realize that no one has provided evidence of ghosts. I just need to look around a little and be curious.

>>937888098
>many PhDs are just as retarded as you are though
So you don't really respect those who have them. Its only about people that agree with you.

>>937888581
Still no evidence, logfag? It's been what, four years now? Still looking for that elusive mountain of evidence?

>>937888500
Global warming alarmism is fake and gay because it has no non-capitalist "solutions" (buy new product, pay more taxes). It's also based on outright lies. This is one of the coldest periods in Earth's history and the ice caps need to be liquified. A warmer world, like a fever, burns off demons.

>>937888859
>Still no evidence, logfag?
Idk what you're talking about.
>It's been what, four years now? Still looking for that elusive mountain of evidence?
Dumbass, get it through your thick head, you and I are not climate scientists.
Neither of us understand the field.
There are people who do. They have authority because they understand it.

>>937888139
>That means we can keep denying climate change.
Yeah of course we can deny fake news.
>Kill yourself.
No.

>>937888944
If climate change isn’t happening, why is nearly every region claiming to be heating faster than the global average? Canada, Sweden, the Middle East, Australia, the Arctic, and Europe all report warming at twice to four times the global rate based on peer-reviewed studies and national climate assessments. These statements can't all be exaggerated unless the global average itself is rising dangerously fast.

>>937888842
Depends. Shaq has a PhD in organizational learning. Does that make him smart? What about Joe Biden? He got an honorary doctorate. Seems some people earn them and others just get them because muh celebrity. Just like Nobel Peace prizes.

>>937888936
>There are people who do
I know. They show that CO2 is unable to cause anything weather or temperature related.
>They have authority because they understand it.
I give them authority if their methods stand up to scrutiny. Do you blindly believe "scientists"?

>>937889100
No, I don’t blindly believe anyone. That’s why I trust the scientific method, not just 'scientists.' Climate science is built on decades of peer-reviewed evidence, replicated studies, and measurable data. CO2’s role in warming isn’t a guess; it’s physics. We’ve known since the 1800s that CO2 traps heat (Fourier, Tyndall, Arrhenius), and satellites today measure that happening in real time. Denialists rarely publish in peer-reviewed journals because their claims don’t hold up under scrutiny. That is the real test of credibility.

>>937889009
>why is nearly every region claiming to be heating faster than the global average?
Because they're fucking models!
There is no such thing as a global average and it's stupid to think that's an appropriate way to measure anything. A few years ago there was a "hottest year evah". The entire globe cooled slightly and the poles warmed slightly, something like -38°C to -36°C. No ice melted, literally nothing changed, but this swayed the average enough to say the Earth was hotter.

Picrel shows how much data they (NOAA) actually collect and how much is filled in with models. Even the smaller squares are modelled, then run through the playstation again to cover the entire map. There are very rarely records actually broken as we're in a relative cool period right now.

>>937889272
Models are built from real data. They’re not fantasy. NOAA, NASA, and independent institutions combine direct temperature readings from land, sea, and satellites. The global average isn’t a random number. It’s a statistical summary of measurable temperatures across thousands of stations, adjusted for coverage gaps. And no, warming at the poles does matter. It disrupts jet streams, melts glaciers, raises sea levels, and accelerates feedback loops. You can't just shrug off climate change because you don’t like how statistics work.

>>937889272
bitch check the grace gravity, study, hot aeas are losing their aquaduct ie large thermal masses are moving from pumping. jesus tits fucking christ.

>>937889175
>Climate science is built on decades of peer-reviewed evidence
Where is it? Why can't anyone anywhere ever produce this evidence? All the pro-AGW studies I've seen all rely on models and ignore the instrumental data.
>replicated studies
Like what? The two 2-liter bottle experiment that they always cut short because they don't want you to see 2LoT in action?
>and measurable data
Again, where? I have never seen a study where they were able to measure anything climate change related.
>CO2’s role in warming isn’t a guess; it’s physics.
Then where's the formula?

Again, all anyone has to do is start backing up their claims. It hasn't been done by anyone on this planet yet.

