GLOBAL WARMING -- Everywhere is warming twice as fast as everywhere else!!!!!!

[gfm7175]

SO the whole isotope discussion and the discussion of sulfate aerosols doesn't count as science.

I see you are even more stupid than I first thought.

^^^ Dimlight calling other people stupid.

 

[Daylight63]

^^^ Dimlight calling other people stupid.

Tell me what was wrong with the isotope discussion.

Of course you know what I'm talking about....so show the class what a BIG DOG you are in science.





Or not. I know you won't. You wouldn't know a 12-C from a 235-U. Just admit it: you don't know the science behind any of this. Meanwhile I know quite a lot. I can go on if you like.

How this: can you tell me why a CO2 molecule absorbs IR but an O2 molecule doesn't? Bet you can't.

 

[Tobytone]

I confess that I've never paid much attention to the AGW controversy, except to note that the overwhelming majority of climatologists say there is evidence of global warming, and at least part of it could be anthropogenic.

Do your guys say there is no global warming? Or if there is, that none of it is man-made, so there's nothing we can do about it? And what makes them so sure they're right?

In 2014 an open letter from the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry called on the media to stop using the term "skepticism" when referring to climate change denial. They contrasted scientific skepticism—which is "foundational to the scientific method"—with denial—"the a priori rejection of ideas without objective consideration". They said: "Not all individuals who call themselves climate change skeptics are deniers. But virtually all deniers have falsely branded themselves as skeptics. By perpetuating this misnomer, journalists have granted undeserved credibility to those who reject science and scientific inquiry."

One MAGA Enviromental Perspective:

Personally, I trust some accomplished physicists, but not all. Science, in a couple ways is no different than any human endeavor, take construction for example, they both have their share of good and bad actors, some are honest professionals, others are greedy and jaded and chase money and station above integrity and professionalism. So, like anything else, you have to use good judgement and serious evaluation to decide who you think is acting in the honorable and professional manner for their craft.

I should also point out that I give little weight to “climate experts” or 'climate change professional, a CC-P" or "sustainability experts", as they seriously lack the qualifications to address a topic with such massive implications, whether the news is good or bad. Many have taken two-week courses full of climate propaganda with nearly zero science taught, others are a couple of months of training at most, it's a scam in my opinion.

I’ve spent hours studying speeches, interviews, and writings by highly credentialed scientists with impressive resumes. So far, I’ve found no compelling evidence of existential climate threats in the near future, say, within a thousand years. Many acknowledge climate changes but attribute significant shifts to natural events. Some argue that increased CO2 could benefit plant life. Ice core data show much higher CO2 levels in Earth’s distant past, suggesting current levels are relatively low, and we may be gradually regaining CO2, whether by design or not. This change is slow, posing no immediate threat, and even long-term, it seems more like a challenge than a catastrophe. This is only one example of many that contradict what is so often called or perceived to be the prevailing wisdom of the scientific community. But, upon closer inspection you find that it's really a conglomerate of 'climate experts' and a fist full of bought and paid for climate studies and computer models that spell consumption tax, if you get my drift.

Even if we face serious challenges, humanity’s impact is too small to significantly alter the outcome. We struggle to grasp how insignificant we are in Earth’s vast history. Natural events like volcanoes or earthquakes unleash destruction that far overshadows human pollution. Countless massive natural disasters have shaped the planet and more will follow. Not to mention, we have steadily improved our processes, and I expect we will continue that trend even reducing our impact more despite using more.

My environmentalism stems from a moral duty to steward our blessings and preserve what we can, keeping our property, towns, cities, and states as clean as possible within reason. It’s like maintaining your room, then your house, yard, and beyond, leaving the land in as good or better condition than we found it. I could dive into regulatory details, but you likely get the gist.
I’m deeply skeptical of government-funded climate research. Scientists know how to secure hefty grants: align their conclusions with the “right” narrative.

Why would the government push a negative narrative with grant dollars? Politicians use these findings and computer models as a pretext to enact policies they crave, policies that bring power, money through taxes, and encroachments on private property rights. The environmental movement, especially since the Soviet Union’s collapse, has become a haven for Marxist ideologues who’ve turned it into a political weapon.

I support real science guiding best environmental practices and solutions. I prioritize our God-given rights in the Bill of Rights, followed by keeping our own properties, towns, cities, and states clean for future generations.

Trump like most of us wants to be sure we have the cleanest water and air possible (like nobody's ever seen before, lol) and have no issues with sensible laws and regulations that are designed to achieve that goal while prioritizing our rights with as little burden on citizens as possible.

