If pumping Co2 into the atmosphere does not cause global warming then how do you deniers explain Venus?

If pumping Co2 into the atmosphere does not cause global warming then how do you deniers explain Venus?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtu.be/i15DIF_v0lY
youtube.com/watch?v=eVaDBoy3qFU
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

>what is the Goldilocks zone

>closer to Sun
>fucked up orbit and rotation
>no magnetic field
>no tectonic plates
>different geological history all together
>no Moon
>sulfuric acid in the atmosphere

You are right its all CO2.

where are the humans on venus?

>what is being closer to the sun
>what is an oval rotation with extremely uneven heating
>what is little to no atmosphere
>what is totally different formation than earth
you dont know anything about other planets do you?

wtf i love bait now

So, are you saying there were Venusians millions of years ago who burned so much oil that they turned their whole atmosphere into Co2 and sulfuric acid?

Because I'm like 99% sure that even if we burn every drop of oil, we still won't meaningfully change the atmospheric composition of Earth.

Massive amounts of CO2 isn't inherently bad. The LD50 of Carbon Dioxide is 50,000 ppm and we're at 400ppm. Since the industrial revolution its only risen from 300ppm. It's literally nothing. Just ignore these Ecoterrorists.

It's a terrible '''''''''''argument'''''''''' that doesn't mean anything. Venus is closer to the sun, doesn't have vegetation and it doesn't have an ocean. The CO2 content of Venus and Earth isn't even comparable.
Venus is something pseudo-scientists bring up only to shut down the dumbest people who are too embarrassed to admit that they don't even know where Venus is located. It shuts down a huge chunk of the skeptics and normies.

When they know that the person they're talking to is knowledgeable they never talk about Venus, because it's fucking retarded. What they say instead is that increased CO2 makes the planet hotter, which makes more water evaporate, and the water creates a greenhouse effect which makes the planet hotter, which makes more water evaporate. The ''argument'' is that if you pump too much CO2 into the air it will snowball until we're all screwed, which is a straight up lie. We know for a fact that Earth has had a bigger CO2 concentration in the air and it didn't cause the world to end. We as a species are physically incapable of pumping enough CO2 in the air to make any difference to the climate.

"holocaust denier" = "global warming denier"

Both extremely misleading terms. We need to capitalize on "White genocide denier"

>little to no atmosphere
Shit my dude Venus has an atmosphere 93 times denser than ours and that's 96% CO2

Explain MARS whose atmosphere is almost pure CO2.

>If pumping Co2 into the atmosphere does not cause global warming then how do you deniers explain Venus?

faeries.

Earth's atmosphere is 400 parts per million CO2. Venus's atmosphere is 970,000 parts per million CO2. Venus is also much closer to the soured of heat (the sun). You can easily look up these facts.

Not even 1% of earth's atmospheric pressure. It's like expecting to cause global warming by blowing air. That being said both Venus and Mars are their own demons and can't be used to justify global warming when we have other gases that influence it, and there's still plenty to study regarding CO2 emissions

plate tectonics my ignorant friend

>closer to Sun
Makes a difference but mercury is closer yet cooler.
>fucked up orbit and rotation
Marginal effect on average global temperature
>no tectonic plate
No effect, or if any would make the planet cooler.
>no magnetic field
marginal effect on global average temperature
>different geological history altogether
meaningless
>no moon
no effect on global average temperature
>sulfuric acid in the atmospheres
cooling effect, if anything
wew lad.

Who pumped CO2 into Venus?

>what is little to no atmosphere
denialist intellectuals.

>how do you deniers explain Venus?

closer to the sun
plus, God made it that way

The mechanism for Venus is that H2O evaporated from the oceans and surface, and got carried up to the upper atmosphere. Because Venus receives much more solar input than Earth, water vapor there is more easily struck by high energy solar rays much deeper in its atmosphere than here on Earth. These rays split H2O up, at which point, Venus is screwed. Venus doesn't have the mass to hold onto Hydrogen, so the 2 atoms of Hydrogen escape the planet, while the atom of oxygen falls back to the planet. Venus loses all of its water through this mechanism, losing the primary active driver of planetary COOLING. So Venus heats up, and up and up and up...