>>937889413
You’re not asking for evidence. You’re moving the goalposts to deny it exists. The role of CO2 in warming is explained by the Schwarzschild equation, grounded in well-established physics and confirmed by both lab experiments and satellite measurements. NASA, NOAA, HadCRUT, JMA, and Berkeley Earth all publish instrumental temperature data from thousands of thermometers, ocean buoys, weather balloons, and satellites. Studies like Hansen et al. (1988), IPCC reports, and modern attribution research have been peer-reviewed, replicated, and cited extensively. Measurable climate impacts — such as sea level rise, glacier loss, shifting seasons, and increased extreme weather — are tracked globally with physical instruments. Dismissing all of this doesn’t make you a skeptic. It just means you’re refusing to engage with the evidence that’s already public.

>>937889322
>Models are built from real data
Nope. Well, maybe just to start with something, but it's all fake after that. If they were real data, they would have to cool the past.

>NOAA
Check it out. This is NOAA V4 Adjusted data. It's not perfect but they destroyed everything previous when the Climategates happened. Use Season Ranking, input what you want to see, and choose your area. Click the pins to see the data. There is nog change to be found from NOAA's data.
http://climod2.nrcc.cornell.edu/

>NASA
They just copy NOAA's data.
>independent institutions
They usually copy NOAA's data but may also run USHCN/GHCN through their own models.

>The global average isn’t a random number
Did you read what I wrote? It is a number, but it doesn't mean anything. What's the average of your house? Make sure you measure the cool bathroom, behind the fridge, under the sunny windows, etc. Make sure it's every square foot and that you take records every 10 minutes for 24 hours. Now you have data for that day. Does that tell you how warm it is on your couch? If you turn the oven on, is your house the hottest evah?

>And no, warming at the poles does matter. It disrupts jet streams, melts glaciers, raises sea levels
Yeah, you didn't read what I wrote at all.

>>937889732
You keep insisting there's no evidence, but then handwave away the actual data and physics as “fake” or “copied.” That’s not skepticism. That’s denial. Models don’t invent data; they are statistical tools used because global coverage isn’t perfect, and they are constantly tested against real-world observations like satellite measurements, sea level rise, and glacier loss. Saying NOAA "cooled the past" is misleading. Adjustments are transparently documented and correct known biases like station moves or time-of-day changes, and raw data is still available. The “average temperature” of Earth isn’t meaningless. It’s a statistical indicator, just like blood pressure or GDP, that tracks change over time. You may not feel climate change on your couch, but that doesn’t mean Greenland isn’t melting or sea levels aren’t rising. If you reject every method of measuring reality, then you’re not debating. You’re just denying that reality can be measured.

>>937889388
>grace gravity
I have no idea what this is.
>hot aeas are losing their aquaduct
You mean to populated areas? Temperature has been slightly cooling and rainfall has been slightly increasing.

>>937889465
>You’re not asking for evidence
I am. Show something.
>NASA, NOAA, HadCRUT, JMA, and Berkeley Earth
And these places all have their recorded data and then they have their adjusted data. You can go to the JMA and make a chart of their data and find that no warming. I posted a tool for NOAA above called Climod. Again, no warming.
https://www.data.jma.go.jp/stats/etrn/view/monthly_s3_en.php?block_no=47662&view=1

>>937890050
You say you’re asking for evidence, but when presented with it, you dismiss it because it doesn’t fit your narrative. The link you posted is for Tokyo, one city. Climate change isn’t based on a single location. It’s measured globally across thousands of stations, oceans, and satellites. When aggregated, the data from NASA, NOAA, HadCRUT, JMA, and Berkeley Earth shows clear long-term warming. Adjustments aren’t a conspiracy. They are necessary for consistency when stations move, instrumentation changes, or readings are taken at different times of day. Raw data is still archived and available. That is how we know adjustments are small and justified. Claiming “no warming” based on cherry-picked local graphs is like saying global poverty doesn’t exist because your neighborhood looks fine. That’s not evidence. That’s denial dressed up as research.

>>937889831
ya
> to populated areas
if you consider above ground populated areas.
the short version of my point is with the loss of thermal batteries in the form of large water, temp swings will be larger and dependent on solar activity.
saw your pic and thought you were only using symptom data and not cause data, like measuring the light in a room to gauge energy usage.

