What proof is there that excessive C02 creates a "shield" that prevents warm temperatures from escaping the Earth's atmosphere? But, if the Earth is flat, and there is a dome covering the Earth, then you can bet your life that the gasses are trapped inside the Earth's atmosphere. The only reason the the world's leaders are pushing a global warming agenda is because they are going to charge the little guy a "carbon tax". They are not going to do away with global warming; they just want to tax the shit out of you.

What proof is there that excessive C02 creates a "shield" that prevents warm temperatures from escaping the Earth's atmosphere?

Venus.

How is that?

Science. Just listen to what the devil told you. Venus is our proof.

You have no idea what Venus is beyond the CGI pictures generate by some guy sitting in computer lab at Langley. Back to the Question why do we know the compound of life CO2, is somehow warming the earth, even though all life requires or produces it as form of respiration. It seems so absurd!

All I see, is that a bunch of bankers and politicians found a way to tax your breathing. oh your respiration will cost you dumbfucks because "climate change"

You have no idea what Venus is beyond the CGI pictures generate by some guy sitting in computer lab at Langley.

I have no idea you're even a real legitimate reddit and not some guy sitting in a computer lab at Langley.

Breathing, counts in a way. 7 billion people and if we didn't have plants and algae we'd be fucked. We'd inhale all the oxygen with nothing to convert it back to breathable 02 + nitrogen.

But we're talking machines, not breathing. Ridiculous argument. Next thing you know you'll bring in volcanoes like those are man made.

Comparing a 10,000th of a percent change in atmospheric CO2 to the atmosphere on Venus is completely useless.

Okay, so you wouldn't mind if I converted 1/10,000th of your blood to cyanide?

C02 is the equivalent of cyanide to you? What a silly analogy.

I was just showing how fucking stupid it is to say "A small percentage = it doesn't matter."

You are essentially claiming that small changes in atmospheric CO2 are more impactful than variation in the sun's activity, changes in earth's orbit and axial tilt, volcanism, reflectivity, the composition of other gasses in the atmosphere, etc.

So why are you so hung up on CO2? Especially considering that CO2 levels have been more than 5X higher in the past? Clearly, atmospheric CO2 levels also change naturally, but human's marginal contribution is going to destroy the earth?

From the 1940s to the 1970s, Earth experienced a global cooling period, even while carbon-dioxide levels continuously rose. In the early 21st century, global temperature “paused” for 18 years, again during a period in which carbon-dioxide levels increased. Source

And then you have a majority of experts disagreeing with the official narrative of climate change:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2013/02/13/peer-reviewed-survey-finds-majority-of-scientists-skeptical-of-global-warming-crisis/#43744b4c7c21

https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2012/03/14/shock-poll-meteorologists-are-global-warming-skeptics/#aa2be6373be2

http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/0170840612463317

Cyanide is a demonstration of why "small percent = doesn't matter" is short-sighted, simple-minded reasoning that doesn't hold up to serious examination.

You asked for proof. It might take a fuck ton of c02 but it can happen. It could happen if say, all vegetation on earth was lit on fire and converted from it's current form to c02-water-other elements it was composed of.

Such a thing could happen if there's no rain and lots of forest fires.

When we talk man made, think about how many cars that is. There's 300 million people and just as many cars. All putting out a gas that otherwise wouldn't be there without the machine. Every city a power plant or 2. This is just America I'm thinking about too.

Venus.

An obtuse, one-word answer has five upvotes. Yeah, nothing weird going on here...

The only thing weird is a dude calling the word Venus, obtuse.

I called your answer obtuse. Please think.

So you don't have any other explanations. You're entire purpose of commenting towards me is to call me a shill?

What proof is there that excessive C02 creates a "shield" that prevents warm temperatures from escaping the Earth's atmosphere

It's not that it creates a shield, it's that it mixes with the atmosphere as a whole, and the more CO2 is in there, the more heat it retains.

You can test it at home with a thermometer, two terrariums with heat bulbs, and a mouse that you don't feel bad about killing by oxygen deprivation.

Climate Shift...Think about that!