I hope this clarifies one MAGA perspective.

 

[Daylight63]

Personally, I trust some accomplished physicists, but not all. Science, in a couple ways is no different than any human endeavor, take construction for example, they both have their share of good and bad actors, some are honest professionals, others are greedy and jaded and chase money and station above integrity and professionalism. So, like anything else, you have to use good judgement and serious evaluation to decide who you think is acting in the honorable and professional manner for their craft.

Here's the key: you are under no requirement to "trust" science. THere are bad people in science just as in any field as you point out. The KEY then is to:

1. Look to see how OTHER scientists take the claims. If you have a LOT of people who are skilled in the topic who find it feasible then it is unlikely that you would be wrong to trust the scientist.

2. Learn the science. This is harder to do but possible. And maybe not even requiring a HUGE amount of science, just sufficient to understand the metes and bounds of the problem and how people are actually addressing it.

I should also point out that I give little weight to “climate experts” or 'climate change professional, a CC-P" or "sustainability experts", as they seriously lack the qualifications to address a topic

Why do you, a non-scientist, think they lack "qualifications"? Surely you don't even know what those qualifications look like and you couldn't possibly understand their background lacking scientific training as you appear to.

I’ve spent hours studying speeches, interviews, and writings by highly credentialed scientists

You actually get the "good stuff" by reading the peer reviewed journals. But that requires a LOT more training in the appropriate sciences than you have. Reading interviews is nice and all, but the meaty stuff is really in the details.

That's why this topic is so fraught for non-scientists like yourself.

with impressive resumes. So far, I’ve found no compelling evidence of existential climate threats

Who cares? Seriously. No offense but you are a nobody and your opinion on science you can't possibly understand is of zero interest to anyone.

in the near future, say, within a thousand years. Many acknowledge climate changes but attribute significant shifts to natural events.

This is the field of PALEOCLIMATOLOGY. It's been going on for over a century now. OF course you don't know that it exists but it does. Paleoclimatology helps us understand these "natural" events you speak of.

And right now the data simply doesn't make sense unless you actually factor in human events. Human activities explain more than half of the warming we have seen over the last 60 years or so.

Ice core data show much higher CO2 levels in Earth’s distant past, suggesting current levels are relatively low, and we may be gradually regaining CO2, whether by design or not.

^^^^^THIS is Paleoclimatology. Trust me when I tell you: paleoclimatologists believe in anthropogenic global climate change.

Why would the government push a negative narrative with grant dollars?

Ahhhhh, the old "they're lying for money". Your imagination is astounding. Do you honestly think thousands upon thousands upon thousands of independent researchers all over the earth over the past 60 years almost all agree that human-caused climate change is real?



You'd have to be pretty stupid to think that such a conspiracy would exist.

I support real science

But wouldn't you have to know what science is first?

I hope this clarifies one MAGA perspective.

Sure does. It makes it astoundingly clear you guys don't like science if it says something you don't approve of. That's fair. Doesn't change anything, just makes you into a bunch of mouthbreathing morons, but hey, it takes all kinds.

 

[Tobytone]

Here's the key: you are under no requirement to "trust" science. THere are bad people in science just as in any field as you point out. The KEY then is to:

1. Look to see how OTHER scientists take the claims. If you have a LOT of people who are skilled in the topic who find it feasible then it is unlikely that you would be wrong to trust the scientist.

2. Learn the science. This is harder to do but possible. And maybe not even requiring a HUGE amount of science, just sufficient to understand the metes and bounds of the problem and how people are actually addressing it.





Why do you, a non-scientist, think they lack "qualifications"? Surely you don't even know what those qualifications look like and you couldn't possibly understand their background lacking scientific training as you appear to.




You actually get the "good stuff" by reading the peer reviewed journals. But that requires a LOT more training in the appropriate sciences than you have. Reading interviews is nice and all, but the meaty stuff is really in the details.

That's why this topic is so fraught for non-scientists like yourself.




Who cares? Seriously. No offense but you are a nobody and your opinion on science you can't possibly understand is of zero interest to anyone.



This is the field of PALEOCLIMATOLOGY. It's been going on for over a century now. OF course you don't know that it exists but it does. Paleoclimatology helps us understand these "natural" events you speak of.

And right now the data simply doesn't make sense unless you actually factor in human events. Human activities explain more than half of the warming we have seen over the last 60 years or so.






^^^^^THIS is Paleoclimatology. Trust me when I tell you: paleoclimatologists believe in anthropogenic global climate change.




