CO2 not only beneficial; low CO2 levels now shown to cause mass extinctions

Welcome newfag. I see that you already are familiar with lurking and putting proper effort into thread starters. You're acclimating quickly. That's good.

As for your topic, check out the embed and look into the subject of regreening. Combine these relatively simple and low upkeep techniques with the things mentioned regarding co2 and who knows we might just have a brighter future in store than expected.

Precisely! The first linked researcher contributed quite a lot of material to Vox Day's books, but one rule that didn't make it into "SJWs always lie" was the concept of 'the 180 rule'. That is, the hardest lies to dispel are those with no shred of truth.

Not only does CO2 have no bearing on global temps, but since high CO2 has a positive effect on global life, the position to sell is 'CO2 is evil'. Nevermind the extreme costs to life in the past.

If you are into this stuff on a more philosophical level, Miles Mathis wrote a bit on revolutions in financial power. That is, the first concentrations of power were agricultural supergiants. They were overturned by industrial supergiants. Now we live in the age digital financial supergiants, and they seem to still be killing off the last of their industrial competitors.

If you look at who funds which mouthpieces, this helps put things in perspective.

Oh and I nearly forgot, Allan Savory's work is also relevant. Turns out nature is incredibly resilient and wants to return to a stable state, all it takes is a little understanding and a nudge.

You want to know why more CO2 is better?
Because CO2 is plant food

The biggest problem with a rapid increase of CO2 concentration is that it is possible to wipe out invertibrete sealife (mollusks) if it breaks the equilibrium too harshly. Most CO2 in the world is stored in the oceans, which makes it more acidic. Shell exoskeletons dissolve if the water gets too acidic, and as a result you are in danger of wiping out an important link in the foodchain.

That's pretty the opposite of what happenned in the P-T extinction event, even if CO2 was only a secondary cause triggered by the primary one.

This looks like a wealth of content.

I was a member of Homesteading group years back; we would send guys out to go study from people with 'pieces of the larger puzzle' to come back and teach the rest of us. This name seems familiar, I do think we sent someone to a seminar by his group on Holistic Lands principles.

I am actually wondering if there would be a market for growing plants in CO2-elevated environments. Seems someone needs to formally do the basic experiments, as for years various shills have said 'plants will acclimate' with time (aka don't worry, everything will stay just the same).

Quite an oversimplification. It's food for more bioproductive species that are usually invasive ones.

Saying that CO2 is good because it feeds primary producers and increase bioproductivity while displacing biodiversity from its natural habitats is like saying that humanitarian aid is good because it allows niggers to multiply and move to White countries.

Hello Holla Forums

Well, please elaborate more, instead of just saying 'no, the opposite is true'. I actually can't even fathom how to make sense of your statement. Forced to try, I end up with:

->You are either saying the CO2 levels were high (they were the lowest in recorded history), or
->You are saying that the CO2 levels were a lagging indicator, as in the extinction happened first, and then the CO2 dropped (in which case I would ask you to explain more)

bump

Of course it's an oversimplification.
If you want to make a point out of it, it would be best advised you not to use an equivalence which simplifies even more.

It's also more food that aids more rapid regeneration of forests after deforestation. I'm no biologist but you already dun goofed if such an invasive species is introduced that a difference in reproductivity with higher CO2 concentration endangers biodiversity as a whole. Once things stabilise the concentration lowers again and the slower species get more breathing room.

So once again the problem would be a too rapid increase of concentration levels, as I illustrated with the mollusks. But I'm no biologists, so what do I know about those interaction.

This. You fuck up exoskeletons which in turn fucks up ecosystems meaning no reefs and large fish, meaning you best get used to eating jellyfish OP.

Not sure how to edit my earlier post, but if you care to read the first paper, the author actually examines the other causes of the Pl. extinction proposed thus far x.x

The Pleistocene Extinction has historically been considered a major unsolved problem in paleobiology.

It's pretty obvious what he meant.
You claim that a low CO2 concentration correlates to mass extinction, he responds with an example of an extinction event with a high CO2 concentration.

That's the good part user.

Good thread, lurk some more.

Though I ain't a biologist, any drastic change in CO2 levels would screw the ecosystem, surely.

My mistake - thought we were talking about the same extinction event.

I didn't claim that low CO2 causes every extinction event, so I don't really know how an extinction event with high ambient CO2 disproves an extinction event caused by low ambient CO2.

Mind you, that the common arsenal of extinction explainers include cosmological collisions, volcanic eruptions, etc. Every potential cause of extinction has a distict fingerprint - this is what you look for when trying to identify a cause. Some extinctions are cut-and-dry - they perfectly match the fingerprint of a known cause.

The Pleistocene extinctions have been a bit of a bugbear, as there seemed to be nothing specific about them. The literally match no fingerprint of any extinction causes proposed to date, thus the 'unsolved problem' of paleobiology. An example of a poor match: the extinctions were not limited by geographical area (as you would expect with volcanism or impacts), nor by any known demographic (as diseases would tend to follow).

However, an extinction caused by disruption of the food chain, itself caused by the stagnation of c3 growth seems to fit the fingerprint quite closely.

Additionally, c4 photosynthesis was newly evolved, but no animals had yet evolved to eat c4 plants. C4 photosynthetic plants largely outcompeted c3 plants, and still do to this day (see: grass invasion, grasslandification, etc. Forests being replaced with grasslands).

[c3 photosynthesis is the most common; nearly every growing thing, algae included, belongs to this group. c4 are poorly represented by number of species, but are very well represented by land area. This site gives a good prep: cropsreview.com/c3-plants.html ]

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permian–Triassic_extinction_event#Methane_hydrate_gasification

leave and never come back

Nice.

And more relevantly:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permian–Triassic_extinction_event#Anoxia

just under the previous one since it seems you would have a hard time reading on your own accord past so many paragraphs

Now, do your fucking homework!

P-T, aka The Great Dying, that made the later extinction of dinosaurs as a minor ecological disturbance, was a complete clusterfuck of successive periods lack and overabundance of CO2 and Oxygen that spiraled down the ecosystem to a dance of macabre until 80 of contemporary species went extinct and the biomass networth was reduced to less than 40% of pre-extinction levels. CO2 or lack of it were not the triggering/original reasons for it but both contributed in fucking things up and perpetuating the situation for tens of millions of years. K-P extinction event that killed off non-avian dinos and shitloads of non-dinosaur megafauna, that was almsot certainly triggered by a meteorite, was more "theatrical" and sudden but had no similar long-standing catastrophic events partially because things started getting better the moment the "nuclear" winter ended with the meteorite being a "reset button" on the ecosystem instead instead of a long tracked counter-effective "attempt" of nature to gradually recover.

Wp good sir. Wp. Now do your own homework.

Both of your cites only reference CO2 as a minor compounding factor at most, and in those days, CO2 was in abundant supply (2k-4k ppm). Some of GW and CC crowd have suggested rampant climate change caused the P-T extinctions, caused in turn by the increase of CO2.

But….. we now know that CO2 isn't a 'greenhouse gas'. Insert meme about 'but muh climate change' here.

You're still missing the point, and I am starting to wonder if it is intentional. I am trying to discuss a new extinction mechanism that hasn't seen the sunlight yet because it shits on the CC narrative. You are talking about extinction events that can be explained with already known mechanisms. You are way off of the mark for this thread.

Please read the cites. I didn't put them in there because I like the way links look.

To reiterate, with simple concepts:
A new extinction mechanism has been identified, one which is basically guaranteed if CO2 levels drop below ~180 ppm. This is the level where 85% of plants by species will die, no exceptions.

Break for sleep.

Fuck off redditor.

anyone that seriously studies ecology knows this

well trolled friend

Oh, for fuck's sake - every form of life in the oceans evolved in water with a much lower pH than man could ever hope to dream to achieve even if we tried.
The pH of the oceans changes more, twice a day, with the tides than man-made CO2 ever will.
Your precious fucking molluscs couldn't give a single shit.

You seem sincere so I wont shit on you too hard here, but you really should lurk until you don't stick out. Don't disturb the hive mind.
You'll understand why the anonymous Holla Forums hive mind does the best work, especially when it comes to digging, as you lurk. Also drop the trip code, ID's are enough.

Anyway, second pic related to topic. Runaway temperatures from CO2 is a meme based off of the soviet probe Venera 4 landing on venus, which of course never happened so atmosphere readings are fake. It is just communist propaganda, much like everything else is the common 'educated' default belief (holocaust, racial tabula rasa, gender pay gap, atheism, etc).

Thermo fag here.
The R value of CO2 is greater than 0'
It traps more heat than nitrogen.
You don't fill your windows with CO2 because nitrogen is cheaper and lets heat in and out for what goes through the glass as infrared.
Glass has a stupid Rvalue though, its really effective at blocking.

Okay now what is important here is getting the whole crux of the issue.
Too many people are chatting without thinking of the real world, they make great science minds but forget something important.
The world is an established system, people built with conditions as they were, not under some ideal uniform system.

