/sci/ - Science & Math

>>14673209
>Correlation is not causation
Refute the causation.

>>14670997
>>14671000
>greenhouse effect
>the literal effect that makes certain gases cause warming
>one of which is carbon dioxide

>>12727076
>CO2 traps energy at very specific wavelengths, while other greenhouse gases trap different wavelengths. In physics, these wavelengths can be measured using a technique called spectroscopy.

>Pic: Spectrum of the greenhouse radiation measured at the surface. Greenhouse effect from water vapor is filtered out, showing the contributions of other greenhouse gases (Evans 2006).

>The graph shows different wavelengths of energy, measured at the Earth’s surface. Among the spikes you can see energy being radiated back to Earth by ozone (O3), methane (CH4), and nitrous oxide (N20). But the spike for CO2 on the left dwarfs all the other greenhouse gases, and tells us something very important: most of the energy being trapped in the atmosphere corresponds exactly to the wavelength of energy captured by CO2.

To sum up:

1. We understand the mechanism through which CO2 warms the atmosphere

2. We have proof of this mechanism in action in the form of pic related. We literally have direct evidence that CO2 is causing more heat to get trapped in the atmosphere.

3. We have measured large increases in CO2 levels in the atmosphere since the late 1800s and understand how these have been caused by Human activity.

4. We have seen global average temperatures increase as predicted.

>>12727076
>how would we falsify AGW hypothesis

>CO2 traps energy at very specific wavelengths, while other greenhouse gases trap different wavelengths. In physics, these wavelengths can be measured using a technique called spectroscopy.

>Pic: Spectrum of the greenhouse radiation measured at the surface. Greenhouse effect from water vapor is filtered out, showing the contributions of other greenhouse gases (Evans 2006).

>The graph shows different wavelengths of energy, measured at the Earth’s surface. Among the spikes you can see energy being radiated back to Earth by ozone (O3), methane (CH4), and nitrous oxide (N20). But the spike for CO2 on the left dwarfs all the other greenhouse gases, and tells us something very important: most of the energy being trapped in the atmosphere corresponds exactly to the wavelength of energy captured by CO2.

So, to sum up:
1. We understand the mechanism through which CO2 warms the atmosphere

2. We have proof of this mechanism in action in the form of pic related. We literally have direct evidence that CO2 is causing more heat to get trapped in the atmosphere.

3. We have measured large increases in CO2 levels in the atmosphere since the late 1800s and understand how these have been caused by Human activity.

4. We have seen global average temperatures increase as predicted.

>>11911824
Here's one on global warming that always shuts up the denialists. Short and on point.

spectroscopy proves AGW beyond any shadow of a doubt.

>The final piece of evidence is ‘the smoking gun’, the proof that CO2 is causing the increases in temperature. CO2 traps energy at very specific wavelengths, while other greenhouse gases trap different wavelengths. In physics, these wavelengths can be measured using a technique called spectroscopy. Here’s an example:

>Spectrum of the greenhouse radiation measured at the surface. Greenhouse effect from water vapor is filtered out, showing the contributions of other greenhouse gases (Evans 2006).

>The graph shows different wavelengths of energy, measured at the Earth’s surface. Among the spikes you can see energy being radiated back to Earth by ozone (O3), methane (CH4), and nitrous oxide (N20). But the spike for CO2 on the left dwarfs all the other greenhouse gases, and tells us something very important: most of the energy being trapped in the atmosphere corresponds exactly to the wavelength of energy captured by CO2.

>>11899119
>muh climategate
Nothingburger. A couple of scientists discussed their research over email, internet schizos misinterpreted the scientific terminology used on the emails to mean there was some big conspiracy, even though there wasn't, and that was just one study out of thousands proving AGW.

Meanwhile in the real world spectroscopy proves AGW beyond any shadow of a doubt.

>The final piece of evidence is ‘the smoking gun’, the proof that CO2 is causing the increases in temperature. CO2 traps energy at very specific wavelengths, while other greenhouse gases trap different wavelengths. In physics, these wavelengths can be measured using a technique called spectroscopy. Here’s an example:

>Spectrum of the greenhouse radiation measured at the surface. Greenhouse effect from water vapor is filtered out, showing the contributions of other greenhouse gases (Evans 2006).

>The graph shows different wavelengths of energy, measured at the Earth’s surface. Among the spikes you can see energy being radiated back to Earth by ozone (O3), methane (CH4), and nitrous oxide (N20). But the spike for CO2 on the left dwarfs all the other greenhouse gases, and tells us something very important: most of the energy being trapped in the atmosphere corresponds exactly to the wavelength of energy captured by CO2.

>>11812894
It's even simpler to prove.

https://www.skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-for-global-warming.htm
>The final piece of evidence is ‘the smoking gun’, the proof that CO2 is causing the increases in temperature. CO2 traps energy at very specific wavelengths, while other greenhouse gases trap different wavelengths. In physics, these wavelengths can be measured using a technique called spectroscopy. Here’s an example:

>[PIC]
>Spectrum of the greenhouse radiation measured at the surface. Greenhouse effect from water vapor is filtered out, showing the contributions of other greenhouse gases (Evans 2006).