Ahhhhh, the old "they're lying for money". Your imagination is astounding. Do you honestly think thousands upon thousands upon thousands of independent researchers all over the earth over the past 60 years almost all agree that human-caused climate change is real?



You'd have to be pretty stupid to think that such a conspiracy would exist.




But wouldn't you have to know what science is first?




Sure does. It makes it astoundingly clear you guys don't like science if it says something you don't approve of. That's fair. Doesn't change anything, just makes you into a bunch of mouthbreathing morons, but hey, it takes all kinds.

Oh, look at you, quivering with smug delight as you skim my post, convinced you’ve snared this MAGA rube in your oh-so-clever trap. You’re perched there, sneering, whispering to yourself, “This red-hat dimwit’s out of his league, and I, the mighty brainiac, will crush him!” Newsflash, genius: the only dunce here is you. Your reply blares louder than a foghorn: “I’m a self-important egghead who thinks only scientists of my caliber can fathom the universe!” You might as well slap a neon billboard on your forehead flashing “CLUELESS CLOWN.”

Let’s dissect your dazzling intellect. By your airtight logic, you’re only fit to pontificate on your tiny science fiefdom. Economy? Immigration? Zip it, you’re no guru. Your takes outside environmental policy are worth less than a used tissue. Voting? Pfft, too many issues aren’t your jam, so you’re just a bumbling ignoramus, unfit for basic judgment. We’ll stuff you in a broom closet and yank you out for eco-sermons when we feel like it. Priceless. Oh, but like any mortal, when you’re stumped outside your green bubble, you’ll scurry to your handpicked “credible” experts, some books, TV talking heads, or TED Talks to prop up your “educated” hot air.

Your pitiful comeback proves you’re a brainwashed pawn, gulping the kool-aid that screams, “No libtard card, no science smarts!” Compare our posts: I served up a full platter, my environmental stance, thought process, who I trust, who I don’t. You? You kick off with this fake “folksy scientist” shtick, spoon-feeding crumbs to the unwashed masses, then slink into snide swipes about my “missing credentials.” By the end, you’re lobbing full-on insults, crowing I’m too dumb to get it, and surprise, it’s not just me, it’s all MAGA and every non-PhD peon beneath your lofty perch. Textbook libtard tantrum. You brought zero expertise, no credentials, just a tantrum about my post and lazy “MAGA” jabs. Expert in what, pray tell? Preening?

Here’s a fun challenge. Pretend you’ve dazzled me, convinced me I’m a fool led astray by bad sources. I’m all ears, ready to soak up truth through my puny skull. Drop some names, your A-list climate gurus with ironclad data and Nostradamus-level predictions. Surely, a self-anointed eco-savant like you has a Rolodex of rockstar scientists, with track records of nailing it and peer praise for their genius. I’m tingling with anticipation for you to set me straight. Thanks, your highness. ROFLMAO.

 

[Kurmugeon]

And as Al Gore Predicted, there is molten lead, everywhere on the surface of the Earth.


-

 

[IBDaMann]

Personally, I trust some accomplished physicists, ...

That is your mistake. You should not trust anyone in matters of science. You trust the science. If someone tells you that something is settled science and that you should just believe him because he claims to be a settled-scientist with credentials that can bully an ox, you should nonetheless tell him to take a flying leap and to show you the science. No science, no discussion.

Science, in a couple ways is no different than any human endeavor,

False. Science is not an endeavor. Science is a collection of falsifiable models that predict nature, and is available to all, free of charge. No one has any excuse for falling for the Global Warming scam when all the science that debunks the entire religion is at everyone's disposal.

I should also point out that I give little weight to “climate experts” or 'climate change professional, a CC-P" or "sustainability experts", as they seriously lack the qualifications to address a topic with such massive implications, whether the news is good or bad.

Qualifications have nothing to do with anything. You are right for giving little (it should be zero) weight to Climate preachers and warmizombies but you err when you give any weight to any human's opinion. Science is not a subjective matter of opinion. Either the science says that a given assertion is true/correct, or there is no science supporting the given assertion. Nobody's opinion enters the equation. If you are trusting anyone's opinion regarding matters of science then you are making a huge mistake. If some preacher of mystical magical physics miracles isn't explaining the science to you such that the assertion becomes clear and intuitive, then you have no reason for believing any of it as being true. If you feel a high-pressure sales pitch revolving around "if you don't believe as I am so ordering, I will call you theriouthly thtupid and lot's of other names" then you know that there is no science involved in the predicate.