This means the real issue is now things will migrate, whether it being a scorching from Sibearian outgassing of permafrost, or the oncoming climactic cooling
earth.nullschool.net/#current/wind/surface/level/orthographic=-66.08,32.75,410

Simply put, the real question is how to move the agricultural sectors from the existing drought areas, and where to put the upcoming megacities.

There is a whole bunch of mumbo jumbo attached to climate science and people today generally don't science at all
Instead of saying CO2 is 400 ppm which only makes any sense maybe if you are in the medical field or did college chemistry, lets equate it to distance to summarize how small it actually is.
If you fly from LA to Newark and the total distance is the whole atmosphere the part of the trip equated to CO2 would be, not quite to the end of the runway tires just barely lifting off.
The whole horse shit on CO2 trapping heat death scenario is also pathetic, the number 1 global "heat trapping gas" is water vapor or in other words 90% of the earths ability to retain heat (otherwise its a icebound frozen ball) is due to water vapor or clouds.
Every user should be able to do this to see who is telling us all this crap.
Look up the course descriptions for climate science at any uni and read them.
You will note out of all of them I looked at only 1 required one semester of calculus that is a serious omission for any science related curriculum. One I found required algebra great all the 9th grade anons on Holla Forums are fit to begin climate science studies. One masters program I looked at had no fucking science course related to it what so ever, yet many courses on the relationship of govt and ngo's and how to get monies for the pursuit of the studies.
THE AVERAGE TEMPERATURE OF THE EARTH
When I look at what they project the heating will be I immediately think what a fucking pile of horse shit
They go on about .1ºC and I immediately think their measurement error exceeds their projections.
Think about it anons how the fuck can you ever establish an average temperature for earth? When on any given day year around there is easily 100ºF differential does that make the average 50ºF?
The thing you have to understand is this whole bull shit is applying to energy usage because all the best sources of energy to use for the common dumbass gives off CO2 when you use them. The best way to heat your house is natural gas (CH4) and when you burn it you get H2O and CO2.
In ontario they will completely do away with heating with natural gas by 2050, because they are "going green".
I predict there will be a lot of cold broke pissed off canadians relying on solar and wind to heat their homes. They are also in the process of outlawing wood stoves in fucking canada to heat your home with.
Good luck ontario you are going to fucking need it

A bit too obvious.

you shouldnt be

hell, i saw tv shows a decade ago talking about how in the distant past, all land on earth was jungle, there were (relatively) giant spiders, and world-spanning forest fires were common

...

Why would you fucking derail the thread with attention whoring?
You're not special and no one cares about you.
Are you a woman, by any chance?
Just fucking open a thread, have a discussion, make quality posts.
THAT'S it.
I'm going to vomit.

Oh jew.

Its called a heat exchanger, you can plop one in your yard and keep your house 55F as a base quite easily.

*discretion, my uncle holds patents on the better designs and sells them.
Does this make me a Jew pointing it out or simply helpful?

don't equate this with the temperature you would experience if you walked outside than indeed it would be nonsense

in short the average temperature of the earth is the trendline most closely following the blackbody radiation curve as measured in space
considering earth isn't even close to a black body the measurement is nebulous, mainly for lack of a better tool
see pic related, not the best picture i coild find but it shows the problem inherent

Well thanks to satellites, you can just do a large scale imaging in the infrared spectrum, grab all the pics, stitch them together, then simply find the points on the sphere and average them.

Rather an easy thing to do.

Why are so many of these questions acting as if satellites don't exist?

Ignore the shills and faggots claiming this isn't political, it's been like this all summer.

Should what you're saying really be much of a surprise though? I'm no botanists, but from what I understand plants need CO2 the same way animals need oxygen–only it looks like they're able to metabolize comparatively higher levels.

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt OP.
Holla Forums is called a board. And each topic is called a thread.
First reply to a thread is almost always an shill and should not be listened to.
People who come in to say something inflammatory and have only (1) post in the thread (which can be seen by hovering your mouse over the ID ) is generally a shill and should be ignored.
Don't use a trip code. People will be able to recognize your posts by the ID assigned to you above each of your posts.

Honestly your OP is not bad. But I would lurk more (at least a month or two) before jumping in with this stuff. Never mention how long you've been here or whatever because people will focus on that. People who claim they have been on Holla Forums for 5 years or before the first exodus or whatever are just as bad.

Welcome to Holla Forums OP. Have a rare pepe.

Right my whole lot is 150' x 50' subtract the house the driveway the garage and I have tiny patch of back yard to "extract heat" from.
This is all based on electricity look up all the people that thought their cost to heat their homes would go down because they switched to the "immensely efficient" heat pump, and throwing out their natural gas furnace.
All they did is trade natural gas cost for electricity cost and ultimately their heating costs rose $100-$300/month.
But ohhh we are so efficient and green

Don't mind the shills. Welcome to Holla Forums. Enjoy your stay.

So your yard is a 2 dimensional entity?
Hey Bill the triangle, ever thought of leaving flatland?

I've oft wondered, is that supposed to be a waxy hard substance, or more of a gel for her feet as it dries?

Get out while you still can

I've always wanted to know what the fuck is going on in this pic.

I've always wanted to know what the fuck is going on in this pic.>>7096063

I didn't imply it was fake, I implied it was a (((communist))) d&c tactic. I don't care what anyone believes, it's just a fact the biggest opponents to the judeo bolshivism have been white christians.
Very small minority that fell for d&c tactics from the christ killers. Just like how Holla Forums salted Holla Forums with the christcuck meme and you fedora tippers fell for the bait, now DEUS VULT posting is at an all time low while Europe is practically done for. Do you guys even want to fucking remove kebab? At this rate we're going to have to take in white refugees from Britain to the US unless we have another holy crusade.

I'm not asking you to take the bread pill, I'm asking you to stop punching to the right. When you attack christians, you are doing the bidding of the jews.

Pretty much since our city prohibits the drilling of wells. And why would I want to spend $15-$20 k to drill a well or install heat pump lines buy the whole system throw out my natural gas furnace which is a +90 then pay out the ass for kilowatts to run the thing? Two years ago we had a bitter winter in mich my home is 2000ft^2 the largest gas bill I had for feb was $160 and I don't sit and freeze I keep it around 74F. Fuck this climate change BS what they are doing is moving everyone to electricity which they will supply and the cost will go through the roof because you will never be able to get off their grid. Your house will be condemned if you don't have approved utilities. URL provided for another green happy heat pump installer.
and this is even in a place where id docent even get really cold

ths.gardenweb.com/discussions/2433815/insane-bill-with-new-heat-pump-system-help-please-setbacks-et

Well okay now see that I can't help with no matter how much I know.

Frankly, I want to know how much these people have something else going on, it seems like they aren't keeping the house insulated or are getting some sort of shitter electric furnace not meant for their scale.

I know that went a differenct relative had to have their home redone because the builder didn't actually fasten the foundations, to the point all the row homes got knocked 4inches to the side during hurricane Sandy, they found out that they also lost natural gas privileges as the hookups were all fucked now.
So they got base board heating and found out it was cheaper.

Perhaps that is the case here?
People being dumbshits and not paying attention to what they should be having in their homes?
I know that is a big issue, busy having to replace most of my utilities at once due to them all being done in a single renovation and having some pretty shitty "my name meant quality, meant" tier builds.

lurk longer

My cousin is a farmer where I grew up he still lives there and is an organic farmer now.
He wants to build a a 40' x 80' tractor shed/shop with a wood shop on one side metal shop on the other the 40' x 40' is the middle 14' ceilings to get a combine into to work on it. He told me I want to use hydronic radiant floor heating and use a heat pump from the well. I told him fuck no and showed him why. We are going with the radiant floor system but I talked him into either a wood or combo wood coal boiler. Wood on his farm is "free" coal is about $20/ton here. So let me figure coal = 20 million btu/ton should be easily enough to heat the shed for a month + KW's to circulate the water so I figure under $40 per month to heat 3200Ft^2 tractor shed so you don't have to lay on cold ass concrete when you are fixing shit. Or use the heat pump and watch the electric meter spin. Climate change is all a fucking scam to get everyone on electricity mark my words young fags you will see it. I won't.

My man, that's why 8ch Holla Forums is better than cuck/pol/.

If there were any such thing as an anti-shill, it's this intelligent newfag. Welcome to Holla Forums.

You're fucking retarded. You're the one that needs to leave.
OP made a great thread with great fucking information and he's watching over it constantly. You're just a fag that shitposts about nothing in an attempt to derail.
Polite sage

REEEEE GET THE FUCK OUT

But otherwise good thread. Enjoy your stay here

A rise in the concentration of CO2 by a few hundred PPM will have significant effects on plant growth.

It won't cause any greenhouse effect, though.

