Because Science!!!

submitted by Questionable from i.imgur.com

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]Electronic_Antelope 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (11 children)

Sure, it's just (relatively) opaque to infrared, absorbing and re-radiating it in all directions instead of allowing it to be transmitted through and lost.

Ultimately, though, the physical mechanism barely matters. The heat retention capabilities of carbon dioxide were observed as far back as the 1860s - called here "carbonic acid," based on its solution form in water. We know perfectly well it traps heat, we know the proportions in the atmosphere have increased sharply, we know the temperatures have increased sharply; the conclusions are pretty straightforward.

[–]CreditKnifeMan 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

Here's the truth of your "climate change".

[–]CreditKnifeMan 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (9 children)

it's just (relatively) opaque to infrared, absorbing and re-radiating it in all directions instead of allowing it to be transmitted through and lost.

It's not relatively opaque.

As a gas, it has no lattice structure to absorb/emit a range of any spectrum.

Solids and liquids have lattice structures. Their molecules loosely connect to adjecent molecules. These materials can absorb/emit broad EM ranges

Gas molecules can only absorb/emit narrow and discreet bands of light, based on their election orbital shells.

Ultimately, though, the physical mechanism barely matters.

The heat retention capabilities of carbon dioxide were observed as far back as the 1860s - called here "carbonic acid," based on its solution form in water.

Carbonic acid is H2CO3, not CO2.
CO2 in solution is contained within a lattice structure.

Dissolved CO2 is irrelevant.

We know perfectly well it traps heat, we know the proportions in the atmosphere have increased sharply,

Everyone's heard this bogus story on the news and propaganda programming.

The reality is it was 0.0350% and now they say it's 0.0410%.

Note: There's an extra 0 after the 0 in the single digit percentage spot. 0.0X% for both figures.

It's literally 0.0% vs 0.0%. A net increase of zero.

They fool the public by using the parts per million (PPM) number.

410 PPM, which is 0.041%, which is also known as 0.0% It just ain't so.

we know the temperatures have increased sharply;

Based on what? Antarctic/artic ice has been increasing year over year.

The ice cube in the water is growing larger; year over year. Given the hysteria, this should be impossible.
But it's a fact that's never openly debated on the mainstream networks.
Mentioned occasionally.

the conclusions are pretty straightforward.

I was fooled for many years by the "climate science" fraud.
I had to unlearn the bullshit, and it took years to roll it all back. It wasn't easy to accept that I had been duped.

Metrology (weather science) is in the physics dept. It's based on measurement, and observation.
More or less. Some physics is still quite questionable.

They NGO foundations that manipulate the world created "climate science" depts, so they could make up absurd "climate computer models", which have no relationship to actual physical/chemical reality.

It's brainwashing that's pushed starting in grade school, and it simply isn't true.
We were lied to.

The media propaganda is everywhere, but the global warming fraud was rolled back because the temperature wasn't increasing. So they rebranded it "climate change".

In reality CO2 has 0.0% impact on the Earth's climate.

[–]weavilsatemyface 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

As a gas, it has no lattice structure to absorb/emit a range of any spectrum.

What in gods name makes you think that gases need "a lattice structure" to absorb/emit light??? Jeezus Christ on a crutch, you've swallowed the lies something awful, to the point that you don't even believe your own eyes any more. Haven't you noticed that the sky is blue??? Fuck me.

Then there's iodine gas. Mustard gas is yellow. Chlorine gas is greeny-yellow. Bromine gas is orange/brown (amber). Ozone is pale blue. Nitrogen dioxide is brown/red. And that's just in the visible colours -- in infrared, most gases absorb lots of different frequencies.

The infrared absorption spectrum of gases is well known, and accurately enough that physicists were able to discover helium in the sun before it was isolated on earth. Anyone who tries to tell you that absorption spectrums are only known from aqueous solutions is bullshitting you.

The reality is it was 0.0350% and now they say it's 0.0410%. [...] It's literally 0.0% vs 0.0%. A net increase of zero. [...] 410 PPM, which is 0.041%, which is also known as 0.0% It just ain't so.

Dear god, you fail maths bad. Imagine thinking that 410 is "literally" 0.

The mass of the atmosphere is approximately 5 million million million kilograms. So an increase that you call "a net increase of zero" is actually more like 300 million million kg, or 300 billion tonnes.

Antarctic/artic ice has been increasing year over year.

No no no, haven't you gotten the memo? You're not supposed to deny that the ice has been shrinking any more, since that's about as plausible as "the Covid jab will completely stop you from getting Covid", "BLM was all peaceful protests", "the Jan 6 rioters beat Officer Brian Sicknick to death with a fire extinguisher", "trannies are real women" and "Epstein really did kill himself".

