Is there any evidence to Carbon actually being the reason for global warming?
Seems like the most abundant organic molecule being responsible for rises in temperature is actually a political stance and not one of science.
Who the hell backs this? Where is the evidence?
shamelss self bump
carbon ban is for carbon dioxide and carbon monoxide emissions
even tho the increase of c02 leads to increased plant size to combat it, literally plant food
the global warming hoax is purely political... they want to tax you by the mile in your car making it unsustainable to drive a gas powered car thus electric cars dominate the market place...
how much you wanna bet electric car companies are invested in global warming and climate change groups
eventually they want to outlaw gas powered anything giving these new company's a monopoly on non fossil fuel power generation and cars
then will come the ban on human driven cars forcing you to use self driving cars
but wait.. you're not allowed to own self driving cars... you have to rent them to get from point a to point b look at uber and google's cars
they realized a long time ago they will make way more shekels if they just rent them out
thus giving them a monopoly on transportation able to dictate any price for these cars use
its all about money, politics and more control
I totally see the motive - and it definitely makes sense - I agree 100%.
But what about the core principle that carbon increases temperature? If that was debunked or untrue wouldn't the entire message be moot?
I'll shamelessly take this bait
CO2 is a molecule extremely active in the IR region of electromagnetic radiation
>absorbs IR radiation
>causes molecule to rotate
>STARTS FUCKIN HEATING UP
furthermore
>combustion of C based fuels
>in O2 and N2 rich atmosphere
get the idea?
>Christfags and oil company owners will deny this
But is there any unassailable evidence that the rise in atmospheric greenhouse gases, including CO2 is directly responsible for the increase in global temperature?
Rotate? WTF why?
Wouldn't the biproducts of such carbon burning be C=C (double bonds) which DO NOT SPIN?
Carbon dioxide, not carbon, has asymetric stretches that absorb UV radiation EMR. Any molecule that can asymmetrically stretch contributes to global warming. CO2 is targeted as it's released in the largest quantities. As someone who has looked through the data, and there's alot of it, it is real.
Your argument should be will throwing millions into trying to stop it be in vain.
T. Chemist.
also some people believe the climate change hoax is just a false world catastrophe used to create a world government
create a problem so large and unsolvable by a single country, forcing a coalition of countries to join together to combat this impending doom think UN EU and AU(this was killed by trump getting in)(american union)
globalist plan was to always control the world with three super coalition countries and to receive money through taxation..... carbon tax
Canada is already on board with cuckdeu in charge meeting with soros a couple times a year they just passed a carbon tax law in fucking alberta the oil capital of canada and more than 40% of canada's income
its all a sham to tax us for pretty much everything we use to make us more dependent on their system and give up our control and freedom for protection against an already always changing climate
Core principle is it absorbes IR radiation (heat) that would otherwise radiate away from the earth and reflects it back down. The higher the concentration of asymmetric IR active molecules, the larger the effect of reflection and the larger the heating effect.
Holy shit
>Deforestation
Not a problem, then?
Release of CFCs and other refrigerants?
The incessant ignorance of people who think that we haven't caused this
And finally and most importantly, this is shit because I don't get to watch those rednecks that go around Louisiana shooting alligators
>multitudes of my own faggots belive me
Isn't our atmosphere 70+% Nitrogen, how could carbon be the leading factor to global warming, or could this just be random global variation in temperature like the earth has been doing for millenia?
If you look to the past, you will see that nothing like what happens today has been so drastic
This
ITT:
>global warming deniers
But if you look deeper into the past it does show drastic change does in fact happen.
Why carbon then? Seems to me that the all EVIL CARBON is the only culprit here. It seems ridiculious that one molecule is the answer to a globally complex question
The more carbon dioxide the less effect each additional amount has- we're already at a fairly flat section on curve pictured.
"Global Warming" relies on the marginal increase due to carbon dioxide being magnified by increases in water vapour. But of course increased water vapour can form clouds which reflect sunlight before it reaches the ground.
So the exact magnitude of this multiplier is unknown - most computer models assume it is 1.5x to 4x, and have been shown to massively overestimate what has happened.
Whenever you see "adjusted" data and readings be extremely sceptical.
Nitrogen is symmetrical N=N. Symmetrical molecules do not adsorb IR radiation, so can't trap it. When the molecule stretches there needs to be a change in dipole moment (electrical polarisation). If you want to know more about it look up IR spectroscopy.