>>937889732

> Did you read what I wrote? It is a number, but it doesn't mean anything. What's the average of your house? Make sure you measure the cool bathroom, behind the fridge, under the sunny windows, etc. Make sure it's every square foot and that you take records every 10 minutes for 24 hours. Now you have data for that day. Does that tell you how warm it is on your couch? If you turn the oven on, is your house the hottest evah?

This has to be the stupidest thing I've ever read dude

>>937889805
>You keep insisting there's no evidence
Seriously, no bullshit, not fucking trolling here...
EVIDENCE BACKING UP AGW HAS NEVER BEEN PROVIDED BY ANYONE EVER.
It literally only exists in models, or on Heathrow runways like the Metoffice likes to publicize.

>Saying NOAA "cooled the past" is misleading. Adjustments are transparently documented and correct known biases like station moves or time-of-day changes
No. They admitted this isn't the case. They said they did it to warm the present and "hide the blip" of the 1930s/40s.

>The “average temperature” of Earth isn’t meaningless.
It really is. Even averaging the US is meaningless. Even a state is meaningless. I'm in California. Should I average Death Valley, Mendocino. Truckee, Merced, and the Delta? What does that tell me about anything?

Not reading the rest of it. You refuse to provide anything and you just keep spouting more unverified nonsense.

>>937890130
>but when presented with it
Where?
>When aggregated, the data from NASA, NOAA, HadCRUT, JMA, and Berkeley Earth shows clear long-term warming
Only in the models. The raw data doesn't show that.
>Claiming “no warming” based on cherry-picked local graphs
Well what the fuck else is there to look at? The US is a pretty large fucking landmass sitting between two oceans. If global warming is hitting everyone but us, why? JMA has records from all over the planet and doesn't show warming. I'm using the same sources you are, you're just ignoring the data and using the models, which have never made a prediction, future or past. It's the flat Earf of science.

>>937890150
Where is this happening? Temp swings have been slightly narrowing.

>>937890286
>>937890420
You’re not looking for evidence. You’re rejecting it on sight because it threatens your worldview. The greenhouse effect of CO2 is not some speculative theory. It’s been confirmed in lab experiments, detected by satellites measuring infrared radiation escaping Earth, and grounded in basic physics we’ve understood since the 1800s. That’s not a model. That’s reality. NASA, NOAA, JMA, and Berkeley Earth all publish raw and adjusted data, and the adjustments are transparent. They correct for things like station moves or time-of-day changes, and they’re small. You calling that a conspiracy doesn’t make it one. The “hide the decline” claim was taken out of context more than a decade ago and has been debunked so thoroughly that bringing it up today just signals you haven’t done the reading. You mock global averages, but without them, you have no way to track trends. Of course different parts of California have different climates. That’s why scientists use standardized methods to track broader shifts, not vibes from someone’s backyard thermometer. If you think thousands of independent researchers, universities, and global agencies are all in on some coordinated lie for decades without a single credible whistleblower, then you’re not arguing science. You’re peddling conspiracy fiction because it feels safer than facing what the data actually says.

>>937890521
>You’re not looking for evidence
Yeah yeah, you've said that like 8 times but refuse to provide anything.
I'm out. Too much "but I did have breakfast" in here.

>>937890521
Shit, I just read the next line...
>It’s been confirmed in lab experiments
Where?
>detected by satellites
Not really

Yeah, I'm done in here.

>climate change is fake
It actually an easy position to take. There is no risk whatsoever in doing what one has always done, because the chances of seeing direct consequences, besides climate-related immigration maybe, are very low. You cannot lose basically. That's the reason why many people 50+ don't give a fuck about the environment. They won't have to face the consequences of their actions and they won't be held accountable so why bother when you can live life to the fullest without any regard whatsoever for the generations that follow

>>937882896
why does this surprise you? Ceo is indian

>>937890625
>>937890679
Fair enough. When someone walks away after demanding evidence, then sneering at it without even engaging, that’s not debate. It’s intellectual cowardice wrapped in performative skepticism.

For anyone else reading:
CO2’s infrared absorption has been measured since John Tyndall’s 1859 lab work. Modern lab replications continue to confirm it. Satellite measurements from NASA’s AIRS and NOAA’s CERES programs directly detect the reduced outgoing infrared radiation at CO2 absorption bands. This is not speculative. This is observable.

