Climate Change

[Frankfooter]

i do not give a rats ass what you ask
you are a high school drop out/ pathological lair, pretending to be knowledgeable about scientific matters
do not ever tell me or anyone else where they can or can not post

I expect I've got more degrees than you, larue.
There is no way you have even an undergrad degree based on your writing skills and your total ignorance towards science.
If you can't understand forcing and feedback climate effects the only degree you would earn would come from an ancient matchbook.

 

[Frankfooter]

not even close you blithering moron
water vapor is the greenhouse gas
CO2 is atmospheric planet food and is essential for all life on the planet

Forcing vs feedback, larue.

Clearly you just aren't bright enough to understand the subject.

 

[JohnLarue]

Forcing vs feedback, larue.

Clearly you just aren't bright enough to understand the subject.

water vapor is the dominate greenhouse gas
CO2 is atmospheric plant food and is essential for all life on the planet

 

[JohnLarue]

I expect I've got more degrees than you, larue.

not a chance

There is no way you have even an undergrad degree based on your writing skills and your total ignorance towards science.

If you can't understand forcing and feedback climate effects the only degree you would earn would come from an ancient matchbook.

water vapor is the greenhouse gas
CO2 is atmospheric plant food and is essential for all life on the planet


you have clearly shown your scientific ignorance
go sit in the corner with your dunce cap on

 

[Frankfooter]

water vapor is the dominate greenhouse gas
CO2 is atmospheric plant food and is essential for all life on the planet

Larue, you can't understand the basics of climate science.
Greenhouse gases have forcing effects on the climate.
Water vapour is a feedback effect.

You're not smart enough to understand the difference and its incredibly basic science.
You are hopeless.

 

[K Douglas]

The reality is that you don't know it and therefore you think scientists can't be smarter and more informed than you so you think it can't be happening.
So you cherry pick random stats without understanding the context or what it says about today.

I'm sure there are many climate scientists who are smarter and more informed than I. That doesn't mean they can do the impossible. Which is to reconstruct with a high level of certainty what the global climate was 2 million years ago, 200 million years ago or 2 billion years ago.
When you hear 2023 was the warmest year on record, how many climate data points does the record encompass? And how accurate and reliable is the record? Furthermore, why is 2°C some sort of 'tipping point'? Most living organisms are preconditioned to warming of at least 4-6°C. A warming climate is a much better alternative than a cooling climate.

 

[Phil C. McNasty]

The "experts" are predicting a record number of hurricanes this year.
Lets revisit their prediction in November to see if they were right

New preseason hurricane forecast is highest ever issued. Brace yourself, Florida

NOAA predicts 17 to 25 named storms, 8 to 13 hurricanes and 4 to 7 major hurricanes.

www.yahoo.com

 

[Frankfooter]

I'm sure there are many climate scientists who are smarter and more informed than I. That doesn't mean they can do the impossible. Which is to reconstruct with a high level of certainty what the global climate was 2 million years ago, 200 million years ago or 2 billion years ago.
When you hear 2023 was the warmest year on record, how many climate data points does the record encompass? And how accurate and reliable is the record? Furthermore, why is 2°C some sort of 'tipping point'? Most living organisms are preconditioned to warming of at least 4-6°C. A warming climate is a much better alternative than a cooling climate.

They don't need or try to reconstruct the temp from 2 billion years ago with a high level of certainty.
The planet's climate would be quite different with 2ºC warmer, with the 4ºC or so we are headed towards right now vast chunks become unliveable.
There are tons of studies, you could easily find out.

World’s top climate scientists expect global heating to blast past 1.5C target

Exclusive: Planet is headed for at least 2.5C of heating with disastrous results for humanity, poll of hundreds of scientists finds

www.theguardian.com

 

[oil&gas]

Can't even get the word "blather" correct.

Even if water vapour is 96% and ignoring the feedback loops, using that as an excuse not to act is like saying incurable diseases cause 96% of human deaths so we shouldn't bother acting on the others.

I'd be tempted to take the side of climate activists if climate skeptics and
deniers are using that as an excuse not to cut back on consumption of gas
and other fossil fuel products. In reality people, non climate-deniers included,
don't want to compromise their lifestyle. Climate denial is not a significant
factor in rising carbon emission.

