Are we really making the planet warmer by emitting a shit ton of CO2?
Lets keep the politics out, only scientific discussion.

>does CO2 trap heat
Yes
>does industrial manufacturing generate CO2
Yes

Which one of these facts do climate change deniers take issue with? You can argue the degree to which we’re responsible but outright denial means you’re talking to a paid shill or a victim of a paid shill

>>16697952
That in the past there were times with much higher co2 and colder climate.
Also that we are coming out of an ice age and that explains the rise in temperature

>>16697956
So you don’t take issue with either of the two premises?

>>16697956
>in the past there were times with much higher co2 and colder climate.
When?
>Also that we are coming out of an ice age and that explains the rise in temperature
What's the reason for the jump in slope?

>>16697960
They talk about millions of years ago but i dont know how exact is to take Earth's climate back then and compare it with today.
I dont know about the 'little ice age' either. I dont know if its something solid or just bs theory.

>>16697969
The little ice age is solid, but not the way oil shills pretend it is.

>>16697952
True but now ask yourself, who would pay a shill to disagree with the physical chemistry of CO2 molecules? I'd assume they could only have been paid by some climate model pushing NGO to poison the well with retarded straw men.

>>16697952
>degree to which we're responsible
I think this is where a lot of skeptics fall in. Hearing constant dramatic doomsday mongering from non-scientists that could not even properly read a paper if their lives depended upon it tends to wear at people's patience, and that poisons the well for any good-faith discussions.

>>16698057
What's the argument for how we're not releasing a lot more CO2 now than we used to? I mean the long term global prediction models are very obviously a garbage disposal of assumptions, but if distorting the CO2 balance a lot over a short period time does end up impacting something in some way, how wouldn't we be mostly responsible for that? Whether or not you think it matters.

>>16698048
BP, Shell, Exxon Mobil etc

>>16698077
I don't know. I'm not one of the folks I mentioned in my posts, I'm merely pointing out a trend in "pop-soience" that unfortunately poisons the well and enables real science denial.

>>16698082
You think big oil is going to pay shills to make their own propaganda look as retarded as possible? I'd take the other side of that bet any time lol.

>>16698088
I think big oil pays shills to spread unscientific propaganda that doesn’t even make logical sense. They get paid for every retard like >>16697956 that then carries on their mission for free.

>>16697948 (OP)
We are cooking the environment literally

>>16698093
Yeah I doubt it. Still think it's much more likely that the dumbest arguments for any side of any issue come from paid shills for the other side.

>>16698099
Take this image macro, for example. I'd assume, based on the clash of scale and color key, that it was made by the anti alarmist side to make the alarmist side look retarded.

>>16697956
there are several other factors that play into climate including but not limited to: Volcanism, Mountain Building, Orbital Precession, Orbital Eccentricity, Axial Tilt, Solar Radiance, Albedo, Thermohaline Circulation, Arrangement of the Continents, Ice Cover, Land Condition, Cloud Cover, Chemical Weathering.

Also there is what makes up in the Atmosphere: Carbon dioxide content, Methane content, Nitrate bacterial outputs like N2O, CFCs and other halogenated hydrocarbons, Aerosols, Water Vapour,

There are also Biological factors like: Algae Blooms, Growing biological Matter, Biological Sequestration, Decaying Biological matter, The Presence of Humans, Human Habitat building, Human Energy usage, Human Land Usage. Human Fertiliser usage.


Having taken into account the majority of these factors we still believe that raising CO2 is the main driver of modern warming and the main additional source of CO2 has been the gasses released by burning coal and other hydrocarbons en mass starting with the Industrial Revolution.

Statements like: "It was cooler in the past when CO2 was higher" are complicated to explain because of the multitude of variables that contribute to climate. Its simplistic to rule out the impact of CO2 in todays conditions because of this.

>>16697948 (OP)
Forests sequester tons of carbon and cutting them down releases it, it's not just straight emissions that have a role in it. Less trees and other plants capturing carbon and making less oxygen...