OP you are on the right track here is something to think about.
In my stupid little city the city manager is a total sjw along with 90% of the residents and council etc. He got up one meeting and talked about how something they were doing was going to save X tons of CO2 per year and was green and all kinds of happy horses shit. I like him he is good for the city and great with the finance aspects but knows fuck all about science. So I did some calculations and I figured out that probably the most CO2 the city could generate would be about 20 tons, heating the pool heating a couple buildings street lights police cars etc. Then I did a quick one based on population 2500 residents times 1 kilogram of CO2/day equals a thousand tons of "poison" emitted into our atmosphere. This ratio will work for any city in the world the people will always emit far more CO2 than any city will put out due to city services. Get ready young fags I can't be the only one in the world to figure this out, some time in the future you will be required to pay for your fair share of the carbon tax by breathing. I have a huge amount of PDF's that I have read in regards to this but I can't u/l them here. Maybe I will see if I can find all the places i d/l them from.

Atheism is the key to Marxism. Study more. Atheism weakens a society so that you may conquer it.

Thanks for the tip about trip codes, had to look that one up.

When you refer to Venera 4 not landing on venus, I am curious for more info as ddg/sp aren't pulling up anything on this. There is quite a bit of fakery with the Mars missions too, so this isn't the least bit surprising.

You are touching on the subject of resolution - you can't perceive seasonal variations if the smallest unit you can perceive is the year, for example. There is a huge CO2 seasonal swing, lowest CO2 in summer (when plants are growing) and highest in winter (when growth stops). This is imperceptible on a yearly graph.

Even worse, moving averages act as smoothing filters, making outliers or small variations even harder to spot. One of the ways in which statistics can obfuscate if you use the wrong tools. Guess that is why it is one of Mark Twain's 3 Lies.

Thanks for this lead, was not aware that average earth temp was derived from blackbody radiation. Stephen Crothers et al basically destroyed the concept of blackbody radiation a few years ago - it is another false science.

Relevant link: vixra.org/pdf/1502.0007v1.pdf

Regardless if we are or aren't impacting the climate on a mass scale. Destruction of the environment and pollution in city's is something we have have to be concerned about. Sure Beijing could pump as much greenhouse gas or what have you as it wanted and not kill the mollusks. However it will kill the inhabitants of Beijing in one way or another. It's important that we do maintain clean cities with clean air, and preserve nature for future generations and all that.

It shouldn't be a surprise - just as aerobic life dies when ambient oxygen drops too low, so does plant life when CO2 drops too low. Just for some reason nobody thinks of this.

I am building an archive of these things - common ideas that are easily disproved with some simple math.

To walk you though a common example re: clouds:
->Remember that water vapor is airborne water droplets, not gaseous steam (which isn't necessarily 'hot', btw).
->Water vapor is liquid and therefore visible, steam is gaseous and therefore invisible (or: since you can see the cloud, it is vapor).
->Liquid water is far denser than air (this seems obvious, but is easily forgotten)
->Water weighs about 9 pounds per gallon.

Do some basic math on your next rainstorm, and you will start picturing rainclouds as floating nimitz class supercarriers. To suggest convection as an explanation is almost insulting to the intellect.

Throw them on scribd. I for one would like to see.

I like clean air too, user, but CO2 does not degrade air quality. You're thinking about NOx, which is only created when hydrocarbons are combusted with high peak temperatures. This is why compression ratios have decreased in cars over the last few decades - lower peak compression equals lower peak temperatures, from the ideal gas law.

I'd suggest you look further into NOx - even wiki is sufficient here.

The other smog-contributing pollutant is soot, which is heavier than air (i.e. doesn't permanently alter the atmosphere), and is only produced when hydrocarbons are burned with a very rich fuel-air mixture. On it's own, soot isn't much of an issue, unless NOx.

Don't have time to read the thread but it's unlikely that anybody else will. Search up Buteyko Breathing on why breathing less and increasing CO2 in the body is actually good for you

Now wait a second user
not true water vapor or what your would refer to as relative humidity is "steam" or single water molecules and they combine to form rain
see attached picture fog or steam is when the relative humidity is beyond 100% on the chart or super saturated
no all you have to do is lower the temperature below the dew point or wet bulb temperature and the droplets will form and rain so if you have an extremely humid day and a cold front blows in and lowers the air temp boom you get rain it is the same as having any metal that is below the dew point "sweats" on a hot summer day it means the vapor condenses on the cold metal and forms droplets
and this will show you how to fully read a psych chart it is mainly used for HVAC but it gives all the physical characteristics of water vapor in free air

I was afraid of that, I did my best not to text wall.

Thanks for the good link by the way. This plays into the 180 rule discussed earlier in the thread - any official narrative on CO2 must be 180 degrees opposed to any truth.

1) you can say fuck here and nigger, spic, chink shitskin, cunt, cuck….. and you will be called out as a newfag if you don't
2) you don't have to fill in all the fields when you post, you can leave your name spot empty email empty subject empty unless your starting a thread. and you will be called a tripfag if you don't and you will be asked to leave.
3) sage goes in the email field

4) LURK MORE NEWFAG

Sorry I didn't paste the PDF for

swst.org/meetings/AM05/peralta.pdf

The crux of this is actually the definition of 'water vapor', which some people use to refer to gaseous water. I am not surprised that HVAC guys use the term 'water vapor' to refer to cold steam, but the 'formal definition' (i.e. the one used in publications, etc) is suspended liquid water droplets.

You have to be careful with this stuff, where words have different meanings based on who is using the word.

Thanks for the pdf, btw! Another one for the library.

I understand what you mean, I just get tired of this dogma of either delusional green faggotry or all evils in the name of profit.

Forgot to mention, 'rain' here as would be measured by any rain gauge. I can't imagine the dew point being more than a 5th order effect of the total overall rainfall in a storm, but I am speculating.

Cool fact increasing solar activity will eventually lead to faster CO2 fixing than is naturally produced, thus killing all plants, and all animals.

Again, this is Holla Forums.

Taking the redpill on science research (that a lot of it is fake) is tough. I got started by digging through nutrition research and finding out how much was fake and sponsored by big agriculture companies.

Water vapor, water vapour or aqueous vapor, is the gaseous phase of water. It is one state of water within the hydrosphere. Water vapor can be produced from the evaporation or boiling of liquid water or from the sublimation of ice.
Unlike other forms of water, water vapor is invisible.
There is only one definition of water vapor
Steam or fog is super saturated in the atmosphere steam coming out of a tea kettle "disappears" as soon as it drops below saturation

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_vapor

Environmental effects of increased atmospheric carbon dioxide

int-res.com/articles/cr/13/c013p149.pdf

Falsification Of
The Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects Within The Frame Of Physics

arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0707/0707.1161v4.pdf

...

Summary of the Falsification…

tech-know-group.com/papers/Falsification_of_the_Atmospheric_CO2_Greenhouse_Effects.pdf

Guide to Carbon Trading Crime

interpol.int/content/download/20122/181158/version/3/file/Guide to Carbon Trading Crime.pdf

4chan has been under siege by shills for a long time now
it's basically unusable at this point, a lot of Holla Forums users came from there in the great exodus after Holla Forums harbor

tundra and methane deposits under the sea are a bigger problem

don't be a fucking cuck of the oil and natural gas industry; hitler and natsoc principles value environmental stewardship

Agreed. My entry was simultaneously through evolution/creation and digging deeper into the American tax system. Priceless though, as the one thing a college can't teach you is how to think for yourself.

Well, part of the problem with wikipedia is it creates the illusion of solidarity in cases where there is none. I may be wrong on this issue though, so thanks for pointing this out. Related link: av8n.com/physics/vapor.htm

Good pub, thanks. Going to be using the terminology 'climate forcing scenarios' to refer to AGW/CC simulations going forward.

Wow, your are quite researched in this! The carbon tax/trade rabbit hole runs deep. At the deepest levels, it intertwines with other 'organized' crime. Added to the archive as well.

Same thing happened to Reddit, which is why many of us left for Voat. The assault really is on all fronts, not just gaming or IT companies. Even my favorite scripting language (python) has been cucked by the SJW crowd.

Hey Redditor. Just dropping in here to say that if you want to spend any amount of time here, you better be okay with rounding up all non-whites abd exterminating them - especially kikes

I've noted earlier in this thread that the main products of combustion themselves are beneficial, though certain conditions cause polluting byproducts. There are always caveats, combustion is no different. The wise will do research and forge their own conclusions. I would hope this is evident from the material I have posted thus far x.x

Bullshit.

Heightened levels of CO2, found in the more polluted cities, correspond with a greater incidence of headaches in humans.

Instead, what we need on Earth is higher percentages of oxygen in the atmosphere, in conjunction with carbon capture.
You idiots that dismiss environmental destruction are being played by the very socio-economic forces that you purportedly wish to expose.

user from your link
Dont fucking quibble over stupid shit water vapor is a single molecule

Also there is a filter option for the niggers.

