My inner voice read that as Jerry Seinfeld

Every time I read the name Jerry in a post I think of this scene from Rick and Morty...

Sorry, my inner voice read it as Seinfeld, burp Jerrrry. Idiot.

mine too.

I know that if I have a time travel machine that I shouldn't go back to see the dinosaurs cause I'd suffocate on all the CO2 in a matter of minutes... so I can only conclude that climate change is real... but it is created not by humans, but by dinosaurs... as retribution for us desecrating their remains by using it to fuel our vehicles.

The Real NWO Exposed They are gonna take the planet back after a long slumber in Antarctica.

This is r/conspiracy, dinosaurs are a hoax

You have passed the test, my son. The test of faith.

Whats the deal?

Carbon taxes.

Follow the money.

That does not make global warming fake. Carbon Tax is an opportunity to make even more money. Also, now we can't say our governments are doing nothing to prepare.

The people who profit from this do not care the world is falling apart.

The people who profit from this do not care the world is falling apart.

The people hysterically buying into global cooling/warming/climate change (make up your minds already) do not care that they're being handfed this shit from the people who would sell them the solution, while taxing them for the privilege.

CO2 is good for plants because it is what they breathe. Increased CO2 concentrations = larger crop yields.

The idea that CO2 is poisonous is flat out stupid.

The claim that CO2 functions more as a greenhouse gas than any other gas in our atmosphere remains unproven.

Anthropologists claim that humans crossed into North America 20-30,000 years ago in the land bridge that was the result of ocean water concentrating in the frozen polar ice caps. It is entirely possible that warming and reduction in polar ice caps is the result of a glaciation cycle that has not yet peaked (so it should continue getting warmer for the foreseeable future, regardless). The presence of aquatic fossils across multiple strata of the geologic record suggests that this glaciation is a recurring cycle that has existed long before man.

I do believe that we need to be better custodians of our environment. It is important, however, to ensure that we are solving real problems.

we probably need more plants and trees if we have that much CO2..

the problem might be deforestation .. which is human made.

Yeah putting greenhouse gasses in wouldn't make nearly as much of a difference if there were more trees to process them. It's the two working in tandem that likely accelerate the process

From what I have read, most of earth's oxygen is actually produced through the oceans (sea plants and algae). Just the same, I'm not against conservation of forests and wild areas.

Today, CO2 supposedly sits at about 405ppm. in other words, CO2 currently comprises .000405% of the total mass of the atmosphere.

yeah, but the oceans are hella polluted these days too, the Fukushima radiation is unrecoverable..

I think that Deepwater Horizon and Fukushima are the big eco-conspiracies of our age. MSM keeps these out of sight and out of mind, while they point to the easy correlations.

I remember reading that near Fukushima and across the pacific, there's a region where no life is existing, the radiation is killing all form of live including algees ..

that shit is scary... and there's no stopping in sight for Fukushima, it's still leaking tons of radiation everyday and they don't know how to stop it. And they are in the process of selling produces there to other countries..

where's the outlash against TEPCO? You won't find it in the climate faithful. Nuclear power is the platform's ultimate endgame and primary profiteer (other than carbon traders). We live in effing crazy times.

the japanese government is totally cover that shit up...

global corporate media, too.

Nuclear power is the platform's ultimate endgame

It's the only way to power the futuristic society everyone claims to want, unless you cut populations significantly.

Though obviously it needs to be done with greater foresight. Nuclear plants in geologically unstable regions or within certain range of a coast are bad ideas. Fukushima combined them both.

Though I've noticed people claiming that Fukushima isn't as bad as Chernobyl. Their case rested on a hilarious chart which had taken the effort to update the sievert reading for core 2 at Fukushima to the 2017 levels, but still quotes a 2014 analysis of the amount of radiation which has been released into the environment.

No one says CO2 is poisonous, and also no one says CO2 is the most potent green house gas

https://www.thoughtco.com/carbon-dioxide-poisonous-607545

Each carbon dioxide molecule consists of one carbon atom bonded to two oxygen atoms. While your body excretes carbon dioxide, too high of a concentration of the compound is toxic

QUESTION: IS CARBON DIOXIDE POISONOUS? Answer: You probably know carbon dioxide is a gas that is present in the air you breathe. Plants "breathe" it in order to make glucose. You exhale carbon dioxide gas as a by-product of respiration. Carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is one of the greenhouse gases. You find it added to soda, naturally occurring in beer, and in its solid form as dry ice. Based on what you know, do you think carbon dioxide is poisonous or is it non-toxic or somewhere in between?