You don’t have to trust anyone. You can look up the raw data, the satellite records, the physics papers. But if your mind is made up before the search begins, then you’re not looking for truth. You’re just defending a belief.

>>937890854
No one's saying that CO2 doesn't absorb. Everything absorbs.
They found that CERES was measuring a decrease of cloud albedo, nothing about CO2.
https://www.science.org/doi/abs/10.1126/science.adq7280

>>937878748 (OP)
kek

>>937878748 (OP)
Native-born Americans? Like red indians?

>>937891086
Red Indians were just illegal immigrants from Mongolia.

>>937891029
You're right that CERES has detected a decrease in cloud albedo, but that does not disprove CO2-driven warming. CO2 absorbs and re-emits infrared radiation in specific bands that have been measured in lab experiments, ground-based sensors, and satellites like those cited in studies by Harries (2001) and Feldman (2015). The greenhouse effect of CO2 is not speculative and does not rely on models alone. The CERES data shows one contributing factor to Earth’s energy imbalance, but climate change is driven by multiple overlapping forcings, including greenhouse gases, aerosols, and cloud dynamics. Pointing to one paper on cloud reflectivity while ignoring decades of spectroscopy, radiative transfer physics, and global energy budget measurements does not discredit the role of CO2.

>>937891140
>that does not disprove CO2-driven warming
Doesn't prove it, either. Seems you just inserted it for no reason.
All matter absorbs and re-emits at a lower energy. The question is if your CO2 claim is actually happening. Throughout history, there has been no observed correlation between temp and CO2 levels. Even on other planets, the greenhouse effect isn't happening.

>>937891140
If CO2 is so bad for the Earth why do they put tons of it in Greenhouses to help the plants become huge?

>>937891234
>>937891249
No one said CO2 is "bad" in all contexts. It’s essential to life. But like oxygen or water, too much in the wrong place causes problems. Greenhouses use CO2 to boost plant growth because plants use it in photosynthesis. That has nothing to do with how CO2 behaves in the atmosphere, where it traps infrared radiation and alters Earth’s energy balance. This isn’t theoretical. It’s been observed in lab experiments, satellite measurements, and ground-based studies. Saying there is “no correlation” between CO2 and temperature throughout history is false. Ice core data shows a tight coupling over hundreds of thousands of years, with CO2 acting as both feedback and forcing. Venus, for example, is a planet where the greenhouse effect is extreme, not absent. If you want to argue against CO2-driven warming, you’ll need to refute spectroscopy, thermodynamics, satellite IR readings, and direct atmospheric observations. So far, you’ve done none of that.

>>937891249
It's fertilizer. The planet has been greening significantly since levels have been rising away from plant death.

>>937891305
>Venus, for example, is a planet where the greenhouse effect is extreme
Utter nonsense. It's pressure. Venus has the same temps as Earth at the same pressures. It's why the bottom of the Grand Canyon can be 80 degrees while the top can have snow. The hottest places on this Earth are well below sea level, not containing more CO2.

>>937891305
>you’ll need to refute spectroscopy, thermodynamics, satellite IR readings, and direct atmospheric observations
You can take all the measurements you want, but nothing links those measurements to CO2.
I asked above: oxygen and nitrogen are many times more powerful greenhouse gasses than CO2. What role do they play in the climate?

>>937891394
That’s a popular talking point, but it’s wrong. Pressure alone doesn’t create heat. It can affect how temperature changes with altitude (the lapse rate), but it doesn’t generate energy. Venus is hot because of trapped infrared radiation, not because of high pressure alone. If pressure were the cause, Jupiter, which has higher pressures, would be hotter than Venus. It’s not. Venus has surface temperatures over 860°F (460°C), hotter than Mercury, even though Mercury is far closer to the Sun. Why? Because Venus has a CO2-rich atmosphere that traps heat extremely efficiently, confirmed by decades of radiative transfer models, spectral measurements, and probes like Venera and Pioneer Venus. Yes, temperature changes with elevation on Earth, but that’s basic atmospheric physics. It does not explain why a planet that receives less solar radiation than Mercury stays significantly hotter. Pressure explains temperature distribution, not total energy.

>>937891394
>Venus has the same temps as Earth at the same pressures. It's why the bottom of the Grand Canyon can be 80 degrees while the top can have snow.