Here on Earth, water vapor has to get much higher to get broken up and for Earth to lose that hydrogen and be left with just the oxygen. While this loss is certainly happening, NASA at this point believes that the earth is still gaining water from ice in meteors, although the matter is still under study.

>implying Venus actually exists

>no magnetic field
>marginal effect on global average temperature
You're absolutely right. Getting blasted by the sun's torrent of radiation shitstorm couldn't possibly do anything to affect that.

If CO2 was such a strong driver of global warming as often put forward in the global warming alarmists positions, then Mars should be much hotter than Earth at a minimum, and not have a much denser atmosphere. It does not.

>no tectonic plate
No effect, or if any would make the planet cooler.


Oooh, sorry. Better luck next time.
Volcanoes+no plate tectonic=hot
youtu.be/i15DIF_v0lY

No plants on Venus? CO2 is plant food.

Stop drinking C02 filled cans of sugar water to save the planet today!!!!


If that doesnt work,

Make checks payble to:
AL Gore C/O Climate Change
666 Fake Climate Data
Big Beach Mansion, CA 97653-2323

Actually atmospheric water vapor would of had a massive warming effect. Your entire point about how water was lost and why it's far less likely here is correct though.
Reason why temperatures stayed high on Venus is simply because with no water to increase weathering of co2 absorbent material, and no tectonic activity to pull the co2 back in the mantle, it just accumulated.

Nope, it wouldn't. The amount of energy carried by charged particles emitted by the sun (and that would normally be deflected by a magnetic field) is tiny compared to the amount carried by visible light and infrared light hitting any planet in the solar system.

Nope, I am right. No tectonic activity only has a warming effect if you also take into account the warming effect of co2. If your video claims otherwise it's full of shit.

Mars' atmosphere is a paper tissue compared to earth's blanket. That's why earth is actually habitable while Mars is cold to the tits almost year-round. It doesn't matter if it's almost completely carbo dioxide if it's so damn thin, I'm not even going about climate change.

I am not that interested in the virgin planet. Venus is fucking boring. Like I said, they bring up Venus only when they know that the people they're talking to are dumb as fuck. If Neil Degreasy Tyson tells you something about Venus and how Venus is hot because it has a lot of CO2, you are going to accept it as fact. It sounds credible enough.
Venus is not something you are going to be hearing brought up in an actual discussion about climate change. Venus is for the kids.

>when someone with more than two brain cells has already posted so you can relax

Correct. Thanks user.

Water is both an agent of heating, through its GHG activity, as well as a primary agent of cooling, through its precipitation cycle. This is a huge problem in climate modelling, deciding how much weight to give water's precipitation cycle towards cooling.

If charged particles don't carry much energy, why do nuclear bombs burn at a million degrees? Checkmate, atheists.

It does have a cooling effect through albedo, I meant on Venus it overwhelmingly had a warming effect, at lease when the oceans started to not just evaporate, but boil.
>This is a huge problem in climate modelling, deciding how much weight to give water's precipitation cycle towards cooling
Yes that's true.

>this is what christcucks actually believe

the truth about the Venus-global warming comparison is this:

While it's true that it's the runaway greenhouse effect of CO2 that gives Venus its incredibly high surface temperature, there really is no plausible way humans could bring the same thing about. For runaway greenhouse to occur, the planet has to first pass through a moist greenhouse, where the planetary ocean evaporates and water vapor becomes a major constituent of the atmosphere. Since this process of evaporating entire oceans takes on the order of hundreds of thousands of years, it takes a sustained forcing to bring this about. A CO2 forcing is too short-lived (the majority of added CO2 gets absorbed by carbon sinks after several 10^4 years. It's really only an increase in solar luminosity that would be able to catapult the planet into this terminal stable state.

