independent and unofficial
Prince fan community site
Tue 28th Jan 2020 5:05pm
Welcome! Sign up or enter username and password to remember me
Forum jump
Forums > Politics & Religion > Scientist says manmade climate change is not real - a political scam
« Previous topic  Next topic »
Page 1 of 5 12345>
Reply   New topic   Printable     (Log in to 'subscribe' to this topic)
Author

Tweet     Share

Message
Thread started 12/18/19 1:42am

mk456

avatar

Scientist says manmade climate change is not real - a political scam

Real sustainability is very good – clean air, clean water, clean land, food water and air free of toxic chemicals and toxic metals is very good.

-

BUT manmade climate change is not real - I repeat not real. A geo-political scam for tax dollars, resource control, fear mongering, a hoax, and a distraction from the actual issues in the world – wake up! you are being lied to by mainstream media all of which has strong political connections. Watch the video below below

-

Scientist Dr W. Soon demolishes the manmade climate change hoax

https://www.youtube.com/w...JJ3yeiNjf4

Who is Behind the Climate Change Hoax?

https://thezog.wordpress....hange-hoax

Please spread this message because the hysteria out there is ridiculous - even my local grocery store owner was in a panic about it. IPPC that says Climate change is real is nothing more than a paid political mouthpiece repeating the same flawed mantra. Thousands of scientists in the world know there is no evidence for it and any scientist that actually examines the issue and data knows it not real.

God Bless Prince
(I've been on prince.org on and off since 1998. This is my 3rd or 4th username as I forgot passwords. Previous usernames were mgck01, sledgemcpeak. Peace to all here)
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #1 posted 12/18/19 2:01am

BombSquad

avatar

1) it is a scientific fact that CO2 is a greenhouse gas

2) it is also a fact that greenhouse gases do cause a greenhous effect (the name gives you a hint!)
3) it is also a fact that humans pump lots of additional carbon into the natural carbon cycle

so I'm not sure which of those facts you question LOL


because the clear conclusion out of 1+2+3: humans increase global warming.
sure you can debate how big or relevant this incfluence is, but the basic fact that this human contribution exists is not disputed


Ideally speaking, the President of the United States and the dumbest person in the country would be two different people. Oh well.... money can't fix stupid
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #2 posted 12/18/19 2:13am

mk456

avatar

BombSquad said:

1) it is a scientific fact that CO2 is a greenhouse gas

2) it is also a fact that greenhouse gases do cause a greenhous effect (the name gives you a hint!)
3) it is also a fact that humans pump lots of additional carbon into the natural carbon cycle

so I'm not sure which of those facts you question LOL


because the clear conclusion out of 1+2+3: humans increase global warming.
sure you can debate how big or relevant this incfluence is, but the basic fact that this human contribution exists is not disputed


You havent watched the video. Peace to you and all here.

God Bless Prince
(I've been on prince.org on and off since 1998. This is my 3rd or 4th username as I forgot passwords. Previous usernames were mgck01, sledgemcpeak. Peace to all here)
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #3 posted 12/18/19 2:32am

maplenpg

avatar

mk456 said:

BombSquad said:

1) it is a scientific fact that CO2 is a greenhouse gas

2) it is also a fact that greenhouse gases do cause a greenhous effect (the name gives you a hint!)
3) it is also a fact that humans pump lots of additional carbon into the natural carbon cycle

so I'm not sure which of those facts you question LOL


because the clear conclusion out of 1+2+3: humans increase global warming.
sure you can debate how big or relevant this incfluence is, but the basic fact that this human contribution exists is not disputed


You havent watched the video. Peace to you and all here.

Have you done any research into Dr Moon?

We are all okay, as long as "we" are the ones living on top of the empire of eternal war. - Jaawwnn
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #4 posted 12/18/19 2:51am

BombSquad

avatar

mk456 said:

BombSquad said:

1) it is a scientific fact that CO2 is a greenhouse gas

2) it is also a fact that greenhouse gases do cause a greenhous effect (the name gives you a hint!)
3) it is also a fact that humans pump lots of additional carbon into the natural carbon cycle

so I'm not sure which of those facts you question LOL


because the clear conclusion out of 1+2+3: humans increase global warming.
sure you can debate how big or relevant this incfluence is, but the basic fact that this human contribution exists is not disputed


You havent watched the video. Peace to you and all here.

why on earth should I or anyone wathc a video by a Exxon & Koch puppy who built his career on Big Oil funding?
are your fucking out of your mind?


what next?