That is fucking total crap
It should be CARBON MONOXIDE… CO NOT CO2

if you're not a scientist who's knowledgeable in this field, you really should not force your opinion or belittle others

essentially all you're doing is parroting others, talking about their research, without even fully understanding the underlying science, yet still trying to convince everyone else using the layman's terms that you are correct

What we really need is less niggers. Genocide a few billion niggers, chinks, and pajeets, and our environmental problems would be solved almost immediately.

this is the blackpill

developed western countries are responsible for the most solid waste though. also africans consume less resources per capita than europeans or americans.

Nope. Kill them all. There’s only room on this planet for one species.

*sub-species

after reading through this thread, all i can say is, go back to reddit OP and take your shitposts with you

Ahh, a challenger approaches. Prepare your asshole - your first post is so incredibly bereft of any logic that you probably won't be able to keep up.

What a shining example of human intelligence. /s
-> The primary implication is false (that scientists who are knowledgeable can force their opinions)
-> This statement expressly misleads by referring to our discourse on facts (sometimes called dialectic) as 'forcing of opinion' (which is frequently called debate)

->"I don't understand it, so you must not understand it either." Climate science is basic shit - I counter that you are projecting your lack of understanding on others. Unless you are a complete moron, even you could understand 'climate science' with a modicum of effort.
->Additionally, to disprove this statement, I would merely need to be knowledgeable about climate science. There should be plenty of evidence in this thread, but even without, this statement is baseless, and therefore, illogical. (If you need a primer on logic, then just fuck off - you're too far behind.)
->Ironically, you've described the entire publish-or-perish environment quite aptly. All producers, no consumers.

GTFO.

Thanks my sentiments exactly

OP your first post went much better than mine did, but I did better on my second.
If you want to look at a good blog on climate fraud that i have read occasionally for a number of years now go here

realclimatescience.com

PS he is just a little bit older than I am

Completely different species.

Simply not facilitating/ encouraging their population booms would be a good start.

Foreign aid with the exception of disaster relief is insanity. The people who donate to “save the children” etc. are going to be directly to blame for the incoming resource wars.

I question that climate denial is necessarily career suicide: One of your sources the GWPF is a four man organisation that collects half a million pounds in annual revenue from energy concerns to fund PR work and is registered as a charity to avoid taxes while the other, Forrest Bishop is a political philosopher.

I don't think anybody you've mentioned has to worry at all about their careers in research science.

here's a booty so this thread isn't a total waste.

Hey trolls, the Earth is getting greener thanks to us. Got a problem with that?

Venus is largely ignored by skeptical eyes for some reason, I suppose because the moon landing and mars missions are a lot more fun to try to disprove, and a lot more interesting simply because of the visibility of those missions as they are promoted so heavily to us. The soviet Venera missions are much less well known, most people have never heard of them, and it is pretty difficult to find information and pictures about them like you said. So if you want to know about them you have to do original research, there is nothing I can link you to that I have found that really lays out how it is a hoax.

I can however give you a tiny piece of my own research and you can come to your own conclusion. Video related is a view of the sun about a year ago from the SOHO (Solar and Heliospheric Observatory) satellite taken with it's LASCO C3 digital camera, which is a visible spectrum camera (after filters). You can read more of the specifics on the camera and telescope of the coronagraph here: archive.is/czay

In the video you can see Venus come into view for a couple days on its closest position to us (darkest phase, pics related), it is a fairly uncommon view to get. You can also see Mercury on the left come into frame. The white horizontal lines on both Mercury and Venus are a result of over saturation of the digital cameras sensors due to the intense brightness.

So the dark side of Venus is brighter than the illuminated side of Mercury, which leads me to ask where that light is coming from. The traditional answer is Venus has a high albedo due to the CO2. I don't think that answer is sufficient when the only sources of light on the dark side of Venus are the rest of the stars, which as you can see are not bright enough in the background to saturate sensors, as obviously that would cause problems with the camera's purpose of viewing the corona discharges.

You can also see there is a spire-like jet coming out the top of Venus that is pointing an the sun which can not be explained as an optical phenomena in the camera or some sort of atmospheric effect. The jet turns slightly to follow the direction the sun is relative to Venus's position. It also seems to pulse brighter a little over halfway through the clip. Seems Venus provides its own light and energetic discharge, but I understand that is a phenomenal departure from what our fourth grade science textbook said and most won't take a claim like that seriously.

This type of thread put forth by this type of newfriend is why Holla Forums is right so often.

NEWFRIENDS LIKE THIS ARE THE FUTURE OF Holla Forums

How?

It doesn’t. He’s a fucking electric universe “didn’t land on the moon” retard.

I knew that it has lead to improved plant growth already visible from satellite, and that those satellites have also shown a really cool time-lapse of a yearly cycle of the vegetation expanding and contracting with the seasons, almost like the planet is breathing.

I hadn't thought about improvements to growth speed and farming though, that's interesting.

What worries me is how most people are forgetting what it's all about, that global warming being real or not isn't the end game.
Let me tell you of a time some of you youngfags may not have known in your country.

When I was young, I played in the woods, I bathed in rivers, I ran through fields after rabbits, I ate fruits right from the trees, I breathed fucking pure air. Now woods have almost all been razed, rivers are polluted and filled with trash, running through fields kills my eyes and nose because of all the fucking dangerous pesticides, and there's no rabbits because they've almost been exterminated, it's dangerous to eat fruits of trees because they're sprayed with pesticides too and are meant to be chemically cleaned before they're edible, and I can't fucking breath clean air anymore. If you're wondering which country I'm talking about, it's France, one of those that protects its lands the most, and still fails. This is the same thing in most European countries aside from northern ones, and even worse in eastern Asia, south America, large parts of Africa… And that's just the big picture.

Nobody gives a shit about global warming, it's only one of the many reasons pointed at to say "pollution is bad", which remains unchanged. Whether some people are deliberately profiting for either is beyond the point, either it'll be an excuse to pollute some more, or an excuse to take your own right to pollute a company can do it and charge you. Me, I just want to dive in a river without thinking twice, I want to grow my own vegetables without having to buy seeds every year, I want to drink water from rivers and not have to buy it bottled, I want to raise my own cattle without having to subject to a thousand regulations aiming to destroy small farms, I want my nature back, I want my autonomy, and THAT is the end game: stealing it all so we depend not on nature but industry.

Stop caring about global warming so fucking much, and start wondering why you can't live like your ancestors did anymore.

Does the 'how' matter before we've finished talking about the direct observation? You should be asking 'how is the dark side not dark' rather than 'explain a mechanism for what you think you're observing or else you didn't observe it' (which I know you didn't directly say, but could be implied).

Would you like to make an argument about the evidence I posted, or is poisoning the well all you're interested in, yid?

Fuck you, you had a good idea but because you called this a sub and not a board you need to get the fuck out
REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

CO2 can also be considered a scarce resource.

Most photosythesis, especially in tropical, subtropical and temperate zones, occurs in the morning while temps hover around the 86F ideal but there is usually less wind in the morning than at night. Photosynthesis shuts down in the hot and windy afternoon as stomata close to conserve water. In the middle of a field, CO2 can be practically depleted by 10AM if there isn't a strong enough wind to keep things stirred up.

More CO2 reduces the amount of wind needed and extends growing times.

One of the farm magazines I never subscribed to but gets sent to me anyway as been teasing a new sorghum variety with dense ultra-long root hairs (more surface area to extract water from soil) that, when planted in the tropics could yield 8 harvests a year on a single planting. Grain sorghum heads grow back after cutting. We're talking the potential for 800 bu/ac annually. We could replace worldwide grain production, or double it, by doing this to less than 10% of the Amazon basin.

Yeah, you're full of shit. You anti-monsanto fags don't know shit about pesticides. Hell, glyphosate was the safest herbicide in the world when it was invented, with a half life of less than a week in soil and less than a day when exposed to sun. To get an inbred lab rat to get cancer from it, you have to feed it pretty much exclusively glyphosate for weeks on end. Glyphosate is last sprayed before the crop itself even begins to form.

RoundUp and RR-GMO's are a fucking godsend that erased and prevented more pollution than your mind can comprehend.

You can doubt that point as much as you want, I still witness it myself. Oh you won't get cancer, just be sick for a while, possibly an allergic reaction, but that's still "not edible" in my book.

Still, I guess we should just forfeit nature to industry, right? Sure, pesticides help to some extent, and GMOs make growing organic food much easier, but there are lines that shouldn't be crossed, and they've all been crossed, and then some more I didn't even know had been traced.

There's nothing positive about it all aside from entertaining the retarded idea that our planet can feed so many fucking people.

...

Nice find from SOHO! "So the dark side of Venus is brighter than the illuminated side of Mercury, which leads me to ask where that light is coming from."

Is the LASCO camera only visible light or does it run down into IR? Venus is just as hot on the night side as on the day side. Supposedly it doesn't cool off at night, even though the night is 1/2 of 243 =~ 121 earth days long because Venus rotates so slowly.

Reported for hoax.