But of course, the planet doesn't have to turn into Venus for there to be any kind of damage done. The episodes of rapid warming thta occured over the course of Earth history had onset durations of thousands of years and still were associated with major faunal turnover and exstirpation. The anthropogenic forcing is growing faster than any known natural forcing and the entire system is evolving very rapidly, leaving little opportunity for the biosphere to adapt.

>1 post by this ID

Kek, I'm just fucking with you buddy. Can I ask you an aside question? Most of these climate change bullshit threads are just full of trolls but you seem at least educated and present points so that's cool. I have a whole copypasta I usually post that no one has really addressed. Mainly specific numbers, how much CO2 ppm does it take to raise global temperature a unit of temperature, how much humans are even having an effect on it, how long it'll take for X to happen (I dunno, for the ice caps to melt I guess is a good doomsday scenario to cite), why I should give a fuck if coastal cities flood since they're all degenerate shitholes anyway, etcetc.

But anyway, I just want to ask this side question as just a topic of discussion. I think it's interesting. So you know how there's all this talk about colonizing Mars and shit? Why does no one ever address the fact that Mars is dead and doesn't generate a magnetic field to block the Solar Winds? Isn't that shit SUPER fucking deadly and long term exposure will kill any life blasted by it?

I'd call you a troll but green party enthusiasts claim to love science yet never understand anything even remotely basic about how the planet works

You said
> No effect, or if any would make the planet cooler.
He said
> Volcanoes+no plate tectonic=hot
You then said
> Nope, I am right
> No tectonic activity only has a warming effect

Conclusion - please kindly neck yourself and relieve this world of your idiocity.

>I'm just fucking with you
lel I know, "checkmate atheists" was clear enough.
>Mainly specific numbers, how much CO2 ppm does it take to raise global temperature a unit of temperature(...)
Is the copy pasta providing specific numbers are just asking for specifics? I am not sure if you want me to contribute or something.

>So you know how there's all this talk about colonizing Mars and shit? Why does no one ever address the fact that Mars is dead and doesn't generate a magnetic field to block the Solar Winds? Isn't that shit SUPER fucking deadly and long term exposure will kill any life blasted by it?
I have seen people address it, and it usually goes something like this: Yeah Mars is dead and we`d be better off colonizing just about any other inhospitable area on Earth instead if we are just talking about obvious practicality. That said, we could protect ourselves from the radiation fairly easily, having the shelter be built under a few feats of regolith would be enough. Outside excursions are fine too as long as you're not doing it when being hit by a solar flair. If it weren't for periods of high solar activity, the biggest problem would be early onset of cancer in the colonist population. They'd still have a higher life expectancy than a smoker on Earth. Fairly sure biggest problems wont be radiation but rather low g and of course random accident potentially causing depressurization of your living quarters. As for why you'd colonize mars as opposed to say, antartica, the only reasonable answers I could provide are 1- scientific curiosity 2- Isolating yourself completely from the arguably toxic (degenerate or whatever) influence of Earth.

No I was in fact right, tectonic activity still has no effect on the climate by itself, and since he was clearly listing it as a separate reason for warming than CO2, he was wrong, and thus I was right. Nice try though.
Ok then list were I was wrong.
>green part enthusiast
Absolutely not, for those guys you'd be right.

Venus is hot, Venus is closer to the sun than earth, mercury is even hotter and closer to the sun, hmmmmm ?

How do "man-made climate change"-activists explain humans pumping Co2 into Venus' atmosphere?

The Venus example is usually brought up when a particular subset of retarded "skeptics" claim CO2 has no effect on the climate, usually highly religious Christians, like those I was bothered with in this thread. The other cases is when a group of retarded GW believers try to use that as a "flawless argument" against any and all people skeptical of global warming for any reason, which are better off simply being ignored.

>mercury is even hotter and closer to the sun
Nope, it's cooler. In fact even Mercury's temperature on it's day side is cooler than Venus' average temperature.

