Have you looked at the North Pole lately?

[arsekick]

clowns

 

[Porky82]

clowns

Ahh had enough of looking stupid for a bit have ya sweetheart?
Give ya a day or 2 and you'll be back with more fringe theory retired discredited scientists or maybe just some more of your own findings from you scientific climate studies from your house in Victoria.

 

[arsekick]

Ahh had enough of looking stupid for a bit have ya sweetheart?
Give ya a day or 2 and you'll be back with more fringe theory retired discredited scientists or maybe just some more of your own findings from you scientific climate studies from your house in Victoria.

You should of seen what I wrote before I edited it

 

[Porky82]

You should of seen what I wrote before I edited it

Had a few?

 

[Frosty Nuggets]

CO2 makes up about 1/10,000 of the atmosphere so how can 1 atom heat up 10,000 other atoms to any more than 1/10,000 of what the first atom was?

 

[buzzmobile]

CO2 makes up about 1/10,000 of the atmosphere so how can 1 atom heat up 10,000 other atoms to any more than 1/10,000 of what the first atom was?

https://www.reuters.com/fact-check/share-co2-atmosphere-not-reflection-its-climate-impact-2024-01-04/

 

[Cannavore]

CO2 makes up about 1/10,000 of the atmosphere so how can 1 atom heat up 10,000 other atoms to any more than 1/10,000 of what the first atom was?

The sentence contains several misunderstandings about the role of CO2 in the atmosphere and its impact on climate change. Here is a breakdown of the issues:

1. Concentration of CO2: The statement that "CO2 makes up about 1/10,000 of the atmosphere" is incorrect. CO2 currently constitutes about 0.04% (or 400 parts per million) of the atmosphere, which is equivalent to about 1/2,500, not 1/10,000.
2. Mechanism of Heating: The sentence implies a direct heat transfer from one CO2 atom to other atoms, which is not how greenhouse gases cause warming. CO2 and other greenhouse gases absorb infrared radiation emitted by the Earth's surface and then re-emit it in all directions, including back toward the surface. This process traps heat in the atmosphere and raises the overall temperature.
3. Impact of Greenhouse Gases: The warming effect of CO2 is due to its ability to absorb and re-emit infrared radiation, not to a simple heating of adjacent molecules. Even in small concentrations, CO2 can have a significant impact on the Earth's energy balance because it affects the radiation balance of the entire atmosphere.

A revised and accurate version of the sentence might be:
"CO2, although only about 0.04% of the atmosphere, significantly influences Earth's climate by absorbing and re-emitting infrared radiation, which increases the overall temperature of the atmosphere."

 

[Cannavore]

"Marine prokaryotes grow extremely fast – a process that emits a lot of carbon. In fact, prokaryotes to an ocean depth of 200 metres produce about 20 billion tonnes of carbon a year: double that of humans."

Maybe all the climate scientists could get together and decide how many tons of Co2 we humans produce
40 billion tons a year in the post above and 10 billion in the article below.

It's a climate change clown show

Earth’s oldest, tiniest creatures are poised to be climate change winners – and the repercussions could be huge

The rise of ‘pyrokaryotes’ could reduce the availability of fish humans eat, and hamper the ocean’s ability to absorb carbon emissions.

theconversation.com

im just gonna start punching all these posts into chat gpt. saves time and brainpower.


The sentence contains several inaccuracies and misunderstandings about marine prokaryotes and human carbon emissions. Here's an assessment:

