Global Warming & Climate Change Myths

[DTOM420]

If you buy into everything that’s being put out there as climate science, or are just interested in the subject of climate change and the science community, do yourself a favor and watch the interview below. It features a scientist that was a contributing member of a UN commission/study on climate that won the Nobel Prize. The guy is one of the most prominent climate scientists around. This interview just aired last night.

https://youtu.be/VdW9Z2IHsHU

 

[DTOM420]

Sorry, I just figured out how to I’m ed a video on here and I’m not yet able to edit my posts - I’m still too ‘noob!’ Lol!

[YOUTUBEIF]https://youtu.be/VdW9Z2IHsHU[/YOUTUBEIF]

 

[Gry]

Can't imagine many Hill & Knowlton retirees stopping by this thread.

 

[St. Phatty]

Honestly, I should be a denier.why? Because Canada is one of the few countries that will benefit from the warming. A Longer growing season is only one of the benefits.

So open more coal fired plants dude. Knock yourself out.

I keep thinking about the Yukon and thinking,

"that will be beach-front property someday".

For people I mean.

Then I look at the map and realize - the Yukon hardly has any land bordering the ocean.

 

[Yamaha FG-840]

It's called enslaving people through fraud. Remember 1937 when the Democrats told everyone we needed to get off those old fashioned Cannabis based drugs and onto thim new purgressive opioids, because that's called progress? What - ''So what if it ain't rillie devil wead and yew don't ketch yew sum ReafuR MadNiSS, who cairs iff'n it's progress?''

myth or not,(I believe its real) whats wrong with giving a shit about the environment and taking care of the planet. not like theres a lot to lose there. ha

No, that's not progress. It's called fraud, and it's led to the enslavement and nearly endless suffering of countless millions - no, hundreds of millions.

That's why. People with the brains to pour piss out of a boot don't want to be governed by fraud in the name of ''purgresiv thankin.''

Like the "purgresiv thankin'' that has government employees telling you - the cold light blocking atmosphere makes more than 100% of available energy come out of the Earth, by making 29% less go in.

 

[Yamaha FG-840]

He's referring to the fact the fake climate ''models'' - they're NOT models of climate, climate involves GAS MECHANICS and MATHEMATICS - he's referring to the fact those models can't produce any predictions because ALL they ARE

is FAKES due to their NOT USING GAS LAW that makes predictions and resolutions - actual, mathematical calculations,

of compressible-phase matter temperatures, possible.

Those FAKES don't HAVE gas law which is why they ALSO come up with a temperature for the planet of 255 Kelvin not the REAL temperature

we KNOW it to be,

288 Kelvin.

If you buy into everything that’s being put out there as climate science, or are just interested in the subject of climate change and the science community, do yourself a favor and watch the interview below. It features a scientist that was a contributing member of a UN commission/study on climate that won the Nobel Prize. The guy is one of the most prominent climate scientists around. This interview just aired last night.

https://youtu.be/VdW9Z2IHsHU

 

[Yamaha FG-840]

What you should do is learn the correct answer to the question ''Does the cold light blocking atmosphere cool the earth by 29%,

by letting 29% less energy warm it,

Honestly, I should be a denier.why? Because Canada is one of the few countries that will benefit from the warming. A Longer growing season is only one of the benefits.

So open more coal fired plants dude. Knock yourself out.

or does it make it warmer than if Earth received 100% available energy,

by making it cooler by 29%?

You should learn to answer that question without people laughing in your face till you have to hide because you're so ashamed you got caught saying you think it could have been true.


https://goo.gl/mkawJx

 

[1G12]

The Myth: Human CO2 is a tiny part of the Atmosphere

The Myth: Human CO2 is a tiny part of the Atmosphere

How it really works:

Before the industrial revolution, the CO2 content in the air remained quite steady for thousands of years. Natural CO2 is not static in the atmosphere however. It is generated by natural processes and absorbed by others.
Natural land and ocean carbon remains roughly in balance and have done so for a long time and we know this because we can measure historic levels of CO2 in the atmosphere both directly from ice cores and indirectly through proxies.
So, concider what happens when we add more CO2 to the carbon cycle from outside of the “natural” carbon cycle by burning fossil fuels. Although our output of 35 gigatons is tiny compared to the 750 gigatons moving through the carbon cycle each year, it adds up because the land and ocean can't absorb all the extra CO2. About 40% of this additional CO2 is absorbed. The rest remains in the atmosphere and as a consequence atmospheric CO2 is at its highest level in 15 to 20 million years (from Tripati 2009). A natural change of 100 ppm normally takes 5000 to 10,000 years. The recent increase of 100ppm has taken just 120 years.
Human CO2 emissions upset the natural balance of the carbon cycle. Man made CO2 in the atmosphere has increased by a third since preindustrial times creating an artificial forcing of global temperatures which is warming the planet. While the fossil fuel derived CO2 is a very small part of the global carbon cycle the effect is cumulative because natural carbon exchange can't absorb all the additional CO2.
So, the level of atmospheric CO2 is building up and that build up is accelerating.

 

[kickarse]

Yeah yeah, and here i am still fucking cold and only 4 weeks till summer starts
starting to feel a bit cheated by the whole global(not)warming scam

 

[St. Phatty]

Rush Limbaugh says the Deepwater Horizon spill in 2010, and the subsequent use of Corexit to pretend there was no oil, had no effect on the health of the Gulf, or the health of the animals in it, or the healthiness of eating those animals.