I can't accept what you said about the role of tectonics in climate.
Tectonics are hugely important on a 10^6-year time scale. In fact, the rough pattern of CO2 concentration (and coincident evolution from greenhouse to icehouse conditions and vice versa) is a signal of the Wilson-Supercontinent cycle, which influenced the relative sizes of carbon sources and carbon sinks.

Tectonic activity is also the ultimate cause of an active carbonate-silicate cycle, which is a necessary condition that prevents a planet from undergoing an abrupt climate transition from global glaciation to runaway greenhouse.

So I guess in a way you're both right and wrong at the same time. So far from pitting the effects of tectonics and CO2 on the climate against each other, both of them are highly important and very closely related.

It's asking for specifics. I mean, if you want to try to address it I'll post it in a reply after this since it's damn near the 2000 character limit and I can't just append it to this post. If you'll indulge me, I think I'll at least get educated responses even if I might not fully agree. Every time I've posted it just gets a response "LOL OMG UR DUM" or again, no specifics.

>solar winds explanation
Well thanks for that. I guess I thought solar winds were way deadlier. Guess I shouldn't be surprised since the missions to the moon and stuff and how the astronauts didn't die right away. Yeah, the lower G is also a major concern with Mars. Might be able to combat it by doing what astronauts do and have the populace do strength training to keep their bodies okay. I think major colonization of Mars is impossible, humans will probably kill each other off in nuclear hellfire before major (millions-billions) colonization can happen. I think it would start with what you said - scientific curiosity. Like 200 scientists and engineers and shit. Then after Earthlings destroy Earth, it would become almost an ark for salvation of the human race when there is no home to turn back to. That's just my theory.

>And since he was clearly listing it as a separate reason for warming than CO2, he was wrong
I have no clue how many times I have to write this to overcomes Sup Forums's lack of reading comprehension. Tectonic plate's cooling effect is equivalent to a guy taking your coat during winter. You can't list "guy NOT taking your coat" as a separate and distinct reason for keeping yourself warm as the coat itself, that's insane.

I don't think anyone denies the fact that putting CO2 into the atmosphere damages it. I think what most who "deny climate change" dispute is how much it impacts it. They are just labeled as deniers because it (((their))) way of playing identity politics on this topic.

Mercury isn't the same size, absorbs less heat

Here's the aforementioned copypasta. It's kind of disrespectful because I address it to trolls and retards usually. Disregard the usual 4chins manner of speaking:

Prove it is:

A: happening (which I don't doubt)

B: can be directly linked to human actions like burning fossil fuels

C: post specifics, how the parts the humans are doing is actually significant. Like what percent is our fault.

D: post specifics, about just how fast "climate is changing" since "global warming" is no longer the meme term. I want real statistics like "we are getting X warmer every year and I will have to worry about it in Y years becuase Z happened and is devastating"

E: post specifics, about just why I should give two fucks if hipsters faggots have to move their shitty cities 2 miles inland while I pay for retarded infrastructure that would probably cost more

F: if all of that is all real and shit, why I would care if it's as tragic as the lefty faggots think, when they're all just destroying our countries and children's futures with mass immigration of mudslimes and taconiggers and increased socialism to support these subhumans

G: Explain how wind turbines that are complete and utter shit, cost more fossil fuels to build and transport and assemble and shit than they save over their lifetime and only work in wind, but not too much so you have to use tradition power sources anyway, how solar isn't complete shit that get ruined by dust and only works during the day, without clouds or fog or any retard with an umbrella is within 20 miles

H: Explain why we should be pouring billions of my taxpayer money into this when it is proven the private sector is many times more efficient than any government grant program or research fund. If a company makes and patents the next big innovation in energy, they will quite literally become one of the biggest companies in existence

I am not sure about the specifics to be honest, I didn't even really outright took a specific stance. I mostly just take pleasure debunking obvious bullshit like "mercury is hotter than venus". Sorry I can't provide you much. potholer54 has a lot of videos on that matter if you want to check that out though.