New research proves beyond doubt that smoking does not harm the lungs or cause cancer and is in fact very healthy.
Yours truly,
Dr. Marlboro

Ideally speaking, the President of the United States and the dumbest person in the country would be two different people. Oh well.... money can't fix stupid
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #5 posted 12/18/19 8:22am

Dauphin

avatar

Deforestation and Urban Sprawl are way more critical. We supress the Earth's natural balancing systems. However, ain't no money in stopping it, so the focus is on carbon taxing. Aka, moving money into govt hands.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

Still it's nice to know, when our bodies wear out, we can get another

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #6 posted 12/18/19 8:28am

mk456

avatar

BombSquad said:

why on earth should I or anyone wathc a video by a Exxon & Koch puppy who built his career on Big Oil funding?

You just proved my statement - you did not watch the video - an indication of a closed mind ? always believing what you are told by government politicians and paid IPPC shills? Anyone that watchs it might learn something.

Real environmentalism is good - but manmade climate change has no evidential basis - any actual impact is negligible and benign. I have spoken with many scientists who say it has no evidential basis - temperatures were higher in the 1930s. Also the modelling is flawed.

The amount his research projects recieved is tiny - 1.2 million over 10 years is very small in research funding terms barely enough to scrape by on but enough to examine the data. Billions of tax payers money have been given in funding to the climate change organisations to promote this political scam. One of the biggest scams in the world along with fractional reserve banking.

Peace to you and all here.

God Bless Prince
(I've been on prince.org on and off since 1998. This is my 3rd or 4th username as I forgot passwords. Previous usernames were mgck01, sledgemcpeak. Peace to all here)
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #7 posted 12/18/19 12:20pm

maplenpg

avatar

mk456 said:

BombSquad said:

why on earth should I or anyone wathc a video by a Exxon & Koch puppy who built his career on Big Oil funding?

You just proved my statement - you did not watch the video - an indication of a closed mind ? always believing what you are told by government politicians and paid IPPC shills? Anyone that watchs it might learn something.

Real environmentalism is good - but manmade climate change has no evidential basis - any actual impact is negligible and benign. I have spoken with many scientists who say it has no evidential basis - temperatures were higher in the 1930s. Also the modelling is flawed.

The amount his research projects recieved is tiny - 1.2 million over 10 years is very small in research funding terms barely enough to scrape by on but enough to examine the data. Billions of tax payers money have been given in funding to the climate change organisations to promote this political scam. One of the biggest scams in the world along with fractional reserve banking.

Peace to you and all here.

I watched some (not all) of the video. This guy likes his graphs. Must be Tweety's best mate. On a serious note though, if you believe in environmentalism and think it's a good thing then great, fill your boots, do what you can. I just don't get this desire to push the things you don't believe in, just to get others to not believe in it as well, rather than to focus on the things you do believe in, and try to get others to believe in it too - seems real strange to me.

We are all okay, as long as "we" are the ones living on top of the empire of eternal war. - Jaawwnn
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #8 posted 12/18/19 2:03pm

cborgman

avatar

from wiki:

In 2011, it was revealed that Soon received over $1 million from petroleum and coal interests since 2001.[32] Harvard–Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics documents obtained by Greenpeace under the US Freedom of Information Act show that the Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation gave Soon two grants totaling $175,000 in 2005–06 and again in 2010. Multiple grants from the American Petroleum Institute between 2001 and 2007 totalled $274,000, and grants from Exxon Mobil totalled $335,000 between 2005 and 2010. Other coal and oil industry sources which funded him include the Mobil Foundation, the Texaco Foundation and the Electric Power Research Institute.

Out-foxing fox-bots for almost 20 years on the org.
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #9 posted 12/18/19 2:07pm

13cjk13

avatar

cborgman said:

from wiki:

In 2011, it was revealed that Soon received over $1 million from petroleum and coal interests since 2001.[32] Harvard–Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics documents obtained by Greenpeace under the US Freedom of Information Act show that the Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation gave Soon two grants totaling $175,000 in 2005–06 and again in 2010. Multiple grants from the American Petroleum Institute between 2001 and 2007 totalled $274,000, and grants from Exxon Mobil totalled $335,000 between 2005 and 2010. Other coal and oil industry sources which funded him include the Mobil Foundation, the Texaco Foundation and the Electric Power Research Institute.

Well whaddaya know..........