I'm just scrolling by on the front page and I have no idea what you're talking about. I can, however, confirm that you don't know, either.

>>937891470
Oxygen and nitrogen are not greenhouse gases. They make up most of the atmosphere, but they do not absorb infrared radiation in the same way that greenhouse gases like CO2, CH4, or H2O do. Why? Because O2 and N2 are symmetric diatomic molecules. They do not have a dipole moment and therefore do not interact with infrared radiation through vibrational modes. This is basic molecular physics and has been confirmed through lab spectroscopy for over a century.

CO2, on the other hand, is a linear triatomic molecule with vibrational modes that do absorb infrared radiation, especially in the 13–17 micron range, which coincides with part of the Earth’s thermal emission spectrum. That is why satellite instruments like NASA's AIRS and NOAA's CERES detect less IR escaping to space in those exact wavelengths, and increased downward longwave radiation at the surface in the same bands. That does link the measurements to CO2.

So no, O2 and N2 do not contribute to the greenhouse effect. They are transparent to infrared. CO2 is not. That’s the difference, and it is not speculation. It is fundamental physics, proven in labs and measured in the atmosphere.

>>937891472
>but it’s wrong
Because you said so? Carl Sagan popularized this back in the 70s and it kinda stuck. It's been proven incorrect though. We measure planets and other bodies this way. If we can estimate the mass and measure the temp, we know what the pressure is, or any combination of the three.

Jupiter is cooler because it's much further from the sun. Same with Mars, which has the same atmospheric makeup as Venus.

>>937891604
You're mixing up how we estimate planetary pressure with how temperature is determined. Yes, mass, temperature, and pressure are related — but pressure alone does not cause planetary heating. That’s thermodynamics 101. If it did, we could heat a room by simply compressing air and walking away. But unless you keep adding energy, the heat dissipates. Venus stays hot not because of pressure alone but because of how its dense CO2 atmosphere traps heat and prevents it from escaping.
The idea that Venus is hot “just because of pressure” was popularized by some critics of the greenhouse effect but has been refuted by observational science and radiative transfer models. Venus and Mars both have CO2-rich atmospheres, yes — but Mars is cold because its atmosphere is thin and can’t trap heat effectively. Venus’s atmosphere is about 90 times thicker than Earth's, and it traps enormous amounts of thermal radiation. It has been measured in situ by landers like Venera and remotely by missions like Pioneer Venus, and IR absorption spectra match CO2 greenhouse predictions.
Jupiter is colder than Venus because, despite its size and pressure, it receives 25 times less solar energy. It still has internal heating and complex dynamics, but it doesn’t contradict the greenhouse effect — it follows different physics relevant to gas giants. Venus is the clearest case of a runaway greenhouse effect, and the data has been clear for decades.
This is not a guess. It is measured. It is replicable. And it is consistent with both physics and planetary observations.

>>937889009
>why is nearly every region claiming
Because someone is lying. I mean, it isn't hard.

>>937891509
The Russians sent Venera probes to Venus. They measured everything on the way to the surface. At the same pressures as Earth, Venus has the same temps, accounting for solar irradiation of course.

>>937891686
That’s not an argument. It’s an accusation without evidence. Claiming that “someone is lying” to explain away global data from independent institutions, satellites, weather stations, universities, and research teams across dozens of countries is not skepticism — it’s conspiracy thinking. If your position requires believing in a global cover-up involving tens of thousands of scientists, engineers, and data analysts, while providing no evidence of falsification, then the problem isn’t with the data. It’s with your refusal to engage with it honestly.

>>937891524
Based science anon trying to educate a hopeless alternative fact enthusiast.
I learned somethings and my job is consultant for co2 reduction. LOL
Godspeed anon

>>937878748 (OP)

>>937891524
>Oxygen and nitrogen are not greenhouse gases
They most definitely are.
>A strong Infrared Radiation from Molecular Nitrogen in the Night Sky
>1944, Stebbins, et. al
This study says they're 15% relative to CH4, which they claim is 84 times more powerful than CO2.
>https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2012GL051409
This paper explains how they could find no difference or "special heat capacity" between N2, O2, and CO2. Angstrom also came to the same conclusion in 1901.
>https://web.archive.org/web/20200330015747/https://www.allphyscon.ch/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/Allmendinger_Behaviour-of-Gases_IJPS-rev.pdf

>>937891691
IDGAF about any of that, I'm pointing out the retardation of "Grand Canyon at 50°F difference from bottom to top because pressure".

