Climate Hoax

[red viking]

1 hour ago, Lipdrag said:

A bit of a long read on the chemistry of CO2 in oceans, the atmosphere, plant response, etc.  It was a comment to an article about manmade CO2 emissions by country and the fact that the "developed" world is down 25% yet the worldwide  manmade emission is doubling every 30 years.  Note:  manmade emissions are less than 5% of all CO2 emissions.  And women make most of those!

 

It is probably worthwhile to mention that total human CO2 emissions (even including the huge Chinese contribution), are a tiny fraction of Earth's total CO2 emissions in the atmosphere and even a tinier fraction of the amount present in the ocean. For example, the best estimate of NATURAL emissions of CO2 from plant decay (3 trillion trees on the earth and many more other types of plants), volcanic venting (mostly undersea), forest fires and exchange with the oceans is about 800 gigatonnes CO2 per year (GT/yr) as compared to the ~38 GT/yr from humans (about 10% of that human total is from human metabolism and our exhaled CO2). That means that LESS than 5% of total planetary emissions of CO2 into the atmosphere is associated with humans.

Another inconvenient fact for those worried about CO2 emissions or changes in ocean as a result is that the total quantity of CO2 already dissolved in the oceans is about FIFTY times greater than the TOTAL CO2 content of the atmosphere! To put it another way, if ALL of the CO2 currently in the atmosphere were to magically move to the oceans (that would kill us all but fortunately it is impossible), for purposes of illustration only, the concentration of CO2 in the oceans would only increase by TWO PERCENT. Another interesting fact is that the concentration of dissolved calcium in the ocean is TEN TIMES the concentration of CO2 in the oceans (FIVE HUNDRED TIMES the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere!). The formation of limestone in the shallow warm tropical oceans by coral formation (not slowing down) and in deep temperate and arctic waters by pressure at depth by combining CO2 and Calcium (plus some Magnesium) are continuing as they have uninterrupted for the last billion years or so. That formation mechanism formed many of the chains of mountains and coast lines across the world, e.g the "chalk cliffs of dover" and practically the entire REd Sea coast. The pH of the ocean hasn't changed significantly (we know because of oil wells producing sea water from the past) in at least half a billion years EVEN THOUGH CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere were TEN TIMES higher in the past!!, but the pH of the oceans was the same - the chemistry of buffering by calcium and magnesium prevent it. Also, Life THRIVED on the Earth in those times. CO2 is the stuff of life. We are carbon based life forms and all that CO2 comes from the atmosphere. Think about that the next time you walk through a forest - all of those trees are only possible because of the CO2 in the air. However, at 0.042% we are in a severe CO2 drought in the atmosphere! During the last Glaciation (12000-100,000 years ago - WIsconsin glaciation), CO2 levels decreased below 200 ppm (0,02%) and plant growth rates were severely affected, e.g. the Amazon jungle was only half its current size. Plant life on the Earth has responded rapidly and positively to the ~100 ppm increase in CO2 in the atmosphere in the last 100 years or so. Humans are greatly enriching the biosphere by their emissions of CO2. Thank the Chinese!! Finally, the temperature of the earth does not seem to be driven by CO2. It is the opposite effect. The temperature of the Earth drives the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere by outgassing (or absorption) of CO2 from the MUCH higher concentrations in the oceans. The oceans weigh 500 times more than the atmosphere. We are a water planet. IF the misnamed "Greenhouse Effect" is significant over that of compressive heating and convection driven by gravity and the local solar constant (not sure about that!), it would STILL be dominated by water vapour and NOT by CO2. Water vapour's average concentration on the Earth is TWELVE times higher than CO2 and water vapor is single bonded bent molecule with more infra-red absorption bands than the linear double-bonded CO2 molecule. So IF the GHE is significant to our planetary temperature, it would be water vapour that dominates the effect and not CO2. Please note that the concentration of CO2 in the Martian atmosphere is more than TEN TIMES higher in absolute concentration (95% of 0.007 atmospheres = 6500 ppm CO2 compared to 420 ppm for the Earth), yet there is hardly ANY GHE on Mars. It is too bad that it doesn't have a strong one! We could go there and visit! BOTTOM LINE: although I don't agree with President Trump on many things, he is CORRECT about the Green New Scam!! Ian in Vancouver BC

You're throwing a bunch of crap against the wall but they're all bogus arguments and have been refuted many times, as far as being cases to demonstrate that man is NOT causing warming. Which one is your best argument? I'll address that one first. 

[Caveira]

 

Edited March 17 by Caveira

[Offthemat]

 

[mspart]

How dare you. 

mspart

[Lipdrag]

Imagine that!  Energy storage (i.e. battery) companies are finding that there are needs for their technology that comply with physics and reality. 

 

https://www.cnbc.com/2026/03/24/ev-battery-startup-sion-power-defense-drones.html

 

Climateer hoaxamaniac politicians and the psuedo-scientists funded by them who don't know a spark plug from a hair plug have no business trying to determine how to propel a vehicle much less the moral, ethical, technical, or any other authority to mandate it should not be involved in the discussion.

[Caveira]

Mark Zuckerberg, an outspoken critic of "man-made climate change", shows off his new $300 million, 287-foot mega yacht, powered by four gigantic diesel engines. 

Yet another stark reminder that Net Zero is only for the peasants

[Lipdrag]

We found the culprit!!  It's not Barney the dDinosaur and his organic bones becoming fossils then turnjng into long combustible  chains of hydrxarbons.  It's Rosy the Robot,  and Alexa, and Siri, and Claude, and Grok, etc.

Greta and Al Gore will soon be demanding the mandated end of data centers. 