THE ANSWER Ordinarily, carbon dioxide is not poisonous. It diffuses from your cells into your bloodstream and from there out via your lungs, yet it is always present throughout your body.

However, if you breathe high concentrations of carbon dioxide or re-breathe air (such as from a plastic bag or tent), you may be at risk for carbon dioxide intoxication or even carbon dioxide poisoning. Carbon dioxide intoxication and carbon dioxide poisoning are independent of oxygen concentration, so you may have enough oxygen present to support life, yet still suffer from the effects of rising carbon dioxide concentration in your blood and tissues. Symptoms of carbon dioxide toxicity include high blood pressure, flushed skin, headache and twitching muscles. At higher levels, you could experience panic, irregular heartbeat, hallucinations, vomited and potentially unconsciousness or even death.

It's a waste product of animals. Your body wouldn't get rid of it if it wasn't bad for you

You can also have water intoxication or water poisoning from consuming too much water, but water itself is not poisonous.

oxygen is also toxic in high enough concentrations.

all things in moderation, they say.

CO2 was referred to as "poison" by acolytes of the climate cult in 2007/2008.

Technically, you are correct. IPCC lists it as 2nd only to H20. They stick with CO2 because they can't vilify water in the eyes of the public.

Please give me examples of that, because I do not recall.

If you do not believe in anthropogenic climate change and disparage the "acoloytes" that believe in it, then why are you simultaneously sourcing their research?

you claimed nobody says CO2 is most greenhouse(ish) gas. I cited IPCC as calling it #2. No great leap there.

Water vapor does exert ~2.5 times as much clear-sky longwave radiative forcing at the top of the atmosphere as co2. The big difference between the two is that water vapor rapidly precipitates out of the atmosphere and the earth keeps a roughly constant overall relative humidity. In other words, the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere is a function of temperature. If you completely saturated the atmosphere with water vapor, for instance, it would precipitate out back to its original levels within a few weeks or months. If a forcing warms the earth, however, that causes more evaporation and allows the atmosphere to hold more water vapor, causing a moistening of the atmosphere which amplifies the warming from the initial forcing. That is why water vapor is considered a feedback on the climate rather than a forcing driving temperature change on its own. We have observed this moistening of the atmosphere as a feedback amplifying the warming from our greenhouse gas emissions.

You are claiming that the plant life of the Earth does not absorb CO2 from the atmosphere and produce O2??? CO2 just stays in the atmosphere forever and never feeds plant life??? Wow!!! I had shit wrong for so long! You are really schooling me here! Thanks

I never said that. The carbon cycle works significantly slower than the water cycle which is why co2 has a residency time several orders of magnitude greater than water vapor. Secondly, only about a quarter of our emissions get absorbed by the biosphere and another quarter by the oceans; the rest rapidly accumulates in the atmosphere.

fair enough explanation there.

my opinion is that the global carbon hysteria is a part of a well-funded campaign (in effect for about 30 years now), which has essentially hijacked the academic establishment. Slowly, the cult's doubters were shunned from tenure, publication, and eventually forced from their positions, eventually creating a real consensus. It's big bucks for the priest-class, who use their status to sell the hoax to students who don't know (or can't think) better.

Looking through your comments, I see that you are highly invested in this whole business... This is where "science" is heading... shit...

You really aren't allowed to acknowledge Fukushima at all? Who pulls your strings? Is this just a matter of brand loyalty???

No one says CO2 is poisonous, and also no one says CO2 is the most potent green house gas.

Climate change hysterics often run with statements such as those.

You might want to learn a bit more about botany and past warming cycles during past ice ages. The rapid increase we are seeing today is faster then in the past and the major difference between the past warming cycles and today is the amount of green house gasses present in the atmosphere. Its more then just CO2 but CO2 is the easiest and most effective thing we can control to reduce the warming trend. But with the increase in melting permafrost releasing vast amounts of trapped methane it may be to late to due much.