 

[JohnLarue]

I'd be tempted to take the side of climate activists if climate skeptics and
deniers are using that as an excuse not to cut back on consumption of gas
and other fossil fuel products. In reality people, non climate-deniers included,
don't want to compromise their lifestyle. Climate denial is not a significant
factor in rising carbon emission.

there is a difference between compromising a lifestyle and pushing billions of people into abject poverty and starvation via stupidity.

restricting fossil fuel supply will reverse this truly wonderful trend

 

[JohnLarue]

Can't even get the word "blather" correct.

hmm

blither

1. to talk a lot in a way that does not have much meaning and is not very…

dictionary.cambridge.org

blither
verb

(also blither on)
to talk a lot in a way that does not have much meaning and is not very interesting:
Tina's always blithering about her dog.

now this blithering

Even if water vapour is 96% and ignoring the feedback loops, using that as an excuse not to act is like saying incurable diseases cause 96% of human deaths so we shouldn't bother acting on the others.

Water vapour is responsible for 90 to 96% of the greenhouse effect
feedbacks in nature tend to be counter to to any change. its called Le Chatelier's principle

btw

Each day, 25,000 people, including more than 10,000 children, die from hunger and related causes. Some 854 million people worldwide are estimated to be undernourished, and high food prices may drive another 100 million into poverty and hunger.

restricting the use of fossil fuels will kill millions perhaps even billions

you will not win this argument as the proposed solutions to the non problem i.e. "end fossil fuel use now" and " net zero " are the equivalent of "medieval bleeding" or amputation to address an annoying hangnail

besides it is impossible to cure a mis-diagnosed disease
you want to perform brain surgery to cure a headache

 

[Phil C. McNasty]

Remember the tornado and hail warning couple of days ago for S. Ontario and GTA??
Guess what, nothing happened. No tornado and no hail.
They cant even get the weather right, but they supposedly can predict what climate will be like 50 years from now

x.com

x.com

x.com

x.com

 

[K Douglas]

more like 90-96 %
View attachment 327546

View attachment 327556

View attachment 327545

Yes it comprises 90+ percent of all greenhouse gases but its contribution to the overall greenhouse effect that keeps us alive, is said to be 50-55%.

 

[JohnLarue]

Yes it comprises 90+ percent of all greenhouse gases but its contribution to the overall greenhouse effect that keeps us alive, is said to be 50-55%.

i respectfully disagree as do Lightfoot and Mamer

 

[Frankfooter]

Water vapour is responsible for 90 to 96% of the greenhouse effect
feedbacks in nature tend to be counter to to any change. its called Le Chatelier's principle

Wrong.
You just don't understand science, larue.

 

[oil&gas]

Remember the tornado and hail warning couple of days ago for S. Ontario and GTA??
Guess what, nothing happened. No tornado and no hail.
They cant even get the weather right, but they supposedly can predict what climate will be like 50 years from now

It is not clear to me what climate change is predicted to be like
precisely 50 years from now.

Some people believe climate is going to be bad but not
sure how bad other than more wildfire and hurricanes.

Some predict extinction of humanity (along with other
species) unless we stop burning fossil fuels entirely
within a short time like the next 10 to 20 years.

In my view it is fruitless to debate how reliable climate
change prediction may turn out. It will be more
productive to focus on questioning why not even
those people who bought into the climate BS would
take the initiative to reduce their carbon footprint.

 

[JohnLarue]

It is not clear to me what climate change is predicted to be like
precisely 50 years from now.

Some people believe climate is going to be bad but not
sure how bad other than more wildfire and hurricanes.

Some predict extinction of humanity (along with other
species) unless we stop burning fossil fuels entirely
within a short time like the next 10 to 20 years.

In my view it is fruitless to debate how reliable climate
change prediction may turn out. It will be more
productive to focus on questioning why not even
those people who bought into the climate BS would
take the initiative to reduce their carbon footprint.

even more fruitless to question the behaviours of others, let alone question the behaviours of those too stupid or lazy to question a false narrative

 

[Frankfooter]

even more fruitless to question the behaviours of others, let alone question the behaviours of those too stupid or lazy to question a false narrative

Which are you, larue?
Too lazy or too stupid to understand forcing vs feedback effects?

Forcings: The initial drivers of climate.

1. https://climate.nasa.gov/nasa_science/science/
2. Solar Irradiance. Solar irradiance is the change in solar radiation (sunlight) Earth receives from the Sun. Scientists also use evidence from proxy measurements, such as sunspot counts going back centuries and ancient tree rings, to indirectly measure the amount of Sun that reaches Earth’s surface. The Sun has an 11-year sunspot cycle, which causes a very small variation in the Sun’s output reaching Earth.1 The solar cycle is incorporated into climate models.
3. 
   
4. Greenhouse gas emissions. Since the Industrial Revolution, concentrations of greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), and nitrous oxide (N2O) have risen in the atmosphere. Burning fossil fuels such as coal, oil, and gas has increased the concentration of atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) from 280 parts per million to 416 parts per million.2 These greenhouse gases absorb and then re-radiate heat in Earth’s atmosphere, which causes increased surface warming.
5. 
   