No you need to GTFO. You misspelleded
REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE.
It's spelled
REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE.

Wew lad, lurk until you at least know how we talk. Learn to assimilate before you make another post.

Lurk for at least 4 months. Also you're a cum guzzling faggot for censoring yourself.

Welcome to Holla Forums. Please leave all cuck tendencies at the door. Related boards are /k/ and /fit/ don't be autistic, unless you're Australian, on those other boards, and respect their culture and always remember it was the Jews.

Is that right? Did you read the OP paper scribd.com/document/319906948/The-Solution-to-the-Ice-Age-Extinctions

It's talking about the same thing on page 7: "a C3 plant in a field of C4 grasses is going to be relatively starved of CO2 because of the local "vacuum-cleaner nozzle" effect. That effect becomes more pronounced at lower concentration levels and instill or slowly-moving air near the ground. Imagine a huge expanse of C4 grassland with one C3 plant in the middle of it, with CO2 at 180 ppm. As air slowly moves across the plain, the C4 grass is vacuuming the CO2 out of it, even down to 20 ppm locally. As long as that air isn’t mixing too much with the air overhead, the CO2 concentration will fall with the reach, the distance the air ravels."

That sounded flaky at first.

Oh, and if you want to stay here you must always remember the little known horrors of the holocaust committed by Aryan monsters such as yourself. Holocaust™ denial is strictly forbidden in this board and only Kosher politics are discussed here. Have fun goy-I mean guy. Don't forget to donate to Israel.

Welcome to Holla Forums.

Thanks for the interesting OP.

...

Remember; if the global climate warms, cools or stays exactly the same it is all irrefutable proof of man-made climate change.

So keep paying your carbon taxes, goyim.

Another thing that always chaps my ass is the constant reference to petroleum as fossil fuels.
Watch bernie climate change is our greatest danger clamor on about the danger of fossil fuels.
Think on this they drill for oil and recover it from 40,000 feet down that is 7.5 miles do you really think dinosaurs degraded into petroleum at that depth and the earth gained that much extra mass due to comets and meteors?
Based russian scientists

Oil Is NOT A Fossil Fuel - It Is Abiotic

rense.com/general67/oils.htm

And please ignore those vulcanoes shitting all over your paper bags and special light bulbs.

And even aside from that, Big Oil buys up all the patents for alternative energy, so what's even the fucking point of crying about fossile fuel. Take it up with Big Oil instead of bullying tax payers for more free money.

Misogynist. LGBT grrrls did it all.

I will repeat myself.
The global warming hoax is geared to 2 things forcing a global carbon tax on everyone. Pushing everyone into electricity that only the overlords can supply. The worst thing you can do with electricity is turn it into heat. Here is a couple pics one for OP for determining how you can forecast fuel burned vs CO2 generated and the relative enthalpy of various fuels so you can compare apples and apples

Sorry wrong picture double post

So old man Coal is totally the best fuel for enriching the biosphere and greening the earth. Twice as good as Nat Gas. Fortunately for the US, we have huge coal deposits, enough to supply all the electricity and transportation needs for several centuries. So Proposition for tax credits for putting a coal burning power plant in your back yard. Extra credits for putting it in an SJW's backyard.

Save the Planet! Coal Now!

Everytime

That is ionic particle exchange bridge between the heavenly bodies. Planets are negatively charged, and the Sun spews continously charged particles, acting as an anode.

All planets (and the sun) have electric charge and interact continuously. When these charged bodies come close enough together they will exchange so vigoursly that you get the characteristic impact craters. Impact craters are NOT from physical bodies crashing into the planet, if that were the case you would only rarely find circular craters indicating an othogonal impact. Which is ridiculous to expect to happen in such collisions involving such big gravitational bodies. Electrical bolts do create these circular impact craters, and if major lightning hits it scars the planet with the appearence of riverbeds. This is what you can see with the scars on Mars for instance.

It's a hard pill to swallow with the fraud that is modern science. There is so much bullshit out there. Pretty much everything you've been taught in your life and can't verify for yourself is false.

Same way Aurora Borealis works.

Welcome, friend

Every fucking time

LASCO C3's camera is white light visible spectrum, the reason it is a blue image is because the optics have a lot of filters. Regardless of that, it isn't picking up anything in the infrared range, which if it did the corona would wash out the image with its supposed 1-3 million kelvin temperatures. So if we decide we to explain away bright Venus that way, we have to concede the sun's corona is cooler than Venus in some areas.

You all say that. I have not altered the images from LASCO C3 in any way, check for your self.
sohowww.nascom.nasa.gov//data/REPROCESSING/Completed/2015/c3/20150816/20150816_1442_c3_1024.jpg

sohodata.nascom.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/data_query Just punch in 2015-08-13 to 2015-08-20 for LASCO C3 at 1024 resolution.

You used google translate, didn't you?

Is the LASCO camera only visible light or does it run down into IR?

Ok, thanks. That seems to check out. So if the night side of Venus is this bright from the SOHO orbit, then why isn't it this bright from Earth orbit?

I swear Stefan Molyneux is going to get to the point where he will have talked about everything. Kind of like the "Simpsons did it" meme

was it not increased CO2 levels from active volcanos that warmed up the planet from multiple Ice Ages?

The SOHO orbit and Earth orbit are synchronized, as it sits at the Lagrange point between us and the sun at all times. I don't have any pictures of Venus from the ground here on Earth on or around 2015-08-15, so I won't make any claims as to what it looked like during that time. I will say that Venus can be seen in broad daylight if you know where to look. You can confirm this yourself if you download Stellarium and look up where you should see it from your location. Depending on that day's atmospheric conditions in your area the seeing might not be so great and you may need binoculars to be able to see Venus, but I've never needed anything other than my crappy binoculars (I don't own a telescope). This does actually match what is seen in the video though, Venus being brighter than the background stars as I can't see stars in broad daylight but I can see Venus, albeit just.

Henry Corp is that you?

Not stopping to check for planet postilions. Are you saying that Venus is that freakin bright even on it nightside? All the picture we've ever seen show a crescent, like the moon. Yes, it's believable that Venus would be visible in the Earth daytime when it has some of its sunlit face showing, but this business about the night side being that bright is new stuff.

All the pictures except for the ones from SOHO. There is no sign of any crescent in those and that's the point. As for if we can see it during the day when we should be seeing its darkened side, I can only tell you I did see it during the day through my binos during it's crescent phases last year. The problem is when it gets too close to the sun (perspectively) you can't see without equipment to block out the sun as it gets closer to its darkest phase. But even if I had a picture of it being bright during its dark phase you could just say it was not taken during that time. You'll have to see it live with your own eyes if you want to know what it looks like for yourself. I can just show you the SOHO photos and it's locations at those dates.

Right now Venus is on the opposite side of the sun, you'll have to wait 7 1/2 months to see it close to us again. In the mean time, I went through SOHO's archives to see if I could get you a better look at Venus being bright when it should be dark. Here is another video I just rendered of Venus on our side of the sun, you can see everything as before in the other video, including the spire/jet in the last 5 seconds. I'll give you an image of Venus on the far side as well so you can compare the brightness between phases. There is also a comet in the middle lower left field, it saturated the pixels slightly.

This.

Pollution is bad, let's just focus on that and ignore the global warming debate, to which both outcomes are negative towards nature anyway, both "measures to protect it" until they take our freedom to grow tomatoes, and "let's burn kerosene just for the sake of it" and come one day we'll have to explain to our kids the sky used to be blue.

Wow. Nice Find! Thanks!!! This 'bright nightside Venus' is truly a stumper.

I didn't finish the thought- we see a lit crescent around a dark nightside area when Venus is near conjunction. We don't see a bright nightside from Earth. (?) SOHO isn't that much closer in, so why is it showing so bright? But stars are also showing up along with all that space debris, also the corona itself, which isn't all that luminous. So ISO is high and aperture open wide, right? (Briefly tried to scrounge up LASCO specs, no luck.) So "bright" is relative to the light levels of the other objects in the view.

But it's still "bright" where it shouldn't be bright. What causes it? Maybe lightning? There's lightning going off all the time all over the Earth, and maybe Venus too, iirc. But on Venus the high-altitude cloud cover would act as a diffuser, spreading the light out across the whole disk. Just a thought.

The spikes are most awesome too! There's one at the beginning as well as the big double-spike at the end of this clip. Both point right at the sun. The timing of the big spike flare up, a few hours after the double CME, suggests.

Add. The brightness of the disk itself also increases quite a lot when the spikes are going off. If it's lightning in the upper atmosphere, and lightning is a discharge, an arc-over, in the same electric circuit connecting the planet to the sun as the aurora are, then the spikes are part of that same CME 'overload' discharge. Pardon the momentary blasphemy, we all know it's caused by gravity and magnets.

Wow, Holla Forums, you guys are really on the ball! (Jk, sarcasm is for cunts).

I hope you enjoy the Sixth Great Mass Extinction, because you're in it!

