I can't manage to fully redpill myself on climate change, anyone got some good stuff
(climate change)
Other urls found in this thread:
eesc.columbia.edu
youtube.com
earthguide.ucsd.edu
youtube.com
web.archive.org
web.archive.org
web.archive.org
pubs.usgs.gov
nytimes.com
nytimes
archive.is
twitter.com
Bump
potholer54
stop reading internet blogs. they aren't climatologists and can't even understand how to read a scientific paper.
Sun is 95% of our temperature, 5% is internal heat of our core.
It's solar output has an extremely high correlation with our temperature, however it doesn't explain the cyclical ice ages.
I'm in the same boat. Would appreciate some solid redpills, lads.
The two bell curves are incoming solar shortwave/ultraviolet/visible (left)
Outgoing reflected longwave/Infrared (right)
Earth absorbs 23% directly, the rest is reflected and of that reflection it gets scattered by clouds (14%) blue sky (10%) and atmosphere (17%)
of that 17% atmospheric absorption we now encounter the greenhouse phenomenon. Looking at what is doing that absorption we use spectrographs
Its made up by the jews. to keep us from success.
It doesn't matter.
The solution will never be wealth redistribution shemes of globalist elites, but free market solutions - provided they are not suppressed by globalist elites.
eesc.columbia.edu
Putting this in perspective, my conclusion is that the sun's correspondence is extremely close to 1:1. There really isn't room for any other factor that would influence us outside of that. And looking at the atmosphere's absorption of 17.5%, of that being say primarily C02 but also H20, it really is insignificant and not a sufficient explanation convincing me of its importance.
is "redpill me" slang for "have some moron try to explain climate change on Sup Forums?" or does it mean "sell me on sucking corporate cock?"
> actually believing this shit