Reminder: CO2 has nothing to do with temps and there is no science that supports it

Reminder: CO2 has nothing to do with temps and there is no science that supports it.

Attached: co2-temps.jpg (960x720, 87K)

Other urls found in this thread:

pnas.org/content/116/39/19330
youtu.be/FBF6F4Bi6Sg?t=205
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

Thanks conspiracy theorist!

you are literally retarded

It's not exactly the most breathable chemical compound now is it user

Hang yourself

Up to ~50,000 to 100,000 ppm it is. You thinking something lower?

>not an argument

Yes there is, you just won't believe it.

Attached: Uh huh.png (740x450, 78K)

Also, the earth continues to be flat.

Attached: jdf in space.jpg (960x506, 30K)

You know you just posted a fake ass graph that isn't supported by any science, but yet you did it.

I know. These fucking faggot, right? Flat earth climate models? Oh, where do I send my money, the IPCC or the church of England?
pnas.org/content/116/39/19330

Attached: NOAAlies.png (742x1146, 527K)

>NOAA

Attached: 1567204408452.jpg (800x800, 132K)

really, noaa?

Attached: 1461202014396.gif (196x300, 1.95M)

Taken straight from noaas website, give me something with more validity then

>Proving my point this hard

Notice how another source is being used for the second image

Find something scientific for a change.

The science is in the studies used to create this graph, which you can easily find on its website

>another source
Both NOAA, one recorded, the other adjusted for publication. You're as dumb as these fucks:

That's rich coming from you

>The science is in the studies
No, it's not. NOAA heavily adjusts it's data. Same with NASA/GISS.

Attached: NASA-US-1999-2019-1.gif (700x538, 87K)

Which if you looked it up would let you know it's a global surface temperature dataset, something that would provide way more information for a more complete graph. Give me any other source that can be more trusted to show its work and be accurate

I can clearly see the shop you fucking ignoramus, give me any other source you'd recommend

>100 years
>half a degree at highest

ITT

Attached: Baited.png (630x630, 116K)

Alarmists are the ones making the claim. Where's your proof? That NOAA shit's been debunked for a couple decades now.

>not believing NASA
What would you prefer?

>Give me any other source
see

Attached: USHCN-RAW-TMAX-Vs-Year-1895-2019-At-All-US-Historical-Climatology-Network-Stations-Red-Line-Is-5-Yea (1024x933, 195K)

Id love to see your sources

Ive seen this graph so much i can tell that like a third of the rest of the graph has been cut off

>Ive seen this graph so much
>I still won't believe it
>a third of the rest of the graph has been cut off
going back even further? Or records from the future?

>Id love to see your sources
Me too. Where's all the warming? Where's the CO2-temp relation?

>That NOAA shit's been debunked for a couple decades now.

That doesn't even make sense.

Why, because you still believe it?

OP here. No one can prove me wrong, huh?

Attached: CO2-and-Temperature-Changes-Over-Millions-of-Years-Plimer-2009-Fleming-2018.jpg (947x715, 288K)

What source or evidence would you accept?

Something that hasn't been torn apart by 318 other scientists.

user, I have nothing but respect for those afflicted with crippling autism. It must be hard everyday when people present you with hard thoughts, but it's ok, we'll be there for you. We love you, but we ask that you please do not vote. We can make the hard decisions that you struggle to think about.

Attached: autistlove.png (360x450, 217K)

i wonder why people like this exist, does feeding into autistic conspiracies the only way to make your life not completely dull, shouod just kys if ur life is that shit

Actual autist here.

Please do not group us with Morons or Conspiracy Theorists.

We autists prefer science over wishful thinking. We know humans are causing the current climate change.

Incorrect. There is a logarithmic relationship between CO2 and atmospheric heat: for every doubling of CO2, the atmosphere eventually warms by 1.65 degrees F. This disproves the climate alarmists completely. But you're z pants-on-hesd retard if you cznt grasp the basic science behind greenhouse gasses.

No like they cut off the end of the graph and resized it to make it look like that's the end

We don't need to that ugly hand drawn graphic is enough to discredit anything you say

That doesnt even match the data we've measured live since year 1900.

We're already at +0.8C (about 1.4F) and the CO2 level has only increased by a little under 50%.

No the thought that you can just dismiss everything they do with zero basis in reality, debunked how

>200 millions of years ago
You might wanna get your head checked

Your log graph is backwards. There is nothing that backs up your idea.
>The Two Popes (2019)
If you even spit out the paint ships long enough you'd realize that there is no such that as a greenhouse effect on any planet and, therefore, no greenhouse gasses. The Earth is an open system. We always radiate excess heat to space.

Attached: log-graph-lindzen-choi-web.gif (550x304, 24K)

What is "it" and what is "the end"? The graph goes from 1895 to modern day. You rather a 1979-on chart like NASA likes to show?

Trees love it, and we love the oxygen trees give.
Now that I think about it...there's more CO2 in the air now, and also more trees on Earth in recent history. Hmmmm

Who's that guy that guy for the un that admitted it's all a money grab?

>The Two Popes (2019)
lol wtf?
*greenhouse gasses
damn clipboard

This guy? AOC's adviser also said similar, but I'd have to hunt for it.