NIBIRU
NIBIRU
NIBIRU

fuck off, schlomo.
go back to tel aviv.

Humans are natures way to release co2 back into the atmosphere.

I'm sorry, but you're terminal.

Fuckin' hell plebbit fag, at least learn how to word-trip.

Any 8channer worth his weight in salt has a long library of 10-letter word trips pre-generated.

interesting that you chose wretchedly instead of homosexual

if you weren't such a NEWFAG you'd know:
a) that trip is impossible, and
b) KEK GRANTS AS HE WILLS!

Are your posts archived somewhere that I can see them? Always looking to expand my library.

It isn't, necessarily. Generally, the only thing that can 'enable' a maverick is independence of money. This can be 'striking it rich' (e.g. Peter Thiel), finding a private interest willing to fund you (usually through a 501(c)(3), which shields the funder), or self employment. The two sources I referenced embody the latter 2 of these.

For the rest of us, someone else dictates our paychecks, and there is that ever-looming HR dept. looking for any excuse to prove that their company is 'socially responsible'.

Also keep in mind that these 'freedom of thought' enabling techniques work both ways. Most of the cuckoldry in our life was outright taboo at one time - at one point, it would be considered suicidal to claim the health benefits of being fat/flouridated water/etc.

It does seem to be a little bit of a secret. From what I can tell, it's common in indoor growhouses - they use a 'CO2 Generator' (read: large propane burner) to significantly increase crop yield. Rumored to be yet-another innovation originating from pot growhouses.
Related link:growwurks.com/grow-room-co2-generators.aspx

I envy you. Seriously.

This is very much a case of 'boiling the frog slowly' - I grew up in this, and it is 'normal' to me. If I didn't spend so much reading of what things were like, I may not even know - it is actually very easy to assume 'things were always this way', and I see this a lot in my generation.

Please do post more 'wisdom bites'.

anyone?
CO2 did rise the Global temperature in this case right?

If global warming/climate change is false, please explain greenhouse gas effect.

This sounds like the 'vacuum nozzle' effect from the first paper in the OP, was curious if anyone could confirm IRL. Thanks for the confirm.

Please feel free to redpill on Glyphosate/DDT or whatever else. I was under the opinion that they actually were shown to cause serious harm, Glyphosate to the intestinal tract, and DDT to chronic effects and birth defects/miscarraiges.

My friend, you are just scratching the surface - they were far ahead of their time. The deepest well ever drilled is Russian (at over 12 miles deep, far beyond what any conventional rotary drill can manage), and they even invented a new kind of thermal drilling technology to get at these 'unknown' oil reserves at extreme depths.

I once had a translation of the original Russian publications (from like the mid 70's), but can't seem to find them. This is the Los Alamos Lab version: geothermal-energy.org/pdf/IGAstandard/WGC/1995/2-GoffS.pdf
This goes over the methods we now know of, and includes images of the Los Alamos version: maurerengineering.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/NOVEL-DRILLING-TECHNIQUES-PP-07.pdf

The Russian oil well depth record still has not been broken, btw.

...

If this faggot was from reddit he would not like us. If he was from r/donald or whatever, he'd have been here months ago, when 8/pol/ went to shit.

Mind you, the conversion of electricity to heat is perfectly efficient from a thermodynamics standpoint (given that the loss mechanism is heat itself).

I would clarify that the worst thing would be to burn fuels to generate electricity, which is then turned back into heat. Fuels are very energy dense, but because of terrible process efficiencies when converted from heat -> mechanical force -> electrical energy batteries are becoming competitive.

I fully agree with your first point, but would like to explore this point a bit with you. For many (most) of us, it seems to be easier to break the electrical dependency than to break the oil dependency. For example, there is no oil-based analogue to the solar panel or windmill (which can be installed nearly anywhere, unlike an oil well). There does appear to be a mass 'corralling' towards electric, but I am not sure of the motives.

Very curious what your thoughts are on this.

Reminds me of Hannes Alfen's work, using terrellas. He actually claimed to have recreated the aurora in a box. Naturally, astronomers of the day shit themselves in response.

You're putting the cart before the horse. The 'greenhouse gas effect' is what is really false, and AGW/CC crumbles as a result.

There is a wealth of info earlier in this thread regarding the 'greenhouse gas effect', should you happen to look.

(water is the greenhouse gas, carbon is plant food)(correct)
(separately: earth temperature isn't orbit observable)
(wait, earth temp is orbit observable)
(nope, the equation is invalid)
vixra.org/pdf/1502.0007v1.pdf

the importance of the Robitaille et al 2015 paper revisiting heat-to-radiation radiation-to-heat theory is single-highhandedly the most important thing in this thread.

–
i agree with this paper. i did not know this, i never thought about it, i always presumed it was correct as taught to me (extensive physics learning oldfag), but now being asked to question it, i agree: black-body radiation cannot determine heat in nature (nature meaning universal size, e.g. planets). black-body equations at best model for all single-atom-element lab environments only. so they can model gases, but only small volumes. that is, heat of the earth cannot be determined from space: the earth is not surfaceless, nor volumeless / massless, nor universal (far from each). i never stopped to think about this assumption. so much is built upon it, that i have my doubts people will understand the magnitude of this.

stated another way, we cannot send satellites out into space, have them observe earth radiation, and derive earth's surface temperature. but this is the exact methodology is shared by vast sections of science.

at best, what satellites are observing is effectively left-over noise (which is mostly observing remainder-sun-reflection, and still can't tell us anything about earth surface heat). the actual signal from surface-heat is much smaller than all-noise, and would be characteristic/depdenent on the rock/ice/color/plants/water-depth/etc. in addition, without also observing incidence before reflection, we have no idea what's being absorbed at each point (e.g. cancel out the radiation difference retained into the body, much less the body's heat). and since we discard the surface, mass, and properties at each point of observed emission, even if we did (1) measure incidence-return radiation difference and (2) could magically see the much smaller self-signal, we couldn't conclude universal body-temperature nor surface-temperature nor atmospheric temperature.

universality is simply not present. there is no black-body in practice. everything has surface and mass and intrinsic properties, there is no black. yet a large portion of imposed science foundation conclusions rely on this discard-the-units planckiness.

so with regards to the earth, global temperature assertions would have to be done completely differently. effectively, the only practical radiation observation change of temperature change must be from just that same point of observation, and would still be largely conjecture. that is, the temperature change at the north pole will give off some measure of differential radiation – but unique to the north pole only, not the south pole, not the amazon, not the sahara, not paris, etc. not even 5ft away from the north pole, if the characteristics chage, and still wouldn't be anything more than fuzzy. universality is simply not present. thus earth radiation observed and earth surface heat are in practice not related.

–
i honestly have to wonder about how many other 'science' things nasa simply asserts that no one bothers to question. there is way too much trust simply gifted.

Yea lets all pay more taxes so people like Clinton and Paul Ryan can save the human race.

Eat a dick faggot jew.

Yes, the Globalists want to lower the population, they don't even hide it.

take this place and (*2) for now or go to the end chaaan as this place is gone.

Not that I know of but I only put up a few PDF's that you can d/l in my posts I have one more good one but I will have to figure out how everyone can get it.

read this

Falsification Of The Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects Within The Frame Of Physics
arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0707/0707.1161v4.pdf

Summary of the Falsification…
tech-know-group.com/papers/Falsification_of_the_Atmospheric_CO2_Greenhouse_Effects.pdf

>Mind you, the conversion of electricity to heat is perfectly efficient from a thermodynamics standpoint
I concur turning electricity into heat is the only 100% energy conversion there is
However I am not against using a toaster to make toast I am against using electricity for the sole purpose of heating a building. I do live in Mi so it is geography related as well. All of FL uses electricity to heat their homes on a sporadic basis in the winter. Let me tell you a tale

BINGO WE HAVE A WINNER

i have a related yet separate question for you, if it matters enough.

on the fuel/resource/energy scarcity question, much of it is fabrication to retain jewry et al usury-like rates, such as what has been done to coal in the usa under the chicago-obama cronyism. obviously, much of this is also interlinked with desert peoples' bank and economics manipulations as well. but along these lines, leads to the heat-fuel question, 'fossil' assertions, and then an "oil is abiotic" answer. that is, oil is a rock resource, not just a dead compressed fish resource.

so on the oil=rock note: please advise: prune, retain, other?

Obviously CO2 is good for plant life, and so are higher temperatures for that matter; as proven by the tropics in general plants do best at a stable 25-30 C with lots of rain.

However, neither of this is ideal for (white) humans, who are better suited to slightly cooler temperatures and who have already proliferated widely on existing landmasses. Rising global temperatures are ultimately bad for us because they will reduce landmass in a time when if anything we could use more.