That man is FULL of environmental myths.

He also says that burning one cubic mile of oil a year, and one cubic mile of coal, has no effect on the atmosphere.

Even though it produces 200+ cubic miles of CO2, in gas form.

 

[Yamaha FG-840]

More fakery by the man who doesn't even know what law of physics is used to calculate gas temperature.

In the REAL calculation
of the REAL temperature
using REAL gas law,

CO2 isn't counted AT ALL.


https://goo.gl/EcHrjd

How it really works:

Before the industrial revolution, the CO2 content in the air remained quite steady for thousands of years. Natural CO2 is not static in the atmosphere however. It is generated by natural processes and absorbed by others.
Natural land and ocean carbon remains roughly in balance and have done so for a long time and we know this because we can measure historic levels of CO2 in the atmosphere both directly from ice cores and indirectly through proxies.
So, concider what happens when we add more CO2 to the carbon cycle from outside of the “natural” carbon cycle by burning fossil fuels. Although our output of 35 gigatons is tiny compared to the 750 gigatons moving through the carbon cycle each year, it adds up because the land and ocean can't absorb all the extra CO2. About 40% of this additional CO2 is absorbed. The rest remains in the atmosphere and as a consequence atmospheric CO2 is at its highest level in 15 to 20 million years (from Tripati 2009). A natural change of 100 ppm normally takes 5000 to 10,000 years. The recent increase of 100ppm has taken just 120 years.
Human CO2 emissions upset the natural balance of the carbon cycle. Man made CO2 in the atmosphere has increased by a third since preindustrial times creating an artificial forcing of global temperatures which is warming the planet. While the fossil fuel derived CO2 is a very small part of the global carbon cycle the effect is cumulative because natural carbon exchange can't absorb all the additional CO2.
So, the level of atmospheric CO2 is building up and that build up is accelerating.

Why don't you show the readers you even know the name of the law of physics used to solve for the Temperature of the Atmosphere 1G12?

Tell us the name of it and show us ANY chart that assigns CO2 a higher Energy Constant than Air.

You didn't know the only chart of law in all thermodynamics addressing them,

ASSIGNS

CO2 the LOWER ENERGY CONSTANT? Y.O.U. DON'T K.N.O.W. that?

ADDITION of CO2 to Air IF THERE WERE EVEN ENOUGH TO EVEN BE COUNTED:

THERE'S NOT, so it ISN'T counted in the REAL temperature of the planet,
that arrives at the REAL temperature of the surface

COOLS volumes of Air it's added to.

https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/specific-heat-capacity-gases-d_159.html

You can't explain how you don't know that except by admitting you didn't even know your church can't even calculate the temperature of the planet correctly.

And by explaining you didn't even know there's a law of physics written specifically to check your fakery.

Your F.R.A.U.D.

 

[1G12]

Myth:Heatwaves have happened before

Myth:Heatwaves have happened before

Scientific Fact:
Global warming is causing more frequent heatwaves. Record-breaking temperatures are already happening five times more often than they would without any human-caused global warming. This means that there is an 80% chance that any monthly heat record today is due to human-caused global warming.

 

[Mikell]

Picking a winner ain't always easy, so when I'm at a crossroads between two arguments, it always comes down to who used more capitalized letters.

 

[TychoMonolyth]

Lol

 

[armedoldhippy]

Picking a winner ain't always easy, so when I'm at a crossroads between two arguments, it always comes down to who used more capitalized letters.

i think that red-colored capitalizations really make for a persuasive argument...

 

[1G12]

i think that red-colored capitalizations really make for a persuasive argument...

LOL

 

[Yamaha FG-840]

https://www.climate4you.com/images/VostokTemp0-420000 BP.gif

Scientific Fact:
Global warming is causing more frequent heatwaves. Record-breaking temperatures are already happening five times more often than they would without any human-caused global warming. This means that there is an 80% chance that any monthly heat record today is due to human-caused global warming.

Your feckless claims don't match the reality of the long-term record. It's barely warm enough to even be considered in the

"Optimum for Global Biodiversity" range.

 

[Yamaha FG-840]

It would be hilarious if you knew enough about what you were talking about to even name the law of physics governing your kook claims.

i think that red-colored capitalizations really make for a persuasive argument...

 

[Yamaha FG-840]

FLAT EARTH SOCIETY ENDORSES CLIMATE CHANGE: CHALLENGES "MAINSTREAM SCIENCE" TO DEBUNK FLAT-EARTH CLIMATE MODELS.

"This is my personal declaration of war from Flat Earth against mainstream science. I, Mark Sargent, hereby put forth a challenge to any university, foreign or domestic, to debate or discuss the Flat Earth reality."

"HASHTAG #SAMETEAM" <------

"NASA Flat Earth climate change model - December 2016 - Mark Sargent"

https://goo.gl/VfRcmn

Very first intro segment in the "YouTube challenge from Flat-Earth Society"

"New NASA Flat-Earth Climate-Change Model from YouTube Channel NASA GODDARD"

 

[Dropped Cat]

Heat from the sun warms the Earth. The Earth loses heat to space.

Greenhouse gases slow down the rate of heat-loss from the surface of the Earth.

The result is the surface of the Earth gets warmer.