Don't ever visit this board, but thought this was the best place to post

Can you please fucking stop? I see you in every other thread with this stupid question.

"faggot" is not homophobic on this site

There's a very good correlation between CO2 in the air and the isotope-ratios in animals who lived in the past. The isotope-ratios reflect the temperature of the water they lived in.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Δ18O

We ARE having an effect on the climate despite the deniers. Anyone who starts "Well, I don't know much about Science, but it seems to me..." is a windbag who's not entitled to an opinion. Not that Reality counts heads before acting. The universe is not a democracy.

If you don't come to Veeky Forums often, you may have been unaware this this is about the LAST place to find informed opinions. Trolls and shitposters delight in mis-informing questioners. Independently check and double-check anything you hear here.

What if rises in temperature cause rises in CO2 ?

A reasonable question. Correlation is not causation.
But humans ARE raising the CO2 level at an unprecedentedly rapid rate, so we ought to be concerned.

Also, as noted, there's a mechanism by which CO2 leads to temperature changes but, SFAIK, no mechanism which works the other way.
In fact, the solubility of gasses in water depends on the temperature. As the oceans warm, dissolved CO2 will be released back into the atmosphere -- raising the concentration there and causing even MORE warming. (Water vapor, also a greenhouse gas, will rise as well.)
This is Positive Feedback. Positive Feedback usually winds up destroying the system.

you're a cool dude, I like you

good shit user

DAHNALD?!

Remember when the People's Republic of China volunteered to stop and reverse industrialization, in the name of the environment? Yeah, me neither.

no one talks about the ozone layer lmfao. what year are you living in? 1990?

all the john olivers in the world jerk off to co2 levels which correlate with ocean temperature more loosely than your mum's cavernous vag

No one talks about the ozone layer because no one needs to. It's been taken care of and the hole is constantly shrinking.

AND IT WASNT UNTIL AFTER THE 70S THAT WE PERMANENTLY LEFT THE RANGE OF AVG OCEAN TEMP THAT WE EXPERIENCED IN THE 1800S

GEE I FUCKING WONDER IF THAT THERE HOLE IN THE ATMOPSHERE DONE HAVE SOMETHING TO DO WITH IT INSTEAD OF THE SHIT PLANTS BREATHE CAUSING PROBLEMS?

The PRC is instituting a carbon trading setup.
scientificamerican.com/article/china-set-to-debut-the-world-rsquo-s-largest-carbon-market/

It has shortcomings but they're not idiots like Trump.

The weather changes will be the least of our worries. The two main issues that we are going to have to deal with are massive infrastructure and real estate destruction leading to mass immigration like nothing we've ever seen. And the food is going to start running out due to arable land loss. These could lead us to the brink of societal collapse.

>Can you please fucking stop?
Can you please stop being homophobic?

>"faggot" is not homophobic on this site
"Faggot" is a homophobic slur.

Hey OP, I took AP Biology, AP Environmental Science, and a college level yearlong Bio course, as well as attending several independent lectures on the subject, so I can enlighten you on the matter since you've yet to reserve a proper reply to the OP. Leaving aside the conspiracy theory about chemtrails and weather control, let's begin.

Carbon dioxide (CO2) is one of the molecules known as greenhouse gases. Another greenhouse gas is methane. These gases are really good at trapping heat.

Normally, carbon dioxide is absorbed by plant matter so that they can convert it into useful products for themselves. But because of worldwide destruction of forests, there's less plants to absorb CO2---and when these forests are burned, CO2 gets released.

When released, the greenhouse gases go up into the atmosphere, where they settle in one of the layers of our air. When this happens, the greenhouse gases can absorb the heat from solar radiation both going past the atmosphere, as well as heat that gets reflected off earth's surface (which would otherwise escape the planet).

As the earth becomes hotter thus, the ice caps at the earth's poles start to melt. This is bad because they are white, and white reflects light, so it doesn't become heat energy---so they are necessary to control the earth's climate. As the ice melts, it becomes water, which raises the height of the oceans---and that is bad for a number of reasons, including disappearance of land.

And so on.

Now, as to humans being the cause of this:

Humans burn forests and destroy habitats which trap CO2. They burn oil and coal, which releases CO2. They raise livestock like cow which release methane from their farts, which is 4 times more powerful at trapping heat than CO2.

That's about it. That's evidence enough.

because international agreements limited the use of the ozone damaging components and as long as we don't throw those agreements out the ozone layer will fix itself.

we'd still be talking about it if we hadn't done that

Can you please stop being a faggot?

>faggot
Why the homophobia?