"If we had had confidence the president clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said so."
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #10 posted 12/18/19 2:10pm

guitarslinger4
4

avatar

I think a big problem with a lot of the climate change marketing (and I mean that in terms of how orgs and groups inform people about it) is that they seem to focus so much on individuals in the west when it's really corporations everywhere, and countries like India, China, and Russia that are doing most of the polluting. Until we get them all on board, climate change is going to keep getting worse no matter what the rest of us do.

 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #11 posted 12/18/19 3:19pm

maplenpg

avatar

guitarslinger44 said:

I think a big problem with a lot of the climate change marketing (and I mean that in terms of how orgs and groups inform people about it) is that they seem to focus so much on individuals in the west when it's really corporations everywhere, and countries like India, China, and Russia that are doing most of the polluting. Until we get them all on board, climate change is going to keep getting worse no matter what the rest of us do.

It isn't an excuse to do nothing. We lead, others follow.

We are all okay, as long as "we" are the ones living on top of the empire of eternal war. - Jaawwnn
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #12 posted 12/18/19 3:24pm

maplenpg

avatar

cborgman said:

from wiki:

In 2011, it was revealed that Soon received over $1 million from petroleum and coal interests since 2001.[32] Harvard–Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics documents obtained by Greenpeace under the US Freedom of Information Act show that the Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation gave Soon two grants totaling $175,000 in 2005–06 and again in 2010. Multiple grants from the American Petroleum Institute between 2001 and 2007 totalled $274,000, and grants from Exxon Mobil totalled $335,000 between 2005 and 2010. Other coal and oil industry sources which funded him include the Mobil Foundation, the Texaco Foundation and the Electric Power Research Institute.

Yup. Plus all the shit surrounding a journal article he co-wrote (also from Wiki):


The Soon and Baliunas controversy involved the publication in 2003 of a review study written by aerospace engineer Willie Soon and astronomer Sallie Baliunas in the journal Climate Research,[1] which was quickly taken up by the G.W. Bush administration as a basis for amending the first Environmental Protection Agency Report on the Environment.

The paper was strongly criticized by numerous scientists for its methodology and for its misuse of data from previously published studies, prompting concerns about the peer review process of the paper. The controversy resulted in the resignation of half of the editors of the journal and in the admission by its publisher Otto Kinne that the paper should not have been published as it was.

We are all okay, as long as "we" are the ones living on top of the empire of eternal war. - Jaawwnn
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #13 posted 12/18/19 5:56pm

ufoclub

avatar

Let he who bases his knowledge on a youtube video be confident that he is the fully revealed fool for all to see... and feel sorry for.

 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #14 posted 12/18/19 6:41pm

cborgman

avatar

ufoclub said:

Let he who bases his knowledge on a youtube video be confident that he is the fully revealed fool for all to see... and feel sorry for.

Oh god yes.

Out-foxing fox-bots for almost 20 years on the org.
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #15 posted 12/19/19 1:47am

DaveT

avatar

I get all my science knowledge from Prince.org nuts nuts nuts

www.filmsfilmsfilms.co.uk - The internet's best movie site!
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #16 posted 12/19/19 2:58am

TweetyV6

avatar

BombSquad said:

1) it is a scientific fact that CO2 is a greenhouse gas

Correct. All gasses with a polarity are GHG. CO2 is one of them

2) it is also a fact that greenhouse gases do cause a greenhous effect (the name gives you a hint!)

Correct.


3) it is also a fact that humans pump lots of additional carbon into the natural carbon cycle

Also correct... my god your good. (although 'lots' is relative)



so I'm not sure which of those facts you question LOL

because the clear conclusion out of 1+2+3: humans increase global warming.

Also correct (theoretically)... what's happening here.


sure you can debate how big or relevant this incfluence is, but the basic fact that this human contribution exists is not disputed


And exactly that is the debate.
How much of the warming we witness is due to us humans pumping a bit more CO2 into the atmosphere?

I say it's insignificant because there are many, many more and stronger factors.
There's only 410 ppm CO2 in the air.

And one of the physical properties of CO2 is that it has a shitty Infrared Absorption Capability compared to other GH gasses of which watervapour is the most significant. (85-90% of the GH effect are caused by H20!! )

THAT is a scientific, undisputible fact.

Why is it that people accept that short term temperature fluctuations (day/night difference, seasoanl variation) are mainly caused by the amount of sunlight (=energy) but that long term cycles, like climatic fluctuations are, are due to a very, very small population (only one in twoandahalfthousand molecuels of air) of one single molecule?