The government is using climate change to distract people from other serious issues like the 9/11 inside job, flat Earth and using Trump to gain global domination. They could easily use the dome that surrounds flat Earth to release the harmful gasses, but they would much rather it pollute our minds so that we are weaker and easier to deceive. They have an antidote for this effect of weakness by the way. When the time is right they will stage a terror attack just like they did during 9/11 to get the go ahead from congress and support from the populace to launch the first nuclear strike, sending US and the world into nuclear warfare. Their goal is to come out on top of this Third World War and have control over every nation on the planet.

Riiiight except the earth is not flat

There are a lot of ways to verify that the world is flat. If you go on a beach or a plane and look out as far as you can see with binoculars, you will notice that there is no curve to the Earth and that it is flat.

So is there an edge of the earth? Are we floating on something? In something? What's outside the earth?

Look in to it the True - Man show.

Right because everything school teaches us HAS to be incorrect. They say the earth is round, so it must be flat! Jesus some of you guys make me sick.

911?? school= lies Gravity is a theory never proven= not fact to be taught school Colombus Discovered America= lies Crude comes from Dead dinosaurs= lies America attacked Iraq for WMD = lies, do you think they will revise this in the new text books?

Ships go beyond curvature of the earth= blatant Lie, can be disproved with a zoom camera on the beach in 2 seconds!

You can see curvature= Blatant lie, you cannot even see curvature from 35,000 ft or 120 000 ft.

CGI space = blatant lie. Where are the real picture of satellites? why the fish eye lenses? Why the harneses, the VR bloopers from ISS?

D you even care about the truth? does it matter to you?

look into it.

While a few things you said I agree with, I don't believe space is CGI, and can you please disprove my previous comment on shadow angles from the sun? If you can then I'll be impressed. You say I'm regurgitating information I've gotten from school but some of these things are verifiable, and some of your theories are not. Do I care about the truth? Yeah I do that's why I'm debating you. Why don't you get a weather ballon and a camera without a fisheye lens and test some of these theories yourself? Probably because you're lazy and just like to annoy people with outlandish theories.

I have tested my theories over lakes, I have flown expensive drones. I am working on the balloon launch. There is no curvature, no boats go over the curvature I proved that myself.

Next - is NASA space work proof of anything in the question of shape of the earth? so far no. As all images from them are obvious composites. All space footage seems to fish eye lenses too... I don't know it is so hard from them to come clean on their pictures, data and evidence if everything is round and we are there every floating humans in orbit?

The please explain to me how shadows have different angles at the SAME time of day on different parts of the earth. If the wold was flat then all of earth would have the same angle shadow, which it doesn't. The only explanation for this is that the earth is curved. So suck on my scientific dick you mentally impaired contrarian.

Firstly, I am sorry if I offended you in some way shape or form. I did not intend to. To answer your question, try putting a single light source in the center of a room at night. The angle of your shadow will change the farther away you get away from the light source. That experiment will demonstrate to you the effect of the sun over flat Earth and the different angles of shadows it makes, as your room is also flat.

You didn't offend me. Also this little experiment doesn't take into account different objects having different angled shadows on other parts of the world. One place could have no shadow at noon, but at that same time in a different part of the world, there IS a shadow. You get what I'm saying?

That's just verifying that your eyes can't discern curvature below a certain degree.

This is incredibly naive and incredibly easy to disprove. Have you ever been near an ocean or on a ship at sea? On an airplane? Have you even looked at the horizon?

Yes I have done all of those things. I have not observed a curved Earth, rather that the ocean was flat as far as the eye could see.

Climate change is real, but I don't think that's what you meant to ask

Climate change is real

What do those four words (in that order) mean to you?

That climate changes...

This is obviously true, though, to anybody who takes note of the seasons. In the context of this thread, though, what point are you trying to make?

Climate generally refers to long-term weather conditions, beyond the length of the seasons. A place that is hot year-round has a 'hot climate', whereas a place that has hot summers and cold winters has a variable climate.

In the context of this thread, I directly answered OP's question "Is climate change real?". What is your concern?

