What's the consensus on carbon dioxide being a greenhouse

>>9169850
go read a first year chemistry book
it's not complicated

Good bait 10/10.
You're more likely to get the responses you desire from /his/ or /pol/. In fact, stay there.

>>9169889

If I wanted to know what the mainstream hypothesis is I wouldn't have made this thread.

>>9169850
>What's the consensus on carbon dioxide being a greenhouse gas?
That it's a greenhouse gas.

>Are there respectable scientists that deny it?
Few scientists deny something that you can easily measure in the lab over the course of an hour, anon.

>>9169850
No one disputes that CO2 is a greenhouse gas.

There is some contoversry, with way to many people on both sides taking their opinions from politicians, and clinging to it for unrelated political motives, over how much of a problem we're creating by upping the amount of CO2 gas in the atmosphere.

>>9169938
>>9169945

Then why isn't global warming more severe if CO2 levels keep rising steadily? Are the oceans accumulating heat and/or CO2?

Science isn't about allegiances. There is the data and the mechanisms proposed to explain them and interpret them. Who does it doesn't matter. Your question should be if there are any plausible alternative observations the properties on carbon dioxide that disprove it as a greenhouse gas or strong critisisms against CO2 having greenhouse gas properties. The answer to that is no btw

>>9169977
That's the point, tard. Rising CO2 levels are making the world warmer from "baseline" C02 levels.

File: rely_meks_u_think.jpg (174KB, 1533x961px) Image search: [Google]

174KB, 1533x961px

if Sulfur dioxide can cool the earth's weather, cant they just pump out more sulfur dioxide in air? I mean there are already numerous cases of volcanoes cooling the earth's temperature especially when Tambora erupted AKA the Year without a Summer

>>9170019
Yeah but where the hell are we gunna find all the SO2, and who the hell is gunna pay to put it out there, and there will be side effects

>>9170019
>raining sulfuric acid is an acceptable option

>>9170066
Well it stops global warming which will kill us if we don't do anything. Not sure about you but death is not the better alternative.

>>9169850
>>9169926
This is like asking "what's the consensus on gasoline being flammable?" It's really basic shit.

>>9170074
>stops global warming
It's just a band-aid that will buy us 10-20 years more time, not a solution.
Think of it as a dam wall, if the flood just keeps rising and rising then all hell breaks loose, you have to solve the flood.

https://youtu.be/Mc_4Z1oiXhY?t=47m35s

>>9170185
"bathing, it's just a world-wide plot to make money for water works owned by ((((((((jews))))))))"

We should rather ask what health effects we get from a 1000 ppm atmosphere.
Birth defects?
Spontaneous abortions?
Suffocated retard babies with water brains?

Where is the experiment where we put a pregnant woman in a chamber with 1000 ppm of CO2 for 9 months to test what will happen?

File: download.jpg (5KB, 266x189px) Image search: [Google]

5KB, 266x189px

>>9169850
Fuck off cunt, CO2 has a linear molecular geometry, caused by equal sharing of the electrons in both double bonds, making it non-polar.

Your pic shows the least electronegative element having the strongest dipole moment causing it to be bent, making it polar.

If you don't even know that, then fuck off with your pseudoscience.

>>9169926
>If I wanted to know what the mainstream hypothesis is I wouldn't have made this thread
>>>/pol/

>>9172010
It's clearly a water molecule that they labelled co2 desu

>>9169926
You do realise that any scientist outside the mainstream would not be considered "respectable" on a matter this simple, making your question meaningless?

>>9171713
>implying one test subject would make for statisticall meaningful observations

>>9169850
It's definitely a greenhouse gas. It's just not a very important one. Water vapor is must more potent.

>>9172287
>It's just not a very important one. Water vapor is must more potent.
Yes, water is much stronger. But it is also very short-lived. And since the earth's surface is like 80 % water, the amount of water in the atmosphere is mainly dependent on its the Temperature. If the atmosphere can hold more water, more of it will evaporate.
But CO2 is still a very important greenhouse gas, especially since we emit so much of it.
See also https://skepticalscience.com/water-vapor-greenhouse-gas.htm