That not only defies the laws of thermodynamics, but also the simple common sense.

.

[Edited 12/19/19 3:15am]

The man of science has learned to believe in justification, not by faith, but by verification - Thomas Henry Huxley
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #17 posted 12/19/19 3:50am

BombSquad

avatar

boy oh boy.. you just repeat the same ignorant schlock over and over again and just hope something sticks on dumb brains unable to think and do research for themselves


yes, no one denied that the amount of CO2 is very VERY small, or that water is way more.. bla bla bla yadda yadda yadda

WE KNOW THAT! HOW OFTEN DO YOU NEED TO REPEAT IT? NO ONE DENIED IT?
please finally get a new comedy act for fuck sake!



the amount today is approximately 0.04% or something like that. not a lot indeed!

yet this small amount is responsible for around a quarter of the total greenhouse effect and without this 0.04% earth would be 30 degrees colder an just a ball of ice. and no water vapour in the world could save us, you clown

so it DOES make a difference if it's just 0.025% like it was 150 years ago or 0.04% of today

if you take some daily medication which only makes up let's say 0.025% of your daily amount of food, and then you almost double it to 0.04% then this surely will have a BIG impact


oh, and your body is 60% made of water, so you can double up meds any time, it won't matter, right????? simple common sense!!!!

your idiotic phoney little number games "it's so small!!!" are irrelvant and simply dumb DUMB DUMB





also: of course there have been natural climate fluctuations in earth history

ALSO NO NEED FOR YOU TO FUCKING REPEAT IT OVER AND OVER - CAUSE NO ONE DEINED IT EITHER! EVER!!


yet the SPEED of change is exorbitantly higher than ever and unparalleled in history, except for dramatic events like asteroids or volcanos. a scientific fact you keep ignoring



so "simple common sense" is maybe not always a good way to approach science. but that you will never understand, I have given up on this



[Edited 12/19/19 6:39am]

Ideally speaking, the President of the United States and the dumbest person in the country would be two different people. Oh well.... money can't fix stupid
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #18 posted 12/19/19 6:41am

TweetyV6

avatar

BombSquad said:

boy oh boy.. you just repeat the same ignorant schlock over and over again and just hope something sticks on dumb brains unable to think and do research for themselves

It's science.
The absorpion rate of CO2 is much lower then water (AS GAS!)



yes, no one denied that the amount of CO2 is very VERY small, or that water is way more.. bla bla bla yadda yadda yadda

WE KNOW THAT! HOW OFTEN DO YOU NEED TO REPEAT IT? NO ONE DENIED IT?
please finally get a new comedy act for fuck sake!



the amount today is approximately 0.04%. not a lot indeed!

yet without this 0.04% earth would be 30 degrees colder an just a ball of ice. and no water vapour in the world could save us, you clown

Nope.
All GH gasses (H20, CO2 CH4, O2, O3, N2O2 and some others) contribute to the GH effect which slows the radiation of heat from our planet into space so that the average temperature is 32 deg. C higher then without GH effect.

H2O absorbs IR in the frequency range of 0.8-100 microns
CO2 absorbs IR in the frequency range of 2.0-2.5, 3.0-3.8 and 10-20 microns.

85-95% of those 32 degrees are caused by water (AS GASand as clouds) depending on the relative humidity

Approximatelty 1,5 - 5% of the GH effect are caused by CO2 (again, depending on relative humidity)

So all CO2, natural and made by humans, are 'good' for about 1.6 deg. C
The man made part of all CO2 (=410ppmV or 0.04 Volume%) is about 2.5-3.0%

So the man made part of CO2 contributes for 0.03 x 1,6 = 0,048 degrees C or 0,15% of the GH effect.

