Message from @oojimaflip

Discord ID: 637305386759880704


2019-10-25 14:57:13 UTC  

If you take a jar fill it with carbon dioxide and put it under a heat lamp it is hotter then the jar with lower amounts of carbon dioxide

2019-10-25 14:57:31 UTC  

our atmosphere is not a jar

2019-10-25 14:58:09 UTC  

No of course not but it shows in the small scale the effect that carbon dioxide traping light energy and because of this higher temperature

2019-10-25 14:58:20 UTC  

a greenhouse retains heat because warm air inside cannot leave and equalise temp with the outside air

2019-10-25 14:58:34 UTC  

You have a misunderstanding

2019-10-25 14:58:44 UTC  

it's a lack of convection, nothing to do with radiation

2019-10-25 14:58:53 UTC  

Green house effect is not the same as a green house

2019-10-25 14:59:09 UTC  

These are too different phenomenon

2019-10-25 14:59:16 UTC  

And things

2019-10-25 14:59:28 UTC  

atmospheric greenhouse effect is based on TSI values, yes?

2019-10-25 14:59:30 UTC  

They are called the same just because scientist name things badly

2019-10-25 15:00:10 UTC  

What do you mean based off TSI values

2019-10-25 15:00:41 UTC  

it only calculates based on total solar irradiance

2019-10-25 15:01:23 UTC  

the greenhouse effect is all about radiated heat, yes?

2019-10-25 15:02:22 UTC  

Yes I guess.

2019-10-25 15:02:41 UTC  

well, it's wrong, as far as I can tell.

2019-10-25 15:02:55 UTC  

Why

2019-10-25 15:03:18 UTC  

We can see in small scale experiments the effect co2 has on temperature

2019-10-25 15:03:33 UTC  

In closed environments

2019-10-25 15:03:57 UTC  

sure, but when doing small scale experiments they are concerned with very high CO2 levels

2019-10-25 15:04:04 UTC  

not 0.04%

2019-10-25 15:04:12 UTC  

secondarily

2019-10-25 15:05:17 UTC  

how can 3% (human produced CO2) of the total annual flux of CO2 be more potent than the natural 97%?

2019-10-25 15:06:19 UTC  

(3% of 0.04< 97% of 0.04)

2019-10-25 15:07:34 UTC  

how come temps were so high in the early industrial period (low CO2) and so cold in the late industrial period(high CO2)? (1940 vs 1969)

2019-10-25 15:09:28 UTC  

it isnt mroe potent

2019-10-25 15:09:53 UTC  

they can barely calculate the supposed manmade share in temperature change

2019-10-25 15:09:55 UTC  

Okay first off. Just because there is a small percent change. Doesn’t mean it will have a large effect. Nature can only absorb so much of it and adding more doesn’t get absorbed. That’s why it might seem like a small percent but it’s actually big.

2019-10-25 15:09:59 UTC  

how come NASA and NOAA are having to resort to data modification?

2019-10-25 15:10:16 UTC  

Data modification? We modify all data

2019-10-25 15:10:31 UTC  

its cherrypicked data

2019-10-25 15:10:34 UTC  

only if you want to fit it to a model

2019-10-25 15:10:38 UTC  

data is data

2019-10-25 15:10:44 UTC  

I mean you got to show evidence for this

2019-10-25 15:10:46 UTC  

yes i agree data is data

2019-10-25 15:10:55 UTC  

just dont tell people to trust data

2019-10-25 15:11:04 UTC  

science doesnt work if you politicise the data

2019-10-25 15:11:11 UTC  

this ^

2019-10-25 15:11:11 UTC  

and the science process itself

2019-10-25 15:11:31 UTC  

Show me proof nasa cherry picks data

2019-10-25 15:11:58 UTC  

already did