There's been a huge push of climate change denial since the hurricanes, I've noticed. Just ignore it. It'll lose it's power.

That isn't an argument.

You're right. It's not.

OP, I've noticed a huge trend of climate change believers trying to shut down anyone who questions the official climate change narrative. Just ignore it. It'll lose its power.

Sure will, buddy. Sure will.

Yes, just ignore people you disagree with, that'll lead you to the truth.

The spirit of your comment is correct.

Considering the original comment in this thread, the irony is so thick I could cut it with a knife.

Neither is "0.0001% is a really small number so clearly CO2 doesn't matter."

So you believe that a tiny change in the concentration of a single gas in the atmosphere has the power to drive climate? I wish I could also believe in magic.

It depends entirely on the properties of that gas and the properties of the other gas.

Right, and there is still no evidence that small changes in CO2 concentration is the primary driver of climate. In fact, its incredibly naive to think so. What makes you think that plays a greater role than the sun's activity, for example?

Right, and there is still no evidence that small changes in CO2 concentration is the primary driver of climate.

Strawman. Nobody says it's the primary driver, nobody at all.

What makes you think that plays a greater role than the sun's activity, for example?

Yet another strawman. I never said it plays a greater role than the Sun.

Do you have anything that's not a strawman?

climate change denial

'Denial'. lol. Like holocaust 'denial'.

Climate Change is as real as Hillary Clinton's love for the average deplorable in America.

I'm with you. I used to be a huge believer in anthropogenic climate change. It took me a while to finally think critically of it and really examine both sides of the debate. Now I think its incredibly naive to believe that CO2 is the primary driver in climate.

Like you said, atmospheric CO2 has gone from approximately 0.0003% to 0.0004%, and its been more than 5 times higher in the past. So clearly it naturally fluctuates with time, and that didn't cause the world to end.

That said, if we indiscriminately pumped greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere for a millennia or more, we could probably start affecting the climate in detrimental ways. I just don't think we have done so yet.

So clearly it naturally fluctuates with time, and that didn't cause the world to end.

It did for the species that existed then.

Well, good thing we aren't seeing "big shifts in CO2 content." Let's hope we don't have some mega volcanic events in our lifetimes. Something like that could actually pose a problem, unlike what we are seeing now.

Well, good thing we aren't seeing "big shifts in CO2 content."

Actually we are, going from 300 to 400 is pretty fucking significant.

Its changed like this many times before, even before the industrial revolution. These variations are completely normal and natural:

https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2013/06/co2_temperature_historical.png

You're being misleading. Swings like this don't happen on the scale of decades. For some context, we are pumping out CO2 at 10x the rate it was being released when the Siberian traps (huge pits of magma) erupted through a fossil fuel field ~250 million years ago, burning huge quantities of coal and gas, causing a massive ocean acidification event and greenhouse gas spike that led to the worst mass extinction in earth's history. To repeat, CO2 emission caused that, and we are putting out CO2 an order of magnitude faster than it was put out during that event.

To repeat, CO2 emission caused that

You make these statements without having any actual idea whether they are true. I'm sure you believe it to be true, but there is actually very little evidence that "CO2 caused that."

Human agriculture isn't configured for the climate of millions of years ago, it's configured for the one we've enjoyed for the past 10,000

Out of interest, have you ever wondered how much evidence actually exists to support the notion that human civilisation has existed for 10,000 years?

Off-topic: I find it very strange that there are two proponents of Flat Earth posting in here. Its almost like they want to shut down anyone who wants to question climate change by making people look crazy and making posters discuss something unrelated.

Exactly. Once you start noticing these patterns and tactics, they begin to stick out like a sore thumb.

And lots of downvotes. People sure don't seem to be skeptical of climate change on a conspiracy sub. Are the people downvoting even interested in conspiracies, or are they more interested in preventing people from discussing certain conspiracies?

Exactly the reason this sub became a prime target for the Establishment and their shills. They are trying to ruin it as best they can and prevent discussion that might hinder their plans.

Exactly. Once you start noticing these patterns and tactics, they begin to stick out like a sore thumb.