Attached: IPCCbroke.png (1094x675, 828K)

NOAA has been actively catch several times falsifying data for political purposes, has switched from perfected scientific methods to flawed methods to get desired results, and has been caught asking several nations to change their real-time temperature readings to their unverified satellite data.

>NOAA is literally a climate cult for gullible minds

ty kind sir. I respect that he admits it.

>reeeeeeeeee
>I might need to get my head checked

It doesn't disprove climate alarmists though. How much do you need to raise average tenperate to raise the amount of h2o in atmo?

Also look up James Holdren, Obama's Science Czar, put in charge of AGW. The fucker wanted to poison Africa's food and water supply because he was afraid of overpopulation. Not that I give a fuck, but that's how out of touch these alarmists are.

>no evidence
>every year in the past decade has been the hottest yet in recorded history

No point in having an argument with an idiot.
Kill yourself It will make the world a better place.

The general explanation is that there are more factors to global temperature than CO2, such as the strength of the sun. This video directly addresses the graph you posted here. I'll let the video do the explaining, since the author is a geologist and cites his sources thoroughly in the description. I'd recommend watching the entire video, because it likely debunks a lot of other stupid shit you've heard from climate change deniers.

youtu.be/FBF6F4Bi6Sg?t=205

As in what the graph says is 2019 is more like 1999-2001

Like when?

Alarmists also get the temp/precip relationship backwards. Cold does not = wetter. Only warm clouds drop their moisture. Cold/dry seasons don't build the Arctic, warm wet ones do. They think warm = melting. Warm = more snow and ice.

>we always radiate heat to space

Care to explain this brilliant observation. Are you proposing that the heated gasses in our atmosphere just escape continuously by some large margin? Or are you implying we're radiation enough light energy to be a meaningful amount? Either way is fucking retarded.

>It will make the world a better place
No proof in that either. Overpop is another lefty myth. Libs are actually more attributable to eco-destruction.

You should probably note that we are at an all-time low in number of trees in the world.

What? Are you saying the x scale is edited? We've been in a "pause" since 1997.

>implying we're radiation enough light energy to be a meaningful amount
I'm having a hard time understanding this.
Do you know what an R-value is? It's the change in temp over t over the differential in T. No heat is ever trapped. The transfer of your warm house has a predictable change in temp over a certain amount of time when both the inside and outside is measured. It's math. The atmosphere acts the same way. The water in the air slows the transfer of surface heat to space. That's why it's warmer on cloudy days and cold as shit on clear nights. Why does it get cold at night when CO2 stays the same? There is not "trapping of heat".

i'm sure you knew this already though.

fucking kek. Vegetation keeps increasing. We're at a 14% increase from 2000.

I've asked this before but never got an answer; where do you guys get this from? Srsly.

Attached: 1492743665760.jpg (567x567, 76K)

Heat needs to move though a medium, find the medium in a vacuum i.e. space. I'll be waiting to hear the next concept you only half understand the basics of.

You think light doesn't travel through space? How do we detect the temps of stars when there's a vacuum between?

So lets go back to my previous reply.
>are you implying we're radiation enough light energy to be a meaningful amount?

Despite yourr evasions I know that you know that conduction and convection are not the only ways heat moves. There's radiation. Like the heat from the Sun.
Or perhaps you're in denial about that too?
The Sun's not hot? Wow!

So lets go back to my previous reply.
>are you implying we're radiation enough light energy to be a meaningful amount?

I don't know what the fuck this means.

Attached: 1497575465550.png (499x614, 419K)

OP here, still no proof that CO2 heats the planet?

Attached: 1495682475638.jpg (307x352, 25K)

I know you are junior high level Astronomy tier trolling but...astronomers are able to measure the temperatures of the surfaces of stars by comparing their spectra to the spectrum of a black body.

You can google that.

>therefore the sun doesn't heat the Earth because there a vacuum between us.

Google it.

2 things with your graph, first of all, it's truncated, secondly, it only lists PARTIAL pressure, and does not relate to total co2. CO2 can make Up less than 200ppm, but if the atmospheric pressure is 10 bar it would be the equivalent of a 2000ppm co2 in today's atmosphere

Surely then I should listen to you, some faggot on Sup Forums, over scientists who understand that data.

>That's why it's warmer on cloudy days and cold as shit on clear nights. Why does it get cold at night when CO2 stays the same?
Holy shit you're retarded.
>There is not "trapping of heat".
It's the trapping of chemicals, you idiot.

>14% increase in vegetation

OK fam but what's the percentage of increase in CO2 emissions from 2000? Looking at some figures its about 27% more.

Ah, there's the pressure thing. Before I continue, you think CO2 has a role?

>over scientists who understand that data
But you won't be able to name one...
You'll listen to faggots on CNN and celebrities in movies and one asshole (Mann) with a hockey stick, but you'll rule out all other evidence because your so fucking scientific. Gotcha.

What's your point? Do we both agree that CO2 fertilization is a thing?

>the trapping of chemicals
Th'fuck do you mean? Chemicals make the planet hotter? You're calling me retarded?

Yes, I used to work with a medical research company as an engineer, our focus was to develop technology using liquid and supercritical CO2 to sterilize and denature allergenic proteins.

Of 99.999% of the people on this board, I can promise you I know more about CO2 than any of them.

>I know more about CO2
What is the T increase per mb raised? Or does it just heat itself in a vessel exposed to heat because it's "trapped"?