What's with all the flat Earth people who can't comprehend

>>8685526
Those are clouds

File: winter-north_america_med_res_jan_15_2017_0.jpg (927KB, 1300x775px) Image search: [Google]

927KB, 1300x775px

>>8685535
Right...clouds

back to >>>/pol/ flat Earther

's getting desperate out there! People are dying! We must stop man made global cooling before we all freeze to death!

http://www.climatedepot.com/2017/01/06/record-cold-and-snow-has-descend-upon-the-planet/

http://www.hindustantimes.com/delhi/delhi-continues-to-freeze-temperature-falls-to-5-year-low-on-thursday-morning/story-P8YqN0X0bK47kZb2VDybIJ.html

http://yle.fi/uutiset/osasto/news/extreme_weather_in_finland_cold_record_snaps_at_-417_lightning_strikes_porkkala/9388109

http://www.espagne-visite.com/en/news-in-spain/snow-and-cold-in-spain-january-2017.html

Horrible, just horrible! How can we stop this /sci/?

http://www.markvoganweather.com/2017/02/12/middle-east-cold-wave-brings-rare-snow-to-uae-qatars-coldest-night/

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/jan/09/several-die-poland-european-cold-weather-snow-continues

http://www.middleeasteye.net/news/uae-snow-alert-heavy-storm-blankets-mountain-1237934797

http://hungarytoday.hu/news/cold-winter-hits-hungary-temperature-sinks-ime-record-low-64741

>>8685530
So stopping at 800 would be optimal? or maybe 1200?

>>8685569
Somewhere between 800-1200 would be most beneficial. It would also help protect us against the spectre of global cooling we face every day.

http://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/340/1/phillipsol10.pdf

>>8685526
Look mom! It's retarded!

>>8685526
In that thumbnail, the Earth looks like Pumpkinhead.

>>8685526
You guys do know those two pictures were taken at essentially the same time, right?

>>8685927
Fookin saved!

>>8685530
increased CO2 concentrations actually decrease a plant's nutritional content so more would be needed to have the same gains

http://environment.harvard.edu/sites/default/files/myers_2014_increasing_co2_threatens_human_nutrition_aop_version.pdf

>>8686180
>>>8685530
>increased CO2 concentrations actually decrease a plant's nutritional content so more would be needed to have the same gains

A: Theory disproves empirical results. >>8685530
Q: What is Climate Change

>>8686988
>Theory disproves empirical results
Image of plants growing higher in controlled environment where the only limiter is CO2 barely proves anything and especially doesn't prove thins about nutritional content.

The Science is settled!

>>8686180
Right, but that would happen at a level of co2 that we're nowhere near yet.

File: look, he posted it again.png (363KB, 981x1145px) Image search: [Google]

363KB, 981x1145px

>>8685530
Oh here we go again. Still posting the same old image pretending like you have an argument, even though every single time you have posted this image in past threads, you have been rebuked and debunked again and again and again and again, yet you still keep making the same shitty argument, if you can even call it that.

>>8687303

The more I argued with them, the better I came to know their dialectic. First they counted on the stupidity of their adversary, and then, when there was no other way out, they themselves simply played stupid. If all this didn't help, they pretended not to understand, or, if challenged, they changed the subject in a hurry, quoted platitudes which, if you accepted them, they immediately related to entirely different matters, and then, if again attacked, gave ground and pretended not to know exactly what you were talking about. Whenever you tried to attack one of these apostles, your hand closed on a jelly-like slime which divided up and poured through your fingers, but in the next moment collected again. But if you really struck one of these fellows so telling a blow that, observed by the audience, he couldn't help but agree, and if you believed that this had taken you at least one step forward, your amazement was great the next day. The Jew had not the slightest recollection of the day before, he rattled off his same old nonsense as though nothing at all had happened, and, if indignantly challenged, affected amazement; he couldn't remember a thing, except that he had proved the correctness of his assertions the previous day.

File: Fug.jpg (12KB, 218x231px) Image search: [Google]

12KB, 218x231px

>>>/pol/kadots

>>8685549
>posts picture of cloud cover
>gets triggered when someone tells him it's clouds
okay

>>8687002
>>Theory disproves empirical results
>Image of plants growing higher in controlled environment where the only limiter is CO2 barely proves anything and especially doesn't prove thins about nutritional content.

Nothing in that image suggests that they changed the nutritional content of the soil between lower and higher CO2 concentrations. Sorry buddy, you've been debunked.

>>8685549
looks like clouds to me bro. Pretty hard to tell snow from clouds in this photo because the picture was taken from a satellite in geostationary orbit and the earth is round. If only there were satellites that went over the poles... HMMMMMMMMMM......

how do you explain this:
http://www.sciencealert.com/oklahoma-hit-temperatures-of-100-fahrenheit-in-the-depths-of-winter

>>8687549
They didn't change the nutritional content you retard. They just provided nutritious artificial soil so that nutrients are not the limiting factor.

>>8687334
Sounds like you are describing a jew

>>8687594
That's the point you idiot. You pointed to a paper that said that higher CO2 would change the nutritional content of the soil, that it would make it worse. That means that the higher CO2 plants would be growing in soil with less nutrition. But they still thrived; better than the plants in lower CO2 situations. So the net result is that more CO2 is better for plants with or without a nutritional decrease in the soil.

Sheesh. Stop pretending that random theories outdo empirical facts.

File: gayer.jpg (118KB, 682x306px) Image search: [Google]

118KB, 682x306px

>>8688105
>a paper that said that higher CO2 would change the nutritional content of the soil
literally a lie.
the paper said that the nutritional content of CROPS would be inferior under high CO2 conditions, gram for gram.

studies showing a significant CO2 fertilization effect invariably concern themselves with greenhouse experiments in which the plants are provided ample fertilizer, so that growth is not limited by soil nutrient content. this is not representative of wild plants; terrestrial primary productivity is typically limited by nitrate or phosphate, while marine primary productivity may be limited by iron. only in human agriculture, with intensively fertilized soils, is CO2 the limiting factor.

I explain this to you retards in every thread, but you never seem to understand it.

>>8685526
>RIGHT NOW
It's winter RIGHT NOW too!

>>8688105
>You pointed to a paper that said that higher CO2 would change the nutritional content of the soil, that it would make it worse.
No I didn't. What the fuck are you talking about?

And you seem to be avoiding the point of my post, which refers to the study which showed increased growth from CO2. When it was pointed out to you that this is only growth from an artificial greenhouse environment in which soil nutrients are provided, you responded that they didn't increase the nutrient level with CO2. I then pointed out that this doesn't respond to the point. Then you again failed to respond to the point while pretending to respond to it with more false claims.

You people really are dumb.