HUH?
Rocks are granite which is basically silica and other substances and there are other forms of rocks as well
Oil is a hydrocarbon which means H+C in big long strings with the C in the middle and the H"s bonded on the outside of the molecule

what is?
retain means to keep in english
prune is a dried plum a fruit

i am familiar with all of the above. hence my question as to whether or not "oil is abiogenesis" can be a thing (retained), or not (pruned/cut/delete from the thread's tree), or giberish confabulation that needs sorting itself out (other).

What I am bitching about has nothing to do with what is good or bad for white folk.
I am bitching about falsified science (chicken little scenario) to bring about global taxation due to a made up crisis.
And in conjunction with that made up crisis we are forced into an energy policy that will be expensive and inefficient as well.
To wit: show me one wind turbine plant and or solar panel factory where the factory and offices are totally powered by the products they manufacture. Only then will they be viable for use to sustain 1st world nations.

Read my post on abiotic oil vs fossil fuels I had a link in it there are many more you can find. I myself lean towards there are both. You will have to decide for your self because i am not a proponent of either. But the use of the term "fossil fuels" continually is pejorative in nature in my estimation.

Abiotic oil you decide. I am not a chemist but I am not a retard on it either.

decodedscience.org/origin-crude-oil-petroleum-biotic-abiotic/54008

petroleum.co.uk/abiotic-oil-formation

principia-scientific.org/russians-nasa-discredit-fossil-fuel-theory-demise-of-junk-co2-science/

One more

viewzone.com/abioticoilx.html

agreed, and should be the primary focus. vast sections of kike govt, nasa, banking, and trade stupidity are enabled/funded by this. in my estimations, they will soon be too successful, and will cause sharply rising energy prices beyond measure of what's been seen already. i doubt people will understand just how badly the chicago cryonism things have accelerated. it may take decades to reverse the damage to all the plants, companies, and trade economics, all in the face of rising shitskin infestations, equalist sheer nonsense, and currency capitulation no less.

not the worst of pictures, but should be a lively fight. time to get moving.

i asked because the idea was quite new to me.

no info, lots of noise at first wade-in, ran into co-opts and kike-wiki nonsense very quickly. also, uncertain where possible bolshevik counter intel starts and stops. essentially, the trust is uncertain. retained for now.

agreed: deprecation of 'fossil' + fuel adopted.

thank you.

I definitely agree that CO2 emissions are being used as a major pathway toward a globalist agenda by pushing global regulations aimed at reducing them, but I'm not fully convinced that more such emissions can be called beneficial. The increased plant growth you've cited is only modest, and if CO2 does have any genuine relationship to global temperature I'd still consider it a net negative influence. Even a modest temperature increase could remove thousands of square kilometers of coastal land, on which many cities are built.

If anything, we should be seeking methods to cool the planet off further (or perhaps just the poles if possible) to potentially increase available land mass.

i'm afraid that's all crazy talk.

misranking the last (co2) as first will not change this. further, misranking the first (the amounts, types, and delivery of energy involved to cool or heat planets) as last (affectable by you), is also inversionist fud.

good luck with a meaningful life. i doubt many will envy you, though many will likely follow.

Show me the source for this chicken little argument so I can refute it

PS FL is about 7' above sea level

Lajolla Ca from 1871 to 2016

...

ITS ALL ABOUT CARBON

The only reason the earth has done well is because of all the carbon locked deep in the earth's crust, never to make it to the surface.
Then we thought up a great idea, dig up the carbon and burn it….well a bad idea really.
The only thing keeping us alive is the oceans are very good at absorbing carbon dioxide, up to a point. Once the tipping point is reached, we're fucked.

If the dark side of Venus is 'bright' then why does it appear dark when I look at Venus in my telescope and see a crescent?

The belief in a positive feedback mechanism occurring in nature Is only conjecture proven by computer modeling. There exists no such observable phenomena anywhere on the face of the earth. An avalanche begins with a positive feedback loop and increases until its potential energy is dissipated and then it ceases. A hurricane follows the same pattern it will increase until its heat dissipates then it ceases to exist. The tipping point is a contrived event that has no factual basis in the observable past or present and is only utilized as a scare tactic to continue the global warming fear mongering narrative. If the tipping point is as the narrative states than life on earth should have been wiped out eons ago.
Nice try chaim no carbon tax shekels for you.
Pic related.

skepticalscience.com/print.php?r=77

Is it hot where you live due to
CLIMATE CHANGE?

I support global warming for one reason and one reason only (I need no others): We are supposed to be entering an ice age right now. We have not done so yet. As long as we keep the air breathable (not difficult – we have more forest areas than we did 100 or so years ago), a little bit of greenhouse gases will keep us from freezing our asses off.

Honestly, if we're going to go on a crusade against environmental damage, I'd be more concerned about keeping our water tables clean.

While all plants benefit from increasing CO2, the largest recievers are the tropical trees. Large, mature tropical trees have shown to be growing at a faster rate than ever before thanks to increased CO2. This is compatible with the understanding that the tropics have advantageous heat and light, and the trees all use C3 metabolism which is less efficient at lower CO2 levels.

Even in the temperate zone, planting a tree has never been a better proposition than it is today.

There are tons of gisted studies at co2science.com

So… price of cirtus fruits to drop?

Quite possibly. Food production from tropical trees is ridiculous, you can plant 3 jackfruit or durian and feed 100 people.

The most interesting is probably that it will be quite profitable to grow tropical hardwoods commercially. Teak and mahogany are currently harvested at unsustainable levels, but if they grow faster and supply decreases then we are talking large economic oppertunity.

Lurk more or get the fuck out. This isn't reddit or sometging like it.

OP once again nice thread.
It is obvious to me the people who tell you not to post don't want this subject discussed

Righto. And thanks for all the cool stuff you've piled into this. It's quite a rabbit hole. Maybe the "CO2 is good" angle of attack can be used as an anti-SJW weapon.

Any rapid change in the environment is going to cause adverse effects and cause extinctions. Thankfully, humansare among the most resilient species so we can adapt. But denying the fact that flooding the atmosphere with a gas that diffuses IR radiation on a massive scale is not necessarily a good idea is being dishonest.

I doubt the doomsfay prophecies are true, as earth has oscillated between all kinds of states in the past, but any sane man will agree that nuclear energy is preferable to burning hydrocarbons. If only because the energy return on fossils is decreasing and will keep decreasing as we use up the more easily accessible reserves.

The thinking man picks nuclear.

Every year here in Mi it goes from 100ºF to 0ºF a 100 degree temperature or easily 80 (90ºto 10º) in 6 months time. Is that rapid enough for you? Where is the big extinctions? I have been skiing in colorado on 2 different occasions where the over night temp was -63ºF and -54ºF
(no wind chill straight temp) so I imagine their yearly temperature swing can easily be 150ºF. Aside from that since we have only been keeping temp records for about 100 years the odds are on that every day somewhere will have a record cold/hot day.
The bottom line is.
Climate is always changing
Certain people seek to profit off it

Apologies for the delay, irl matters to attend to.

Quite a lot, actually. I don't have anything else for you along the lines of new physics, but there are other large areas of cosmological science that can be excised for various reasons. I will provide 2 examples below.

Robitaille previously had shown the Cosmic Microwave Background to be non-starter for a variety of reasons, across a few (6, iirc) different papers. I had 6 in my old archive, but the only ones I could find quickly are below. In the span of a few years, he had just about completely debunked the CMB, showing errors in engineering (the ground and satellite based telescopes used were inadequate for the frequency they were trying to measure), errors in metrology, and errors in reasoning. The error in reasoning is enormous, by the way: ptep-online.com/index_files/2007/PP-08-01.PDF
The TL;DR: to meaningfully extract any signal from noise requires you to be able to characterize either the signal or the noise. Since there is no way to characterize CMB without interference from the galactic foreground, there is no way to extract a meaningful signal.

His other papers on the CMB:
ptep-online.com/index_files/2007/PP-08-02.PDF
ptep-online.com/index_files/2007/PP-11-11.PDF
ptep-online.com/index_files/2009/PP-19-03.PDF

Crothers also did a number on black holes (which were the predecessors of white holes, worm holes, and just about any other *hole). He is a bit of a one trick pony (having written dozens upon dozens of papers on different ways to prove black holes are bad math), but has branched out in later years. You can find a his papers on *holes here: sjcrothers.plasmaresources.com/papers.html

One of them attacks black holes from the vantage point of blackbody radiation, which is probably how he ended up working with Robitaille. I had the pleasure of meeting him 4 or so years ago, and he gave me the TL;DR: a bit of bad math from last century, and astronomers have been looking in vain for one ever since. Since you can't see a black hole directly (by definition), then you have to infer their existence based on other things you can see, and nobody can agree on what you 'should see' (even today, a half-century later).

Have fun, the above is a literal funhouse of a redpill.

It doesn't matter if you support it or not, you can't do anything about it. The only emission that matters even in the slightest is gaseous water. This has been established multiple times in this thread alone.

The crusade is against extinction, not environmental damage. Please pay attention.

Nowhere in my post, nor in the cited links, is the phony 2-party theater referenced. Please pay attention.