1. CO2 and many other gases have "greenhouse" properties in that they allow visible light to pass through (hence invisible), but trap and re-emit infrared radiation. This is literally 19th century science, first proposed by Joseph Fourier in 1824, verified and quantified experimentally beyond reasonable doubt by Svante Arrhenius.

2. CO2 in the atmosphere has been rising, and this is a result of fossil fuel combustion (pic related). CO2 can be measured experimentally in the lab, and the stable isotopes of CO2 plunges into the negative values. Fossil fuel has distinct negative isotopic signature compared to natural CO2. This is also an undeniable fact from observation.

3. You add 1+2, you would expect the radiative energy budget of the earth to be out of equilibrium. This is exactly what we observe, based on satellites that measures total energy in vs. energy out by CERES satellite at NASA. earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/EnergyBalance/page6.php On average, only 71% of energy entering the Earth is leaving. 2nd law of thermodynamics and conservation of energy states that when a system had energy imbalance, T must go up.

In short, CO2 causes greenhouse effect. Humans put CO2 into the atmosphere through fossil fuel burning. The earth is now in energy imbalance due to additional CO2, and therefore warming. All basic, high school physics that should be easy to understand

>When this happens, the greenhouse gases can absorb the heat from solar radiation both going past the atmosphere, as well as heat that gets reflected off earth's surface (which would otherwise escape the planet).

That's not correct.

Greenhouse gases absorb thermal radiation (heat from earth), not solar radiation.

You're response seems very educated and insightful. The use of caps lock really helps to solidify yoiur point.

Mongoloid.

>humans are rapidly accelerating the effects of global warming
We aren't rapidly accelerating the effects of global warming, we are causing global warming, which is a rapid increase in global temperatures. We know from chemistry and physics that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. With radiative spectroscopy we can measure the amount of infrared heat being sent towards the surface by CO2, and with isotope analysis we can see how much of the rapid increase in CO2 is being cause by manmade emissions. Once we combine that with our understanding of other processes that effect the global temperature, we see that the radiative forcing from our emissions is actually responsible for all of the warming seen since the industrial revolution, since natural processes actually take more CO2 out of the air then they emit. In other words, without the human contribution, the climate would have been slowly cooling over that period.

The ozone layer has been increasing since the 90s, yet we still have warming.

Not him, but some solar radiation is thermal.

fair enough

but I dont think the average joe (/OP) really wants to know all about black body radiation.

Yeah, hence why the original poster being corrected is bigly pedantic in this case.

>(pic related)
you didn't post a pic brah

My bad man, wouldn't let me post it as someone else already and "duplicate file"

bigly pedantic huh?

what a gay phrase to use.

you dont need to know about black body radiation to know there is a difference between solar and thermal radiation
/
visible+UV vs infrared
high energy vs low energy
solar vs thermal

this is taught in highschool, retard

also in what asshat world do you live where some who corrects someones factually and scientifically incorrect statement is considered "bigly pedantic".

you're fucking retarded.

You only continue to act as a sub-human and your responses are even less relevant to the OP. Shut the fuck up you retard.

Wow, yo ure retarded and angry, an all too common combination. Just leave dipshit.

OP is trolling anyway.... OPs job depends on him no knowing shit, therefore no amount of education will help.

omg team retard/faggot is getting riled up now

oh no oh noooooeessss

Go back to whatever containment board you came from, you don't belong here.

angry?

what can I say... constantly dealing with literal hordes of utterly retarded trendy group faggots takes a toll.

I think your late for your appointment with the doctor that's going to help you feel happier and more like yourself by chopping your dick off.

Hey, I know you don't, but other people watch the thread count. Shut the fuck up and go back to
Seriously, youre just sad.

>We know from chemistry and physics that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. With radiative spectroscopy we can measure the amount of infrared heat being sent towards the surface by CO2

Thems big words. You forgot to mention that CO2's effect on temperature has a logarithmic profile. Its vastly diminished over larger concentrations, so added CO2 has only a small effect.

What is your contribution to this thread?

Just curious.

heh, faggot

I'm an Earth scientist, I have an undergraduate degree specifically in Geology going in to Planetary Geology.

I've taken classes in Earth science specifically
Historical Geology
Meteorology
Climatology
Oceanography
and Astronomy

Which all directly apply to the question. In addition I've taken all the fundamental Geology courses which don't directly apply such as stratigraphy, Earth materials, geological hazards, general geophysics, remote sensing, and so forth.

This is not incorrect (other than what was already posted about blackbody radiation) and a great post.

Further evidence includes the O2 count in the atmosphere which is falling
scrippso2.ucsd.edu

This is vital not because we'll ever run out of O2 but because it's part of the signature showing man's involvement in climate change. O2 falling and CO2 rising is clear evidence that the increased CO2 comes from COMBUSTION and not any other form of natural cause.

