There was a "good" thread about this last night but it went on after my bedtime and got archived in the meantime so:
- Do CO2 levels really matter towards global warming / climate change seeing that plant life prefers much higher CO2?
- How can CO2 cause the greenhouse effect when CO2 is heavier than air and will never or rarely reach the upper atmosphere?
- Is it true that a lot of the research was forged?
- Why would we believe scientists in this matter while it is still not even remotely possible to properly predict the weather of next week, let alone next decade with a model
- Why is it warm in greenhouses even before you add extra CO2 to stimulate plant life? Can this be applied to earth?
It really seemed that the "against" side was much better prepared than the "believers" since they non-stop threw arguments at them which were usually answered with "I have a PHD" or "Wow you are retarded".
- Then there's also the fact that so many articles and research from a few decades ago predicted that all the sea ice would be gone by 2015-2020. This didn't really happen.
- Why use the entire "you are destroying the planet" argument when the discussion is mainly about the CO2 effect on global climate. I'm quite sure that niggers in haiti or africa removing all their forests or hues removing their rainforests has a much larger effect.
Oliver Campbell
...
Jose King
I'm not a climate scientist, but consider the following:
- Leftists need a doomsday cult to enforce leftism as a moral obligation - In the past, climate scientists have claimed there would be an ice age, the hole in the ozon would kill us all, acid rain, etc. which all turned out to be steaming piles of shit - climate scientists claiming there is no climate change are like priests claiming there is no God. They are shunned in their community, will not be funded and are firing themselves.
These factors explain why my instinct says climate change is absolute and utter BS. But then again, like 99,99% of the population I am no climate scientist and cannot judge the evidence itself.
Nathaniel Ward
ya it feels like the mayans telling me the sun won't come back out if i don't give my child as sacrifice.
Hudson Evans
The real problem is ocean acidification
Chase Ward
Looking at the statements you made you don't really need to be a climate scientist to take a guess though, since that's what they appear to be doing themselves.
Joseph Smith
>Do CO2 levels really matter towards global warming / climate change seeing that plant life prefers much higher CO2?
Yes, because the plants can't take up all that we are releasing. Deforestation also hurts CO2 uptake from plants
>How can CO2 cause the greenhouse effect when CO2 is heavier than air and will never or rarely reach the upper atmosphere?
Brownian motion
>Is it true that a lot of the research was forged?
Maybe, but unlikely
>Why would we believe scientists in this matter while it is still not even remotely possible to properly predict the weather of next week, let alone next decade with a model
Long term predictions are less vulnerable to random fluctuations
>Why is it warm in greenhouses even before you add extra CO2 to stimulate plant life? Can this be applied to earth?
Lol is it less warm than before?
Grayson Nguyen
> Yes, because the plants can't take up all that we are releasing. Deforestation also hurts CO2 uptake from plants
This is only an answer to "are CO2 levels increasing?", not to "are higher CO2 levels affecting global climate in a significant way"
> Brownian motion
Regardless of this effect, there is no or barely any CO2 in the higher parts of the atmosphere. Also CO2 only blocks a very narrow spectrum of wavelenghts of energy. Theoretically absorbing all energy within these wavelenghts would increase world temperate by just over 1°C. Realistically it can't even be close to that.
> Maybe, but unlikely
The thread last night had people posting literally dozens of articles and peer-reviewed papers which refuted the entire "climate change is caused by CO2"- theory. How can this be if (((97%))) of scientists agree?
> Lol is it less warm than before?
No but it also doesn't get significantly warmer when you add the CO2 in a controlled greenhouse. Other effects have much more impact.
Colton Miller
Also regarding your first part:
Wouldn't further increasing CO2 actually stimulate plant life? You're claiming that plants can't take up all the CO2 we are releasing but a lot of studies show that plants grow best at a near 2000 PPM CO2 level, 5 times as high as today.