Many have taken two-week courses full of climate propaganda with nearly zero science taught,

Nearly zero? Your implication that there is some science at all takes me aback. Don't fall for it. There is no science involved anywhere, only science denial.

I’ve spent hours studying speeches, interviews, and writings by highly credentialed scientists with impressive resumes. So far, I’ve found no compelling evidence of existential climate threats in the near future, say, within a thousand years.

It would appear that you wasted hours of your life that you will never get back. The moment you noticed that the speaker in question did not open with an unambiguous definition of the global climate that did not violate physics and did not contain obvious contradictions, you should have immediately changed your plans and instead spent that time with friends and family.

Many acknowledge climate changes but attribute significant shifts to natural events.

... and you are babbling. Look at you, talking about climate changes like that even means anything. What is your unambiguous definition of the global climate? That was a rhetorical question, obviously you don't have one. No such unambiguous definition exists. Global Warming and Climate Change are zany religions, and religions never define their terms.

Look, you fell for it. Just watch out for it next time. You only live once, and you shouldn't be wasting your time listening to religious sermons hailed as settled sceince. If there is no unambiguous definition of the global climate (devoid of contradictions and physic violations) right up front, you are wasting your time from that moment on.

Some argue that increased CO2 could benefit plant life.

It would. CO2 is plant food.

Ice core data show much higher CO2 levels in Earth’s distant past,

Nope. Ice cores are terribly deformed and stretched and altered by the extreme weight of the ice above. All trapped atmospheric gases seep over the milennia and there is next-to-nothing that can be concluded. Also, climate preachers often fool gullibles into believing that the entire planet was however they are describing the one spot of the ice core. Stupid.

But, upon closer inspection you find that it's really a conglomerate of 'climate experts' and a fist full of bought and paid for climate studies and computer models that spell consumption tax, if you get my drift.

One would be gullible to believe that there are actually any climate models. Nothing that isn't formally and unambiguously defined can be modeled, and nobody has ever formally and unambiguously defined the global climate without violating physics or without imposing logical contradictions.

There are no climate models.

My environmentalism stems from a moral duty to steward our blessings and preserve what we can, keeping our property, towns, cities, and states as clean as possible within reason.

Congrats. This is all you need. Notice that nothing about your good stewardship requires you to babble and gibber about the global climate.

It’s like maintaining your room, then your house, yard, and beyond, leaving the land in as good or better condition than we found it. I could dive into regulatory details, but you likely get the gist.

I like it. Not a single mention of the global climate. Excellent! You aren't bullying anyone either, or demanding that we tax the shit out of ourselves in order to save the planet. You've got a solid program.

I’m deeply skeptical of government-funded climate research.

I see that you clued-in on that word "climate" and immediately recognized it for the boooooolsch't that it is.

Scientists know how to secure hefty grants: align their conclusions with the “right” narrative.

Not scientists ... scheisters.

I support real science guiding best environmental practices and solutions.

The you need to start demanding science instead of begging for the opinions of every yahoo who has your ear.

I prioritize our God-given rights in the Bill of Rights, followed by keeping our own properties, towns, cities, and states clean for future generations.

Sign me up.

Trump like most of us wants to be sure we have the cleanest water and air possible (like nobody's ever seen before, lol) and have no issues with sensible laws and regulations that are designed to achieve that goal while prioritizing our rights with as little burden on citizens as possible.

I hope this clarifies one MAGA perspective.

I like your perspective. Your slogan should be "Show me the science!" or "Environmentalism talks, Climate crap walks."

 

[AProudLefty]

Once again China is not everywhere.

 

[IBDaMann]

Here's the key: you are under no requirement to "trust" science.

Actually, science can be trusted, that's why we have the scientific method to filter out the non-science that we cannot trust. It's people he should not be trusting.

THere are bad people in science just as in any field as you point out.

Exactly, notice how it's the people who should not be trusted. Science, however, has no agenda to destroy capitalism and the world economy.

1. Look to see how OTHER scientists take the claims.

Nope. Don't lend any credence to anyone. Only trust science itself.

2. Learn the science.

Yep. This is the key. Just don't pretend that Climate sermons from gibbering warmizombies will provide any learning.

Why do you, a non-scientist, think they lack "qualifications"?

All rational adults reserve the right to dismiss any "qualifications" they damn well please. Discussing science doesn't require any credentials; it requires a mind that is free from all leftist strawberry mind-collective safe spaces.

Surely you don't even know what those qualifications look like

I do, and none of them are needed. Not a single one.

and you couldn't possibly understand their background lacking scientific training as you appear to.

