Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Climate Change is a gigantic hoax.
Why?
Because they keep omitting ANTHROPOGENIC. Thus when anyone dares to challenge them, proponents roll their eyes.
But climate is always changing - sometimes on large scales.
Climate is what you expect - weather is what you get.
. . .
More proof of the fraud:
ALARMIST NONSENSE
The scariest part of the 'alarmist' mantra is a complete disregard for facts by ‘climate scientists.’
Consider that outside the atmosphere, the sun's energy is 1300 W / sq meter, whereas at sea level, inside that 'toasty' atmosphere it is only 1000 W/ sq meter. 30% was reflected back by the 'heat trapping' atmosphere. In fact, the atmosphere keeps Earth cooler than nearby bodies in a vacuum.
- - - TEMPERATURE DATA - - -
● Earth max : (134.33°F)
● Space station max : (250°F)
● Lunar surface max : (242.33°F)
Zero atmosphere = higher maximum temperature
How does a “heat trapping”atmosphere stay colder?
And if heat was being 'trapped,' why hasn't the maximum temperature gone up to a new record level?
Is the “Greenhouse effect” like a refrigerator “trapping heat”?
nope.
There is no "heating up" or trapping of heat by the atmosphere when it is COOLING the planet. And since there is no conduction nor convection of heat in a vacuum, that leaves RADIATION. The atmosphere is radiating / reflecting back energy, that COOLS the planet.
More Facts in support - - -
Earth Albedo : 0.3
Moon Albedo : 0.11
The sun’s energy above the atmosphere is approximately 1,300 W per square meter, whereas at sea level, it’s only 1,000 W per square meter. So the EVIDENCE shows that our atmosphere is not 'trapping heat' but cooling us by at least 116°F.
Coincidentally, the greenhouse gases have a higher emissivity that means they COOL the planet even more. And the #1 greenhouse gas is water vapor, which has a far greater effect than trace gases like CO2 or methane.. . .
... "A tiny amount of CO2 and other greenhouse gases, like methane and water vapour, keep the Earth's surface 30°Celsius (54°F) warmer than it would be without them.”
WAIT - they are claiming that trace gases are keeping Earth’s surface 30°Celsius (54°F) warmer despite the atmosphere keeping us 116°F cooler than the Space Station right outside of Earth’s atmosphere (250-134F).
DOES.NOT.COMPUTE.
WHY BE SKEPTICAL?
The proponents of AGCC / AGW are con men or useful idiots.
If "the money" really believed that oceans would rise, they'd be selling off oceanfront property or surrounding it with polders, levees and dikes. Mountain retreats would be selling like hotcakes. Governments would be shifting subsidy from the automobile / petroleum / highway hegemony, to electric traction rail - the most efficient form of land transport (90% fuel savings). All housing would be built with superinsulation, thus minimizing the consumption of resources to maintain comfort. And to minimize the cost from natural disasters, construct disaster resistant resilient structures and homes, as a rule, not an exception.
But.They're.Not.
They're trying to tax air and sequester carbon - a joke if ever.
Last edited by Rachel NewYork; 10-06-2020 at 07:25 AM..
Reason: Don't use red text. Please read forum rules.
Pure dogma that we're seeing for the billion and oneth time.
You clearly didn't watch and/or understand the film. Watch it again....and keep watching until you begin to understand to backward relationship between temperature and CO2 that you've been had by.
Then demonstrate that you have given serious reflective thought to the catastrophic expense to public well-being that eliminating fossil fuel use would bring. Then maybe you'd be ready to enter this discussion.
There are a few things about that video you posted that people ought to know...
Don’t believe anything you see in a TV documentary made in the UK.
Documentary makers here have no obligation to be accurate, though factual programmes should present a wide range of views.
That is the implication of a series of rulings by Ofcom, the regulatory body responsible for upholding broadcast standards in the UK, on complaints made about a British TV documentary called The Great Global Warming Swindle.
That's just the introduction to an article about this video that I've linked above. For those who are interested and choose to click on the link above, the article goes on to detail blatant errors, factual failings, and more that are contained in this so-called "scientific" video.
