Climate Hoax

[Plasmodium]

2 hours ago, Paul158 said:

What a wonderful world this would be.lol.

Not would be.  This is life as we know it!

[Offthemat]

3 hours ago, WrestlingRasta said:

Imagine living in a world where your entire belief system was developed by YouTube and Twitter….

What a preposterous statement.  Entire?  You need to drop tiktok. 

[WrestlingRasta]

1 hour ago, Offthemat said:

What a preposterous statement.  Entire?  You need to drop tiktok. 

Try again 

[Husker_Du]

6 hours ago, WrestlingRasta said:

Imagine living in a world where your entire belief system was developed by YouTube and Twitter….

wtf is this supposed to mean?

i posted several things from prominent, renowned scientists.

and your response is that i saw that on social media? 

there's a term for that - it's called genetic fallacy - or dismissing something not because of the veracity of information, but because of where it came from.

except you take it one idiotic step further b/c the original source wasn't actually social media. 

conversely, who told you man made climate change is real? what material/s have you looked through to convince you it was indeed the case?

or did you just listen to Al Gore and John Kerry? 

i'd love to know, considering there's a long line of the best climatologists who destroy the notion. 

[Offthemat]

29 minutes ago, Husker_Du said:

wtf is this supposed to mean?

i posted several things from prominent, renowned scientists.

and your response is that i saw that on social media? 

there's a term for that - it's called genetic fallacy - or dismissing something not because of the veracity of information, but because of where it came from.

except you take it one idiotic step further b/c the original source wasn't actually social media. 

conversely, who told you man made climate change is real? what material/s have you looked through to convince you it was indeed the case?

or did you just listen to Al Gore and John Kerry? 

i'd love to know, considering there's a long line of the best climatologists who destroy the notion. 

You pretty much have to go to social media for a video of someone saying something that someone wants proof of if you just tell them they said it.  

[Husker_Du]

 

[Lipdrag]

 

Government reaction:  So we are going to restrict your freedom and take your property to move the end a little less near.  Trust us.  Or don't.  Doesn't matter.  We are doing it anyway.

[ionel]

On 12/11/2023 at 3:56 AM, WrestlingRasta said:

Imagine living in a world where your entire belief system was developed by ...  Twitter….

So the world ended the day this Twitter thing died?  

[Offthemat]

52 minutes ago, Lipdrag said:

 

Government reaction:  So we are going to restrict your freedom and take your property to move the end a little less near.  Trust us.  Or don't.  Doesn't matter.  We are doing it anyway.

Women and children hardest hit. 

[Lipdrag]

9 hours ago, Offthemat said:

Women and children hardest hit. 

Women (although we don't have the ability to define one), minorities, and children who survived gestation hardest hit.  Straight, white, normal men unaffected.  Those Jerks.

[Husker_Du]

 

[JimmyBT]

Evolution is real. 

[billyhoyle]

Climate change isn't complicated at all. All you need to do is read:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_effect. The simple explanation is that some gases absorb infrared radiation released by the earth and release that energy as vibrational energy that then heats the atmosphere.  This is directly measurable by simply doing IR spectroscopy of gases like CO2 (vs O2 and N2). 

 

Here is the key paragraph:
The wavelengths of radiation emitted by the Sun and Earth differ because their surface temperatures are different. The Sun has a surface temperature of 5,500 °C (9,900 °F), so it emits most of its energy as shortwave radiation in near-infrared and visible wavelengths (as sunlight). In contrast, Earth's surface has a much lower temperature, so it emits longwave radiation at mid- and far-infrared wavelengths (sometimes called thermal radiation or radiated heat).[6] A gas is a greenhouse gas if it absorbs longwave radiation. Earth's atmosphere absorbs only 23% of incoming shortwave radiation, but absorbs 90% of the longwave radiation emitted by the surface,[9] thus accumulating energy and warming the Earth's surface.

 

All the data collected by climate scientists only confirms what is obvious, as the % of IR absorbing gases in our atmosphere increases, global temperature will also increase. 

