Libtards are really bad at logic. [750x1072 - 120KB]

(post is archived)

You are currently inside a comment thread.

Click here to see all the comments (112).

[–] • 0 pt

No one claims co2 insulates and warms the planet. Don't act smart then say something dumb.

curious you think that is dumb, because that is exactly what they are saying... (well, the "CO2 insulates" bit anyway)

The gas that primarily insulates the planet. The actual greenhouse gas. Is water vapor.

(NASA water vapour accounts for about 50% of the absorption. Clouds 25%. Carbon dioxide 20%)

that is one of several gases that have a greenhouse effect, except that water vapour is self regulating, as soon as you accumulate enough of it it clumps together as a cloud and you get rain. Then the humidity drops

Conversely you can keep adding CO2 gas until we all die of heatstroke, there is a finite limit to the number of trees you could grow to counter this

parent
link

[–] • 0 pt

(edited )

OK stepping back to politeness.

Clearly we have different data sets.

MIT says water vapor is 97% of greenhouse gas. Makes sense because co2 only Makes up. 036% of the atmosphere. 1/120th of water vapor content.

Worse the claims that co2 absorbs heat therefor is a greenhouse gas is bullshit. Co2 is shitty at absorbing heat. Only at a very narrow spectrum. Worse the spectrum co2 absorbs heat overlaps methane and water which are stronger absorbers and much more prevalent meaning co2 actually absorbs very little heat. Which is why methane alone is 84 times Worse of a greenhouse gas than co2.

Potholer on youtube did the best explanation on the role co2 has in climate change hypothesis and its not as an insulator.

On phone so can't post sources but hope that these steers you away from reddit level over simplification of a complex system.

parent
link

[–] • 0 pt

(edited )

Clearly we have different data sets.

this seems to be an ongoing problem, few people understand this at the level required (including me) and what looks like conflicting data is sometimes both concepts being right (like the methane figure of 84, is also 25)

The problem for Poal is that they only listen to the handful of people who oppose this, and not the thousands of scientists who say this is basically irrefutable at this point. Poal's response is always something like "tRuSt thE sCieNcE" and thus the conversation goes nowhere :|

MIT says water vapor is 97% of greenhouse gas. Makes sense because co2 only Makes up. 036% of the atmosphere. 1/120th of water vapor content.

using percentages is misleading. water vapour isn't directly affected by what humans do, the climate is reacting to increasing CO2/methane levels and heat load, therefore water vapour isn't causing an imbalance.

There is a limit to how much water vapour the atmosphere can hold, but CO2 is a non-condensable gas so there is no limit

If CO2 hadn't increased, then water vapour would have remained stable, this is the positive feedback loop

claims that co2 absorbs heat therefore is a greenhouse gas is bullshit.

https://byjus.com/questions/why-does-carbon-dioxide-absorb-infrared-radiation/ "CO2 is a good absorber of infrared radiation ()" "the molecule gives up this extra energy by emitting another infrared photon. Once the extra energy has been removed by the emitted photon, the carbon dioxide molecule stops vibrating."

Water absorbs IR by getting hotter, but doesn't re-emit it like CO2

methane absorbs IR at a higher wavelength (but yes overlapping) to CO2 https://aip.scitation.org/doi/abs/10.1063/1.1746366 Methane accounts for about 20% of the heating effects by all of the greenhouse gases

water vapour persists until it rains Methane persists in the atmosphere 12 years, CO2 persists for 300 to 1,000 years, methane is more important because we need to reduce this right now, but we will be living with CO2 for basically forever

Potholer on youtube did the best explanation on the role CO2 has

If you think a source is valid then you should listen to the rebuttal and then weigh them both up https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uE-zY0roNfw

.

It's interesting how "Conservatives" have arrived at the position of 'not being interested in conserving anything' Personally I blame Trump, if he hadn't mocked the whole thing then his less than intelligent base wouldn't have jumped on board too. None of these people know what is going on, they are opposing something for no other reason than wanting to be in his cult of personality. This isn't really helped by the Left being quite so evangelical and censorial about it either, because my default reaction is always to oppose what they think.

But I remember the summer of 1976, when the tarmac melted into big waves. Likewise 2003 and 2006 were super hot, and today is 30degC (which for the UK is basically unheard of). I haven't seen a snowdrift for like three freaking decades now.

I don't really want to get into 'well what about this graph...', I just wanted to offer what I think are clarifications to your points. I'm old enough to notice that something is really fucked up with the weather these days, and the current overwhelming climate change consensus is good enough for me. I'm sure most people can't afford and don't want to change their lifestyle, but IMO it's more important to do something to help and maybe be wrong, than to follow a dummy like Trump and do absolutely nothing for the sake of his ego and poll numbers.