You can plainly see the impact of carbon dioxide on earth's temperature in both the spectral flux at the top of the atmosphere and in the downwelling radiation from the atmosphere towards the surface. Carbon dioxide directly exerts a quarter of the clear-sky longwave radiative forcing at the top of the atmosphere and is indirectly responsible for much of the water vapor in the atmosphere. It is a pretty big deal as far as earth's energy budget is concerned.

I was a big fan of "an inconvenient truth". That changed when I learned that Al Gore is a member of the Illuminati. None of his " in 10 years..." Predictions came true. So global warming? Almost certainly. Man made? Probably not.

So because one person. Tried to make money off of it means it's a farce?

Guess the Haiti earthquake was a farce given how much Clinton made.

Guess the wars in the middle east were a farce given how much Cheney made

People are just trying to capitalize on a bad situation. It happens all the time

Well this is a very subjective question and I stated my opinion.

Yes, yes, yes. On the last point, there is research that the increased carbon dioxide has increased plant growth rates, particularly of poison ivy. The biggest proof these days is data from the oceans. Things are very, very bad.

Nice graph

And another

Co2 has never been higher than 400 ppm in human history until now. In the past 800,000 years it hasn't been this high.

In 1991, even Shell was warning of climate change

Nothing I link will be better than looking it up yourself here

CO2 is currently .000405% of the total mass of the atmosphere (up from .000360%). To claim that the temperature is changing because of this minuscule shift is absolutely idiotic. To me, it is scary that you people believe this stuff.

It's idiotic? Really? First, where are you getting your numbers from (not that I'm saying you're wrong).

Second, what studies have you done on atmospheric co2 concentrations? Just looking at a number and pointing out its quantity does nothing.

1 nanogram of botulism is ok right? It's only a billionth of a gram. Well, 1 ng/kg is the ld50. Small numbers can carry significance.

dude-

PPM = parts per million. that is to say, if you took 1 million molecules from the atmosphere, right now, you would count a total of 406 molecules (that's where they get the number from). I was wrong about the mass aspect (it's actually .05%. Just the same, to blame the temperature change of the entire planet on a compound which comprises one half of one tenth of one percent of its total mass is absolutely and astonishingly stupid and unscientific. The fact that the public has bought this hook, line, and sinker just goes to show how dead science truly is today. Correlation is NOT causation,

You haven't provided any evidence other than "look at this small number"

Aquatic fossils in multiple strata of the geologic record (in North America and beyond) indicate that glacial cycles are many millions of years older than the human race. The FACT that this is indeed the record illustrates the falsehood of the CO2 narrative (unless dinosaurs were the worst polluters ever).

In modern times, if I blamed all of society's ills on a group of people that were .06% of the population, I would be derided as a lunatic (and probably racist).

eff it, just downvote me, and get on with your life. I am a heretic for sure.

Glacial periods does not disprove human caused/worsened climate change. You're leaving out a lot of important factors and I would suggest learning a bit more about what affects atmospheric composition such as carbon sequestration, bacteria (methanogens esp), and many more factors.

And you keep just pointing out how small 0.06 is but that carries no significance in and of itself. My botulism example was meant to point out how small numbers can have serious effects but you managed to just gloss over it.

Poisons and instances of small percentages of mass have more to do with chemistry and the interruption of biological processes, while heat transfer is a physical, not chemical process. It is measured in calories, which" is the approximate amount of energy needed to raise the temperature of one gram of water by one degree Celsius at a pressure of one atmosphere." You are comparing apples and oranges to justify a well advertised worldview. With heat (which is a result of energy), as with all other physical functions, mass is essential. Call in the guards on me!

Lol lots of opinions but still no verifications

And you act as if I support Tepco and don't condemn their actions (or lack thereof). Grand generalizations only hurt your argument, not help it

dude heat transfer is a fucking physical property.

Mass is a big deal in physics, no shit. Cuck yourself on the regular, dude.

I feel like you are gaslighting me because I just laid it out for you that temperature is measured through physics and is defined as the ability to heat a specific amount of mass. Maybe you just don't get it - but mass does matter in physics. As I illustrated to you before, it's essential. You don't care that it's true. I guess you choose to believe that heat transfer is some chemical property, which is affected in a catalyst fashion, where mass is not important. The realities of the mechanisms of heat transfer means that it is a physical property (even heat released from chemical reactions is a physical property, but whatever). This is why i think you are gaslighting or a useful idiot.