The producers of this video, when caught out in their bad science, actually altered some bits of the video for a later release: "Following criticism from scientists the film has been changed since it was first broadcast on Channel 4. One graph had its time axis relabelled, the claim that volcanoes produce more CO2 than humans was removed, and following objections about how his interview had been used, the interview with Carl Wunsch was removed for the international and DVD releases of the programme." Quoted from Wikipedia
The video is laughable at best, and dangerously misleading at worst.
. "A tiny amount of CO2 and other greenhouse gases, like methane and water vapour, keep the Earth's surface 30°Celsius (54°F) warmer than it would be without them.”
.
Small correction-- "average temp" (??whatever that's supposed to mean) of the planet is just under 55degF --that equals ~12degC, not 30. But it should be known that the GHGs produce less and less of an effect as their concentration goes up (cf- "doubling period") The co2 level, now ~410ppm) will have to up to 800+ to raise temps another 1 degC--There ain't enough fossil fuel left to raise the co2 that high.
A few thoughts for the naive to ponder:
Re: "carbon credits"-- based on the fact that some people (mainly farmers & foresters) do things that supposedly take co2 out of the air, and that some people (industries that burn a lot of fossil fuel) add co2 to the air. The later than then pay for "credits" sold by the former to make things OK...This implies that if the credits are not bought, then the producers of credits would stop doing things to remove the co2...That ain't gunna happen. The "credits" will be produced whether they're bought or not...
People like BO, Gore, Valerie Jarret etc were all heavily invested in the Chicago Carbon Credit Exchange which went bust thanks to intelligent potential customers who easily saw thru this good example of Crony Capitalism & the political agenda of the AGW bunch.
Thanks to satellite monitoring since 1979 (search UAH temp records), we can see that the temps in the tropics haven't change at all, those of the temperate zones are up negligibly during the day and a little more at night, but in the polar zones, temps are up ~ 3-4degC. Almost all the warming has been at the poles (where nobody lives)....That is to be expected regardless of why there's warming, because heat moves from hot to cold...So until the polar areas get up to 55deg like the rest of us, we're not going to warm up down here in civilization.
Over the past 10 months, fossil fuel use has been decreased by 10% thanks to the CoViD Shutdown. But we're still setting records for warmest year and co2 levels-- Using noticeably less fossil fuel didn't change the natural progression of the climate.
There's no "science" to prove AGW. All we can say is that it's been getting warmer for 120 yrs. During that time, co2 has also been rising, but so has the price of diamonds, the number of home runs hit in the Major Leagues, the population of white tail deer, the number of iPhones etc etc...Is co2 also responsible for that, or are these things responsible for co2, or is it all just a coincidence and not related at all by cause & effect?
Last edited by Rachel NewYork; 10-06-2020 at 07:26 AM..
Reason: Red text in quoted post removed.
There's no "science" to prove AGW. All we can say is that it's been getting warmer for 120 yrs. During that time, co2 has also been rising, but so has the price of diamonds, the number of home runs hit in the Major Leagues, the population of white tail deer, the number of iPhones etc etc...Is co2 also responsible for that, or are these things responsible for co2, or is it all just a coincidence and not related at all by cause & effect?
With all due respect, there is an overwhelming amount of science to prove that AGW is real and there is no science to back up your assertions.
The science is elementary. Sun warms the Earth; the Earth, as a blackbody, radiates in the infrared; CO2 and H2O in the lower atmosphere absorb some of the infrared and re-radiate it and some of it is radiated into space. As CO2 goes up, less infrared can escape, resulting in a warmer atmosphere, as originally theorized by Arrhenius in 1896.
We know that CO2 has increased by over 40% since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution which marked the beginning of widespread fossil fuel use and CO2 emissions. Therefore, if the Arrhenius law is valid, it is physically impossible for the planet not to warm if CO2 has increased by 40%.
We also know that natural climate change is a very slow process. It's still happening but the "signal" of AGW is much larger than the background natural change. The rise in CO2 and the rise in global temperatures are happening at an extremely rapid rate, so much so we know with 99.99994% certainty that global warming is man-caused (source: the esteemed Lawrence Livermore Laboratory).