PS although CO2 is symmetrical when it stretches it can stretch asymetrically
O=C==O
There should be some graph somewhere correlating global temperature rise with the industrial revolution.
>ITT:
>>global warming deniers
literally nothing of that happening here exept possibly bringing up a false flag over carbon
yes
C=C bonds wouldn't rotate but C alotropes are not gases so you can disregard this, IR would present vibration of raman spectra seeing as there is no change in dipole moment
Not so much carbon, but carbon dioxide
It is the most widespread greenhouse gas, basically a fucking woollen coat for the ice caps.
The other concern is how cow shit releases so much methane, but it is not as major.
be more believable if they didn't fudge data to get funding
Carbon dioxide, not carbon
OP needs to change the picture ffs
Global Warming / Climate Change is due to the inbound Jupiter sized traveling planet; Nibiru.
Even more funny than flat earthers, don't you think?
Don't know whether you can all tell, but I don't think that global warming is political anymore
Exactly
Carbon monoxide is another culprit. Also drastic change has not happened so fast. I remember as a kid the monsoon here would last between two or three straight months, now its like two weeks or none existent at all.
You'd be insane to think that.
Pure Raman specta would be microwave radiation, not IR. Unless you mean rovibrational spectra.
...
carbon is in literally everything
its carbon dioxide that we apparently need to be worried about according to "scientists"
look at venus, it has an absolute fuck load of c02 thus causing its atmosphere to be super thick and causing huge greenhouse effect heating the surface of the planet to unlivable standard the main cause of this c02 on venus is massive volcanoe's constantly erupting releasing insane amounts of c02 and ash into the atmosphere also with no plants to eat c02 and turn it into o2
there was a volcano that erupted in Iceland a few years ago and it set back all climate change prevention man has done in 4 years
all it takes is for a super volcano to erupt to fuck us all but thats only because of the ash cloud and the insane amount of co2 and other particles
according to the climate scientists methane is like 50x worse than c02 and more panic is pushed on us saying that there is perma frost that contains mass amounts of methane that if released can cause another mass extinction just look up methane gysers
>Nibiru
nothing but lens flares from the sun, proven wrong.
what's the REAL motive behind carbon dioxide? Sounds like some save the trees bullshit to me.
Is there any counter-points to scientific articles about CO2 being the leading cause?
99.9% of the scientific community belive in CO2 based global warming but NONE have read any real articles saying not.
Try to deny it, you know you didn't read it
This
I remember seeing shows saying that the polar ice caps will all melt by 2020. I wish they would get their facts straight and not stir up unnecessary hype.
Pretty much any statistic you want regarding climate change:
ipcc.ch
>Pretty much any statistic you want regarding climate change:
any statistic as in any statistic that agrees with you
Hit the nail on the head.
And yes, that is what is really scary, methane from permafrost melting other permafrost...
>carbon is in literally everything
>its carbon dioxide that we apparently need to be worried about according to "scientists"
>look at venus, it has an absolute fuck load of c02 thus causing its atmosphere to be super thick and causing huge greenhouse effect heating the surface of the planet to unlivable standard the main cause of this c02 on venus is massive volcanoe's constantly erupting releasing insane amounts of c02 and ash into the atmosphere also with no plants to eat c02 and turn it into o2
>there was a volcano that erupted in Iceland a few years ago and it set back all climate change prevention man has done in 4 years
>all it takes is for a super volcano to erupt to fuck us all but thats only because of the ash cloud and the insane amount of co2 and other particles
This one paragraph here makes much more sense than every little jizzdrop of CO2 emissions propoganda.
This may be the real culprit here
Fuck off and do some study. Re-start the thread when people can actually not start with a false premise. CUNTS
Permafrost is melting from the bottom up. Just like the oceans, from the bottom up. The Earth's core is heating up.
deforestation is a huge problem
we have a natural way of removing c02 from the atmosphere and were killing it c02 is also poisons to mammals not just a green house molecule
what are the fucking ice ages HUR DUR earth is always going through mass warming and cooling phases, and guess what, it appears were in the middle of a warming period
this they tampered with data so many fucking times makes people not believe its nearly as serious as they try to tell us
Lick my butthole with your super left-wing corrput jap-science.
Everything you research is a setup by enviromentalists looking to make money for the kikelords
My flag is not my flag.
Acidification of the ocean leading to bottom up decay of permafrost?
what's underneath permafrost? water right?
no?
then what does this mean?
You don't even know my opinion on global warming, but I seem to have hurt your feelings snowflake.