This idea has been entirely destroyed multiple times in this thread. Shill?

Precisely.

Lots of people drinking the kool-aid lately.

Kill yourself, liberal.
Kill yourself, liberal.

sauce on round-up not being bad as fuck

I found another paper that I wanted to share with you. This is a Mechanical engineer that wrote it, but he has an extensive background in control systems and he specifically addresses the contrived assertion of the so called tipping point of gloom and no return.

libgen.io/search.php?req=global warming warren meyer&open=0&res=25&view=simple&phrase=1&column=def

If you would like to peruse what they have under that subject or search for other things.
Use the search box

libgen.io/search.php?req=global warming &open=0&res=25&view=simple&phrase=1&column=def

Well this guy says it is safe as breast milk take a look at his reaction. As for me I don't use it I side a little more with my organic farmer cousin.

BTFO
T
F
O

Welcome to Mr. Aryan's Wild Ride! Don't forget: you're here forever!

We are supposed to be doing many things, including having glassed the juice 70 years ago. However, you (and everyone, really) needs to understand that what (((science))) says should happen has no effect on reality. If the predictive model is wrong - and there's no good model of the atmosphere that works beyond a scale of days - then it was all just a shekel grab.

cont.

I was involved in science and philosophy of science, so I know enough about how fucked many fields are.

Science these days is full of shit. The second worst thing are stories which are not supported by empirical data, but just by models. AGW is a prime example: scientists want money, so they predict a boogeyman; Jews want it to help control the world, so they gladly push it.
The worst thing that happens in science is trying to determine what happened in the past. This is a problem if you can't replicate the events nor predict specific current events that necessarily follow from it. What I mean is, of course, evolution. The only observable evolution is within a genome, microevolution - existing genes being expressed more or less depending on the environment (as evidenced by just as observable reversal of this expression, e.g. E.Coli resistance tests, Darwin's finches observed on a longer time scale), but no information appearing suddenly. Niggers will not evolve into whites. Macroevolution - one species leading to a completely different species - is purely based on stories and stuff like fossil records (where fraud is rampant) or carbon dating, where fraud is even more rampant. As described by Prof. Jo Brew on a symposium of Nobel Prize winners:
So any falsifying evidence is ignored.
If a claim can't be used to make testable predictions, it's not science, as per Karl Popper's criteria. Evolution predicts everything and nothing (since nothing is impossible according to Evolution) and there's no way to test something that's supposed to have happened a billion years ago over a time scale of six million years. In the end, all that's left is sci-fi animations and (((evolutionary biologists))) circlejerking and publishing each other's fantasies.
Fucking cucks.

/rant

In my experience, the most comprehensive reviews of any field come from the autodidacts who are genuinely interested in it, as this man is. The paper has enough depth to be significant, while still having the breadth to cover the entire field. This alone should reveal him to not be of academia (not of american academia, anyway), as the current trends are to "know more and more about less and less, until you know everything about nothing". Very apt quote.

More so than the paper, the website was the real gem of that post. I had never heard of Library Genesis before, and I am truthfully quite excited about some of the subjects I am seeing in it - this may very well occupy my reading for the next month. Thanks again, user.

This.

Second worst to what, stories supported by complete lies? (I was going to suggest that this is actually the worst thing, but after a second thought, I would suggest that these are actually the same phenomenon.)

Precisely. Alongside T Kuhn's Structure of Scientific Revolutions, this (the 'Popperian Criteria') is the most important thing all budding science philosophers need to know.

Regarding evolution, the science philosopher Forrest Bishop (from earlier) wrote a bit on this - there are more than a few cases of features and traits 'popping' into existence in a multitude of species across a geographically diverse area essentially in an instant. Another fun case is our own evolution: after millions of years, we suddenly grew larger craniums and developed the capability for language, among other feats, in the span of just 10,000 years.

As a curious aside, human brains have been decreasing in size ever since this anomalous 'development' 10,000 years ago. "You may not want to hear this,” says cognitive scientist David Geary of the University of Missouri, “but I think the best explanation for the decline in our brain size is the idiocracy theory.”

I originally wrote "worst", then realised AGW can actually be BTFO by testing (since it has been) and slapped "second" in front of it.
Fucking Cambrian Explosion. Pretty much all advanced phyla suddenly popping into existence

user that is all the papers I have on climate change I could have d/l a bunch more but what I got pretty much sums up everything I need to know. Sorry if I went off topic but I tried to tie the whole thing together, it is obvious to me where everything is going. 1 come up with a false premise that the energy that we are using produces a harmful gas that will burn up the earth and change it so it will never be recoverable. 2 since you are using this energy you must pay extra for the earth's demise because ultimately you are responsible. 3 offer solutions that ultimately do not work along with the promise of soon they will work because of reasons and science says so. 4 since the population is so brain dead to begin with and no one really has any appreciation for actual science anymore use the media and political structure to push your agenda over the entire spectrum of everything that anyone comes in contact with.

I realize this does not entirely coincide with the topic of the thread it is not my intention to derail the thread, but let's consider this. If we somehow (which is impossible for humans to attempt to undertake) reduce the atmospheric concentration of CO2 down to X level. Insert any value you want here 50ppm 200ppm etc and you do some simple arithmetic to find out how much we need to "capture" you will quickly see that you are in the order of trillions of tons of CO2. If you want to know the weight of the entire atmosphere take the area of the earth convert mi^2 or kM^2 convert that to inches^2 and multiply by 14.7 lbs/in^2. You will come up with a number in the quintillions (million, billion, trillion, quadrillion, quintillion) so a quintillion/million = a trillion, simple artihemetic no math required.
Now it would be an easy lab experiment to determine what the minimum required CO2 would be to sustain plant life over a vast array of plants, and we should be able to infer at levels below this no plants = no animals, since the 2 are inextricably linked.
We already know thanks to pot growers and a few others that CO2 levels of 1000ppm or more plants really really like and grow accordingly.
Anyway just some random thoughts to keep this thread alive this subject has great interest for me.

It's merely billions, not trillions, of tons.
informationisbeautiful.net/visualizations/how-many-gigatons-of-co2/

The superior question is how many more gigatons of CO2 do we need to add to the atmosphere to reach optimal levels? Clearly we're not there yet.

They get government-subsidized insurance so it's not like they actually lose anything if it gets destroyed.

Here's one way to save the planet- wattsupwiththat.com/2016/07/09/lets-cook-limestone-to-raise-atmospheric-co2-to-1000ppm/

His numbers are off due to a decimal point error.

These guys are on the right track- ltrr.arizona.edu/~sleavitt/MaricopaFACE.htm

"Free-Air CO2 Enrichment (FACE) experiments are now being conducted around the world. These experiments are conducted outdoors without the confining elements of indoor growth chamber and outdoor chamber experiments, thereby adding greater realism to experimental conditions. Generally there are ambient control plots with CO2 concentrations of the current atmosphere, and enriched treatments with CO2 concentrations elevated by at least 200 ppmV relative to the control. A distribution of pipes with holes facing inward to the plot is used to add CO2 with valves controlling distribution depending on wind direction."

So with ambient CO2 at 400 ppm they are taking it to 600 ppm locally. Still too low. 800++ ppm would be better. How to black knight the Carbon Cap & Trade scheme with this?

And then you get flooded by flat earther shills.

Sorry bro so sorry.

Dear Terrestrial Carbon Sink,

Found the FACE data. Sort of.

Vegetation Response to CO2 and Climate cdiac.ornl.gov/vegetation.html
Nothing newer than 2002. Curious.

cdiac.ornl.gov/face/
"These datasets comprise the products from the Free Air CO2 Enrichment Model-Data Synthesis (FACE-MDS) project. Please refer to the FACE-MDS website for further project details."

…and have fun trying.

"FACE Model-Data Synthesis facedata.ornl.gov/facemds/

"Plant photosynthetic rates increase and stomatal apertures decrease in response to elevated atmospheric CO2 (eCO2), increasing both plant carbon (C) availability and water use efficiency. These physiological responses to eCO2 are well characterised and understood, however the ecological effects of these responses as they cascade through plant and ecosystem processes are complex and subject to multiple interactions and feedbacks that operate at various timescales. Therefore the response of the terrestrial carbon sink to increasing atmospheric CO2 remains the largest uncertainty in global C cycle modelling to date, and is a huge contributor to uncertainty in projections of climate change."

Oh really? Ever heard that before from the Climate Change propagandists? Simply put, more CO2 means more vigorous plants, which pull more CO2 out of the atmosphere. Plants act as a brake on CO2 increases. That's the "well characterized" "response" they are gaming on about.

Fyi, Terrestrial Carbon Sink means YOU along with all the vegetation and soil on the land. United Terrestrial Carbon Sinks could be an alternate name for the UN.

Fellow Terrestrial Carbon Sinks, I salute you!

...

you're an obvious newfag (I thought it was bait) but you did good. Try to add to threads for a while, and don't create them.