Climate Change

Previous Thread Next Thread
F

Frankfooter

dangling member
Apr 10, 2015
91,866
22,266
113
JohnLarue said:
your ignorance of science is on full display.... once again

those are two completely different processes
photosynthesis is a chemical process - small changes can have a significant effect
it is also a non -reversable reaction so increases in the input drive the reaction
A separate process (decomposition or cellular respiration ) is required to release CO2 previously bound by plants

absorption of infrared radiation is a physical process - small changes do not cause a significant effect.

chemical processes determines chemical structure
chemical structure determines physical properties
physical properties determines physical effects/ processes

so do not try to compare chemical effects/ processes to physical effects/ processes (grade 10 science class)
which is exactly what you have ignorantly done

what is idiotic is you pretending you have any scientific understanding
it is idiotic and comical


that is the fundamental issue with the anthropogenic climate change narrative
a 0.01% change in atmospheric composition can not possibly heat up the atmosphere, oceans and surface land mass by any measurable amount
absorption of infrared radiation is a physical process - small changes do not cause a significant effect.

climate systems are non linear, dynamic, chaotic systems with many many inputs & interdependences
you incorrectly view climate as driven solely by an inert trace gas measure in parts per million


when is your next clown show ?
Click to expand...
Larure, you are amazing.
You post two idiotic and contrary claims and of course you refuse to back down.

Your claim about CO2 and crop yields is really stupid, there is zero evidence that the two are related. CO2 use in greenhouses shows limited increases but nowhere near the chart you posted from some oil lobbyist. Your ignorance about greenhouse gases and the greenhouse effect are also just as idiotic. There is no legit scientist anywhere in the world that disputes the existence and reality of the greenhouse effect yet you keep holding on to this kooky theory about IR absorption as if its some alchemy type scientific discovery that you alone have made and that every scientist in the world is ignoring.

You're a bit like the anti vaxxers who find new and crazier theories as their old ones are systematically debunked. You're now at the point of the silver drinking wackos whose kids are all suffering from measles as they try to give them enemas to cure them.

There is no legit source you can post that backs up your theories.
None.

No real scientist believes the crap you believe.
None.
 
J

JohnLarue

Well-known member
Jan 19, 2005
17,317
2,972
113
Frankfooter said:
Larure, you are amazing.
You post two idiotic and contrary claims and of course you refuse to back down.
Click to expand...
people with integrity should never back down from the truth


Your claim about CO2 and crop yields is really stupid, there is zero evidence that the two are related. CO2 use in greenhouses shows limited increases but nowhere near the chart you posted from some oil lobbyist
Click to expand...
1. greenhouse operators purposely spend big $ money to add co2 to the greenhouse to increase their yield
2. Our World in data and www.nature.org are not oil lobbyist- you are such a despicable person
3 https://www.nature.com/scitable/kno...tmospheric-concentrations-of-carbon-13254108/
rising CO2 concentrations are also likely to have profound direct effects on the growth, physiology, and chemistry of plants, independent of any effects on climate (Ziska 2008). These effects result from the central importance of CO2 to plant metabolism. As photosynthetic organisms, plants take up atmospheric CO2, chemically reducing the carbon.

4 https://www.edrosenthal.com/the-guru-of-ganja-blog/why-co2-is-critical-for-cannabis
1710257436326.png

4. 1710257728371.png


Your ignorance about greenhouse gases and the greenhouse effect are also just as idiotic. There is no legit scientist anywhere in the world that disputes the existence and reality of the greenhouse effect yet you keep holding on to this kooky theory about IR absorption as if its some alchemy type scientific discovery that you alone have made and that every s cientist in the world is ignoring.
Click to expand...
At no point have i denied absorption of infrared radiation by organic molecules
what you are incapable of understanding is PARTS PER MILLION & saturation
you are also incapable of understanding our climate system is non-linear, dynamic and chaotic
a whole lot more complicated than Co2 as the control knob


You're a bit like the anti vaxxers who find new and crazier theories as their old ones are systematically debunked. You're now at the point of the silver drinking wackos whose kids are all suffering from measles as they try to give them enemas to cure them.
Click to expand...
please glue your self to the freeway in order to stop your outrage over these un-necessary enemas


There is no legit source you can post that backs up your theories.
None.
Click to expand...
wrong please see above.
CO2 is plant food


