ok so if the earth is flat then there would have to be an edge. explain how it wouldn't

oh boy is that an *interesting* article. so CO2 is proven to be linked to retaining heat in a body such as the earth and currently we should be going through a period of global cooling. if we should be going through a period of global cooling then (while there would be loss of polar ice in areas) there would be gain in the amount of polar ice. we are loosing polar ice and we are seeing sea levels rise because of it. desertification is, while a natural process, massively accelerated and CO2 is linked with lowering intelligence via less oxygen being able to reach you overall especially in enclosed environments which typically have high CO2 concentration than outside. so less oxygen reaches your brain and thus begins inhibiting thought processes and reasoning as you can't function at full capacity and in high concentrations of CO2 you will just die so please do tell me how it's not a poison and even if climate change was a hoax how CO2 isn't dangerous

ok so that first model is really difficult to tell what's actually going on and in the second model a similar question arises. the moon is visible through out the night and with the model that i'm seeing in the second one where the sun isn't visible neither will the moon be and with that model the sun just has a cut off point where it decides: nah i'm not going to shine on this section of the globe

assumption based on belief? what's that meant to mean? that i'm blindly believing something? well as someone who has seen the effects of CO2 concentration that low in an enclosed box with a thermometer in and watched it heat i'm assuming on belief? and as someone who has been inside a room that i can verify was filling slowly with CO2 as i was the one who made the reaction to slowly fill it and watched my cognitive abilities slowly decline before my very eyes as CO2 reached 0.06% in the room is blind belief?

idk the exact numbers but i've got a book somewhere that i recorded the stuff into

i'd need sm time to find it but i have it somewhere. and basically i concentrated a small box with CO2 by complete combustion up to 0.04% then applied radiation to mimic the sun at a proportional amount. i also did this with a box that had 0.02% CO2 inside of it (same size of box) and heated that for the same length of time. at the end of this the temperature inside of the box with 0.04% it was significantly high. again i don't have the results with me as it was maybe a year ago but idk where the book is

so that's in support of climate change

so the following test had me sat in a box 5m by 5m by 5m and i had set up a point where CO2 would be filtered in by a combustion reaction in an open system separate of the box. i was in there for 30 minutes doing the following: solving equations, solving simultaneous equations and factorisation. i timed how long each question took each one was as difficult as the one before. during this time measurements of CO2 were taken by how much was entering the box per minute and by 0.07% i had noticed about 5 seconds increase in time taken to solve the problems on average. by 0.1% it had increased by at least 10 seconds and my mind was beginning to feel foggy and i lethargic. i continued to .15% at which point i had to leave as i was on the verge of passing out

i fully well understand the difference between 0.04 and 1

no but the proportion of concentration means that it doesn't matter

i don't think u understand what proportional means

i don't have it with me rn

i don't think i do

i think the book might be in my attic and i don't have the key, my room mate does. he won't be home for another couple of hours

ok now ur just not understanding physics

they're waves of radiation not sound waves

i read enough of it to figure out what kind of garbage i was reading yes

i think that the sun's radiation not being strong enough to melt ice caps is *very* much physics

so me doing research independent of anyone else's interests because i was curious as to see if it was actually true about climate change is indoctrination? CO2 has been high in the past while complex life has existed but they didn't need to use cognitive functions like we do now. they used cognitive functions to hunt and seek shelter from rains etc. which i personally wouldn't call complex thought

so again just going back to indoctrination when i did this research to see if what they were saying is true or not and found that if anything that it was under played by the media

so hang on a second, ur saying that it's not a globe and fair enough. if it's not a globe disprove what i've said

again i think it's in the attic as it's not in my office space and i don't have a key

so again i'll refer back to what i said about the cognitive inhibitions that i suffered trying to do what is to me fairly basic maths and the time it was taking me increasing instead of decreasing like you would expect as someone becomes more practised in doing those questions

so i've explained the experiments i just need to find the records of the data

my numbers are wrong? yeah they are going to be slightly out since i don't have the data with me

this was conducted to try and disprove climate change not prove it

if anything my experiments were biased as i didn't fully believe what i was being told

ok so when i get that data out and drop it, which is a precise record of what happened, which were designed to disprove climate change is more than slightly wrong?

i'm no persistent debate troll

ik what the hell i'm talking about

yup

again how many times do i have to say this to you? it's locked in the attic and i don't have a key

honestly ur starting to sound more like a persistent debate troll than me here

CO2 would be going down or staying the same if it was making the earth green as more plants would be absorbing it

so deforestation is happening faster than trees are growing back especially in rainforests so they're not growing back fast enough anyway so how is the earth becoming more green

if the level of CO2 was lowered by 20% there would be no chance that they could grow back is true

hold on a second, how is less water consumption needed? if a plant is photosynthesising then it needs one mole of water to one mole of CO2 so it definitely would not need less water by any means. and how is it going to cause less disease?