>The graph shows different wavelengths of energy, measured at the Earth’s surface. Among the spikes you can see energy being radiated back to Earth by ozone (O3), methane (CH4), and nitrous oxide (N20). But the spike for CO2 on the left dwarfs all the other greenhouse gases, and tells us something very important: most of the energy being trapped in the atmosphere corresponds exactly to the wavelength of energy captured by CO2.

>>11042281

>>10776972
Ayyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy

https://skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-for-global-warming.htm

>The final piece of evidence is ‘the smoking gun’, the proof that CO2 is causing the increases in temperature. CO2 traps energy at very specific wavelengths, while other greenhouse gases trap different wavelengths. In physics, these wavelengths can be measured using a technique called spectroscopy. Here’s an example:
[chart]
>Spectrum of the greenhouse radiation measured at the surface. Greenhouse effect from water vapor is filtered out, showing the contributions of other greenhouse gases (Evans 2006).

>The graph shows different wavelengths of energy, measured at the Earth’s surface. Among the spikes you can see energy being radiated back to Earth by ozone (O3), methane (CH4), and nitrous oxide (N20). But the spike for CO2 on the left dwarfs all the other greenhouse gases, and tells us something very important: most of the energy being trapped in the atmosphere corresponds exactly to the wavelength of energy captured by CO2.

>>10763277
It is. This is the dumbest new lie

>>10761047
>Imagine being this retarded

>>10701266
The spectrum of infrared that they reflect back to Earth

>>10260384
>he doubt know infrared heat from CO2 can be directly measured
Where do you fucking clowns come from? It's the same nonsense in every thread.

>>10240920
>>10240974
Expanding on this, water vapor stays in the atmosphere for a week on average and is driven by the climate rather then the other way around. Methane is a potential greenhouse gas, but it stays on the atmosphere for 3-5 years on average (I can't remember off hand, nor can I be fucked to look it up), which essentially means that it is no longer an issue as soon as the source is dealt with. CO2 stays in the air for an average of 500-100 years which means it will need to be actively sequestered if it goes above tolerable levels. Here's some data on the effecacy of various gasses as greenhouse gasses for you to ponder

>>10237862
>give me data so I can ignore it and move the goalposts yet again
OK, this is fun.

>>10237861
>give me data so I can ignore it and move the goalposts yet again
OK, this is fun.

>>10183729
>The graph, if it is representationally accurate enough to be of real use, only shows a strong connection to man activity and temp, and does not prove that increased C02 emissions are the primary cause of the spike near the end.
It was not intended to. CO2 emissions causing warming is proved directly by measuring the spectrum of incoming infrared heat.

>Since much of the graph represents a timeframe before modern meteorological technology some might take issue with it in the first place.
Those who might take issue with it might not know what they're talking about.

>The planet Venus for example, has runaway greenhouse climate, but the atmosphere is over 96% CO2 and the atmosphere is much denser,over 90 times earth pressure with approximately the same gravity. The idea that trace amount increases of C02 gases in Earth's atmosphere will cause runaway climate change are very doubtful.
Who said it will result in runaway warming? You realize warming does not necessarily mean runaway warming right?

>>10182682
>All predictions this far are about as valid as flat earth theories.
Which predictions?

>Global warming changed to climate change and climate change doesn't just manifest as global warming but "increasing climate extremes".
Incorrect. https://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-change-global-warming.htm

>Freons were another case entirely, their chemical reactions with ozone could be proven a priori and a posteriori. Climate change from methane and carbon dioxide has way too many variables in it to make sense out of.
The greenhouse effect is proven a priori and a posteriori.

>>10180920
Yes, totally natural! Just ignore that we have directly measured the amount of heat being radiated back to Earth by CO2 in the atmosphere and therefore we know the warming is being caused by man.

>>10060335
>top lel anon
This is what the /pol/tard says when he encounters big words he does not understand.

>>10022115
Totally, no relation.

>>10016398
So you're a delusional retard.

>>9957486
>you realize many scientists have said that pole shifts and happen extremely fast (like within a decade) after its build up of thousands of years, once it gets going and to a certain point it goes really quick
Utter nonsense.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pole_shift_hypothesis#Scientific_research

Thank you for displaying your level of scientific literacy and you're willingness to present pseudoscience as science. You're really helping me.

>methane is actually confirmed to be the biggest contributor of green house gasses, many times for methane than co2
You don't even understand what you're typing, it's pure nonsense. How is methane the biggest "contributor" of greenhouse gasses? Do you mean it has the biggest effect of all the greenhouse gasses? No, again, the total effect of all methane emissions is only a quarter of the effect of CO2 emissions, according to the data. See >>9957362. Either present evidence of your claims that are better than the IPCC's radiative forcing calculations or fuck off. You have no idea what you're talking, and you know it. Do you have any shame?

>also CO2 is taken in by plants and then give us back oxygen
And? You must have the attention span of a toddler if you these non sequiturs will actually distract people from the argument.

>co2 is not even a green house gas
What exactly do you think you are going to get from denying fundamental physics? Is this a joke or are you mentally ill?

>>9842249