6. Aerosols, dust, smoke, and soot. Very small airborne particles come from both human and natural sources and have various effects on climate. Sulfate aerosols, which result from burning coal, biomass, and volcanic eruptions, tend to cool Earth. Other kinds of particles, such as black carbon, have a warming effect.3 The net effect of aerosols, dust, smoke, and soot is cooling.
7. https://climate.nasa.gov/nasa_science/science/

Climate feedbacks: processes that can either amplify or reduce the effects of climate forcings. A feedback that increases an initial warming is called a "positive feedback." A feedback that reduces an initial warming is a "negative feedback."

1. https://climate.nasa.gov/nasa_science/science/
2. Clouds. Clouds have an enormous impact on Earth's climate, reflecting about one-third of the total amount of sunlight that hits Earth's atmosphere back into space. Even small changes in cloud amount, location, and type could have large consequences. A warmer climate causes more water to be held in the atmosphere, leading to an increase in cloudiness and altering the amount of sunlight that reaches Earth's surface. Less heat could get absorbed, which could slow the increased warming. Conversely, changes in cloud cover could lead to faster and greater warming. This is an area of ongoing research.
3. 
   
4. Precipitation. Global climate models show that precipitation will generally increase due to the increased amount of water held in a warmer atmosphere. Some regions may dry out instead. Changes in precipitation patterns may present both positive and negative changes in plant growth.
5. 
   
6. Forest greening and browning. Natural processes, such as tree growth, remove about half of human carbon dioxide emissions from the atmosphere every year. Scientists are currently studying where this carbon dioxide goes. The delicate balance between the absorption and release of carbon dioxide by the ocean and the world’s great forested regions is the subject of research by many scientists. There is some evidence that the ability of the ocean or forests to continue absorbing carbon dioxide may decline as the world warms, leading to faster accumulation in the atmosphere. Carbon dioxide uptake by plants is unable to offset emissions from human activities.
7. 
   
8. Ice albedo. Ice is white and very reflective, in contrast to the ocean surface, which is dark and absorbs heat faster. As the atmosphere warms and sea ice melts, the darker ocean absorbs more heat, causes more ice to melt, and makes Earth warmer overall. The ice-albedo feedback is a very strong positive feedback.
9. 
   
10. Water vapor. The most abundant greenhouse gas, it acts as a feedback to amplify climate warming forcings. Water vapor increases as Earth's atmosphere warms, making it an important feedback mechanism to the greenhouse effect.

 

[JohnLarue]

Which are you, larue?
Too lazy or too stupid to understand forcing vs feedback effects?

i am smart enough to peg you for what you are

defining one triatomic black body radiator differently than another triatomic black body radiator in order to fit a false narrative is not science

Decoupling CO2 from Climate Change

This study determines if there is a correlation between rising carbon dioxide levels and global warming. Historical data were reviewed from three different time periods spanning 500 million years. It showed that the curves and trends were too dissimilar to establish a connection. Observations...

www.scirp.org

5. Why Was Water Vapor Excluded from Consideration in the Climate Change-CO2 Hypothesis?

The IPCC excludes water vapor and clouds for reasons other than science.

The statement by the IPCC on page xv of the Executive Summary identifies the purpose of excluding water vapor [3]. “Two important greenhouse gases, water vapour, and ozone, are not included in this table. Water vapour has the largest greenhouse effect, but its concentration in the troposphere is determined internally within the climate system, and, on a global scale, is not affected by human sources and sinks.” Emphasis added. “It was agreed at the first meeting of the IPCC that a new assessment of the whole issue of anthropogenic climate change should be prepared.” [23] Emphasis added.

They excluded Ozone from consideration for a different reason. The IPCC [3] stated at page xv of the Executive Summary that reason to be: “The concentration of ozone is changing both in the stratosphere and the troposphere due to human activities, but it is difficult to quantify the changes from present observations.” Hence, ozone was excluded because it was too difficult to quantify.

exclude the largest contributor to the greenhouse effect (water vapor) because it does not fit their false narrative ?????
exclude clouds because they can not model cloud formation ???????
exclude ozone because it was too difficult to quantify ?????

yet they claim this is settled science
pseudoscience .........pure and simple


and frankfooter will never be able to figure this out..................

1. because he dropped out of high school
2. because he does not want to figure it out

 

[Frankfooter]

i am smart enough to peg you for what you are

No, if you're not smart enough to understand the post above, from NASA, you are not smart enough to know anything about me.