>>937891935
Based.

>>937891970
Nitrogen and oxygen are not greenhouse gases in any meaningful atmospheric sense. They are diatomic molecules without a dipole moment, which means they do not absorb infrared radiation in the thermal wavelengths Earth emits. The 1944 Stebbins paper refers to auroral IR emissions from excited nitrogen in the upper atmosphere, which has nothing to do with greenhouse warming in the troposphere. The 2012 paper discusses collision-induced absorption, a weak and well-known phenomenon that is already included in models, but it does not make nitrogen or oxygen significant greenhouse gases. The Allmendinger document is not peer-reviewed, contains basic errors, and has been widely discredited. Angström’s early 20th-century experiments were limited by poor equipment and have since been corrected by modern spectroscopy. The core physics is settled: greenhouse gases must absorb and re-emit infrared radiation, and CO2, CH4, and H2O do that effectively, while N2 and O2 do not.

>>937891662
>but pressure alone does not cause planetary heating. That’s thermodynamics 101
Fucking hell dude. Does an air compressor not get hot when compressing air? Ever hear the weatherman say, "we have a high pressure system moving in, bringing us a hot weekend"?
>The idea that Venus is hot “just because of pressure” was popularized by some critics
It's been shown with measurements and math, the same measurements and math that are used on every other planet accurately.
>This is not a guess
It totally is and you can't even demonstrate it. No one has ever performed a scientific experiment that proves that it's nothing but a hypothesis.
>It is measured
No. No one on Earth has ever measured the "greenhouse effect".
>It is replicable
If the other are false, then this one is too.

>>937892020
You're in for a treat anon this guy's gonna come up with an explanation. He created an identity for himself which is both claiming co2 has no relevant greenhouse effect and simultaneously cannot be wrong about anything while advocating his belief in scientifical evidence.

>>937892020
What would cause that then? More CO2 at the bottom?

>>937892020

>>937892041
>Nitrogen and oxygen are not greenhouse gases in any meaningful atmospheric sense
The science disagrees with your hypothesis.
>a bunch of stuff...
So you have evidence that CO2 is the sole driver of the heat we're not experiencing or what? I can only search so much here on a time-limited shit-stacking board. Can you shoe something definitive that isn't based on assumptions or models?

>>937892109
You’re mixing up very different concepts: heat generation from compression, weather patterns, and planetary energy balance, and treating them as the same thing. They're not. Yes, air gets hot during active compression because energy is being added. But that’s not what’s happening on Venus. Venus isn’t being continuously compressed. Its pressure is the result of mass and gravity, not a pump forcing air into a smaller volume. Once pressure is established, no more energy is added. Without a strong greenhouse effect, Venus would cool just like any other object in space. The reason it doesn’t is because CO2 traps outgoing infrared radiation, which has been confirmed by spectral measurements from orbit and by probes like Venera and Pioneer Venus.

High-pressure weather systems on Earth can bring warmth, but that’s because they create subsiding air, which compresses and warms as it falls. Again, an active process involving energy transfer. It has nothing to do with long-term planetary heat retention. As for measurement, the greenhouse effect has been measured. Look up Feldman et al. (Nature, 2015). They directly observed increased downward longwave radiation from rising CO2 levels over time, at the exact infrared frequencies predicted by physics. You don’t have to trust anyone blindly. The data is public, the experiments are published, and the results match both theory and observation. Dismissing all of that doesn’t make the evidence disappear. It just means you’re unwilling to look at it.

>>937892112
He's failed to give any evidence so far. Think this bold strategy will pay off?

>>937892250
Yes. Here is a definitive, non-model-based measurement directly linking CO2 increases to additional heating. No assumptions, no projections, just observed data:

Feldman et al., 2015 (Nature):
This study measured real-time increases in downward longwave infrared radiation from rising CO2 at two ground stations in Oklahoma and Alaska over 11 years. The increase occurred at exactly the infrared wavelengths that CO2 absorbs — 13 to 17 microns — as predicted by radiative transfer physics. This was not a model. It was a direct, physical measurement, with atmospheric CO2 levels recorded in parallel.
DOI link: 10.1038/nature14240

This proves that added CO2 leads to measurable increases in the greenhouse effect in the real world. No computer simulation required. No assumptions. Just physics and a radiometer.