Sadly it does appear as though the massive surge in Flat Earth videos on YouTube was part of an orchestrated plan. Was this aimed at, among other things, discrediting those who challenge official narratives (i.e. conspiracy theorists)? Possibly.

The real shame is that although FE is clearly absurd, there are good reasons for intelligent people to at least reconsider their faith in heliocentrism.

Yea, I really don't like hating on FE or any other conspiracy theory because I appreciate thinking outside the box, no matter how absurd I find it to be. I enjoy entertaining a thought without accepting it, and I think its a shame when people immediately dismiss conspiracies right off the bat.

That said, the only reason I do hate on FE is because of the reasons we mentioned above. It really does seem like a tactic they are using to discredit conspiracy theorists.

As for heliocentrism, I admit it sounds absurd to question it off the bat but I'll give the video a watch later when I have the chance.

I'll give the video a watch

Not a video. A page. A short webpage. With a simple point.

I read the page before I responded. It was interesting but didn't really provide evidence against heliocentrism. I was hoping that they video on the page might go into more detail, because the short webpage left me unsatisfied.

Do you believe a man can weigh the entire earth with heavy balls in a shed? And work out the mass of Mars by the same apparatus?

Probably not, and I also saw that the article claimed that our methods are not much more sophisticated today. That is the part that I personally find hard to believe. I'd have to do more research to decide how true that is.

Honestly flat Earth is more plausible to me than the idea that CO2 traps heat in the lab but not in the atmosphere.

the idea that CO2 retains heat in the lab but not in the atmosphere.

Literally nobody is arguing this.

From this very thread:

What proof is there that excessive C02 creates a "shield" that prevents warm temperatures from escaping the Earth's atmosphere?

That guy is probably not even a genuine poster, ignore him. They're also going on about flat earth. Typical tactics to discredit a genuine conspiracy.

if you are referring to me. You will notice I post about everything here. I also don' t like to cocoon users to talk about what you want in a thread. Conversations are organic.

It doesn't seem organic to randomly bring up a different and unrelated conspiracy theory. There's another name for that: forum sliding.

You will notice, I responded to a discussion regarding the topic, I never began it.

Believe me, there is a high level awareness you have to reach before people can fathom a complicated yet obvious conspiracy like manipulating the very reality of the place you. live... not exactly a conversation that people can handle because it comes in painful frustration.

Could a change in composition of the atmosphere of 0.0001% really cause several degrees of warming?

Yes. Just because a number is small doesn't mean it's unimportant. That 0.0003% is sufficient for the entirety of plant life on Earth to exist.

1. It's not 0.0001%, it's 0.01%

2. What would convince you? Describe to me an experiment that would do the job. If you can't come up with a reasonable standard of evidence, then your request isn't really in good faith.

3. Why does nobody ever ask the "natural cycles" crew to actually prove their position with models and predictions?

Can you repost the video? I don't see you having linked anything in this thread.

That's what aboutism, I dont mention that at all in my post, I'm only focused on getting some clarity on this.

Is it really what aboutism? You say that you're concerned about seeing real, scientific results, but 99% of actual scientific work is being done by the people who say climate change is real, and the people who deny it are doing practically none, they aren't being asked to, and they don't seem to feel a need to.

Why don't you post another thread asking for predictive climate models from deniers, for instance?

Try this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kwtt51gvaJQ

He takes the temperature live.

The reality is far more complex, we are pumping aerosols of various types, methane, and other gases into the atmosphere in addition to CO2. How they all interact with the upper atmosphere to create and destroy ozone is a complex process. To me its unlikely that the changes we are experiencing is all from man made emissions. I think there are solar changes that are occuring that are also causing the changes. Evidence for this is the fact that the other planets are also experiencing warming.