*6 moles of water to 6 moles of CO2

ok so why are we seeing accelerated desertification instead of more vegetation in arid and semi arid regions?

ok so as someone who tried to disprove climate change you'r telling me that my mind is closed?

i think i'm actually talking to a debate troll

so the fact that india in its entirety is at risk of desertification is us not seeing desertification? and the masses of deforestation and less growth in arid and semi arid regions is a greening earth?

if i plant a seed in the uk and a seed of the same species in the middle of mali are they going to do the same thing? no

i can't attach images here so i can't show u the picture

so the majority of that is going to be agriculture which is harvested only for the CO2 to be released once again. how much of that is there to stay for a long enough period to matter?

so yeah the world's food supply is increasing. who is surprised about that? it has to

ok so explain the possibility of an infinite flat plane

so mass agriculture is fair enough as greening but it releases as much CO2 as it absorbs and more via the need of equipment to harvest it

^

if i travel directly south i eventually come to a point where no matter what direction i move it is not south. now if i keep walking to this point and continue straight up toward the north in a straight line from where i came then i will get to a point where i can no longer go further north. for the sake of this being a starting point i have just gone around the entire world. so an infinite loop isn't possible as it means that there can be nothing beneath this flat plane so how can the southern cross exist or if it does then how is it only visible in the southern hemisphere

ok so u got information from an article u linked turned on u. now u resort back to calling us indoctrinated

hmm

we *should* be in a period of global cooling but with the rise in temperature we're clearly not

yeah

i did notice the simulation earther tag

maybe they should? did you ever consider that? they present climate change as something scary because it should be scary as it's the type of thing that causes mass extinctions by turning the atmosphere into something akin to venus' atmosphere which quite simply is uninhabitable to anyone even at our level of technology

that's what happens when something like climate change is unanswered. it gets severely out of hand eventually it becomes a self feeding cycle which can't be stopped

so the decrease in my cognitive capabilities was a lie and a hoax despite me actively trying to disprove climate change?

so me timing each question i did while measuring exactly and precisely how much CO2 entered the room in volume was wrong?

so i conducted my experiment some time in april last year and while idk the numbers exactly as again i'm pretty sure that the book with them in is locked in my attic and i did recently see this video

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Nh_vxpycEA

stale air is slightly misleading it's about CO2 concentration

before i do anything of the sort prove your model

as i'm not going to have something sprung on me because you end up loosing an argument

so that is just a great way to have that back fire as you have quite heavily used ad hominem as ur arguments by calling me indoctrinated so please take a seat

yeah and i know quite a few organic chemists. one of which did part of his natural science degree on organic chemistry at cambridge university in the uk. the best university of natural science in the uk

did i tho? as when i find it i will drop these numbers and then u can shut up

i found a couple of other studies as well that did something fairly similar to what i did

https://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/doi/pdf/10.1289/ehp.1510037

https://www.gwern.net/docs/co2/2015-stafford.pdf

^

so now we're going off of "I know the surface is flat" the second image looks like it's been take at a very specific time of the day: low tide where the water becomes the closest it can be to truly flat

that's what the vast majority of these are: low tides being photographed and also the curvature calculator just uses an average curvature so it's not a good way to calculate the curve

so that's a fair point about that but how would that relate to a carbon tax?

and the government won't use the money to stop CO2 emissions yeah?

yeah in some regards but is this the same thing?

so polar bears migrating far enough south to interbreed with grizzly bears albeit only a few confirmed cases isn't proof of anything at all whether it be climate change or anything else?

so it's harming the ecosystem for polar bears to be killed off by unnatural causes. now let me ask why they're being killed off by something that isn't their fault or fluctuations of their prey what is it?

don't preach basic ecology to me

just a note: the curvature calculator is just an average since as anyone can see whether u think the earth is round or flat u can observe hills etc. so don't bother with trying to use it as proof either way and low tides exist so don't bother with it over water either but hey who am i to say?

basically the curvature calculator is bs and doesn't prove anything

which maths?

ok so you get high and low tides and i'm pretty sure this is using outdated physics so not accounting for relativity and the curvature of light in the presence of gravity

that effect has been observed during solar eclipses with stars light being curved by the sun's gravitational field. not the gravity itself to clear that up quickly

light refraction does

i'm using the sun as an example. it works with the earth as well

it's the gravity well that causes curvature of light

so light is "bent" for lack of a better word by any field of gravity. and the course of light is altered by passing through any medium whether that's glass or air. so the angle of light moving through the air is at a slightly different angle to when it enters it and when it reflects off an object it reflects at the same angle but earth creates a well of gravity that also curves light. you're under the impression that relativity only applies to stars and not planets which isn't true. it applies to anything with a gravity well as it has nothing to do with a body emitting light

suggestion: take some high level science classes and apply the stuff you learn to relevant experiments and you will find that they are *very* precise

no, i believe in science not sm bs scifi. whoever wrote that question has no idea what they're talking about and fair enough for wanting to know more so allow me to elaborate: light is emitted from the sun. its gravity well is strong but it's nothing in comparison to a black hole which emits light as well in very low frequency. so the photons can escape the well with ease. so i think you might be confusing gravitational lensing with relativity here as relativity precisely calculated how much the light would be "bent" by the gravity of the sun so please tell me how that is not proof of relativity. i'm not pushing personal beliefs in the slightest if anything you are the one pushing personal beliefs with no proof

so please, disprove relativity

in addition it's not even the gravity curving light. it's the curvature of space-time caused by the gravity well of an object with mass

so general relativity has been thoroughly proven many times hence i ask *you* to disprove it

most of the experiments proving it were designed to disprove it so please

disprove it

so the observation of light being curved in curved space-time being proven during a solar eclipse wasn't an experiment that proved it?

so do u want the wiki link or papers because with the level of intelligence you're displaying suggest that the wiki is the more appropriate

ok so explain other causes

do u want to listen to reason?

ok so GTR hasn't been disproven. it was ammended by stephen hawking more recently as GTR was designed for a static universe. this is a theory that is over a century old and hasn't been disproven. every experiment that was designed to flaw it failed. gravitational lensing while yeah observation is not causation what else could be a factor here? it is precisely calculated with GTR suggesting that it is the factor of curved space-time. the equivalence principle also proves this (give it a quick search as it's a bit of a pain to explain). ether was a concept that would've flawed GTR but lo and behold it didn't so now provide me with anything that disproves GTR. it has withstood a century of people attempting to disprove it with everything they could think of and and yet it didn't manage to so if you can good luck