Global warming hits Los Angeles
- Thread starter Phil C. McNasty
- Start date
I suggest you go looking up the original papers reported by
Exxon's scientists from the mid 1980s as well as the
follow-up of those works published in the early 2000's by the guy purported
to be the whistler-blower interviewed by AOC. The works were collaboration
with non-Exxon scientists although Exxon probably provided partial
financial support to the future whistle-blower. One of the follow-up paper
by that guy was published around 2004 involved scientists from myriads
of schools. If memory serves affiliations of contributors to that report
include McGill, York, Purdue, Michigan and MIT. You have to have vastly
overestimated Exxon scientists' capability in climate research. Surely Exxon
could not have been able to suppress university professors from spreading
warning messages against using their products through the last 4 decades.
Last edited:
yes obviously you are 'just saying' ... if you just said itSpeaking of being triggered... just sayin' is all
how in world can I be triggered by such a comical attack on the loonies messiah Greta ?
yes co2 is indeed plant food and the basis for all life on the planet
The ocean stores 50 times more carbon dioxide than the atmosphere, and 20 times more than land plants and soil combined
it is quite a leap to believe that an incremental 130 ppm in the atmosphere has dramatically altered ocean co2 levels
seaweed has been washing up onto beaches long before man ever walk on the same beaches
not a good thing as tourism dollars raise the standard of living in these tourist towns
best have the prime minister and all the COP delegates look at their air miles before depriving taxpayers of a family vacation
seaweed??
give your head a shake
had co2 levels continued to decline to 150 ppm, planets would die along with all life on the planet
that is the real
CO2 'canary in the coal mine
co2 is a bit player in the greenhouse gas theory
water vapor and clouds absorb / reflect the vast majority of IR and the asorption @ the all important 15 micrometer wavelength is SATURATED
Water vapor absorbs more wavelengths and is present in much higher concentrations
actually no i will not think of it as gaseous glass bubble around the earth ,
glass is made of inorganic molecules primarily silicon dioxide with completely different physical properties from the N2, O2 and argon gas molecules that make up the majority of our atmosphere along with water vapor and a collection of trace gases, one of which is Co2
a green house prevents convection, likely the primary heat transfer mechanism of the atmosphereAnd think of the glass in an actual greenhouse. It looks "invisible". But glass is clearly
A greenhouse also does not have Hadley cells , jet streams or the mixing of cold / warm air masses, nor the influence of the oceans
so a green house is a piss poor analogy
btw silicon dioxide will have its own IR absorption spectrum, which will alter the incoming and out going radiation relative to the real world atmosphere
Last edited:
You are obviously quite well informed. Admittedly much better than I am. Seriously. Not being sarcastic.
I look at it this way.
I don't know how many parts per million of urine it takes to make my bath dirtier before it gets warmer. But I don't really like to soak in my own piss. Same reason I don't piss in swimming pools. I figure that polluting my environment can't be good so I take the time to use the toilet. Having said that, I do piss in the lake and the ocean. And realize my pissing in the toilet ends up in the lake too. But I understand the and relate to the scale of not pissing in my bathtub so I don't do it. Even though I still piss in a toilet that eventually goes into the lakes and oceans I swim in and drink out of.
But what really brings the CO2 and other greenhouse gases into perspective on a scale that I can understand is acid rain.
I grew up spending my summers in Muskoka and Lake Simcoe before and after Inco built the biggest smokestack in Canada in an effort to disperse and dilute the sulphur dioxide that resulted in acid rain almost killing off the lakes and forever harming the ecosystems from Sudbury to the southern edge of the Canadian Shield. The chimney / dilution did not work and only spread the damage further away from Sudbury.
The only solution was to reduce emissions.
The lakes continue to heal but the forests are fucked due to the acidification. Deciduous trees got weak due to the soil acidification and conifers took over. They don't live long and die off and their needles further acidify the soil.
So I just think it pays to not pollute as we never really know the effects until it might be too late.
Petroluem, is not going ANYWHERE in the foreseeable future. Especially in transportation like airplanes, trucks and ships. It is just too energy dense.