I do call that insignificant.
Especially if you coinsider that an increase of relative humidity of 1.3-4% equals a doubling of the amount of CO2. (again, depending on the initial RH)


THIS IS FUCKING BASIC PHYSICS


The CO2 abracadabra begins when putting the CO2 values into climate models, when a feedback forcing is added to the fluctuation of CO2 which NEVER EVER has been observed in the real world.



so it DOES make a difference if it's just 0.025% like it was 150 years ago or 0.04% of today

if you take some daily medication which only makes up let's say 0.025% of your daily amount of food, and then you almost double it to 0.04% then this surely will have a BIG impact

Apparently, you are not able to make the distinction between physical and chemical reactions. Now that's what I call DUMB and uneducated.



oh, and your body is 60% made of water, so you can double up meds any time, it won't matter, right????? simple common sense!!!!

your idiotic phoney little number games "it's so small!!!" are irrelvant and simply dumb DUMB DUMB

No. because medication triggers a chemical reaction.... but heyt.. you just don't have a fucking clue, do you?


yet the SPEED of change is exorbitantly higher than ever and unparalleled in history, except for dramatic events like asteroids or volcanos. a scientific fact you keep ignoring

Oh? SHOW ME THE DATA, DUMMSQUAD

Proxydata show different. The rate of increase of the temperature is NOT unprecedented.
IT HAPPENS AFTER ALL ICE AGES. (See Milankovic cycles)
On a paleoclimatological time scale, we're just exiting an ice age. So yes there is warming


so "simple common sense" is maybe not always a good way to approach science. but that you will never understand, I have given up on this


Because you apparently have comprehension difficulties. Reaching the limits of your cognitive abilities, hm?

The man of science has learned to believe in justification, not by faith, but by verification - Thomas Henry Huxley
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #19 posted 12/19/19 6:48am

2freaky4church
1

avatar

Right wingers hated science since Scopes Monkey Trial. Why they fall for QAnon and such.

All you others say Hell Yea!! woot!
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #20 posted 12/19/19 6:48am

2freaky4church
1

avatar

Tweety, go somewhere with your anti science hate.

All you others say Hell Yea!! woot!
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #21 posted 12/19/19 7:00am

RodeoSchro

avatar

Congratulations mk456 - you found one of the 3% of scientists who believe climate change isn't caused by humans.

Here are some links that you might find informative, seeing as how they all explain that the overwhelming majority of scientists who study climate believe humans either cause or contribute greatly to climate change:

https://en.wikipedia.org/...ate_change

https://climate.nasa.gov/...te-change/

https://skepticalscience....vanced.htm

https://www.forbes.com/si...64ebcd1157 (You might like this one best, as a retired oil and gas executive says that it's only "80% - 90%" of scientists that believe humans cause or greatly contribute to climate change)

So - best case is that only 80% of the world's scientists disagree with you but in reality, it's more like 97% of the world's scientists disagree with you.


Second Funkiest White Man in America

P&R's Palladin
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #22 posted 12/19/19 7:18am

BombSquad

avatar

TweetyV6 said:

dumb nonsense


oh dear, again you blow up dust with irrelvant number games. bla bla bla...

yet at the end of the day CO2 contributing a quarter to the green house effect is correct (though the upper limit, but that was the number I could remember)


By their percentage contribution to the greenhouse effect on Earth the four major gases are:[22][23]
Atmospheric gases only absorb some wavelengths of energy but are transparent to others. The absorption patterns of water vapor (blue peaks) and carbon dioxide (pink peaks) overlap in some wavelengths. Carbon dioxide is not as strong a greenhouse gas as water vapor, but it absorbs energy in longer wavelengths (12–15 micrometers) that water vapor does not, partially closing the "window" through which heat radiated by the surface would normally escape to space. (Illustration NASA, Robert Rohde)

- water vapor, 36–70%

- carbon dioxide, 9–26%

- methane, 4–9%

- ozone, 3–7%

It is not possible to assign a specific percentage to each gas because the absorption and emission bands of the gases overlap (hence the ranges given above). Clouds also absorb and emit infrared radiation and thus affect the radiative properties of the atmosphere.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_effect


so again you are wrong and I am right. you FAIL. as always



and once again you try that old bullshit trick, by comparing the natural CO2 of the carbon cycle (which results to ZERO over a year) to the ADDITIONAL CO2 pumped into the atmopshere by humans. now how dumb is that???

so let's assume your 3% are correct, fine, but that is the additional amount EVERY YEAR so in 10 or 11 years it would roughly approach a percentage of 30%. in reality it's less of course, cause more than half of human CO2 gets absorbed by the enviroment again, so it slows down the process, luckily. however,your maths is utter bullshit, really really dumb, by comparing the yearly percentage with the constant amount over centuries. junk science, a classic case of crap in crap out. a bit like saying: hey, I just gain 3% weight every year. that is not a lot!!1!1!!1!! True, yet after some time you'll be a fat fuck like the orange turd

can you believe this? all those years of debates and over over and over again you prove that you have not the slightest clue about the carbon cycle. unreal.
https://skepticalscience....ssions.htm


and about chemical vs. physical... oh lawd LOL

how the fuck is that relevant to my arguement about your silly number games?

this just proves how dumb you are for not understanding my obvious point: small percentage numbers do not equal a small effect.