1. Marine Prokaryotes and Carbon Emissions:
   • The statement "Marine prokaryotes grow extremely fast – a process that emits a lot of carbon" is misleading. Marine prokaryotes, which include bacteria and archaea, play a crucial role in the carbon cycle, but they do not "emit" carbon in the sense of adding new carbon to the system. Instead, they recycle carbon by breaking down organic matter, which can release carbon dioxide (CO2) back into the water and atmosphere.
   • Prokaryotes in the ocean's upper layers (down to 200 meters) are part of the biological pump, a process that sequesters carbon by transporting it from the surface to deeper waters. They do not produce carbon in the sense of creating new carbon but rather transform existing carbon within the ecosystem.
2. Comparison with Human Carbon Emissions:
   • The claim that "prokaryotes to an ocean depth of 200 metres produce about 20 billion tonnes of carbon a year: double that of humans" is inaccurate. Human activities are responsible for emitting significant amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere, primarily from burning fossil fuels, deforestation, and industrial processes. The figure for human CO2 emissions is generally estimated to be around 40 billion tonnes per year.
   • There seems to be confusion between the carbon cycled by marine organisms and the carbon emissions from human activities. The carbon cycled by marine prokaryotes is part of a natural process that has been occurring for millions of years, whereas human emissions are additional to the natural carbon cycle and are the primary driver of recent climate change.
3. Consistency in Emission Estimates:
   • The sentence "Maybe all the climate scientists could get together and decide how many tons of CO2 we humans produce" reflects frustration over differing numbers. However, reputable sources provide consistent estimates. According to the Global Carbon Project, human CO2 emissions were around 36-40 billion tonnes in recent years. Discrepancies in numbers might arise from different reporting years or slight variations in methodologies.

A revised and accurate version of the statement might be:

"Marine prokaryotes play a crucial role in the ocean's carbon cycle by recycling carbon, but they do not produce new carbon. Human activities emit around 36-40 billion tonnes of CO2 annually, significantly impacting the climate. It's essential to differentiate between natural carbon cycling processes and human-induced carbon emissions when discussing climate change."

 

[igrowone]

im just gonna start punching all these posts into chat gpt. saves time and brainpower.


The sentence contains several inaccuracies and misunderstandings about marine prokaryotes and human carbon emissions. Here's an assessment:

1. Marine Prokaryotes and Carbon Emissions:
   • The statement "Marine prokaryotes grow extremely fast – a process that emits a lot of carbon" is misleading. Marine prokaryotes, which include bacteria and archaea, play a crucial role in the carbon cycle, but they do not "emit" carbon in the sense of adding new carbon to the system. Instead, they recycle carbon by breaking down organic matter, which can release carbon dioxide (CO2) back into the water and atmosphere.
   • Prokaryotes in the ocean's upper layers (down to 200 meters) are part of the biological pump, a process that sequesters carbon by transporting it from the surface to deeper waters. They do not produce carbon in the sense of creating new carbon but rather transform existing carbon within the ecosystem.
2. Comparison with Human Carbon Emissions:
   • The claim that "prokaryotes to an ocean depth of 200 metres produce about 20 billion tonnes of carbon a year: double that of humans" is inaccurate. Human activities are responsible for emitting significant amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere, primarily from burning fossil fuels, deforestation, and industrial processes. The figure for human CO2 emissions is generally estimated to be around 40 billion tonnes per year.
   • There seems to be confusion between the carbon cycled by marine organisms and the carbon emissions from human activities. The carbon cycled by marine prokaryotes is part of a natural process that has been occurring for millions of years, whereas human emissions are additional to the natural carbon cycle and are the primary driver of recent climate change.
3. Consistency in Emission Estimates:
   • The sentence "Maybe all the climate scientists could get together and decide how many tons of CO2 we humans produce" reflects frustration over differing numbers. However, reputable sources provide consistent estimates. According to the Global Carbon Project, human CO2 emissions were around 36-40 billion tonnes in recent years. Discrepancies in numbers might arise from different reporting years or slight variations in methodologies.

A revised and accurate version of the statement might be:

"Marine prokaryotes play a crucial role in the ocean's carbon cycle by recycling carbon, but they do not produce new carbon. Human activities emit around 36-40 billion tonnes of CO2 annually, significantly impacting the climate. It's essential to differentiate between natural carbon cycling processes and human-induced carbon emissions when discussing climate change."

again, thank you Cannavore for the real science

 

[arsekick]

The article came from ya lefty as fuck rag "the conversaision" with a link to the study, just more fear porn for ya's
NASA/ NOAA says 36 billion, its dwarfed by non "man made" Co2 anyway

Lets ask a fucking chat bot computer the answer hey DC's, that's the end of this stupid thread then, why would anyone bother.