Ethan Scott
Scientists who believe global warming is real are also scientists who believe gender is not biological. Think about that.
Lincoln Garcia
>four ballon runs >two satellite datasets
I saw a dude take a shit in a trashbin, I can therefore conclude every trashbin has his shit in it.
Isaac Williams
Plant life has been booming with the recent growth of CO2 in the atmosphere. However apparently this is still a bad thing
End of the day I believe that humans are having a tiny effect on a natural cycle and any efforts we are doing to fix our impact are focused on the wrong people. China and india are some of the worst polluters but its 1st world countries taking the brunt of the blame and having our cars ect cucked because of it.
Joshua Phillips
Seeing that methane in the air blocks out a much wider spectrum of energy bouncing off the earth wouldn't it be better to stop global warming by:
> Reducing cattle stock significantly (I don't mean stop eating meat at all, just reduce it by lets say 30% globally)
> Increasing CO2 to stimulate extreme plant life (there has to be a way to do this without also polluting the earth with more dangerous particles as is happening now)
> Grow more nuts and other high protein plants
??????
Profit
Is it because the meat lobbies are stronger than the energy lobbies?
Nicholas Wilson
I don't disagree with you that this does not bring conclusive evidence for my side of the argument but I haven't seen the opposite being proven either anywhere.
Adrian Baker
Yeah but don't get me wrong, I'm all against pollution.
It's just that right now governments around the world seem to be choosing to tax on CO2 while it is probably one of the least dangerous gasses and particles we are releasing in the air in massive amounts.
I suppose it makes sense to do so to earn shekels though, seeing that literally every industry emits CO2.
Gavin Reed
The meat lobby is literally the entirety of the population that goes to the store and buys meat. The market has driven cattle production to its current levels.
True, small data samples does not a trash bin with shit fill, but is there any evidence for the models?
2000 ppm is what I keep my small indoor garden at, if that's relevant at all.
But the CO2 added to a greenhouse doesn't augment the artificial atmosphere the greenhouse itself is.
Isaiah Morris
> The meat lobby is literally the entirety of the population that goes to the store and buys meat. The market has driven cattle production to its current levels.
I'm not saying that you're wrong at all here but I would like to add the remark that the psychology of the consumer is massively affected by marketing and lobbying done by the industry.
The mind of the consumer indeed decides the demand side but it is an easy to manipulate mind.
Owen Jones
True enough. I wore my Beef! It's what's for dinner t-shirt for many a year.
Christian Turner
CO2 is the current driving factor warming trend we have seen since about 1950.
The sun inputs shortwave radiation, which warms the surface of the earth. The earth emits longwave radiation which is heat leaving earth's surface. Normally, there is a balance between incoming shortwave and outgoing longwave. CO2 acts to trap outgoing longwave in the troposphere, thus creating warmer temperatures.
I do not know if research was forged.
Weather models and climate models operation on the same principles, but are entirely different. Weather models use current daily observations to predict weather for about 10 days out. Today, they are pretty accurate 5 days out, and somewhat accurate past 5 days. They are predicting exactly where it may rain or some other feature over a short time span. Climate models do not care where it is going to rain. The are basically trying to balance the radiation budget mentioned earlier. That is their underlying principle. Over the past decade, these models have become more advnaced with better computer power and are able to account for land surface area and changes in ocean temperatues.
Luis Roberts
the ocean is not acidic, nor does it have a single ph.
Zachary Anderson
>CO2 is the current driving factor warming trend we have seen since about 1950.
What is driving the cooling trend we have seen since about 2000?
Zachary Torres
forgot the last one. Greenhouse gases are very controlled environments for growing plants. Yes, CO2 is very good for growing plants. As are warmer temperatures. What are not good for plants are torrential downpours and flooding, which you would never find in a greenhouse, but are becoming increasingly common as earth's temperatures continues to warm.