AND THAT IS VALID FOR CHEMISTRY just as it is for PHYSICS you clown! Duh!


you are not seriously claiming, that a x% percentage will always result in a x% effect?? in all of PHYSICS?? LMFAO!!!! even you are not that dumb

so you FAIL again

and about the speed of climate change...
wow, if I have to find links for you for such basic things, then all ist lost with you poor deluded uneducated soul


Our present climate change is occurring 20 to 50 times faster than the most rapid climate change events in Earth’s history.

here -> https://www.earthday.org/...relatives/ with a sub-link to the source -> https://www.nature.com/ar...limate2923

or try this https://www.livescience.c...eroid.html


but I'm not here for doing your homework and put up with your astounding lack of education. go find it yourself

[Edited 12/19/19 9:29am]

Ideally speaking, the President of the United States and the dumbest person in the country would be two different people. Oh well.... money can't fix stupid
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #23 posted 12/19/19 7:21am

BombSquad

avatar


hey look, I even found the article about the ice ball again LOL

https://www.nzz.ch/wissenschaft/klimawandel-forscher-antworten-auf-die-argumente-von-skeptikern-ld.1468011


Ohne die 0,04% CO2 wäre die Erde vermutlich ein Eisball und 30 bis 35 Grad kälter als heute.

Das sagt Stefan Brönnimann: «Der CO2 Anteil mag mit 0,04% gering sein, aber die Wirkung ist gross. Ohne diese 0,04% CO2 wäre die Erde vermutlich ein Eisball und 30 bis 35 Grad kälter als heute. Es ist also entscheidend, ob es 0,025% CO2 sind wie vor 150 Jahren oder 0,04% wie heute. Der Einfluss der Sonnenaktivität ist klein. Über die letzten dreissig Jahre hätte er allein zu einer Abkühlung – nicht einer Erwärmung – von 0,1 Grad Celsius geführt. Ein Temperaturanstieg führt tatsächlich mit jahrhundertelanger Verzögerung zu einem weiteren Anstieg des CO2. Das sind schlechte Neuigkeiten, denn das macht den menschengemachten CO2-Anstieg umso dauerhafter.»

Ideally speaking, the President of the United States and the dumbest person in the country would be two different people. Oh well.... money can't fix stupid
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #24 posted 12/19/19 10:45am

guitarslinger4
4

avatar

maplenpg said:

guitarslinger44 said:

I think a big problem with a lot of the climate change marketing (and I mean that in terms of how orgs and groups inform people about it) is that they seem to focus so much on individuals in the west when it's really corporations everywhere, and countries like India, China, and Russia that are doing most of the polluting. Until we get them all on board, climate change is going to keep getting worse no matter what the rest of us do.

It isn't an excuse to do nothing. We lead, others follow.


Never said it was, but those are the real polluters, so guilting the western world into doing more when it's already doing most of the work isn't going to help things when you have burgeoning economies using many more fossil fuels and with more factories popping up that have few to no emissions standards. Especially if everyone's serious about this whole next 12 years thing. If that's the case, we need to do everything we can to get the countries I mentioned on board.

 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #25 posted 12/19/19 8:37pm

maplenpg

avatar

guitarslinger44 said:

maplenpg said:

It isn't an excuse to do nothing. We lead, others follow.


Never said it was, but those are the real polluters, so guilting the western world into doing more when it's already doing most of the work isn't going to help things when you have burgeoning economies using many more fossil fuels and with more factories popping up that have few to no emissions standards. Especially if everyone's serious about this whole next 12 years thing. If that's the case, we need to do everything we can to get the countries I mentioned on board.

I absolutely agree with your last sentence. I do think, however, that as major consumers from these countries we have a responsibilty to make sure the products we purchase from them are produced humanely, ethically, and with companies who are working on their emmissions outputs. The problem is profit. The western world demands cheap, and turns a blind eye to the real cost of their purchases. So whilst profits continue to be negotiated to the bone, I doubt being ethical, humane, or having environmental crudentials are going to be high on the western worlds list of essentials of needs from the factories. We are therefore, in part, responsible. Calling them 'the real polluters' is, I think, unfair, when their factories are not necessarily even producing for their own country, but for ours. Bottom line, we need to pay more, and buy more consciously - that won't happen though. Profit always wins.