I'm done. You're ignoring everything I'm saying. Go shove your opinions down someone else's throat

heat transfer and physics being related is not an opinion.

You're not a scientist are ya

Oh credentialed one, please Illustrate for me, then, how the transfer of heat is not dependent upon mass.

I meant that I think you are oversimplifying matters.

not at all. there is not a single calculation of heat transfer (that I know of) that does not include a) the mass of the object doing the heating and b) the mass of the object to be heated.

It's important stuff, no?

Of course it is. But you are not considering synergistic effects, only mass.

Wait, why are you mentioning "heating?"

for an educated person, you sure confuse apples and oranges quite willingly (must be a part of the job).

the situation that you are describing is of a chemical reaction, while sunlight hitting CO2 molecules and making them vibrate is a physical one (CO2 doesn't become a new molecule, as the sodium does when it contacts water). Still, the degree to which the chemical reaction of sodium and water will generate heat is directly proportional to the mass of Sodium consumed.

So yes, even in your exothermic chemical reaction between sodium and water, mass is still essential. Does this make any sense at all to you? Can you give me a single calculation of heat transfer that is not dependent upon mass (only in CO2 "science"... God help us all).

See the link I posted above! It's very good.

You're partially correct on this one. We did have higher CO2 levels way back in dino times, but we had less solar activity as well as many other strikingly different (dynamic) factors affecting the planet.

Found this: https://www.skepticalscience.com/print.php?r=77

You're not educated in chemistry, my friend. You don't understand what you're arguing.

define educated in chemistry...

any chemistry degree above a high school diploma

are you allowed to acknowledge Fukushima as a disaster? It looks like your fellow partisan, u/thepaperskyline isn't allowed to mention it at all... doesn't that seem weird to you???

I mean, it is definitely a disaster, but that's not my field. I don't really want to comment on something I don't know anything about on a professional or academic level.

that's fair, I guess. I can appreciate the integrity in that statement. I worry that specialization (or subjects that people are paid to write about) limits investigations to those which are in favor of the given agenda. I suppose that we will all learn of the effects of Fukushima's radiation soon enough...

I'm worried about it, for sure. Especially food stuffs that come from that area, like rice. I read something about that on this sub once..terrifying.

for me, the scary thing is that it flows directly into the ocean, and the currents take it to the West Coast of the US. Supposedly, it has reaked havoc on Pacific fishing operations...

I minored in chemistry; it is pretty apparent you don't know what you're talking about. The heat trapping nature of greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide is due to their absorption spectra, being transparent to visible light emitted by the sun but opaque to the infrared light emitted by earth. The earth cools itself off to space by emitting light. Even though nitrogen makes up the vast bulk of the atmosphere's mass it hardly absorbs any of that infrared light. Greenhouse gases on the other hand, despite their low relative abundance do absorb certain infrared wavelengths. They then either use that energy that would have simply all escaped to space to warming the local atmosphere or by remitting that light in a random direction, sometimes back down to earth. That significantly slows down the rate at which the earth loses heat to the cold of space and causes the earth to be significantly warmer than it would otherwise be. The removal of that 0.04% co2 woud also cause a lot of water vapor to precipitate out of the atmosphere as well as triggering other amplifying feedbacks that would result in the earth being almost if not entirely frozen over pole to pole.

Here is a video that talks about why your argument is specious.

Correlation is NOT causation.

It is not just correlation though. We know the mechanism whereby carbon dioxide traps heat. You can plainly see the impact of carbon dioxide on earth's temperature in both the spectral flux at the top of the atmosphere and in the downwelling radiation from the atmosphere towards the surface.

As a result of the 45% in co2 since the industrial revolution we have observed the enhanced greenhouse effect as a decrease in co2 wavelengths escaping to space and a corresponding increase in co2's radiative forcing at the surface. You can even observe co2's radiative forcing at the surface go up and down in lockstep with its concentration in the atmosphere. That shows a direct cause-effect relationship between rising atmospheric carbon dioxide and rising global temperatures.