So yes, there is definitive evidence. It has been published, peer-reviewed, and replicated in follow-up studies. If you are serious about looking for real data, that is where you start. If you ignore this too, then you are not asking for evidence. You are asking for permission to keep believing something that has already been disproven.

>>937892250
Also picrel shows co2 going proportional with temperature in earth history

>>937889831
I don't believe for a second that rainfall is increasing in america. I think this is 100% fake. Every state I've visited or lived in in the past 20 years is dryer than it was when I was a kid.

>>937892423
Are you under the impression the Earth was hot during the Hadeon Eon because of CO2?

>>937892575
So you dispute this evidence? You asked for correlation between temp and co2, I simply followed your request.

>>937892127
The fact that it's a fucking MILE DEEP CANYON with radically different weather patterns in and/around it because of that.

>>937892150
>Surface-level, borderline-wrong AI summary which is 99% for sure pulling from Reddit comments
Yo wow that's crazy.

Anyway, air only gets hotter when compressed if it's an adiabatic compression. It isn't hotter just because it's compressed. The heat it gains from being compressed dissipates and it settles into equilibrium with its surroundings. That effect is minuscule when talking about the kinds of pressure differences in the atmosphere. Hell, a 50°F rise in temperature isn't that far off from what you'd see in an air compressor packing atmosphere to nearly TEN TIMES its density at STP.

As a related tangent, I learned something interesting recently: Gases being at different pressures don't actually change their heat-conducting capability at pressures anywhere near STP. A more dense gas will have more molecules to transfer kinetic energy (heat) with, but this is offset by the fact that there are more gas molecules in the way. Conversely, a less dense gas has fewer molecules to move heat with, but the mean free path is lower, and conductivity is the same. You only start to see significantly differences in thermal conductivity once pressure becomes very low (or mean free path starts to exceed the size of your container) or very high (at least an order of magnitude above STP).

I'm out of here before I get any stupider.

>>937892263
>Venus isn’t being continuously compressed
Gravity isn't constantly exerting a force on the "air" around Venus?
>Its pressure is the result of mass and gravity
Exactly. Well, and the amount of gas that is being compressed. This is why Mars is so cold, besides being further from the sun.
>Once pressure is established, no more energy is added
So the Grand Canyon only gets hot once at the bottom?
>Without a strong greenhouse effect, Venus would cool just like any other object in space
Why would it just cool? It's a ball of dense gas being heated by the sun? Greenhouses effect plays no part in this equation, or any equation really, it's just some voodoo middleman. What's your version of the greenhouse effect, because there are a few. There's the backradiation hypothesis, the "air is heat-soaked" hypothesis, and, shit, I forgot the 3rd popular one just now. How would these concepts work on a planet where the surface barely receives any sun? Is the heat-soaked CO2 only trapped in the upper layers where the sun hits it? Backradiation surely can't apply on such a dim surface.
>High-pressure weather systems on Earth can bring warmth, but that’s because they create subsiding air
This is basic stuff, anon. High pressure worms and low pressure cools. We can measure the high pressure front before it gets to [location], do some math with delta millibar, and predict how much hotter it will be.

>Feldman
That's the guy I couldn't remember! I brought him up somewhere above. The fuckin guy could only find a miniscule change in temps, like .02 W/m2 or someshit, but it turned out he couldn't account for the change in waver vapor and that alone was dwarfing his measurements so he turned to modelling to simulate a CO2 signal. He actually (re)discovered the correlation between water vapor and temp, or temp and water vapor in regard to clear sky conditions.

>>937892820
>addendum

Actually found the comment AI was pulling from:

https://www.reddit.com/r/NoStupidQuestions/comments/elw5i8/why_does_the_grand_canyon_get_hotter_at_the/

I shall fight Reddit with Reddit:

https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/10uw1pu/does_gas_under_high_pressure_conduct_heat_better/

>>937892309
Nah, I just replied on this. He modeled it because he couldn't find the actual "signal".
see the bottom of >>937892855

>>937892855
Im also outta here bro enjoy your "victory". Feel free not to look into the evidence presented.