Nuclear power would make a big reduction in greenhouse gas emissions but the 'lefties' are as against that as they are against "fossil fuels".
Something has gotta change. Air pollution does real, lasting damage. Even if we can't see, taste or smell it.
Environmentalists Lied, Californians Died
When the weather doesn't follow political guidelines, people die.
There isn’t a blue state and city (along with many red ones) that doesn’t have a “climate mitigation plan” or something similar in place to ward off the imaginary crisis that has generated billions in wealth for ESG capital and for politically connected figures like Al Gore.
California has taken the lead in basing disaster responses on the myth that snow and cold temperatures were going away and that the future would be defined by “climate change” and warming temperatures.
Like most blue enclaves, California didn’t plan for real-world climate variations. Now people are dead.
A dozen deaths have been reported in mountain towns, many of them elderly people cut off by the snow, under a political system that had decided to pretend that snow was a relic of the distant past.
Snow was supposed to disappear. Climate mitigation strategies often acted like it didn’t exist or as if the defining climate situation would involve less and less of it, not more and more.
There have also been many other storm deaths.
Preparations were not made. And that’s not just a California issue. Disaster response and climate risk management has entirely come to mean relying on an environmentalist narrative that blames the weather on human industrial activity and presumes that the weather will follow its political guidelines.
What happens when it doesn’t? People die.
Environmentalists lied, Californians died.
Environmentalists Lied, Californians Died | Frontpage Mag
When the weather doesn't follow political guidelines, people die.
There isn’t a blue state and city (along with many red ones) that doesn’t have a “climate mitigation plan” or something similar in place to ward off the imaginary crisis that has generated billions in wealth for ESG capital and for politically connected figures like Al Gore.
California has taken the lead in basing disaster responses on the myth that snow and cold temperatures were going away and that the future would be defined by “climate change” and warming temperatures.
Like most blue enclaves, California didn’t plan for real-world climate variations. Now people are dead.
A dozen deaths have been reported in mountain towns, many of them elderly people cut off by the snow, under a political system that had decided to pretend that snow was a relic of the distant past.
Snow was supposed to disappear. Climate mitigation strategies often acted like it didn’t exist or as if the defining climate situation would involve less and less of it, not more and more.
There have also been many other storm deaths.
Preparations were not made. And that’s not just a California issue. Disaster response and climate risk management has entirely come to mean relying on an environmentalist narrative that blames the weather on human industrial activity and presumes that the weather will follow its political guidelines.
What happens when it doesn’t? People die.
Environmentalists lied, Californians died.
Environmentalists Lied, Californians Died | Frontpage Mag
acid rain is caused by the reaction of Sulphur and nitrogen oxides with water in the air to form acids. this a chemical effect ie chemical bonds are form or broken
Water Vapor and to a far lessor extent co2 absorbs infrared radiation i.e. a physical effect i.e no chemical bonds are form or broken
One of the first lessons in high school science class >>>>> do not try to compare a physical effect to a chemical effect
chemical effects determine chemical structure
chemical structure determine physical properties
physical properties determine physical effects
you should not try to compare a physical effect to a chemical effect as the latter is often dependent on the former
in addition the energy required to make / break a chemical bond is of magnitudes higher than the energy related to rotational and vibrational absorption of Infrared radiation
bonds broken vs bonds wiggling and spinning
an achievable goal for Sulphur and nitrogen oxides from industry
not at all an achievable goal for carbon dioxide
not at all an achievable goal for carbon dioxide
well you can sleep a little easier knowing that there is no climate emergency
I am not opposed to the development of new affordable assessable energy sources
wind and solar are not going to cut it.... not even close
govts have destroyed their finances by subsidizing wind and solar money pits (Ontario)
meanwhile the foolish restrictions on oil and gas development threat to kill millions and push billions into abject poverty
if you really want to be scared , try understand how energy intensive your life really is & then layer on the reality that the loonies want to take away that energy,
the same fools are now messing with the agricultural sector >>>> our food supply
Last edited:
No it is not. You just do not understand physics/chemistry.