No real scientist believes the crap you believe.
None.
Click to expand...
just the 2022 physics noble prize winner for staters

JOHN CLAUSER, 2022 PHYSICS NOBEL PRIZE WINNER:
"I can very confidently assert, there is NO climate emergency."
“As much as it may upset many people, my message is the planet is NOT in peril. … atmospheric CO2 and methane have negligible effect on the climate.
Click to expand...
The policies government have been implementing are total unnecessary and should be eliminated.
So far, [we] have totally misidentified what is the dominant process in controlling the climate, and all of the various models are based on incomplete and incorrect physics.
The dominant process, is “the cloud-sunlight-reflexivity thermostat mechanism. Clouds are all bright white, and they reflected 90% of the sunlight back into space making them the most crucial yet most overlooked aspect of the climate system. Two-thirds of the Earth are ocean. The Pacific Ocean alone is half the Earth. The average cloud cover for the Earth is 67%; about 50% over land and 75% over oceans.
I claim that the above conspicuous properties of clouds are the missing part of the puzzle.

I can very confidently assert, there is no climate emergency."
Click to expand...
polar bear extinction
ocean acidification
coral bleaching
droughts / floods
wild fires
more / less snow
extreme weather events
global boiling
crop failure
catastrophic sea level rise

all broken hockey sticks and evil propaganda lies

the con has not worked
your perverted evil dream of a socialism / communism world order is not going to be achieved via climate change propaganda.


it was mildly entertaining watching you pretend you have any scientific understanding
sort of like watching a turtle who has been flipped on its back

funny for a short period but it becomes cruel after a while
 

Attachments

Last edited:
F

Frankfooter

dangling member
Apr 10, 2015
91,866
22,266
113
JohnLarue said:
people with integrity should never back down from the truth




1. greenhouse operators purposely spend big $ money to add co2 to the greenhouse to increase their yield
2. Our World in data and www.nature.org are not oil lobbyist- you are such a despicable person
3 https://www.nature.com/scitable/kno...tmospheric-concentrations-of-carbon-13254108/
rising CO2 concentrations are also likely to have profound direct effects on the growth, physiology, and chemistry of plants, independent of any effects on climate (Ziska 2008). These effects result from the central importance of CO2 to plant metabolism. As photosynthetic organisms, plants take up atmospheric CO2, chemically reducing the carbon.

4 https://www.edrosenthal.com/the-guru-of-ganja-blog/why-co2-is-critical-for-cannabis
View attachment 304641

4. View attachment 304643




At no point have i denied absorption of infrared radiation by organic molecules
what you are incapable of understanding is PARTS PER MILLION & saturation



please glue your self to the freeway in order to stop your outrage over these un-necessary enemas



wrong please see above.
CO2 is plant food



just the 2022 physics noble prize winner for staters

JOHN CLAUSER, 2022 PHYSICS NOBEL PRIZE WINNER:



polar bear extinction
ocean acidification
coral bleaching
droughts / floods
wild fires
more / less snow
extreme weather events
global boiling
crop failure
catastrophic sea level rise

all broken hockey sticks and evil propaganda lies

the con has not worked
your perverted evil dream of a socialism / communism world order is not going to be achieved via climate change propaganda.


it was mildly entertaining watching you pretend you have any scientific understanding
sort of like watching a turtle who has been flipped on its back

funny for a short period but it becomes cruel after a while
Click to expand...
You would think a gif is scientific evidence.
I asked to you to provide scientists and their papers that back your two central claims.
1) That CO2 is responsible for the growth in crop yields as your post claimed earlier in this thread.
2) That IR absorption/saturation claims disprove anthropomorphic climate change.

Clauser has posted nothing about your two central thesis.
Try again.

You could start your IR debate with a sourced rebuttal to this thread.
https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1767503119821508779
 
J

Jami77

Active member
Jan 17, 2023
151
111
43
I think we need to build a wall to protect us from the US. Anywhere south of us is gonna bake this year and before know it the 'mericans will be showing up at the border saying its too hot to live in the US.

Mark my words, mark my words....

PS - This would be a good end of the world disaster movie - where we build a wall and keep the US out. Next we fire some scientists from our pathogen lab in Winnipeg - they escape and hightail it to the US where they find an open air food market and unleash it. None of em will believe its real, and they wont wear masks and da daah! Just make sure Will Smith doesnt create an antidote in some bunker somewhere...
 