The patterns of warming also fit the distinct signatures that we would expect from greenhouse-induced warming such as nights warming faster than days, the troposphere warming while the stratosphere cools, the tropopause rising, etc.

essentially, the video states that a person who argues that the low percentage of CO2 is relying on feeling and non-expertise. Truth is that these people are using reason and the fact that they are excluded from the subsidized world of "carbon research."

Same could be said for terrorism in the US, and its effect on policy. Such a small chance of death for most of the population, why did it become #1 issue? The issue with terrorism and CO2 climate debate is the ability of moneyed interests to hijack dialogue and policy. Personally, I think that the radiation spewing from Fukushima represents a greater existential threat to life on Earth than your CO2 bogeyman. You can't agree with me (even though I'm right) because your agenda tells you to do otherwise. We are all in this together.

Science is based on empiricism, not strictly logic and reasoning. To see what effect something has you need to run experiments, not just pontificate. Aristotle and others before the industrial revolution thought they could just reason their way to natural law, which led them to numerous fallacies such as thinking heavier objects fall faster than lighter objects in a vacuum. That was obvious to people just as it is obvious to you that co2 cannot have a great impact due to its relative abundance. It is obvious, and false

Nice dodge on Fukushima, BTW... are you even allowed to acknowledge it as a (still happening) disaster?

Aristotle's assumptions were proven wrong because he was ignorant of Newton's Laws. Again, Newton demonstrated the significance of mass time and time again, but that is beside the point. The CO2 thing is obvious to your group... that is the whole point... you have to resort to complicated jargon (aka bullshit) which is all deliberately forced to the conclusion that human CO2 emissions are the greatest danger to life on Earth (which I again argue they are not).

Does Occam's razor ring a bell? There are no beautiful or simple explanations to your claim because it is fabricated - forced together to fit a narrative. Are you familiar with the concept/phenomenon of goal seeking?

Yes, and your assumptions are wrong because you are ignorant of basic physics and chemistry. Carbon dioxide really is a significant greenhouse gas; we have known that since the early-to-mid 19th century. If anything in my post was too complicated for you to understand I would be happy to explain it in more detail for you. Just because you personally don't understand something doesn't mean it is "bullshit."

nice dodge of Fukushima (x2)... and of Occam's razor...

You know what you are. stay out of r/conspiracy.

Look up all of the greenhouse gases and how their chemistry affects the atmosphere. Specifically look up methane, NOx (aka nitric oxides), water vapour, halogenated fluorocarbons (CFCs, etc.) There's much more to atmospheric chemistry than simply "amounts" of things.

with regards to heat transfer, mass is essential, mr. wizard.

It's Ms. Wizard to you

You're a couple orders of magnitude off in your numbers, fyi. And you can't tell effect from relative abundance. For instance, ozone is measured in parts per billion (0.00006% of the atmosphere) yet is not only responsible for the vertical temperature profile of the stratosphere but is also the reason why you don't receive lethal doses of UV radiation when you go outside. Despite being only 0.04% of the atmosphere carbon dioxide exerts a quarter of the clear-sky longwave radiative forcing at the top of the atmosphere.

Here is what it's about:

1. The made up global problem requires a global government to "solve" it.

2. A global government would impose global taxes.

3. As "big oil" is demonized, people can get rich investing in government subsidized "clean energy".

4. "Science" and academia stay busy and funded. Fat government grants to research doomsday scenarios based on flawed and manipulated base data.

So in the end, it's about money. And if you question any of it you're an ignorant, science denying, polar bear hating polluter that is too stupid to be heard.

The fact that fossil fuel industries lobby against accepting human caused climate change negates your point

The environment doesn't give a damn about money. The information is out there regardless of who makes money.

Since hillary made money off of Haiti after the earthquake, that means the earthquake was a farce, right? According to the same logic you applied here, that'd be the case. Same thing with the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan since Cheney made money.

The fossil fuel industry is under attack from fake science funded by governments around the world, of course they will defend themselves by lobbying.

Global warming has nothing to do with the environment. It's about people, greedy and power hungry people. The global warming data has been manipulated and should not be trusted.

The rest of your response is false equivalence.

Where'd you get your info from? Sounds like an opinion to me.