The burden is on the climate deniers to prove Arrhenius wrong. The deniers are going to have to discover a new law of physics that allows blackbody radiation to somehow get past all those extra CO2 molecules and not warm the Earth. So far they have produced nothing. When they get their new theories accepted into respected science journals then I will switch sides. Until then, I'll stick with the vast majority of scientists who have published overwhelming convincing evidence that AGW is proven.
The burden is on the climate deniers to prove Arrhenius wrong. The deniers are going to have to discover a new law of physics that allows blackbody radiation to somehow get past all those extra CO2 molecules and not warm the Earth. So far they have produced nothing. When they get their new theories accepted into respected science journals then I will switch sides. Until then, I'll stick with the vast majority of scientists who have published overwhelming convincing evidence that AGW is proven.
I fundamentally disagree. When someone wants a major change in how people live, the burden is on them to prove the need for: a) a change; and b) effectuality of the change. Shutting down large chunks of the economy is not a Fourth Grade civics project, such as picking up litter on the school field or in a downtown area. Such a project may be good for teaching purposes. It doesn't really improve the ecology but it gives good training and ultimately hurts no one. Materially increasing people's living costs is another story, as well as funding a Green Fund to address "equity concerns."
I fundamentally disagree. When someone wants a major change in how people live, the burden is on them to prove the need for: a) a change; and b) effectuality of the change. Shutting down large chunks of the economy is not a Fourth Grade civics project, such as picking up litter on the school field or in a downtown area. Such a project may be good for teaching purposes. It doesn't really improve the ecology but it gives good training and ultimately hurts no one. Materially increasing people's living costs is another story, as well as funding a Green Fund to address "equity concerns."
I agree the burden is on the advocates of change, and I think they've more than met it. At this point the opponents will never be persuaded. The rest of your case is just diversion.
Shutting down large chunks of the economy is not a Fourth Grade civics project... Materially increasing people's living costs is another story, as well as funding a Green Fund to address "equity concerns."
As climate change worsens and the billions in damage due to increased frequency and severity of hurricanes, storms, wildfires, flooding and sea inundation, the cost of not doing anything will exceed the cost of switching from fossil fuels to green energy. Every nation on Earth recognizes this by virtue of ratifying the Paris Accord, except for a few oil-producer holdouts like the U.S. and Iran. Even China gets it and has committed to becoming fully carbon neutral by 2060.
Solar and wind power is the cheapest form of energy in the US right now -- and that's without subsidies. Over the long haul the adoption of green energy will decrease the cost of living, not increase it. Nearly all of the automakers are investing billions in electric vehicle technology, not because the government told them to do it, because they know that's where customer demand will be. Ultimately a good portion of the "green new deal" won't be a government program, it'll be the free market doing it on its own.
I’m nearly 60 and nothing seems to be different. Hot summers freezing winters. There is climate change but the world has done that since the beginning. Humans barely make a dent. Nothing to see here. And even if we cut out every ounce of pollution, good luck with countries like China, who van give a rats azz if the send billowing smoke into the atmosphere every day. We have no control over that.
I see climate change all around me. As a lifetime gardener, many decades now, the growing season is a lot longer and some bulbs which need cold winters are now annuals. Where I could get one crop in, I can get two. The signs at the local pond warning of ice are long gone, the pond doesn't freeze over nor does the river; when I tell of how we would get ice flows in the local river, its met with disbelief, they haven't been seen in years. One can look at the Plant Hardiness Map over the decades and see the changes.
In Norfolk VA, rising water during high tides blocking streets is so common, they have vertical markers so folks know if they can drive home through the high tides; Naval Station Norfolk is in the process of moving critical infrastructure to second floors and raising 13 piers; sea levels are rising now at 1 inch every 6 years; the fire station is isolated during storm surges. Joint Base Langley Eustis has its runways flooded which did not happen when it was built. Part of it is rising sea levels, the other is natural sublimation. Salt water incursion into wells is happening as far west as Charles City County.
All of the counties have now developed plans to deal with rising sea waters. By 2080 much of Tidewater VA will be impacted; Tangier Island which was settled in 1670 will be uninhabitable, Chincoteague Assateague Island and the Wildlife Refuge will be heavily impacted:
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