There are a number of explanations I have come across for why the solar activity has been changing the past few decades. I will list 3 of the main ones that I find most likely:

1) Xavier Borg has done interesting theoretical work describing how Earth's velocity relative to the cosmic microwave background rest frame could be causing the fluctuations that we measure for the strength of gravity (G). See here for details. This means that our velocity relative to the universal center reference frame is always changing since we are traveling in a helical pattern throughout the cosmos. We rotate around the sun at 1 year per revolution, but then we rotate around the galaxy at 1 revolution every ~230 million years. It seems likely this is related to our ice ages. It seems unlikely that the galactic revolution could be causing the changes we see now (they would be over a much longer time scale in the millions of years range), but it is possible that we are rotating around our local star cluster and that could cause a cycle that is in the tens of thousands of years time frame. Within our current ice age the interglacial period has been on 40,000 - 100,000 year cycles. I'm not sure if this could be related, but it seems possible.

2) Along the lines of rotation around our local star cluster, there is the supposed "Planet X" or "Nibiru" that is talked about in Sumerian texts. This planet supposedly has a 3600 year orbit around the sun, and it is a very elongated elliptical orbit in which most of its orbital period it is far from the Earth. However, as it gets closer it will be interacting magnetically with the sun, creating changes in solar activity. Its possible that this body is moving closer to the solar system. However, famous writers such as Sitchin claim it will arrive around 2160, so if that is true it shouldn't be affecting things that much.

3) We are entering into a denser region of the interstellar region. In other words, our solar system is entering into some cloud, perhaps from supernova remnants. I'm not sure about this theory, its being pushed by David Wilcock and Corey Goode so take of it what you will. Wilcock has done extensive research on these things and so his opinion is certainly interesting; im just not sure if these people are being fed disinfo.

My opinion is that there is something outside of the Earth's system causing much of the warming; although it is possible that some is coming from carbon emissions. There is no doubt that our pollution of the Earth's biosystems with hydrocarbons is extremely destructive to most lifeforms on the planet; however the extent to which it is causing the climate changes we have witnessed is far from clear as is touted in the mainstream media. I worked in a climate lab for a few years so I am familiar with the complications involved in predicting these things. We simply do not know the details on many of the minor chemical pathways and we tend to neglect feedback loops formed between biological life (ie trees and algae) and our actions, so the results that are often shown could be way off in either direction.

You are essentially claiming that small changes in atmospheric CO2 are more impactful than variation in the sun's activity, changes in earth's orbit and axial tilt, volcanism, reflectivity, the composition of other gasses in the atmosphere, etc.

So why are you so hung up on CO2? Especially considering that CO2 levels have been more than 5X higher in the past? Clearly, atmospheric CO2 levels also change naturally, but human's marginal contribution is going to destroy the earth?

From the 1940s to the 1970s, Earth experienced a global cooling period, even while carbon-dioxide levels continuously rose. In the early 21st century, global temperature “paused” for 18 years, again during a period in which carbon-dioxide levels increased. Source

And then you have a majority of experts disagreeing with the official narrative of climate change:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2013/02/13/peer-reviewed-survey-finds-majority-of-scientists-skeptical-of-global-warming-crisis/#43744b4c7c21

https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2012/03/14/shock-poll-meteorologists-are-global-warming-skeptics/#aa2be6373be2

http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/0170840612463317

While a few things you said I agree with, I don't believe space is CGI, and can you please disprove my previous comment on shadow angles from the sun? If you can then I'll be impressed. You say I'm regurgitating information I've gotten from school but some of these things are verifiable, and some of your theories are not. Do I care about the truth? Yeah I do that's why I'm debating you. Why don't you get a weather ballon and a camera without a fisheye lens and test some of these theories yourself? Probably because you're lazy and just like to annoy people with outlandish theories.

Yea, I really don't like hating on FE or any other conspiracy theory because I appreciate thinking outside the box, no matter how absurd I find it to be. I enjoy entertaining a thought without accepting it, and I think its a shame when people immediately dismiss conspiracies right off the bat.

That said, the only reason I do hate on FE is because of the reasons we mentioned above. It really does seem like a tactic they are using to discredit conspiracy theorists.

As for heliocentrism, I admit it sounds absurd to question it off the bat but I'll give the video a watch later when I have the chance.

I read the page before I responded. It was interesting but didn't really provide evidence against heliocentrism. I was hoping that they video on the page might go into more detail, because the short webpage left me unsatisfied.