We are all okay, as long as "we" are the ones living on top of the empire of eternal war. - Jaawwnn
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #26 posted 12/19/19 11:46pm

TweetyV6

avatar

BombSquad said:

TweetyV6 said:

dumb nonsense


oh dear, again you blow up dust with irrelvant number games. bla bla bla...

yet at the end of the day CO2 contributing a quarter to the green house effect is correct (though the upper limit, but that was the number I could remember)

Well, what I posted there were the IR absorbtion rates of H2O and CO2
That is no 'irellevant data bla bla bla', my friend, that's SCIENCE. Basic physical properties of 2 substances which determine how much energy these substances can absorb.

That energy absorbtion is the delay of energy radiation from the earths surface into space, commonly known as Green House Effect.

Not much different from what you quote below here I

V

By their percentage contribution to the greenhouse effect on Earth the four major gases are:[22][23]
Atmospheric gases only absorb some wavelengths of energy but are transparent to others. The absorption patterns of water vapor (blue peaks) and carbon dioxide (pink peaks) overlap in some wavelengths. Carbon dioxide is not as strong a greenhouse gas as water vapor, but it absorbs energy in longer wavelengths (12–15 micrometers) that water vapor does not, partially closing the "window" through which heat radiated by the surface would normally escape to space. (Illustration NASA, Robert Rohde)

- water vapor, 36–70%

- carbon dioxide, 9–26%

- methane, 4–9%

- ozone, 3–7%

It is not possible to assign a specific percentage to each gas because the absorption and emission bands of the gases overlap (hence the ranges given above). Clouds also absorb and emit infrared radiation and thus affect the radiative properties of the atmosphere.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_effect


so again you are wrong and I am right. you FAIL. as always

Well, if you'd look at real scientific research instead of wikipedia, you'd see that the statement "It is not possible to assign a specific percentage to each gas because the absorption and emission bands of the gases overlap" is incorrect.

If you're genuinely interrested, here's an 'illegal' link to Solar Radiation Absorption by Carbon Dioxide, Overlap with Water, and a Parameterization for General Circulation Models by S. M. Freidenreich and from the NOAA Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Lab @ Princeton University and V. Ramaswamy of the Atmospheric and Oceanic sciences program also at Princeton


See: https://sci-hub.tw/https:...92JD02887#

Have a look at figure 1 on page 7256 LBL Solar Heating in the pressure range of 1000 - 200 mbar (the lower troposphere, that's where our 'climate' takes place)
How much % of the heating range again is due to CO2?

On the top of Mt. Everest the air pressure is about 300 mbar, looking at the figure CO2, at this pressure, has a heating rate of about 0.18 K/d and water vapour about 1.3 K/d (CO2 then accounts for about 12%)


On sea level, CO2 accounts for about 0.1 K/d and H2O for 2.1 K/d (CO2 = 4.5%)



Do you or do you not agree that a small fluctuation of the amount of water vapour (= relative humidity) completely makes any change in CO2 levels IRRELEVANT?

No matter how much CO2 we add to the carbon cycle.

and once again you try that old bullshit trick, by comparing the natural CO2 of the carbon cycle (which results to ZERO over a year) to the ADDITIONAL CO2 pumped into the atmopshere by humans. now how dumb is that???

so let's assume your 3% are correct, fine, but that is the additional amount EVERY YEAR so in 10 or 11 years it would roughly approach a percentage of 30%. in reality it's less of course, cause more than half of human CO2 gets absorbed by the enviroment again, so it slows down the process, luckily. however,your maths is utter bullshit, really really dumb, by comparing the yearly percentage with the constant amount over centuries. junk science, a classic case of crap in crap out. a bit like saying: hey, I just gain 3% weight every year. that is not a lot!!1!1!!1!! True, yet after some time you'll be a fat fuck like the orange turd


OMG you're so stupid....
There is a limit to the amount of reflected IR which CO2 can absorb. Once the absorbtion flux equals the reflection flux, it doesn't matter how much more CO2 I put into the system.

THERE IS NO MORE RADIATION TO ABSORB AND TRANSFER INTO HEAT

And that amount is depending on how much radiation we receive from the SUN

Something you consequently choose to ignore.


CO2 is NOT the thermostat of our climate. That's plain & utter bullshit.