Logan Carter
Great question, I assume you are referring to the hiatus, which occurred in the mid 2000's until about 2014. There is a climate mode known as the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, which consists of a positive and negative mode. During the same period as the hiatus, the PDO was in its negative phase. Extra atmosphere heat was being stored about 700 m below the surface of the equtorial pacific ocean. We actually continued to warm through this period, there was never a cooling trend; we just did not warm at the rate we had been seeing. Pic related shows the rate of warming previously, and the hiatus where we did not warm as much. Last year, a lot of the heat was released to the atmopshere during one of the strongest el Ninos on record, accompanied by the PDO shifting back to its positive phase. This will most likely lead to increased global warming
Cameron Price
Wait how does this work?
How is more rain a bad thing? Cycles nutrients into the ecosystem and removes/dilutes buildup of toxins.
Torrents and flooding are not always a bad thing. Plenty of ecosystems have ways of dealing with these extreme weather events.
It's only a bad thing if the rain and floods carry extraordinary amounts of pollutants and deposits it at dangerous levels, which is mainly a problem caused by the urbanisation, even then mostly in the third world problem.
Juan Martin
But any chemist/scientist can show you by a reasonably simple experiment that CO2 can only absorb/trap a very small bandwith of wavelenght.
This means in theory that after 1,1°C of temperature rises, extra CO2 will no longer affect the global temperate.
Carson Campbell
I'm comparing an actual greenhouse to a large farm, which is subject to the current weather. A greenhouse is a very controlled environment, optimal for growing plants. CO2 is good for growing plants. The increasing CO2 concentration in the atmosphere is good for plants. However, the CO2 concentration also leads to more heat, and more heat leads to more water vapor in the atmosphere, which considerably raises the chances for torrential, heavy rainfall, Rain is good for plants. Torrential rain and flooding is not good for plants.
Daniel Rivera
So what I'm trying to say is that if scienstists claim that CO2 has increased temperate on earth by 1 degree already over the past century, we should just stop worrying right now over further warming caused by CO2 since the maximum is pretty much reached.
Owen Mitchell
I'd argue that torrential rain and flooding is not good for certain plants. The parts of the world with the most diverse flora all have a climate where heavy rains and flooding are common in certain times of the year.
If temperature rises by two degrees, enormous swathes of permafrost in Siberia will become arable land.
Really makes you think why they don't want to let it happen.
Jace Fisher
i'm just wondering would it actually make more sense to research biospheres that work in harsher climates instead of whatever we're currently doing has the benefit of gaining insights on terraforming
Isaac Hughes
>Deforestation also hurts CO2 uptake from plants over 90% of Earth's CO2 absorption and oxygen production is done by ocean algae, not trees
Aiden Rodriguez
I'm confused about the small bandwidth of wavelength. Are you referring to visible light? There is also infrared radiation that contributes to heat, but is different than that of the visible spectrum. Co2 absorbs heat. It also does not leave the troposphere. As we increase the CO2 concentration, there are more particles that can absorb and trap more heat.
Carson Evans
The problem with people like you is that you immediately get triggered by the subject instead of actually reading.
This thread has not been made to deny climate change. This thread is wondering whether the effects of CO2 on global climate are significant and/or will be maxed at a point in the very nearby future.
In the first minute of your video the narrator already mockingly seems to pretend there is no incentive for governments to blame CO2 for climate change. There sure is, seeing that CO2 is emitted by pretty much every single type of industry so very easy to impose taxes on.
I will however listen to the rest of it now and get back to you.
Isaac Parker
I'm a geophysics major and I've taken multiple 500-level courses related to climate science. I can tell you that I personally do not believe in AGW.