I give you a thousand page review of over 500 independant studies and you wave it off because you found a youtube channel saying it's wrong and dinosaurs never existed.
...
The basis of scientific study is to study all sides and not just dismiss ideas beacuse they don't fit your narrative
Carbon has very little to do with CO2, CO, CO3, O, O2, O3. Lets not forget NO3, SO4. And them all of them when they meet a friend H- OH+.
My argument: asymmetric molecules contribute to global warming.
Dispute that, I'll wait. You don't need a study it's a fundamental principle of two huge branches of Physics and Chemistry.
>Carbon has very little to do with CO2, CO, CO3
>very little to do
CO2 = 33% Carbon
CO = 50% Carbon
CO3 = 25% Carbon
shut up nip go back to drinking radioactive sake
we could stop literally all carbon emissions and methane production and still get fucked by a few big volcano's erupting within a close time frame
...
Neither acid nor methane is the cause. The actual cause is the same reason other planets in our solar system is heating up.
Search Google: "planets in global warming"
AND I suppose if you throw a lump of coal in water it suddenly changes into gold. An element completely changes all its properties when mixed. It is not the same thing at all. Plus you % are all wrong. Periodic table the stuff and do the maths again.
Deforestation and cfcs both do more than releasing co2, but muh 400 parts per gorillion
Raman spectra encompass IR and microwave, I don't think you understand the principals champ
The inbound Planet X is the true cause.
The natural cycle adds and removes CO2 to keep a balance.
Human add CO2 without removing any
Which is why you think we have a problem, however this doesn't take into account that humans also consume CO2 in the form of carbon is literally everything we eat.
drroyspencer.com
read and see for yourself. Im not trying to change your mind, just trying to make you question what you see and hear
actually probably lesser degree Micro and moreso UV bands as well as IR
I don't think you understand what pure means.
There is a flaw with your argument saying new plants will grow to combat the carbon emissions. The main sources of CO2 are fossil fuels and the burning of biomass aka trees, plants, etc... This is done in many nations specifically those developing without sufficient access to oil or coal. Also, the main building materials of many places is wood, leading to forest loss faster than it can be replenished. With trees already being low, the urge to grow and consume the CO2 is negated by an inability to even begin the growth. As such, the rise of CO2 levels -proven to absorb heat- released from burning trees that could use it or fossil fuels that had kept excess carbon buried and is now returned to the atmosphere creates global heat increase yet is not immediately huge though when it would be then there would be
little anyone could do.
I literally have raman spectra in the IR region
>The main sources of CO2 are fossil fuels and the burning of biomass aka trees, plants, etc...
such sources are negligible when taking into account the entire volume of the atmosphere.
a volcano on the other hand has the power to cloak the world in darkness for 50+ years
For small organic molecules?
I've read it, and I agree with most of what it says. IMO, putting money into trying to irradiate the problem at this point is pointless. But does CO2 emissions contribute? It can't not.
So as long as there's an ever increasing number of humans walking the earth as carbon capture devices we're fine then?
That carbon isn't destroyed when we eat the food btw...
methane is the real culprit
plus, there are rivers of carbon in the mantle
Methane and other natural gasses are also at fault, in addition to carbon released bonding with oxygen in the atmosphere that would otherwise form into ozone thinning the ozone layer that reflects solar energy, increasing the amount earth got
You're missing the bigger picture here - the carbon exchanges. They've created a currency out of pollution, and the 1%ers are profiting outrageously from it. The usual suspects are all heavily invested in them, starting with Al Gore.
There's also an enormous amount of power behind the control, sale, and regulation of carbon credits - and of course, it's no surprise the globalists are all in.
The rabbit hole on this is easy to jump down - start with Shore bank, the Clinton's involvement, and obama's bailout of said bank - who are now heavily invested in the Chicago Exchange.
wouldn't it be extremely negligible seeing as
1. plants exist still
2. the volume of the entire atmosphere is gigantic
3. the power of a volcano eruption can cause an extinction event where sunlight is blotted out for 50+ years and such an eruption only puts massive amount of carbon (ash) in the atmosphere?
What is volcanic ash? Carbon
carbon nano tubes and some field ligands, you can even assign this shit from point groups dude
The media should also be blamed for dumped down reporting and not sourcing their stories properly. I also think the scientific community should open up their research much more than they do. Even if you can find a link to research it is hard for the normal person to see the raw data themselves. In a world where it is easy to transmit information the science community need to embrace that so people can see for themselves what millions of dollars/pounds spent at Universities and Company grants actually goes to. Hidden science leads to ignorance.