Further evidence includes the cooling of the stratosphere. This is impossible unless heat is being TRAPPED in the troposphere (where we live). The sun cannot be responsible for heating the troposphere while cooling the stratosphere because the sun heats up all atmosphere the same (Yes I know everyone, I'm simplifying but it's close enough). You can read more about it here:
pnas.org/content/110/43/17235.full.pdf

For why this happens you can learn about our atmospheric window here:
coolcosmos.ipac.caltech.edu/cosmic_classroom/ir_tutorial/irwindows.html

I made this post
What's was your contribution? I've posted similar information in some other climate threads but I almost never get a response to it.

>but I almost never get a response to it
4channers only respond to posts they think are wrong or that they didn't fully understand itself or the implications of it

>O2 falling and CO2 rising is clear evidence that the increased CO2 comes from COMBUSTION and not any other form of natural cause.
Can you give a brief explanation of O2's involvement here? Fire takes in oxygen?

these:
Surprised that's yours as you also seem to support people chopping their dicks off.

why is this a gif you fucking brainlet?
KYS

Why is this a gif you fucking brainlet?
KYS

I Do t think I made any posts thatg would support that, but I do feel fo r some small group of people it might actually be beneficial to their mental state more than any drugs or combinations of therapy could, I would assume that would be a very, very, small portion of supposed "transgender" individuals. Do understand though that when you make a post that so clearly and seemingly randomly despariages those people, it makes it seem like you're a typical /pol user.

Soooource I don't think that's true
we're not even close to band saturation even if there were diminishing returns on longwave absorption because there's evidence of past climates with far greater concentrations of CO2 and also far higher temperatures and the sun's only been getting warmer over time

I guess I'm the odd one out, I've had some interesting conversations by just ask people to expound upon their points.

...

First line should day "dont" but I'm laying down and have to deal with phone keyboard.

>fo r some small group of people it might actually be beneficial to their mental state more than any drugs or combinations of therapy could

(me again) thread drift here, sorry.

I think its all of the above when it comes to trans people: pure profit motivation. same as any drug cartel, right from the psychologists, educators, psychiatrists, researchers, to the drug companies (all making money). but anyway you seem to agree with it. you'll site some genetic research before considering just leaving kids and their mothers alone.

I dont disagree with pol on everything. however, you seem quite polarized.

...

How so? What about my statement is polarized? As I tried to make clear, though I think some could benefit from such a surgery, I think it would be a very, very, few. I also think that for some people who suffer from bodydysmorphia would be better off to just remove their limb or whatever it is they are hung up on, many more would be left worse off and feeling worse off overall. Is that really all that contrvesial a thought to hold? I think you may be the polarized one, yo ure the reason we are even having this conversation.

would you say more people are becoming trannies than should be the case?

>I think it would be a very, very, few. I also think that for some people who suffer from bodydysmorphia would be better off to just remove their limb or whatever it is they are hung up on, many more would be left worse off and feeling worse off overall.

This sounds like some thing the marketing team at trannies r'us would come up with.

Yes, easily. I've read about how you can sign an "informed consent" paper and get onto a hormonal replacement therapy which I think is disgusting, how many of these people are hurting themselves in the long term?

Are you serious? You think a marketing team would include phrases such as "many would be worse off and feeling worse off overall" in thier pitch to conivce people to take their product?

probably most...

but the supporters have all kinds of science they cite, and the vast majority don't have the time or knowledge to refute their claims.

plus, I think their victims kind of psychologically convince themselves that it was the right move, even if it wasn't just so they can live with themselves.

anyway sorry for drawing you into the pig pen and ruining the thread.

I hope one day the people pushing this are brought to justice. for suicides. etc. although I dont see that, as the doctors pushing lobotomies never saw any justice.

Its alright i suppose, I must say though the idea that it's a scam seems more than a bit far fetched to me. It might be awful but I think that at least parts of it and those directly involved mean to help those that experience persistent and life ruining compulsions and thoughts that they should be the other gender. If it was a scam entirely they'd sell them some drug that knocks them out or makes them super pliable and sell it for 1200 a pill. For some small number they really need help and this might be the best path foir them. I can only imagine how they suffer. I've read some about those theyh tried to use more traditional forms of therapy on and it's a sad story for those people.

Many lobotomies were truly and honestly well intended though and many also lead tok reasonably successful results. The variance in the procedure partially as well as our lack of understanding of the mind lead to barbaric acts that many would be ashamed of afterwards. They gave the man a Nobel prize for a reason and all.