Oliver Thomas
global warming =/= everywhere +2 C it's variance +12 or something while mean +2 expect hurricanes and shiet everywhere as there is so much energy in the system
Brandon Miller
The Siberian Permafrost is loaded with methane. Methane traps 20x more heat per molecule than CO2. I think it's fairly obvious why it would be bad if it melted, it has nothing to do with denying more area to grow crops
Justin Young
I'm a meteorologist and I've taken multiple upper level courses on this exact subject. You are certainly entitled to an opinion, but in all my physics and meteorology course I have never had one that didn't address climate change in some way. I'm curious what courses led to you not believe in AGW
Aiden Hill
No I am not talking about visible light. Heat is emitted in the form of radiation. Radiation has a wavelenght. CO2 only has the potential to absorb a minor portion of the radiation emitted by earth towards space because of all the different wavelenghts involved, CO2 can only absorb a tiny fraction.
Literally stopping all emitted heat that escapes in the form of radiation with wavelenghts which CO2 can absorb would increase global temperature by approximately 1,1 °C.
This would not stop climate change advocates from being correct that CO2 has increased the earth's temperature in the last 50 years but also means that denyers are correct when they say this will not go on forever and cause massive global warming and the melting of ice on the long term.
Jonathan Sanders
Is there a study comparing this amount of methane with the methane produced by the global livestock?
Brandon Rogers
Why do Americans tend to deny climate change rather than manmade climate change?
Jackson Mitchell
It would also lead to a lot of other arable land getting flooded by rising seas as well as many major cities.
Chase Myers
The problem is how small the timescale these people always try to look at. The climate has constantly shifted throughout history, just because there's an upward trend right now (way less upward than their doomsday predictions) doesn't mean that we have any proof that humanity is impacting global temperatures in any significant way. Obviously we shouldn't pollute for no reason, but strangling US industries over unproven climate doomssay theories doesn't do shit when China's still shitting out 100x the pollution the US ever did.
Hell, some astronomers think the sun is supposed to go into a dormant cycle again "soon", as in the next few decades, which would mean a few hundred years of the whole planet being 2-3 degrees cooler.
I have not heard of this argument regarding CO2 and the wavelegth spectrum. What I will comment on, which may be relevant, is the runaway greenhouse gas effect, and how it will NEVER occur on earth. I bring this point up here because yes, the earth is heating due to CO2, but you are also correct in that we will never turn into Venus either (at least not in next millions of years). Climate change will lead to more CO2, which leads to more heat, which leads to more water vapor, which is more clouds, which is leads to less shortwave, and eventually lower temperatures. This is the only way i know to address this argument. Deniers are correct that global warming will not go on forever, but will continue long enough to have devestation effects worldwide should we continue at business as usual.
Caleb Butler
Not that I know. The amount of methane given out by global livestock is also an area of interest for climate change, we recognize that fossil fuels are not the only culprit
Jose Turner
>Do CO2 levels really matter towards global warming Yes, but the effect is dwarfed by the impact H2O levels have on warming. The latter however fluctuates wildly hour by hour and is near impossible to accurately model.
H2O can either exacerbate the problem or nullify it's effects by a large degree. Most climate change campaigners simply assume that more CO2 = more H2O as well. Beyond being lazy this is also dishonest.
Carter Wood
The earth was a degree or two warmer on average during Roman times than it is now and they did just fine. I'm on my phone so I don't have the graph to post, but right now we're in a cooler warm period than the last two (roman times and middle ages) despite all the global warming hysteria.
Christian Roberts
Pretty big impact on the climate Worst case scenario, we cause a mass extinction
Lincoln Wright
Climate scientists are particularly concerned with this timescale, mainly because of the rate of warming that we are seeing in just a short period of time. Yes, it has been warmer on earth. Yes, there has been higher CO2 concentrations before, however, we have never seen warming occurring this quickly in the last 650,000 years. We know this thru proxy data such as ice cores and ocean sediments, and we are able to calibrate this information and model it. This is why it is so concerning.
>It really seemed that the "against" side was much better prepared than the "believers" since they non-stop threw arguments at them which were usually answered with "I have a PHD" or "Wow you are retarded".