You believers keep putting up the fake NOAA temp record from 1850 that bares no relation with the actual temp record, because there was fuck all global coverage then and still fuck all now.

Quote from some tnuc that knows a bit about science.

"I mean it’s a fact that they don’t know how to model it. And the question is, how does it happen that they end up believing their models? But I have seen that happen in many fields. You sit in front of a computer screen for 10 years and you start to think of your model as being real. It is also true that the whole livelihood of all these people depends on people being scared. Really, just psychologically, it would be very difficult for them to come out and say, “Don’t worry, there isn’t a problem.” It’s sort of natural, since their whole life depends on it being a problem. I don’t say that they’re dishonest. But I think it’s just a normal human reaction. It’s true of the military also. They always magnify the threat. Not because they are dishonest; they really believe that there is a threat and it is their job to take care of it. I think it’s the same as the climate community, that they do in a way have a tremendous vested interest in the problem being taken more seriously than it is."

You believers belong in the scared group jumping at shadows

"There’s a lot made out of the people who died in heat waves. And there is no doubt that we have heat waves and people die. What they don’t say is actually five times as many people die of cold in winters as die of heat in summer. And it is also true that more of the warming happens in winter than in summer. So, if anything, it’s heavily favorable as far as that goes. It certainly saves more lives in winter than it costs in summer.

So that kind of argument is never made. And I see a systematic bias in the way things are reported. Anything that looks bad is reported, and anything that looks good is not reported.

A lot of these things are not anything to do with human activities. Take the shrinking of glaciers, which certainly has been going on for 300 years and has been well documented. So it certainly wasn’t due to human activities, most of the time. There’s been a very strong warming, in fact, ever since the Little Ice Age, which was most intense in the 17th century. That certainly was not due to human activity.

And the most serious of almost all the problems is the rising sea level. But there again, we have no evidence that this is due to climate change. A good deal of evidence says it’s not. I mean, we know that that’s been going on for 12,000 years, and there’s very doubtful arguments as to what’s been happening in the last 50 years and (whether) human activities have been important. It’s not clear whether it’s been accelerating or not. But certainly, most of it is not due to human activities. So it would be a shame if we’ve made huge efforts to stop global warming and the sea continued to rise. That would be a tragedy. Sea level is a real problem, but we should be attacking it directly and not attacking the wrong problem."

Morons, Imbeciles and believers all belong in the same group

 

[Microbeman]

im just gonna start punching all these posts into chat gpt. saves time and brainpower.


The sentence contains several inaccuracies and misunderstandings about marine prokaryotes and human carbon emissions. Here's an assessment:

1. Marine Prokaryotes and Carbon Emissions:
   • The statement "Marine prokaryotes grow extremely fast – a process that emits a lot of carbon" is misleading. Marine prokaryotes, which include bacteria and archaea, play a crucial role in the carbon cycle, but they do not "emit" carbon in the sense of adding new carbon to the system. Instead, they recycle carbon by breaking down organic matter, which can release carbon dioxide (CO2) back into the water and atmosphere.
   • Prokaryotes in the ocean's upper layers (down to 200 meters) are part of the biological pump, a process that sequesters carbon by transporting it from the surface to deeper waters. They do not produce carbon in the sense of creating new carbon but rather transform existing carbon within the ecosystem.
2. Comparison with Human Carbon Emissions:
   • The claim that "prokaryotes to an ocean depth of 200 metres produce about 20 billion tonnes of carbon a year: double that of humans" is inaccurate. Human activities are responsible for emitting significant amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere, primarily from burning fossil fuels, deforestation, and industrial processes. The figure for human CO2 emissions is generally estimated to be around 40 billion tonnes per year.
   • There seems to be confusion between the carbon cycled by marine organisms and the carbon emissions from human activities. The carbon cycled by marine prokaryotes is part of a natural process that has been occurring for millions of years, whereas human emissions are additional to the natural carbon cycle and are the primary driver of recent climate change.
3. Consistency in Emission Estimates:
   • The sentence "Maybe all the climate scientists could get together and decide how many tons of CO2 we humans produce" reflects frustration over differing numbers. However, reputable sources provide consistent estimates. According to the Global Carbon Project, human CO2 emissions were around 36-40 billion tonnes in recent years. Discrepancies in numbers might arise from different reporting years or slight variations in methodologies.