I went to find the numbers at it was 3200 in 2016 in the US

That is close to [math]\frac{1}{10^{5}}[/math]

Of course, most of these operations are probably on the ages of 20-40. The chart i found didn't link to additional information so it may not be accurate. it was from American Society of Plastic Surgeons, but i cant find the data.

They claim only 0.5% of the operations were on the genitals. The majority falling on breast augmentation.

Not exactly a number that arises my suspicion of a bad hipster movement.

By the way, why didn't you guys try to find numbers on it?

its a scam in every sense of the word except that its legal.

the scammers are getting paid (and very well in most cases); they've convinced themselves they're helping people. and most of their victims are convinced that it was the right thing to do (a form of stockholm syndrome or something.)

and if the guy who was giving lobotomies got the nobel prize than the nobel prize is a prize for scammers.

>You forgot to mention that CO2's effect on temperature has a logarithmic profile. Its vastly diminished over larger concentrations, so added CO2 has only a small effect.
A logarithmic effect does not mean small effect. Your argument is nothing but a misleading fallacy. It has the effect of the warming we are currently seeing, which is quite large. This warming is linear because GHG emissions have been increasing exponentially since the industrial revolution.

That's really fucked up that he got the nobel prize. I didnt know that.

Jesus.

I'm fairly sure, typically, a scam implies that there is someone or some group that understand that they are profiting from a lie, at least to some degree.

>As the oceans warm, dissolved CO2 will be released back into the atmosphere
This statement disproves your original statement, brainlet.
>there's a mechanism by which CO2 leads to temperature changes but, SFAIK, no mechanism which works the other way.

>carbon trading setup
Yeah good luck with that, if climate change is real we are all doomed already as we were continuously told by climate scientists that we passed the point of no return years ago. Also you need a better argument then simply
>Trump an idiots and we're not
to prove that CC is real to begin with.

Why the faggotry?

Why the islamophobia?

No. All the scientists are lying. Making things up to steal money from hardworking taxpayers to make funny videos of shrimp running on treadmills.

They are looking to get funding and keep their jobs in most instances. The majority of the 10,000 scientists listed with IPCC were doing random studies like "what is the impact of global warming on squirrel populations". Someone who want to study squirrels would approach their government and receive funding so long as they attempted to show that GW/CC was responsible for "whatever envionmental damage", which in their minds seemed plausible since they aren't climatologists. But, climatology as a science doesn't even exist yet in terms of long term forecasts. The best they can do is a week max, so all this talk about how the climate will look years from now is a joke.

Science is about testifiable predictions.
Let's just wait until 2050. If the earth is not a desert then then we will know that global warming was wrong.

No

this so called climate change is a result of the increased industrialization around the world; all the metal and electricity is causing the monopoles of the earth to expand

trade you by letting the old definition for "gay" be restored

fairy tales is where we got "the sky is falling". At least in the fairy tale chicken little didn't advise spending trillions to keep it from falling

>ozone layer
>not knowing about volcanism

>it has the effect of the warming we are currently seeing, which is quite large.
Begging the question

>This warming is linear because GHG emissions have been increasing exponentially since the industrial revolution.
The concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere has most definitely not gone up exponentially, not since about 1950.
Instead, it is close to linear. You are making the mistake of confusing anthropogenic production of CO2 with change
in Atmospheric CO2 concentration.

>nb4 the whole graph is exponential
Not talking about the whole graph, the major increase in the production of CO2 correlated to the industrial revolution of about 1945. However that graph shows that atmospheric CO2 has increased only at a linear rate since about 1950.

Global warming or global climate change?
On a somewhat related note, I feel like ocean acidification is underrepresented.

>Begging the question
How the fuck is that begging the question? We can see the direct effect, so saying the effect is small because it's logarithmic is just misleading bullshit.

>The concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere has most definitely not gone up exponentially, not since about 1950.
First of all you're ignoring other GHGs. Second, you're still wrong. Your graph clearly shows an exponential curve. The Keeling curve accelerates from 1 ppm/year in 1959 to 2ppm/year. Do you understand how an exponential curve works?

>You are making the mistake of confusing anthropogenic production of CO2 with change in Atmospheric CO2 concentration.
No I'm not. Anthropogenic emissions determine currently the long term trend in atmospheric CO2 because it's the only net source over the long term.

>However that graph shows that atmospheric CO2 has increased only at a linear rate since about 1950.
You're blind.

>Hurr durr it's not exponential because it looks linear
Moron, do you not realize exponential curves approach a linear slope? If CO2 concentration is doubling every 25 years, you get exactly the curve in your pic. And if it's not exponential, how is radiative forcing increasing linearly?