Edited December 31, 2023 by billyhoyle

[JimmyBT]

21 hours ago, billyhoyle said:

Climate change isn't complicated at all. All you need to do is read:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_effect. The simple explanation is that some gases absorb infrared radiation released by the earth and release that energy as vibrational energy that then heats the atmosphere.  This is directly measurable by simply doing IR spectroscopy of gases like CO2 (vs O2 and N2). 

 

Here is the key paragraph:
The wavelengths of radiation emitted by the Sun and Earth differ because their surface temperatures are different. The Sun has a surface temperature of 5,500 °C (9,900 °F), so it emits most of its energy as shortwave radiation in near-infrared and visible wavelengths (as sunlight). In contrast, Earth's surface has a much lower temperature, so it emits longwave radiation at mid- and far-infrared wavelengths (sometimes called thermal radiation or radiated heat).[6] A gas is a greenhouse gas if it absorbs longwave radiation. Earth's atmosphere absorbs only 23% of incoming shortwave radiation, but absorbs 90% of the longwave radiation emitted by the surface,[9] thus accumulating energy and warming the Earth's surface.

 

All the data collected by climate scientists only confirms what is obvious, as the % of IR absorbing gases in our atmosphere increases, global temperature will also increase. 

It like broasting chicken huh?

[mspart]

Has anyone studied the effect the dreaded chemical HOH on the atmosphere?

According to the Wiki article, it is more potent than CO2. 

"Water vapor is a potent greenhouse gas but not one that humans are directly adding to.^[20] It is therefore not one of the drivers of climate change that the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) is concerned with, and therefore not included in the IPCC list of greenhouse gases. Changes in water vapor is a feedback that impacts climate sensitivity in complicated ways (because of clouds mostly). "

But not one that humans are directly adding to?   Every gas guzzling car, diesel, natural gas, coal, and hydrogen power cell makes water, releasing held up hydrogen in the fuel and joining it with O2 in the air and making HOH.   But that one is not a concern.  But what we and all animals exhale is?  

We should reduce the amount of athletic endeavor because that is adding to atmospheric HOH and CO2 over a sedentary public.   I think there is a solution here.   This would result in fewer buildings built for Olympic and other competitions thus reducing CO2 emissions as well.   A panacea of a solution.  

mspart

[Lipdrag]

18 hours ago, mspart said:

Has anyone studied the effect the dreaded chemical HOH on the atmosphere?

Water is pollution!!!!  Quick, someone ban water.  Let us sequester it right next to where we are going to put all the carbon.

A decarbonized and dewatered world will certainly save the planet and all living things on it.  It is just science, dontchaknow!

[Plasmodium]

18 hours ago, mspart said:

Has anyone studied the effect the dreaded chemical HOH on the atmosphere?

According to the Wiki article, it is more potent than CO2. 

"Water vapor is a potent greenhouse gas but not one that humans are directly adding to.^[20] It is therefore not one of the drivers of climate change that the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) is concerned with, and therefore not included in the IPCC list of greenhouse gases. Changes in water vapor is a feedback that impacts climate sensitivity in complicated ways (because of clouds mostly). "

But not one that humans are directly adding to?   Every gas guzzling car, diesel, natural gas, coal, and hydrogen power cell makes water, releasing held up hydrogen in the fuel and joining it with O2 in the air and making HOH.   But that one is not a concern.  But what we and all animals exhale is?  

We should reduce the amount of athletic endeavor because that is adding to atmospheric HOH and CO2 over a sedentary public.   I think there is a solution here.   This would result in fewer buildings built for Olympic and other competitions thus reducing CO2 emissions as well.   A panacea of a solution.  

mspart

Is the water vapor content of the atmosphere up 50% over the beginning of the industrial revolution?  Is the CO2 exhaled by living beings a concern?   Where do living beings get the carbon to exhale?