It's the same with religious fundamentalism, these people are literally looking to argue against climate change where as those who believe in it are more focused in actually doing something about it. If you want some actual arguments against climate change deniers you should watch "Merchant's of Doubt" which is backed with some really red pill stuff about "scientists" against Climate change and the lengths The Big Oil goes in trying to make it as a hoax.
You can also read some stuff from believers like Naomi Klein and Noam Chomsky who've written and talked a lot about the climate change and the things corporations call "externalities" like pollution, resource depletion and other environmentally and socially unsustainable practices allowed by the Free Market.
I don't believe in it because literally all of it is based on models that are unfalsifiable. There is no data that would allow them to be proven or disproven one way or the other. If your model can't be falsified then you may as well be a witch doctor.
Brayden Clark
Venus is fiery death because of too much co2 and greenhouse gases
Robert Kelly
>It's the same with religious fundamentalism, these people are literally looking to argue against climate change where as those who believe in it are more focused in actually doing something about it.
Yet they ignore the elephants in the room that are China and India. Really activates my almonds that does.
Christopher Thomas
I have a report ready to show it's real, just need a blank government check for the "research". Then you can tell everyone how true it is based on my totally true "research".
Carter Barnes
Shh, don't expose your power level, let them take their "red pill".
Dylan Ortiz
They don't ignore them, people just look for local solutions that most significantly impact their lives first. The first world is most concerned with climate change, no wonder it critiques its own society.
Meat overproduction has numerous side effects too: Antibiotics resistance, Depletion of scarce water supply. These issues need to be addressed but are hardly mentioned. Mark my words Sup Forums water will be the most expensive commodity in 50 years
Brayden Foster
Are we currently emitting enough reflective particles into the atmosphere to deflect and shade us from enough sunlight to temporarialy cool the planet to tempetature ranges that contradict those associated with current CO2 levels which match CO2 levels of paleolithic times that was hot enough to turn Antarctica into a temperate boreal forest?
What if we turned all of the machines off suddenly, with 400ppm CO2, and allowed the particulates to settle to the Earth? Would we see a massive global increase in temperatures?
I think yes. Could this explain chemtrails? Paleoclimatology is a good to study alongside modern weather!
Julian Gonzalez
Why is this lazy and dishonest?? Co2 absolutely leads to more water vapor. The amount of water vapor a column of air can hold is directly related to its temperature. Water vapor is controlled by temperature, not the other way around. So if there is more warming, there will be more H20.
Jack Hill
Just another leftist myth meant to paralyze human progress.
Caleb Allen
>Yet they ignore the elephants in the room that are China and India. Really activates my almonds that does.
Guess what stimulates the brain tissue even more?
The fact that most of the stuff they produce is actually for the western corporations.
They manufacture like majority of our electronics, kitchenware, tools and miscellaneous items like toys, decorations and clothes. Just look around how many items have marking "made in china" on them, not to mention that most of the stuff that has "designed in/by" is actually manufactured in China, India or some other major country that barely has any regulations concerning climate or human rights.
China is actually taking a major role in pushing renewable energy, recycling and pollution cleanup, partly because they've really started to suffer from the effects of pollution and climate change. Their air pollution is ridiculous, water contaminated, drought insane in some areas and when it comes to natural resources they don't really have all that much oil. They're also pushing this shit in Africa which is interesting in itself and press should write more about the positive and negative stuff about it. Sure these countries are no angels and certainly major contributors to climate change but at least China is trying to do something about this. Besides when it comes to population, they consume and pollute a lot less on average than many western countries.
Sebastian Edwards
Well that's just not true, a lot of plants are absolutely fine with it. Perhaps not the plants you'd have in a greenhouse, but most plants can live through it, and if they can't the floods and torrents can be a useful vehicle for spreading them and their seeds.
Floods and torrents are not an objectively bad thing.
Jacob Fisher
China and India signed the Paris agreement.