Humans are changing the climate, alright. Intentionally.
Look up

>>16697948 (OP)
>Is it making the Earth warmer?
On average mostly sort of yes...
>Is it real?
Yes. A much larger portion than ever before in the past 1000 years of the carbon dioxide that is released in large quantities is traceable to anthropogenic activities.
>Is it the biggest concern?
No. But it is definitely really really really really hard to reverse, and we're really not slowing down.

>>16697963
>reason for the jump
during the moon flights population was 3.7 bn
not it's 8.2 bn
https://www.populationpyramid.net/world/2025/

>>16697963
>reason for the jump
during the moon flights population was 3.7 bn
now it's 8.2 bn
https://www.populationpyramid.net/world/2025/

>>16698245
So... it's man-made?

>kvetching industrialists unsure of whether or not it is more meaningful to save the planet or continue making money
fuck is wrong with rich people. do they plan on buying a new planet to live on?

>>16698164
look up, you don't know whats going on.
look down, you don't know whats going on.
look forward, you don't know whats going on.
look inward, there you are.

>>16698261
Most of them are literal retards and I'm tired of listening to boomers say they're not

>>16698261
They either plan to die before the worst comes, or they want to be so rich that their money more than offsets all negative effects (for them)

>>16697948 (OP)
I do believe most heat island expansion into proximity of the sensors is man made.

RETVRN TO FEEZER.

>>16697952
You played yourself. In the past 50 years they've been crying about the caps melting and sea levels rising and everything falling apart. Non of that happened. Should have been more careful. Your data was shit and now nobody believes or wants to hear you.

>>16698298
shit is happening though, even back in the 60's they predicted it would take over 2 Celsius of warming for the bad effects to really kick in, and we have only emitted enough for like 1.4-ish of warming at this moment

>>16697948 (OP)
I say judge yourself by getting data from all the glaciers and perma-snowed mountain peaks across decades long timespan, sounds empiric enough for me

>>16698298
https://www.sealevels.org
Click and drag in the plot area to zoom in

>>16698298
https://youtu.be/hlVXOC6a3ME

>>16698307
>>16698318
looks empiric enough 2 me 2bh pham

Cat-Lizards have always existed, chud.

Soon...

>>16698261
>making money
It isn't 'making money'. It is continuing the immense growth in prosperity seen since 1800. That was done on the back of the extremely generous ERoI of mineral fuels. Stop thinking there is a coterie of evil suited men conspiring to make the climate rise. The whole of our society depends upon living a life roughly as prosperous as they've been made to expect. I am on your side but the enemy isn't some evil conspiracy. It is the livelihood of every one you see around you.

>>16698316
>>16698318
Ok but why didn't the sea level rise?

>>16698335
Why doesn't the sun rise in the east?

You're all retarded.

>>16698337
It do doe...

>>16698318
well? deniers, your response?

>>16698340
Exactly.

>>16697952
Some follow-up questions are also important:

Is the extra heat going to destroy civilization as we know it?
If yes, is this destruction going to happen within our lifetimes?
Is the heating reversible?
Is it more efficient to counter the heating or its impact?
What compromises must be made for a counter to be successful?
Who has to make the necessary sacrifices?

Despite what the left and right think, it's not a black or white issue.

>>16698099
>literally
So the boiling point of the environment is 26 degrees?

>>16698356
1/3 of the world population (2.7+ bn) currently lives in an area that by 2070 will be as hot as Sahara's hottest parts today.
https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1910114117

Just 10 more years and we're fucked for sure

>>16698373
>BP
What an absolutely stupid timescale lol

>>16698374
Hundreds of papers have debunked Mann's garbage hockey stick. If you fall for thay you're gullible.

>>16698385
Post a single one. Everytime you fags try it the paper is always about local effects and says nothing about global effects.

>>16698318
silence about this, a telling silence

>>16698404
NTA but what's the best argument for why using historical proxies and relationships to smooth or fine-tune the data that goes into the climate models is forward-looking and not just back-tested?