[mspart]

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2020GL090539

1.  From this graph, it looks like water content in the atmosphere has risen 200% since the industrial revolution.

2.   Exhaling - I was just being cheeky.   It's tough to say that we should get rid of people or animals because they breathe.

3.  Beings get carbon from the food they eat.   Perhaps we should remove food from the planet.    

From the link:

SWV is Stratospheric Water Vapor

SST is Sea Surface Temperature

Conclusions

Using several data sets, we find an increase in SWV in the past 100 years. Simulations show that SST warming mainly directly caused the increase in SWV. Using sensitive experiments, it is found that SST warming over the tropical Indian Ocean and the western Pacific has resulted in a drying of the stratosphere. It agrees with previous studies. However, tropical Atlantic Ocean warming has resulted in a significantly wetter stratosphere, since the responses of Rossby and Kelvin waves over the Indian Ocean and western Pacific to Atlantic warming have led to a warmer tropopause temperature, resulting in more water vapor entering the stratosphere. The transient experiments show that tropical Atlantic Ocean warming is the main contributor to increasing SWV in the past 100 years. This work implies that more attention should be paid to the contribution from the tropical Atlantic to changes in lower SWV in the future.

The underline is mine. 

mspart

 

 

 

 

[ionel]

16 minutes ago, mspart said:

3.  Beings get carbon from the food they eat.   Perhaps we should remove food from the planet.    

Just look around when you are walking about the city and compare to wild creatures seen in the country & woods, some beings are eating way too much food.  

[mspart]

Just like athletes exhaling way too much CO2.

mspart

[Plasmodium]

36 minutes ago, ionel said:

Just look around when you are walking about the city and compare to wild creatures seen in the country & woods, some beings are eating way too much food.  

Those are called carbon sinks and may well be the only thing between us and spontaneous combustion.

[mspart]

mspart

[billyhoyle]

On 1/2/2024 at 11:45 AM, mspart said:

Has anyone studied the effect the dreaded chemical HOH on the atmosphere?

According to the Wiki article, it is more potent than CO2. 

"Water vapor is a potent greenhouse gas but not one that humans are directly adding to.^[20] It is therefore not one of the drivers of climate change that the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) is concerned with, and therefore not included in the IPCC list of greenhouse gases. Changes in water vapor is a feedback that impacts climate sensitivity in complicated ways (because of clouds mostly). "

But not one that humans are directly adding to?   Every gas guzzling car, diesel, natural gas, coal, and hydrogen power cell makes water, releasing held up hydrogen in the fuel and joining it with O2 in the air and making HOH.   But that one is not a concern.  But what we and all animals exhale is?  

We should reduce the amount of athletic endeavor because that is adding to atmospheric HOH and CO2 over a sedentary public.   I think there is a solution here.   This would result in fewer buildings built for Olympic and other competitions thus reducing CO2 emissions as well.   A panacea of a solution.  

mspart

What point are you trying to make? If all water vapor stayed in the atmosphere instead of coming back down to land as rain/humidity, we would be totally screwed. CO2 is kind of hard to get back to earth once it's released. 

[mspart]

It started out as a tongue in cheek thing to see if anyone knew what HOH was.   It seems everyone did or I gave it away.  

But then I started thinking that a considerable by product of burning fuel is water.   Just like we say the Carbon has been locked away in the fuel for millions of years so has the hydrogen.   So we are adding water to the atmosphere just like CO2.  And water vapor is a stronger greenhouse gas than CO2.   But it is probably true that it might all turn to rain, unless it stays lower in the atmosphere, then it might stay as water vapor. 

Do you know the difference between water vapor and steam?   Yes, this is a change in direction.   But may be interesting.

mspart

Edited January 4 by mspart

[Plasmodium]

The h-o-h reminds me of an experiment I did with the kids and a microwave.  I read that a microwave works by exciting and spinning molecules to generate friction and thus heat.  If you heat a solid ice cube the molecules are fixed and don't spin, thus no heat.  Nuke an ice cube for a minute or two and you pull out only ice.  I was amazed.