>>937892423
Where's that unsourced twitter graph from? Because it's been shown to be quite the opposite by many others.

>>937892820
>radically different weather patterns
What causes those weather patterns?
>The heat it gains from being compressed dissipates and it settles into equilibrium with its surroundings
Are you seriously forgetting about gravity? When you're standing still, do you feel a constant pressure on your feet, or do they lighten up after a while as the energy hits equilibrium? Gravity is 9.6 m/s2 whether you're falling or standing still. You've been demonstrating that you don't understand the basics very well.

>>937892713
I asked for nothing of the sort. And I ABSOLUTELY refute this "evidence" because it's based on isotopic analysis which is basically fucking witchcraft. People think it's sciency and believe me it's a popular tool in science, but it is NOT scientific. Isotopic analysis for pretty much anything but dating has given WILDLY varying results regarding everything from temperature proxies to dietary preferences. I know this because I'm a scientist that studies everything from paleontology to marine biology. And even in these fields isotopic analysis is criticized for its wonky ass results.

And because you likely have to have it sounded out for you since you have an IQ of 55, the Earth was hot during the Hadean Eon because it had literally just fucking formed and was a ball of molten rock. Do you think a red hot poker is also hot because of CO2. Fuck I wouldn't be surprised at this point.

>>937892954
>enjoy your "victory"
I always do. No one ever seems to be able back up this story of goblins and spirits in the atmosphere and in our gas tanks. Just more handed down beliefs.

>>937893040
True Fact: Temperature proxies that rely on pretty much anything but floral and faunal indicator fossils are total bullshit. How do I know this? Because most proxies that claim to defy them are openly refuted by the fossil record. Not a lot of Teiids, Varanids, lungfish and palms where snowfall is a factor. Prehistoric Planet is anti-scientific bullshit.

>>937893370
I'm aware, but even a guess is better that that faggot's red and blue modeled facebook pic.

>>937892423
>>937893040
Holy shit, it is twitter.
https://x.com/rahmstorf/status/1836689341063499967
And Prof. Stefan Rahmstorf is an activist nutjob always presenting to the media and government with his "the end is near" headlines. He is factually obliterated constantly. The EIKE dismisses him and Swiss meteorologists call his work "Religious Exaggeration". Dude is literally a scientific pariah and should never be taken seriously.

He did accidentally show that it's been cooling though (picrel)

>>937893183
>gravity
Gravity cannot do work The only thing gravity does here is keep the atmosphere dense. I have no idea what you're on about here. Unless you actually misinterpreted "settles into [thermal] equilibrium" as "settles into [pressure] equilibrium" (which doesn't even make sense; atmospheric pressure is a gradient).

>Gravity is 9.6 m/s2 whether you're falling or standing still.
Yeah, that's the problem. Gravity _doesn't change_. The air that got compressed when moving to lower altitude, even if it was done adiabatically (it wasn't) has to eventually be expanded, because the overall pressure on Earth doesn't change. Can you guess, proportionately, how much it cools upon expansion? Yeah, exactly the same amount it was heated upon compression.

And, again, this is considering a DYNAMIC system. Gases aren't just magically warmer all the time because they're dense rather than sparse.

>>937878748 (OP)

>>937895108
You voted for the CIA to lie more? Weird thing to vote for.

>>937894975
I don't know what to tell you. This shit is so easily searchable.

https://www.nps.gov/deva/learn/nature/weather-and-climate.htm
>Heated air rises,cools before it can rise over the valley's mountain walls, and is recycled back down to the valley floor. These pockets of descending air are only slightly cooler than the surrounding hot air. As they descend, they are compressed and heated even more by the low elevation air pressure. These moving masses of super heated air blow through the valley, creating extreme high temperatures.

https://media.bom.gov.au/social/blog/2544/explainer-what-influences-air-temperature/
>Air mixing throughout the day brings this upper-level air down. It becomes warmer as it approaches the surface. Air is more compressed at lower levels, because air pressure increases as height decreases. This compression increases its temperature at a rate of around 10 °C per kilometre – a process known as adiabatic warming.

And I still see nothing about CO2. I don't even know what your point is anymore. It certainly isn't about proving that some random gas that has magical properties warms things up in the sun.

>>937878748 (OP)
fatte