That would be the case if not for a) the widespread use of such fuels as in china which already visibly shows the impact of burning fuels revealing it to mot be negligible and b) the amount of time millions have used harmful fuels cumulated in CO2 levels comparable to a volcano, which also still exist and add to these sources. Also, even it these lesser sources were negligible normally the aforementioned loss of flora that removed the carbon exponentially increases the effect of even a little CO2
We are talking about global warming. How the fuck is carbon nanotubes and field ligands relevant to the discussion? Litterally any University or textbook teaches Pure raman is in the microwave region, you are just picking out obscure exceptions to the rule.
CO2 has raman in IR since most of the vibrations dont result in a net dipole moment and its extremely IR absorbtive
Okay what about fixing the problem?
Genetically engineer a new type of seaweed tha can live anywhere in the ocean - no natural predators - flourishes - oceans turn green and the global population will be high on O2 for all eternity?
irina.eas.gatech.edu
literally in this link CO2 not a major factor in vibrations. H2O is
Even at my small cucked Liberal Arts college I had a prof (in the science department) say that global warming is "Just as much of a political argument as a scientific one." He also said that there have been studies that have shown that some plants thrive in a carbon rich environment.
A real solution would be allowing nature to remove the carbon yet not as, radically as you are proposing. Simply, CO2 levels need to be lowered to a point that plants can use it and use of wood/flora reduced so as to keep acceptable CO2 levels high enough to support our industrial growth. This is what green energy does by supplying energy in a way that dosent produce or reintroduce CO2 (as with fossil fuels) allowing nature to maintain an equilibrium. The issue here then shifts from actual debate whether global warming is real to if it is economically feasible which hydroelectric and some solar are already showing is returning over the 3 to 1 dollar return needed to create profit. Heck even nuclear would be acceptable now if not for the risk of meltdown and the resulting fallout being as bad as a large volcano erupting for even longer.
Yes i agree it is both a scientific issue and a political one, and also that plants mostly will thrive in a CO2 rich environment but two things cause a problem. One is that coupled with an increase in CO2 is a rampant deforestation all over the earth for fuel or building materials that removes these plants which would balance out the CO2 levels. Also, the CO2 then raises temperatures of which even most carbon loving plants cannot handle.
Algae eats up a lot of it if plants don't. It has other issues regarding blooms, but nature sort of tries to fill itself to capacity.
DELETE THIS
Two main reasons, 1 being the otherwise stated absorbing and insulating of heat (which i wont go into as these others repliers have) and 2 that carbon released bonds with oxygen in the atmosphere. Since three atoms are needed to form ozone, this then creates lots of O2 and CO2 bit little O3 which allows more solar radiation into the earth which itself is the main root of why the earth has any heat at all
That is true but a) an eruption is not preventable/guaranteed while pollution is and b) a volcanoes erupting and killing everyone is as likely as an asteroid is and again put of our hands. The argument here is the same as saying a smoker shouldn't stop smoking in risk of cancer as anyone could get cancer whenever.
Riddle me this:
Greenhouse gases are about 400 ppm in our atmosphere right now, up from the historical maximum of around 300 ppm at least going back 800,000 years. This massive 33% increase all took place since the industrial revolution.
But human emissions only account for about 3% of total annual emissions (about 26 GT compared to the 770 GT from nature) so how is a group that's responsible for only 3% of total emissions also responsible for a 33% sudden increase in emissions?
I suspect the answer has to do with deforestation wrecking the absorption rate , but I haven't really been able to find anything on the web that even addresses this huge discrepancy.
CO2 is plant food. It's basically fertilizer. Do you really think it's healthy to breath fertilizer?
Im not sure how this relates to global warming but a) we breath out CO2 so its bad as it is human waste and b)fertilizers are primarily nitrogen and phosphorus
>Is there any evidence to Carbon actually being the reason for global warming?
It absorbs energy better than other things in the atmosphere.
That's it.
>Seems like the most abundant organic molecule being responsible for rises in temperature is actually a political stance and not one of science.
But there is no logical connection between
-most abundant organic moleküle
And
-causes warming
Why do you think that it should not cause warming?
>Who the hell backs this? Where is the evidence?
Ah well this is a long story.
The amount of carbon in the atmosphere correlates with the temperature increase.
That's the most basic evidence.
But here is a prediction of global warming theory.
A-If GWarming is true then animals should shrink in size.
B-They do shrink in size
Conclusion-Therefore it's a good theory
the seus effect