>Clearly we have different data sets. this seems to be an ongoing problem, few people understand this at the level required (including me) and what looks like conflicting data is sometimes both concepts being right (like the methane figure of 84, is also 25) The problem for Poal is that they only listen to the handful of people who oppose this, and not the thousands of scientists who say this is basically irrefutable at this point. Poal's response is always something like "tRuSt thE sCieNcE" and thus the conversation goes nowhere :| >MIT says water vapor is 97% of greenhouse gas. Makes sense because co2 only Makes up. 036% of the atmosphere. 1/120th of water vapor content. using percentages is misleading. water vapour isn't directly affected by what humans do, the climate is reacting to increasing CO2/methane levels and heat load, therefore water vapour isn't causing an imbalance. There is a limit to how much water vapour the atmosphere can hold, but CO2 is a non-condensable gas so there is no limit If CO2 hadn't increased, then water vapour would have remained stable, this is the positive feedback loop >claims that co2 absorbs heat therefore is a greenhouse gas is bullshit. https://byjus.com/questions/why-does-carbon-dioxide-absorb-infrared-radiation/ "CO2 is a good absorber of infrared radiation (@15um)" "the molecule gives up this extra energy by emitting another infrared photon. Once the extra energy has been removed by the emitted photon, the carbon dioxide molecule stops vibrating." Water absorbs IR by getting hotter, but doesn't re-emit it like CO2 methane absorbs IR at a higher wavelength (but yes overlapping) to CO2 https://aip.scitation.org/doi/abs/10.1063/1.1746366 Methane accounts for about 20% of the heating effects by all of the greenhouse gases water vapour persists until it rains Methane persists in the atmosphere 12 years, CO2 persists for 300 to 1,000 years, methane is more important because we need to reduce this right now, but we will be living with CO2 for basically forever >Potholer on youtube did the best explanation on the role CO2 has If you think a source is valid then you should listen to the rebuttal and then weigh them both up https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uE-zY0roNfw . It's interesting how "Conservatives" have arrived at the position of 'not being interested in conserving anything' Personally I blame Trump, if he hadn't mocked the whole thing then his less than intelligent base wouldn't have jumped on board too. None of these people know what is going on, they are opposing something for no other reason than wanting to be in his cult of personality. This isn't really helped by the Left being quite so evangelical and censorial about it either, because my default reaction is always to oppose what they think. But I remember the summer of 1976, when the tarmac melted into big waves. Likewise 2003 and 2006 were super hot, and today is 30degC (which for the UK is basically unheard of). I haven't seen a snowdrift for like three freaking decades now. I don't really want to get into 'well what about this graph...', I just wanted to offer what I think are clarifications to your points. I'm old enough to notice that something is really fucked up with the weather these days, and the current overwhelming climate change consensus is good enough for me. I'm sure most people can't afford and don't want to change their lifestyle, but IMO it's more important to do something to help and maybe be wrong, than to follow a dummy like Trump and do absolutely nothing for the sake of his ego and poll numbers.

parent
link

[–] • 0 pt

Once again. Co2 is a shitty absorber of heat.

Put it in a test chamber alone and hey you skewed science and can pretend it's a good heat trap. But in the real world atmosphere co2 is a non factor As a heat trap.

I tried to understand the science of co2 but it's really complicated. Calling it a catalyst is a fair pleb description. Co2 increases the likelihood of a cosmic ray being trapped by other gases.

Co2 is also a reducing gas. It is used by many processes and the greater the concentration the greater the usage rate.

Self balancing system comprising many variables ignored by scientisms.

You do understand that we cannot live without co2?

If muh climate change due to co2 hypothesis was founded in science then predictions these last fifty years would of had value. They didnt. Insane to keep making the same guesses then acting as if they will come true.

And climate change alarmism is actually a political program with zero intent and zero means and zero evidence to act to stagnate the global climate.

Meaning your faith in CCA is baseless and religious by nature.

Disagree? Provide peer review evidence that politicians can stagnate global climate by stopping humans producing co2.

So what is the game plan behind CCA? Cause poverty. Check. But not uniformly right? Cause fear. Cause extinction of human societies. Just not uniformly right? Transfer huge wealth to the nongentiles with a cut sent to pet scientisms. Enough to fund another round of alarmism.

My premise is simple. The idea that our climate is fragile is complete fear mongering bullshit. The idea that co2 leads climate changes is bullshit. The idea that a little change in co2 has a big impact on climate is bullshit. The idea of human activity being unnatural is speciest with zero value. Finally the very idea of change being bad is utterly moronic. And now we have massive evidence that the rate of change claimed isn't drastic at all. Meaning should sea levels actually start to rise 100 years after the "fact" we can adjust.

Also note that CCA is hiding real concerns. Islanders are saying that sea levels are drowning islands but the hidden truth is over population and deforestation is causing islands to sink through erosion. (but then islanders would have no one to blame and therefor extort)

So where do you stand on this?

Once again. Co2 is a shitty absorber of heat. Put it in a test chamber alone and hey you skewed science and can pretend it's a good heat trap. But in the real world atmosphere co2 is a non factor As a heat trap. I tried to understand the science of co2 but it's really complicated. Calling it a catalyst is a fair pleb description. Co2 increases the likelihood of a cosmic ray being trapped by other gases. Co2 is also a reducing gas. It is used by many processes and the greater the concentration the greater the usage rate. Self balancing system comprising many variables ignored by scientisms. You do understand that we cannot live without co2? If muh climate change due to co2 hypothesis was founded in science then predictions these last fifty years would of had value. They didnt. Insane to keep making the same guesses then acting as if they will come true. And climate change alarmism is actually a political program with zero intent and zero means and zero evidence to act to stagnate the global climate. Meaning your faith in CCA is baseless and religious by nature. Disagree? Provide peer review evidence that politicians can stagnate global climate by stopping humans producing co2. So what is the game plan behind CCA? Cause poverty. Check. But not uniformly right? Cause fear. Cause extinction of human societies. Just not uniformly right? Transfer huge wealth to the nongentiles with a cut sent to pet scientisms. Enough to fund another round of alarmism. My premise is simple. The idea that our climate is fragile is complete fear mongering bullshit. The idea that co2 leads climate changes is bullshit. The idea that a little change in co2 has a big impact on climate is bullshit. The idea of human activity being unnatural is speciest with zero value. Finally the very idea of change being bad is utterly moronic. And now we have massive evidence that the rate of change claimed isn't drastic at all. Meaning should sea levels actually start to rise 100 years after the "fact" we can adjust. Also note that CCA is hiding real concerns. Islanders are saying that sea levels are drowning islands but the hidden truth is over population and deforestation is causing islands to sink through erosion. (but then islanders would have no one to blame and therefor extort) So where do you stand on this?

parent
link

Load more (1 reply)