A revised and accurate version of the statement might be:

"Marine prokaryotes play a crucial role in the ocean's carbon cycle by recycling carbon, but they do not produce new carbon. Human activities emit around 36-40 billion tonnes of CO2 annually, significantly impacting the climate. It's essential to differentiate between natural carbon cycling processes and human-induced carbon emissions when discussing climate change.

plus soil prokaryotes [and fungi] sequester carbon as well - another great reason for farmers to grow using natural/microbial techniques - and all you pot growers. All the farmers bitching about nitrogen [and other chemical] input restrictions just do not know how to farm.

 

[moose eater]

plus soil prokaryotes [and fungi] sequester carbon as well - another great reason for farmers to grow using natural/microbial techniques - and all you pot growers. All the farmers bitching about nitrogen [and other chemical] input restrictions just do not know how to farm.

I just complain about the inability to more freely procure the old-school ammonium nitrate in the quantities and sort available years ago.

How's a guy supposed to play with ANFO??!!

 

[igrowone]

As The Arctic Turns - a north pole soap opera
well friends, some notable goings on up north
a week or so ago I posted a satellite image showing a wide opening around the northwest passage
and it closed up the very next day, seemed to be a kind of dramatic ice motion
and today it looks to have opened up again
the ice levels are low but not that low
not sure what to make of it, don't recall seeing such sudden shifts

 

[Microbeman]

I just complain about the inability to more freely procure the old-school ammonium nitrate in the quantities and sort available years ago.

How's a guy supposed to play with ANFO??!!

 

[Porky82]

CO2 makes up about 1/10,000 of the atmosphere so how can 1 atom heat up 10,000 other atoms to any more than 1/10,000 of what the first atom was?

Fuck off with your complete garbage you fool.
This thread is full of scientific facts and your just plain wrong little though bubble posts from the conservative opinion clap trap you watch on Sky just makes you look completely uneducated and pathetic!

 

[arsekick]

Fuck off with your complete garbage you fool.
This thread is full of scientific facts and your just plain wrong little though bubble posts from the conservative opinion clap trap you watch on Sky just makes you look completely uneducated and pathetic!

Could you point out these "facts" because fucked if I've ever seen any posted by you clowns believers

Why don't you fact check the last post I put up

 

[Porky82]

Could you point out these "facts" because fucked if I've ever seen any posted by you clowns believers

Why don't you fact check the last post I put up

There is 5000 plus posts on this thread. Some are from peer reviewed scientific material and some are just utter garbage uneducated opinions from the likes of you, frosty, mudballs, shiver and a multitude of other deluded high school education want to be scientists!

Have a look and see how ya go champ!

 

[arsekick]

There is 5000 plus posts on this thread. Some are from peer reviewed scientific material and some are just utter garbage uneducated opinions from the likes of you, frosty, mudballs, shiver and a multitude of other deluded high school education want to be scientists!

Have a look and see how ya go champ!

Fact check my 2nd last post then, i'll repost it for ya

Here ya go fact check away

Quote from some tnuc that knows a bit about science.

"I mean it’s a fact that they don’t know how to model it. And the question is, how does it happen that they end up believing their models? But I have seen that happen in many fields. You sit in front of a computer screen for 10 years and you start to think of your model as being real. It is also true that the whole livelihood of all these people depends on people being scared. Really, just psychologically, it would be very difficult for them to come out and say, “Don’t worry, there isn’t a problem.” It’s sort of natural, since their whole life depends on it being a problem. I don’t say that they’re dishonest. But I think it’s just a normal human reaction. It’s true of the military also. They always magnify the threat. Not because they are dishonest; they really believe that there is a threat and it is their job to take care of it. I think it’s the same as the climate community, that they do in a way have a tremendous vested interest in the problem being taken more seriously than it is."