Jacob Kelly
There's a distinction between a lot of plants and all of the plants. A lot of plants can - so they will survive. Plants that can will either perish or evolve into a new type that better copes with it.
Benjamin Bailey
made a mistake. Plants that can't *
Ayden Thomas
Can ice be created out of thin air? On it's own, with no moisture?
Joshua Campbell
Dry Ice if you make it cold enough.
Aiden Murphy
Well thanks for that, I'm pretty sure that a consistent with what I'm arguing, and I agree with it!
So the useful question which I hoped to imply is, how many, or what proportion of, plants suffer badly from occasional torrential rain or flooding? I'd guess that the vast majority of plants outside of relatively arid biospheres are absolutely fine with it, and any plants from biospheres which experience rain as a matter of course could handle more than occasional torrents or floods without too much trouble.
Only if those conditions become regular or common do the pressures leading to evolution and extinction occur. As it is, OP's claim was that increased percentage of water vapour in the atmosphere, caused as happenstance by increasing CO2 emissions, is bad for plants.
I'd say the opposite, it's bad for some plants but increased availability of water, whether by flooding or torrents, is overall a good thing for the majority vegetation in the majority of biospheres. And so the claim that this is a negative of increased CO2 is false, because this is not a negative. Its an effect whose quality is debatable in different contexts.
Tyler Long
You do realize that people say this every 10 years right?
Jonathan Taylor
Wait wait, I never said that!
Unless by the "OP" you mean: I actually fully agreed with you from the start.
Carter Torres
Greenhouse effect means that plants grow much better with more co2. They also need less water, just like in a greenhouse.
Ryan Evans
Dude what avout the 97% percent of climate change beleiving scientists!
Jack Campbell
They earn their money by believing in the manmade climate change, its like holocaust museums.
">Flooding is a complex stress that imposes several often-concurrent challenges to normal plant functioning. Dominant is starvation of oxygen and carbon dioxide that is imposed by extremely slow rates of diffusion through the floodwater compared to that in air"
">The Special Issue opens with a review of the processes involved in the direct and indirect sensing of low oxygen supply and the transduction of such sensing into altered patterns of gene expression (Bailey-Serres and Chang, 2005). Such mechanisms play a vital part in equipping cells that are partially deficient in oxygen with a re-ordered pattern of expressed genes that enhances tolerance to any subsequent anaerobiosis. They include the operation of signal transduction pathways mediated by calcium and reactive oxygen species."
">When flooding extends to submergence of the shoot, photosynthesis becomes severely restricted by a deficiency of external carbon dioxide and by shading. Furthermore, total submergence can interfere with flowering and pollination essential for completion of the reproductive cycle. In many aquatic and amphibious species, these debilitating effects are overcome by an oxygen-dependant, ethylene-mediated stimulation of underwater shoot elongation that encourages renewed contact with the aerial environment. "
">One of the most characteristic features of plants of wetland ecosystems, and also those of drier places that possess some tolerance to flooding, is the possession of aerenchyma."
TL/DR Plants have mechanisms to cope. Interestingly plants that favor flooding to grow (rice), are less likely to express those genes in case of full submergence, whereas plants not used to flooding express those genes more readily. Some research is being done into what factors optimize said gene expression.
So ultimately, through engineering we can make more adaptive plants and speed up the evolutionary process-maybe save 50% of plants?
Josiah Edwards
That water will be scarce in the future? I do. That's why people are doing research into it. And others are inventing filtration systems. I like doomsday messages though.
Anyway to the point of climate change. The way I see it - there are cyclic cooling and warming tendencies (and have been) but something needs to trigger them. Proponents argue that manmade gasses will be that feedback trigger
Jordan Thomas
I've had passive trackers on water related activities in my portfolio since 1995.
Returns are pretty decent but not spectacular.
I think it's almost a nobrainer that water will get more expensive but it won't happen in an explosive way. Also, at some point desalinating and filtering seawater actually becomes worth doing (not near current levels though)