Were not talking about total amount of heat on the surface though, we are talking about average temperature, the size has no bearing on that.

>Outside excursions are fine too as long as you're not doing it when being hit by a solar flair.

You'd be able to build up whatever vehicle you're using to screen out a lot of the radiation, though. Any sort of colonial effort would need to have a fairly level of local manufacturing capacity, so the weight wouldn't need to be lifted from Earth, and if I recall correctly, Bremsstrahlung is more of a concern with GCRs, which the mass of the planet and the (thin) atmosphere already give you some protection from.

Plus there have been some studies done on using artificial magnetic shielding for charged particle protection, with some promising results.

Let's say it's really happening
Let's say humans caused it

So what? U.S.A stops pumping carbon into the atmosphere, China and Russia don't give a fuck, we're screwed anyway.

Black carbon already is coating the ice caps and according to scientists, we are past the point of no return.

Do nothing, we're fucked
Do anything, we're fucked

There are places on Mars that if you built your colony there, even a rupture in your shelter wouldn't kill you, because the local atmosphere pressure is enough for you to survive with little problem. Of course, these areas are located at the bottom of the deepest canyons known on Mars, but why not take advantage of local conditions to improve your long term survivability?

Thank you for a genuinely amusing troll thread.
I will not sage your thread, because of how passionate the hippie got. It really brought a smile to my face.

I wish all troll threads made this little effort but were this successful. I miss old Sup Forums

> I was right
Thinking you're right and actually being right are two totally different things.
You're not right. You're absolutely wrong and claiming otherwise only proves your stupidity.

I understand that. That's why I said that both of your are right as well as wrong : Plate tectonics and CO2 are both critically important, have to both be considered and are closely inter-related.

Oh I was just saying it wouldn't be strictly necessary most of the times, but yes you could although your shielding would still have to be fairly thick. Magnetic protection is probably viable too but I also expect it will be power-hungry.

Then say why I was wrong then. He listed plate tectonic as a separate warming effect to CO2, it isn't.Sure you could say it was meant to be interlinked, except given the context, it clearly wasn't his meaning which can be deducted if you're not autistic.
How was I wrong? I said the two were intertwined before you did, and never said otherwise anywhere, I said stating it as a separate reason is wrong, which it is.

Fair enough, some of your later posts came off as if you're dismissing tectonics as a considerable factor.

High pressure

It's close to a giant flaming ball.

Venus' heat stems from the fact it's a young planet that's full of electrical charge and closer to the sun. Think of Venus as what the Earth looked like in the past, not what Earth will look like in the future.

youtube.com/watch?v=eVaDBoy3qFU

Fucking white males

Because we have things called 'Plants' that sequester atmospheric CO2 in order to produce plant matter... Dumbass.

Of course there's global warming....why did the Ice Age go away?
But put all the CO2 in the air that you may, when the sun fizzles out, it will get minus 400.

your name isn't Gary Johnson by any chance?

/fucking tpbp

>belongs in /sci
kys, nigger

>leaving little opportunity for the biosphere to adapt.

except you know, for the genetic engineering that's going to speed up evolution by orders of magnitude.

They can already GMO crop yield, internal pesticide, etc, why wouldn't they be able to engineer more resilient strains that sequester more CO2

Because gmos causes frankenautism.
Non meme answer: Genetically engineering stuff is rather hard even with CRISPR. Most of the times the only thing they do is genetically engineer them for pesticide resistance.

Superintelligent machines are going to displace all life on Earth and do it orders of magnitude faster than genetic engineering.

Venus came from Zeus. He was having an awful headache one day and his head split open then Venus came out of his mind and laid by the sea in the sea foam.

Then he grabbed that hoe and threw her in to a kitchen!

Our atmosphere is currently .2% CO2 cunt. Venus' is in the 90's% range

It's less than that. ~0.04%