You believers belong in the scared group jumping at shadows

"There’s a lot made out of the people who died in heat waves. And there is no doubt that we have heat waves and people die. What they don’t say is actually five times as many people die of cold in winters as die of heat in summer. And it is also true that more of the warming happens in winter than in summer. So, if anything, it’s heavily favorable as far as that goes. It certainly saves more lives in winter than it costs in summer.

So that kind of argument is never made. And I see a systematic bias in the way things are reported. Anything that looks bad is reported, and anything that looks good is not reported.

A lot of these things are not anything to do with human activities. Take the shrinking of glaciers, which certainly has been going on for 300 years and has been well documented. So it certainly wasn’t due to human activities, most of the time. There’s been a very strong warming, in fact, ever since the Little Ice Age, which was most intense in the 17th century. That certainly was not due to human activity.

And the most serious of almost all the problems is the rising sea level. But there again, we have no evidence that this is due to climate change. A good deal of evidence says it’s not. I mean, we know that that’s been going on for 12,000 years, and there’s very doubtful arguments as to what’s been happening in the last 50 years and (whether) human activities have been important. It’s not clear whether it’s been accelerating or not. But certainly, most of it is not due to human activities. So it would be a shame if we’ve made huge efforts to stop global warming and the sea continued to rise. That would be a tragedy. Sea level is a real problem, but we should be attacking it directly and not attacking the wrong problem."

Morons, Imbeciles and believers all belong in the same group

 

[arsekick]

 

[Porky82]

Fact check my 2nd last post then, i'll repost it for ya

Here ya go fact check away

Quote from some tnuc that knows a bit about science.

"I mean it’s a fact that they don’t know how to model it. And the question is, how does it happen that they end up believing their models? But I have seen that happen in many fields. You sit in front of a computer screen for 10 years and you start to think of your model as being real. It is also true that the whole livelihood of all these people depends on people being scared. Really, just psychologically, it would be very difficult for them to come out and say, “Don’t worry, there isn’t a problem.” It’s sort of natural, since their whole life depends on it being a problem. I don’t say that they’re dishonest. But I think it’s just a normal human reaction. It’s true of the military also. They always magnify the threat. Not because they are dishonest; they really believe that there is a threat and it is their job to take care of it. I think it’s the same as the climate community, that they do in a way have a tremendous vested interest in the problem being taken more seriously than it is."

You believers belong in the scared group jumping at shadows

"There’s a lot made out of the people who died in heat waves. And there is no doubt that we have heat waves and people die. What they don’t say is actually five times as many people die of cold in winters as die of heat in summer. And it is also true that more of the warming happens in winter than in summer. So, if anything, it’s heavily favorable as far as that goes. It certainly saves more lives in winter than it costs in summer.

So that kind of argument is never made. And I see a systematic bias in the way things are reported. Anything that looks bad is reported, and anything that looks good is not reported.

A lot of these things are not anything to do with human activities. Take the shrinking of glaciers, which certainly has been going on for 300 years and has been well documented. So it certainly wasn’t due to human activities, most of the time. There’s been a very strong warming, in fact, ever since the Little Ice Age, which was most intense in the 17th century. That certainly was not due to human activity.

And the most serious of almost all the problems is the rising sea level. But there again, we have no evidence that this is due to climate change. A good deal of evidence says it’s not. I mean, we know that that’s been going on for 12,000 years, and there’s very doubtful arguments as to what’s been happening in the last 50 years and (whether) human activities have been important. It’s not clear whether it’s been accelerating or not. But certainly, most of it is not due to human activities. So it would be a shame if we’ve made huge efforts to stop global warming and the sea continued to rise. That would be a tragedy. Sea level is a real problem, but we should be attacking it directly and not attacking the wrong problem."

Morons, Imbeciles and believers all belong in the same group

Who's the "cunt" that knows a bit about science?
Is it you?