F

Frankfooter

dangling member
Apr 10, 2015
91,866
22,266
113
dvous11 said:
Right so stay closed minded and don’t even expose yourself to the possibility of being duped just like Covid and a myriad of other things?
Click to expand...
Wiki:

Happer has no formal training as a climate scientistIn 2014,

Happer said that the "demonization of carbon dioxide is just like the demonization of the poor Jews under Hitler.

In December 2015, Happer was targeted in a sting operation by the environmental activist group Greenpeace. Posing as consultants for a Middle Eastern oil and gas company, they asked Happer to write a report touting the benefits of rising carbon emissions. Happer declined a fee for his work, calling it a "labor of love", but said that they could donate to the "objective evidence" climate-change organization CO2 Coalition, which suggested that he contact the Donors Trust to keep the source of the funds secret as requested by the Greenpeace sting operation. Hiding the sources of funding in this way is lawful under U.S. law. Happer further acknowledged that his report would probably not pass peer-review with a scientific journal.[24] In an interview, Happer responded to the sting operation: "I was only interested in helping the 'client' to publicize my long-held views, not to peddle whatever message the 'client' had in mind ... I have never taken a dime for any of my activities to educate the public that more CO2 will benefit the world."[17]
 
dvous11

dvous11

Well-known member
Feb 7, 2008
879
1,169
93
Frankfooter said:
Wiki:

Happer has no formal training as a climate scientistIn 2014,
Happer said that the "demonization of carbon dioxide is just like the demonization of the poor Jews under Hitler.
In December 2015, Happer was targeted in a sting operation by the environmental activist group Greenpeace. Posing as consultants for a Middle Eastern oil and gas company, they asked Happer to write a report touting the benefits of rising carbon emissions. Happer declined a fee for his work, calling it a "labor of love", but said that they could donate to the "objective evidence" climate-change organization CO2 Coalition, which suggested that he contact the Donors Trust to keep the source of the funds secret as requested by the Greenpeace sting operation. Hiding the sources of funding in this way is lawful under U.S. law. Happer further acknowledged that his report would probably not pass peer-review with a scientific journal.[24] In an interview, Happer responded to the sting operation: "I was only interested in helping the 'client' to publicize my long-held views, not to peddle whatever message the 'client' had in mind ... I have never taken a dime for any of my activities to educate the public that more CO2 will benefit the world."[17]
Click to expand...
Not the first time the organized censorship machine tried to demonize someone who counters the narrative.
Just watch the film.
Or are you afraid?
 
F

Frankfooter

dangling member
Apr 10, 2015
91,866
22,266
113
dvous11 said:
Not the first time the organized censorship machine tried to demonize someone who counters the narrative.
Just watch the film.
Or are you afraid?
Click to expand...
No, just bored.
Its all the same oil funded nonsense.

Can you summarize the claim from this one?
 
T

toguy5252

Well-known member
Jun 22, 2009
15,964
6,108
113
Phil C. McNasty said:
You faithers have been saying that for 30 years now, and I still dont see palm trees in Toronto.
Every winter I hope you're right cause I despise cold weather, but every winter you let me down :(
Click to expand...
have you compared the number of climate events today compared to when your father was young. Ask the insurance companies if climate change is real. You may be right about the pace of change but the direction is clear. The train may be late but is still coming down the track.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Frankfooter
P

Phil C. McNasty

Go Jays Go
Dec 27, 2010
26,946
5,054
113
toguy5252 said:
have you compared the number of climate events today compared to when your father was young. Ask the insurance companies if climate change is real. You may be right about the pace of change but the direction is clear. The train may be late but is still coming down the track
Click to expand...
Okay Mr. Expert, so give us the approximate dates of when the poles start melting (or have completely melted)
 
T

toguy5252

Well-known member
Jun 22, 2009
15,964
6,108
113
Phil C. McNasty said:
Okay Mr. Expert, so give us the approximate dates of when the poles start melting (or have completely melted)
Click to expand...
I am not an expert and I haven't got the slightest clue. But does that mean that the trend is not clear. Ask farmers. The fact that something hasn't happened does not mean that it will not happen.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Ashley Madison
Previous Thread Next Thread
Toronto Escorts
Top Bottom