>>16698404
Fuck you. You're gullible as shit if you believe in the hockey stick.

>>16698484
so u b sayin climate change not real?

>>16698488
CAGW is not real, correct. Frankly I don't even think it's possible to measure the earth's temperature in a meaningful way because of how massive the area of the earth is. 200,000,000 square miles and you expect me to believe they can measure a large enough sample size of that without any influence from urban heat islands using technology that has a sufficiently high resolution to measure a 1 degree Celsius temperature rise? Horseshit.

>>16698499
good, watch this >>16698318

>>16698525
Not relevant to CAGW so cool I guess?

>>16698343
>>16698412
>>16698525
Why are you so enamored with this youtube video from 2016? Is there a point to it? Are you trying to drive traffic there to get a few extra youtube bucks? What the dilly yo

>>16698537
not sure what those letters mean nor do I care. what could be causing continental ice to melt?
>>16698541
greta thurnberg is paying me in blowjobs and paper straws. I ask you the same question above

>>16698555
Cool I don't really care if Greenland is melting (it isn't).

>>16698555
>I ask you the same question above
>what could be causing continental ice to melt?
? The video's about sea ice and how many summers it survives so it can get thicker.

>>16698562
so no answer why the ice is melting up north, got it
>>16698569
>0 visual memory
no biggie you hav a bar in the video to go forwards and backwards

>>16698580
Lol I already got a paper straw and an autie bj for you by watching your youtube video once. Not going to watch it again. It's about sea ice and it makes the somewhat hysterical claim that the Beaufort Gyre is now a "graveyard" instead of a "nursery." Tell me your point or don't, up to you.

>>16698580
yeah cause the ice melts in cycles lel, funny that you dont have an answer either lel

>>16698587
lulz, is the ice melting or not?
>>16698590
In cycles that are currently accelerating?

>>16698591
What ice? When? I feel like you didn't even watch your own video or something.

>>16698594
I audibly kek'd good one

>>16698591
And deceleration too?

>>16698598
maybe if you're on meth while watching the video

>>16697952
Co2 does not trap heat. Nothing traps heat.

>>16699653
What do you mean? Is this like a word game where you pretend trap doesn't mean what everyone uses it to mean?

>>16699661
Different materials retain heat differently due to the mass of said material. In a mechanical system a "heat trap" just means a change in material and with heat specifically this is due to change of density. Heat always dissipates at the same rate its just that some materials can store more per unit volume

>>16699677
Molecules of carbon dioxide absorb infrared radiation. They then release that radiation in all directions. This acts as a blanket and keeps some infrared radiation on Earth

>>16699677
What it means here is basically that heat from the ground sometimes gets bounced back to the ground by CO2 in the air.

>>16699685
What range of infrared do they absorb? And what range is emitted by the earth and what percentage? Also doesn't hot always flow to cold and never the opposite, wouldn't this mean the ideal gas law would apply to co2 and due to expansion(when it absorbs more ir) the net heat exchange would be offset?

>>16699716
The absorption range of CO2 is between 4 μm and 17 μm. The Earth’s surface emits infrared radiation largely in the 7–14 μm. Around 30% of this terrestrial IR falls within CO2’s strong absorption band.

Heat overall flows from hot to cold, but this does not prohibit radiative exchange in both directions. Even a cooler atmosphere radiates energy toward the warmer surface.

>>16699693
And somehow magically the heat from the Sun doesn't get bounced back to space by CO2 in the air.
I am so tired of your doomsday cult.

>>16699733
Visible light from the sun passes through the atmosphere. This visible light hits the earth and heats it up. The heat then escapes as infrared radiation. That infrared radiation is what CO2 is acting on. CO2 does not absorb significant amounts of visible light, that’s why it’s a clear gas.

>>16699733
Here's the other side of this coin >>16698115
A post so dumb I'd bet money that it's an alarmist trying to make the anti-alarmist side look retarded. And I'd win well over 50% of the time.

>>16698316
LMAO

>>16699753
No, they really are just that retarded.