 

https://lite.cnn.com/2026/03/30/climate/data-centers-are-having-an-underrported

[Gene Mills Fan]

I LEARNED ABOUT THIS STUFF

[braves121]

On 4/1/2026 at 6:47 PM, Lipdrag said:

We found the culprit!!  It's not Barney the dDinosaur and his organic bones becoming fossils then turnjng into long combustible  chains of hydrxarbons.  It's Rosy the Robot,  and Alexa, and Siri, and Claude, and Grok, etc.

Greta and Al Gore will soon be demanding the mandated end of data centers. 

 

https://lite.cnn.com/2026/03/30/climate/data-centers-are-having-an-underrported

You don’t think having a bunch of data centers using copious amounts of water and electricity isn’t going to have long term lasting effects?

[Lipdrag]

3 hours ago, braves121 said:

You don’t think having a bunch of data centers using copious amounts of water and electricity isn’t going to have long term lasting effects?

They already have.  That's the point.  Get those kids off their computers and back to driving around SUVs and muscle cars  to save the planet

Who knows, maybe they will come across a woman and then pump out 3 or 4 kids like we need them to do.

[Bigbrog]

3 hours ago, braves121 said:

You don’t think having a bunch of data centers using copious amounts of water and electricity isn’t going to have long term lasting effects?

What do you mean by this?  Aren't most of them in a closed loop system?  Thus, it isn't a continuous need for more and more water...at least that is what I have learned.  I haven't look too much into it, but it caused some hoopla where I live and still not sure 100% what all the uproar is.  I know that the electricity requirement is enormous, but again from what I hear there are plans to mitigate that.  Anyway, it is a needed necessity for the future from my understanding so not sure why people are SO against it, but then again what some people spend days and weeks protesting for or against I don't understand the logic either, so...

[Lipdrag]

4 minutes ago, Bigbrog said:

Anyway, it is a needed necessity for the future from my understanding so not sure why people are SO against it,

I think the future will get here regardless of data centers.  All the futures before this one did.

[braves121]

4 minutes ago, Bigbrog said:

What do you mean by this?  Aren't most of them in a closed loop system?  Thus, it isn't a continuous need for more and more water...at least that is what I have learned.  I haven't look too much into it, but it caused some hoopla where I live and still not sure 100% what all the uproar is.  I know that the electricity requirement is enormous, but again from what I hear there are plans to mitigate that.  Anyway, it is a needed necessity for the future from my understanding so not sure why people are SO against it, but then again what some people spend days and weeks protesting for or against I don't understand the logic either, so...

Even if there was a closed loop a large amount of fresh water is still needed and taken from other uses like agriculture. Here in Arizona we don’t have much water but yet these companies want to put their centers up and siphon off more of our water. Many people are against data centers due to AI leading to massive layoffs and they create a large amount of noise. 

[Bigbrog]

15 hours ago, braves121 said:

Even if there was a closed loop a large amount of fresh water is still needed and taken from other uses like agriculture. Here in Arizona we don’t have much water but yet these companies want to put their centers up and siphon off more of our water. Many people are against data centers due to AI leading to massive layoffs and they create a large amount of noise. 

From what I know the majority of the data centers are not going in AZ but rather in a band of area between the east (like PA through to IA/Nebraska.  When I looked into/asked why I was told it was because of the access to the great lakes for water and the weather...it doesn't get to hot nor too cold as the data centers don't like the extreme temps...again this is what I was told and aligns with some of the things I read.

[Caveira]

Just pay more taxes.   That will fix it 

 

[Lipdrag]

5 hours ago, Caveira said:

Just pay more taxes.   That will fix it 

 

Like all climateer hoaxamaniac forecasts this one is 110% accurate.  All ice seen at the north polar ice cap in summer months since 2015 has been a straight white conservative christain male oppression mostly oppressing women (whatever those are) and minorities.  FACT.  Now plug those cow butts and breed more fartless cows.

[Caveira]

I won my science fair event doing a project on acid rains impact on plants.   I’m surprised the planet survived ha 

 

More taxes ???

[Scouts Honor]

oops

 

[Caveira]

I went swimming on the east coast recently.    Weird right?

 

[Lipdrag]

1 hour ago, Caveira said:

I went swimming on the east coast recently.    Weird right?

 

You must be lying.  110% of the east coast beaches disappeared.  Rock solid "scientists" said so.

[Lipdrag]

[Offthemat]

Honestly, how do you have a discussion with these people?

 

[Lipdrag]

22 hours ago, Offthemat said:

Honestly, how do you have a discussion with these people?

 

You can't have a discussion with them.  The problem is that you also cannot ignore the ignorant.  I guess you just resolutely continue to follow the laws of physics and counter every administrative overreach (EPA is in charge of exhaling and cow farts) and tyrannical overreach (mandates and bans).

Ignore, Correct, Utilize actuals laws.  Obey physics and facts.  Strictly adhere to limitations on government authority.

Edited April 30 by Lipdrag

[Scouts Honor]

i mean, at least they built it and didn't just funnel the money... but still

 

[Offthemat]

9 minutes ago, Scouts Honor said:

i mean, at least they built it and didn't just funnel the money... but still

 

Once hailed as a breakthrough, the Ivanpah Solar Facility in the Mojave Desert is now a case study in failed technology and environmental risk. Built with $1.6 billion in federal loans in 2014, the plant was hailed as a symbol of America's clean energy future. It used 173,000 mirrors to focus sunlight onto three massive towers heating fluid to drive steam turbines. Complicated. Expensive. And it never delivered on its promise. After just 11 years, the technology is now obsolete. On top of that, the facility became notorious for its environmental toll, with estimates of at least 6,000 birds incinerated each year by the concentrated beams. The promise was affordable, reliable, green power. The reality was high costs, technical failures and ecological damage.