It's been years since anyone has seriously pretended to believe that the ice isn't melting. Now you're supposed to argue that its a good thing that the ice is melting, so we can drill for lots more oil and gas in the Arctic. If only we can overthrow the Russian government and install our own puppet of course.

Get your story right. "There's no warming" is so 1990s. Now it's "of course there's warming, but its a good thing!!!"

In reality CO2 has 0.0% impact on the Earth's climate.

Without the CO2 in the atmosphere, the earth's average temperature would be below freezing and, like the moon, would range from well below freezing to well over boiling. This has been known since the 19th century.

CC /u/Electronic_Antelope

[–]CreditKnifeMan 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (4 children)

You haven't debunked my arguments, because you can't.

Each of your arguments are either attacks, or logical fallacies.

What in gods name makes you think that gases need "a lattice structure" to absorb/emit light???

You don't understand the basics.

They want misinformed people like you to parrot the fraud.

Can you explain why they changed "global warming" to "climate change"?

They already admitted the planet wasn't warning.

Some people just don't have what it takes to read the writing on the wall.

[–]weavilsatemyface 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

You don't understand the basics.

So says the person who thinks that gases need "a lattice structure" to absorb light.

Can you explain why they changed "global warming" to "climate change"?

Oh no, people use two different terms for the same thing!!!1!! Obviously it must be a fraud! /s

There is no "they" who changed anything. Climate change has always been the more common term. Both terms are correct, and refer to the same thing.

Imagine being so small that you think that just because there are two terms for something, it must be fraudulent. Wow.

They already admitted the planet wasn't warning.

You can't admit something which is not true. The only people who have "admitted" the planet isn't warming are delusional idiots and lying fucktards shilling for the fossil fuel industry.

Besides, you need to keep up. The narrative is not "no global warming" any more, that's so 1990s. Now you're supposed to say that there is warming but it's good.

[–]CreditKnifeMan 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Oh no, people use two different terms for the same thing!!!1!! Obviously it must be a fraud! /s

They changed the name because the warming halted.

You're not the first bot that I've replied to.

I don't expect a bot to know the difference, but plenty of actual people will know the difference.

[–]weavilsatemyface 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

The term "climate change" has always been more popular than "global warming". Both terms are accurate, and both describe different aspects of the same thing. Global temperatures warm, and the climate changes, duh.

You might as well be inventing a huge conspiracy theory over the fact that what some people call a soda other people call a pop. Wait til you learn about Australia, where they call it a lemonade even if it isn't lemon flavoured.

And warming hasn't halted. Not even close to it. You're simping for the oil companies, to protect their massive profits. You're nothing but a disposable profit centre to them.

[–]CreditKnifeMan 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

The term "climate change" has always been more popular than "global warming".

Wrong again.

They changed it in the mid 00's, because the warming trend stopped.

The warming has stopped.

You're simping for the oil companies, to protect their massive profits. You're nothing but a disposable profit centre to them.

The Climate change believers are the simps.

Fossil fuels don't come from fossils.
It's impossible for plant and animal material to increase it's energy density, after it is allegedly buried.
That violates the laws of thermodynamics.

Fossil fuels scam was created to create perception of artificial scarcity in oil supplies.

It simply isn't true, but the propaganda taken folks like you can't see the forests through the trees.

Pseudoscience has you clueless, and confused.

[–]Electronic_Antelope 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

As a gas, it has no lattice structure to absorb/emit a range of any spectrum.

Blatantly wrong right off the bat, not much point in going further.

(About the conclusion that it therefore can't absorb a range, naturally, not the absence of a lattice.)

[–]CreditKnifeMan 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

Blatantly wrong right off the bat. https://webbook.nist.gov/cgi/cbook.cgi?ID=C124389&Type=IR-SPEC&Index=1#IR-SPEC

The example we're discussing only applies to gases. The misleading evidence you provided is in solution, not in gaseous form. Here's the detail from your own source.

Notice: Except where noted, spectra from this collection were measured on dispersive instruments, often in carefully selected solvents, and hence may differ in detail from measurements on FTIR instruments or in other chemical environments.

So your argument is a fraud.

Find the broad absorbtion info in gaseous CO2.
Spoiler: You won't find it.

not much point in going further (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spectral_line#Line_broadening_and_shift)

If you understood the facts, then you would realize that you're supporting my argument.

This is supporting evidence that the molecular EM absorbing bands of gases are narrow and discreet.

These are generally centered at specific frequency, but have a a tight distribution around that freq.

The measurements of these tight bands is precise enough that they can measure the distribution of atomic Doppler effects, etc.

Your climate change crib notes have failed to debunk the physical facts that I have put forth.