The Church of Climate Change

. . . you seriously don't understand that gasses have a refractive index? Really? I mean . . . ****ing seriously?

 

No, does melting ice release EXCESS CO2 into the atmosphere ?

If you can't understand the question I suppose there are probably a lot of things you do not understand.

 

What do you think excess means? So far you don't seem to understand that ice melts and has bubbles in it.

 

No, I understand refractive index. What I don't understand is the reflective index.

****ing seriously.

 

If you understood said index, you wouldn't be confused by the existence of the greenhouse effect.

 

What I understand quite clearly is I've been listening to predictions of global doom for 50+ years and none of them have come true.

If you understood that, you'd be much less enthused about destroying much of the modern world, killing millions needlessly on the way.

So until you can prove anything about climate change, you're just an annoying zombie with a prodigious potty mouth.

 

You still haven't addressed the basic scientific facts and are instead chasing after straw men. And, no, nothing about this science is "killing millions needlessly." Hell, until today you didn't know that the greenhouse effect was real, so you've got a long way to go here.

 

You haven't bothered to state a single scientific fact. And banning things like gloriously productive things like internal combustion engines and the fuels that run them will doom millions to staying in crushing poverty.

Fortunately the tide is turning and more and more people are coming to thier senses.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidb...ll-explode-a-pair-of-energy-transition-myths/

https://oilprice.com/Alternative-En.../Clean-Energy-Megaprojects-Face-Iron-Law.html

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/su...y-biden-environmental-policy-unanimous-ruling

Good luck with that.

 

I haven't suggests banning anything. And the greenhouse effect is a scientific fact.

 

here you go.. explains certain bents on this site https://www.psypost.org/2023/05/ant...ntihierarchical-aggression-study-finds-163497

 

What do you think "yes or no?" means?

 

I understand your position very well I think. Slander is the last resort of the intellectually lazy.

And you aren't even very effective at it.

 

Hmmm...that’s a lot words to say you don’t believe in the science and the thousands of papers written proving anthropogenic climate change. Some might say you were anti-science….check, but that might be considered an “inflammatory or ridiculing statement” and people would complain, while true.

 

How's that been going so far?

 

Obviously better than your rebuttal.

Funny thing about Warmists, ask them a question about the science and they act as if the question is below them. Not you Edna, I know you wouldn't do that. I mean other leftists.

Soback on topic, what's the science say the climate graph is supposed to look like with the effect of Anthropogenic man made global worming removed compare to climate observed.

 

Is physics just a word?

https://scied.ucar.edu/learning-zon...oxide-absorbs-and-re-emits-infrared-radiation

This is of course a simplified explanation but since we have known about this property of CO2 since Arrhenius in 1896……..

 

Mate your answers are to be found in the IPCC reports - that is the ultimate authority but this might answer some of your questions


https://climateactiontracker.org/global/temperatures/

 

Has anybody figured out exactly why every other molecule doesn't do that? What's the magic property specifically for that?

 

Do you grok “feedback mechanisms?

 

Who am I your physics teacher? How about you start by reading the link I supplied

 

Quite well.

"In 2016 a paper was published by 32 authors from 24 institutions in eight countries that analysed satellite data and concluded that there had been a roughly 14% increase in green vegetation over 30 years. The study attributed 70% of this increase to the extra carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. The lead author on the study, Zaichun Zhu of Beijing University, says this is equivalent to adding a new continent of green vegetation twice the size of the mainland United States.

Global greening has affected all ecosystems – from arctic tundra to coral reefs to plankton to tropical rain forests – but shows up most strongly in arid places like the Sahel region of Africa, where desertification has largely now reversed. This is because plants lose less water in the process of absorbing carbon dioxide if the concentration of carbon dioxide is higher. Ecosystems and farms will be less water-stressed at the end of this century than they are today during periods of low rainfall."

Ridley: Rejoice, the Earth Is Becoming Greener - HumanProgress

What's 70% of 14%? I'ma guess thats around 10%. So the earth is around 10% greener over the last 30 years due to increases in carbon dioxide, and the other 4% is almost certainly due directly to the energy produced by carbon emitting processes like coal plants and internal combustion engines pumping water and tilling/moving soil.

 

What does IPCC stand for?

Never mind, I looked it up. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

You gotta be crazy to trust the government. You ever hear of follow the money? In this instance just follow the power grab. Every solution to "climate change", which is a bizarre term because the climate has been changing between centuries for millinia, involves government taking my money.

You can't really be that gullible.

 

It doesn't say that I could find. Perhaps you should read it.

But it does say that Nitrogen and Oxygen make up more than 90% of the atmosphere which, while technically true, grossly under estimates the actual roughly 99.6% of that is both of those elements. Kind of makes you wonder how authoritative they can be.

 

it is not you bought and paid for American government :rolll:

It is run under the UN an and are you seriously and I mean seriously trying to tell us you have never heard of the massive amounts of research that have gone into writing the reports? I mean do you get all your information from Faux and friends?

 

So, you know something at least about atmospheric concentrations of gases bur seem totally unaware of the physics of greenhouse gases. (Note plural because it is more than CO2). The last person I discussed this topic with who had a similar level of knowledge tried to tell me that the current warming we are seeing was because “earth had floated into a warm part of space”.
But here are a couple of resources for you

https://link.springer.com/referenceworkentry/10.1007/978-3-319-32003-8_59-1


See what you can find on Google if you try?