There is an equilibrium between CO2 in the atmosphere and in the oceans. So, obviously, when the CO2 in the atmosphere has increased 47% since the beginning of the industrial age, that will have dramatically increased the concentration of CO2 in the oceans.
too funny
A CO2 equilibrium at the interface of oceans and the atmosphere across 140 million square miles of wind swept oceans with varying currents, tides, salinity, depth, pressure and temperature ?
at the same time marine micro-organisms and plants are gobbling up CO2 , ...... it is plant food,
85% of all plant life is found in oceans.
are the more plants in the oceans vs land - Google Search
there are 321,003,271 cubic miles of ocean volume with varying currents, tides, salinity, depth , pressure and temperature
there is an exchange of co2 between oceans / atmosphere but a planetary equilibrium ?? not a chance
this a dynamic / chaotic system
.
a change of 130 ppm or 0.01% compositional change
A large % change of a tiny number is still a tiny number
so no, it is not so obvious when you apply healthy skepticism (As real scientists apply)
a 130 ppm increase in a gas (0.01% composition change) above 321,003,271 cubic miles of ocean volume did not dramatically increased the concentration of CO2 in the oceans
1. the exchange of natural CO2 between the oceans and the atmosphere is more than 21 times all of man made CO2 emissions
2. according to the alarmist theory the oceans are apparently warming (exceptionally difficult / impossible to prove experimentally)
too bad for you Co2 solubility in water decreases with higher temperature
you can not have it both ways
i suggest you huddle with the other alarmists and pick one unified theory
What is the effect of temperature on the solubility of CO_2 in water? | Socratic
3. there are over 1,000,000 volcanoes in the ocean, spewing enormous amounts of CO2 & heat into the oceans
likely on a chaotic frequency
number of underwater volcanoes - Google Search
so volcanoes add heat & Co2 into the oceans >>>ocean temp rise >>> and ocean expel Co2 into the atmosphere due to temp / solubility changes ... explains at least some of the observed increase in atmospheric CO2 at Mauna loa (which is located on an active volcano -- strange choice of location)
a valid hypothesis , which will annoy you to no end as you do not get to blame mankind & you can not refute it
too bad you have forgotten that science is about skepticism and experimental validation and not about ideological dogma or consensus opinion
Last edited:
had you not failed out of science in grade 9 or 10 frank footer, you might have learned that:
Science is about skepticism and experimental validation and not about ideological dogma or consensus opinion.
Your appeal to authority does nothing to address your lack of scientific understanding.
Science is about skepticism and experimental validation and not about ideological dogma or consensus opinion.
Your appeal to authority does nothing to address your lack of scientific understanding.
He is scientifically illiterate. Saying that a 47% increase in CO2 in the atmosphere is insignificant because it is only an increase of 130 ppm of the atmosphere is mind bogglingly naive.
And yet....
gee
how many submarine volcanoes are near hawaii - Google Search
no surprise there is an increase in CO2 partial pressure in the oceans near by
you do not think before posting
Last edited:
absorption of Infrared radiation is a physical effect not a chemical effect
A 0.01 % change in composition does not move the needle on physical effects, particularly when the relationship of absorbance to concentration is logarithmic
you should know this
it appears you have forgotten some fundamentals
That's just it, larue, NASA gave you exactly the experimental validation you keep demanding but won't accept because it runs contrary to your faith/dogma that you think you are the smartest person here.
NASA ran an experiment that measured the increase in solar radiation that the models predicted and that we see in the increasing global temperature.
They measured an increase of about 0.5 Watts per square metre over 15 years of measurements.
This is exactly the proof you keep demanding.
So either admit you're wrong or tell us why you think NASA doesn't know what they are talking about.
Direct Observations Confirm That Humans Are Throwing Earth's Energy Budget off Balance
And don't try to pretend you've put me on ignore, we both know you don't know how to do it and are reading these posts.
You just replied, be honest and reply to this and answer the charge.
This is the proof you demanded.
Have at it.
Speaking of not thinking.
Your link says only 3/15 of those volcanoes are active.
How many have erupted in the last 50 years?
How much CO2 do you think they put in the ocean?
Was it enough to account for the entire CO2 increase noted in that chart?
This is your claim, show us how smart you are by backing it up with some actual numbers and facts.