Scientific research from the fossil fuel industry such as Exxon showed that human-caused climate change was real as far back as the '70s. They used that information to inform their business decisions while publicly waging a misinformation campaign using similar tactics as tobacco companies did before them.

This is a very biased response with no factual basis.

It is absolutely real, and will wipe human civilization out within the next century if we don't take steps to stop it 40 years ago.

if we don't take steps to stop it 40 years ago.

At least this guy gets how preposterous a carbon tax would be.

PM me and I'll explain my understanding to you, if you want. I'm an environmental scientist, but I think you'd be surprised with my response.

The climate will change.

On climate change predictions, my weather forecast, I know it's not climate it's weather, said high today 69, current temperature, 75.4. If they can't predict what it's doing now, they can't reliably predict the climate in the future. But again, the climate will change. It always has.

Climate will change, very true- due to procession, axial tilt and other solar/positional trends Earth experiences periodically. Look up Bouma sequences, they'll show you one way geologist study climate change on a large time scale. These are underwater depositions studied in sedementary geology. You can also look up new research using Google scholar on carbonate deposition and rates of climate change.

Now compare these natural changes to ice core climate studies. What you will see is that human activity is exacerbating these changes in a way that is not natural.

For examples of what I mean, look up migratory and altitudinal effects of climate change. Some example would be how when climate changes it affects the viable growth ranges of trees. Another would be the temperature range of malaria carrying mosquitos or even look up cold water coral (reef) bleaching.

Ask me anything if you do this research and what you read is to jargon-y or there is anything you want to argue about or is unclear.

Climatology and meteorology are entirely different scientific fields. Think of the difference between predicting the outcome of an individual coin flip (analagous to weather) versus the outcome of many such coin flips (analagous to climate). The former has too many chaotic variables: how much force and torque is applied, the wind speed and air density, the topography and hardness of the surface and which it lands, etc. Whereas most of those variables even out over many coin flips; the probability of a heads or tails from many coin flips would be determined by the weight distribution of the coin. Just because you can't precict a single coin flip doesn't mean I can't predict an evenly weighted coin will average 50/50 over the long-term. Similarly, weather has innumerable chaotic short-term fluctiations but those even out in the long-term; the two are dominated by different variables and thus methodologies, which is why they are separate fields.

Yes, it is real; warming is just the result of well-understood physics. Carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases are transparent to sunlight but opaque to the infrared light emitted by earth. Since these gases allow the sun to warm the earth but prevent the earth from cooling itself off to space that keeps the earth much much warmer than it would otherwise be. You can plainly see the impact of greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide on earth's temperature in both the spectral flux at the top of the atmosphere and in the downwelling radiation from the atmosphere towards the surface.

Humans have increased atmospheric carbon dioxide 45% since the industrial revolution due to the combustion of fossil fuels and deforestation. Carbon dioxide levels are now substantially higher than they have been for millions of years and the rate of increase in co2 is a couple orders of magnitude faster than natural rates of change. As a result we have observed the enhanced greenhouse effect from anthropogenic carbon dioxide as a decrease in co2 wavelengths escaping to space and a corresponding increase in co2's radiative forcing at the surface. You can even observe co2's radiative forcing go up and down in lockstep with its concentration in the atmosphere just as the physics says it should. That shows a direct cause-effect relationship between rising atmospheric carbon dioxide and rising global temperatures. The radiative forcing increase from our greenhouse gas emissions since the industrial revolution dwarfs natural forcings on the climate in the same time period.

fair enough explanation there.

my opinion is that the global carbon hysteria is a part of a well-funded campaign (in effect for about 30 years now), which has essentially hijacked the academic establishment. Slowly, the cult's doubters were shunned from tenure, publication, and eventually forced from their positions, eventually creating a real consensus. It's big bucks for the priest-class, who use their status to sell the hoax to students who don't know (or can't think) better.

Looking through your comments, I see that you are highly invested in this whole business... This is where "science" is heading... shit...

You really aren't allowed to acknowledge Fukushima at all? Who pulls your strings? Is this just a matter of brand loyalty???

are you allowed to acknowledge Fukushima as a disaster? It looks like your fellow partisan, u/thepaperskyline isn't allowed to mention it at all... doesn't that seem weird to you???