The man of science has learned to believe in justification, not by faith, but by verification - Thomas Henry Huxley
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #27 posted 12/19/19 11:48pm

TweetyV6

avatar

RodeoSchro said:

Congratulations mk456 - you found one of the 3% of scientists who believe climate change isn't caused by humans.

Here are some links that you might find informative, seeing as how they all explain that the overwhelming majority of scientists who study climate believe humans either cause or contribute greatly to climate change:

https://en.wikipedia.org/...ate_change

https://climate.nasa.gov/...te-change/

https://skepticalscience....vanced.htm

https://www.forbes.com/si...64ebcd1157 (You might like this one best, as a retired oil and gas executive says that it's only "80% - 90%" of scientists that believe humans cause or greatly contribute to climate change)

So - best case is that only 80% of the world's scientists disagree with you but in reality, it's more like 97% of the world's scientists disagree with you.


eek lol lol lol lol lol

Since when is science a democracy?

The man of science has learned to believe in justification, not by faith, but by verification - Thomas Henry Huxley
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #28 posted 12/19/19 11:48pm

TweetyV6

avatar

2freaky4church1 said:

Tweety, go somewhere with your anti science hate.


Which one of us has a degree in science?

The man of science has learned to believe in justification, not by faith, but by verification - Thomas Henry Huxley
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #29 posted 12/20/19 12:24am

BombSquad

avatar

Well, if you'd look at real scientific research instead of wikipedia, you'd see that the statement "It is not possible to assign a specific percentage to each gas because the absorption and emission bands of the gases overlap" is incorrect.

If you're genuinely interrested, here's an 'illegal' link to Solar Radiation Absorption by Carbon Dioxide, Overlap with Water, and a Parameterization for General Circulation Models by S. M. Freidenreich and from the NOAA Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Lab @ Princeton University and V. Ramaswamy of the Atmospheric and Oceanic sciences program also at Princeton


See: https://sci-hub.tw/https:...92JD02887#

Have a look at figure 1 on page 7256 LBL Solar Heating in the pressure range of 1000 - 200 mbar (the lower troposphere, that's where our 'climate' takes place)
How much % of the heating range again is due to CO2?

On the top of Mt. Everest the air pressure is about 300 mbar, looking at the figure CO2, at this pressure, has a heating rate of about 0.18 K/d and water vapour about 1.3 K/d (CO2 then accounts for about 12%)


On sea level, CO2 accounts for about 0.1 K/d and H2O for 2.1 K/d (CO2 = 4.5%)



Do you or do you not agree that a small fluctuation of the amount of water vapour (= relative humidity) completely makes any change in CO2 levels IRRELEVANT?

No matter how much CO2 we add to the carbon cycle.

you have repeatedly fucked up even BASIC maths (see below)

so why on earth should I waste time to have a look (and most likely correct again) your drivel above?

and once again you try that old bullshit trick, by comparing the natural CO2 of the carbon cycle (which results to ZERO over a year) to the ADDITIONAL CO2 pumped into the atmopshere by humans. now how dumb is that???

so let's assume your 3% are correct, fine, but that is the additional amount EVERY YEAR so in 10 or 11 years it would roughly approach a percentage of 30%. in reality it's less of course, cause more than half of human CO2 gets absorbed by the enviroment again, so it slows down the process, luckily. however,your maths is utter bullshit, really really dumb, by comparing the yearly percentage with the constant amount over centuries. junk science, a classic case of crap in crap out. a bit like saying: hey, I just gain 3% weight every year. that is not a lot!!1!1!!1!! True, yet after some time you'll be a fat fuck like the orange turd


OMG you're so stupid....
There is a limit to the amount of reflected IR which CO2 can absorb. Once the absorbtion flux equals the reflection flux, it doesn't matter how much more CO2 I put into the system.

hahah even if that nonsense were true (which is not of course)... your calcuation of the YEARLY 3% vs. the CONSTANT amount is still utter bullshit, basic math you simply fucked up - again - Mr. Volume vs. Surface
talking about stupid LOL

first polish up your basic knowledge on the carbon cycle or the speed of current climate change, cause your ignorance is way of the charts. until then, bye bye

Ideally speaking, the President of the United States and the dumbest person in the country would be two different people. Oh well.... money can't fix stupid
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Page 1 of 5 12345>
Reply   New topic   Printable     (Log in to 'subscribe' to this topic)
« Previous topic  Next topic »
Forums > Politics & Religion > Scientist says manmade climate change is not real - a political scam