You are exactly the type of scientifically illiterate boooolsch't peddler who should be ignored. All rational adults have every right to openly reject your stupid religion.

I know ... why don't you give Tobytone your unambiguous definition of the global climate that doesn't have any physics violations or logical contradictions? That would be a great use of JPP's bandwidth.

You actually get the "good stuff" by reading the peer reviewed journals.

Nope. That's all crap and zero science. You wouldn't know this, being scientifically illiterate, but your religion doesn't have any science to it.

But that requires a LOT more training in the appropriate sciences than you have.

You misspelled "indoctrination" as "t - r - a - i - n - i - n - g". Man, you missed it by a mile.

Reading interviews is nice and all, but the meaty stuff is really in the details.

You mean to say that the meaty stuff is in the Climate devotions and in the Global Warming prayers. I admit, I've heard some real doozies of Climate sermons and the warmizombie congregation really know how to sing off multiple different sheets of music at the same time. It's great, just like you said.

That's why this topic is so fraught for non-scientists like yourself.

This is why gullible non-scientists like yourself fall for the bullying and allow others to do your thinking for you ... which results in you being required to profess a faith in a humiliating wack religion that you are ashamed to worship as you do.

No offense but you are a nobody and your opinion on science you can't possibly understand is of zero interest to anyone.

Nobody's opinion on science matters one hoot. You'd know this if you weren't a mindless, scientifically illiterate, Climate undead.

This is the field of PALEOCLIMATOLOGY.

Too funny! There is no such thing. How gullible do you have to be to fall for that crap?

And right now the data simply doesn't make sense unless you actually factor in human events.

Too funny! Way too funny! You don't have any "The Data." There has never been any "The Data." You are talking out of your azz. You've got nothing but the standard quips and catch phrases that you have been ordered to regurgitate. What a moron.

The Data! Too funny!

Human activities explain more than half of the warming we have seen over the last 60 years or so.

1. What a fucking moron! There hasn't been any "warming" for anyone to see (re: your complete absence of "The Data").
2. Where is your unambiguous defintion of "human activities"? If you don't present that, move on to the next topic.

Trust me when I tell you: paleoclimatologists believe in anthropogenic global climate change.

Trust me when I tell you that people who self-identify as paleoclimatologists are like people who self-identify as vampires. There aren't any really, but if you want to pretend to be a fictitious thientitht or a fictitious undead, hey, have at it. Some people like to play "pretend."

Ahhhhh, the old "they're lying for money".

This happens every day all over the world. Have you ever heard of salesmen? Climate hucksters are like snake oil salesmen. They'll try to get you with the word "paleoclimatologist." Eight syllables! It has proven effective in the past so don't try to fix something that's not broken.

Your imagination is astounding. Do you honestly think thousands upon thousands upon thousands of independent researchers all over the earth over the past 60 years almost all agree that human-caused climate change is real?

Your lack of imagination is astounding. Do you honestly think that the millions upon millions of independent Catholic worshipers all over the earth over the past 60 years were somehow not going to all agree that the Christian God is real?

You'd have to be pretty stupid to think that such a conspiracy would exist.

One would have to be rather naive to think that you wouldn't try to pass bullying off as a branch of science.

But wouldn't you have to know what science is first?

... and you don't even know what science is. You think that your WACKY religion is somehow thettled theinth. Way too funny!

It makes it astoundingly clear you guys don't like science if it says something you don't approve of.

It makes it astoundingly clear that you actually believe that science espouses opinions and resents capitalism. What a scheister.

Go learn science.

 

[AProudLefty]

Reminder... China is not everywhere.

 

[Tobytone]

That is your mistake. You should not trust anyone in matters of science. You trust the science. If someone tells you that something is settled science and that you should just believe him because he claims to be a settled-scientist with credentials that can bully an ox, you should nonetheless tell him to take a flying leap and to show you the science. No science, no discussion.


False. Science is not an endeavor. Science is a collection of falsifiable models that predict nature, and is available to all, free of charge. No one has any excuse for falling for the Global Warming scam when all the science that debunks the entire religion is at everyone's disposal.


Qualifications have nothing to do with anything. You are right for giving little (it should be zero) weight to Climate preachers and warmizombies but you err when you give any weight to any human's opinion. Science is not a subjective matter of opinion. Either the science says that a given assertion is true/correct, or there is no science supporting the given assertion. Nobody's opinion enters the equation. If you are trusting anyone's opinion regarding matters of science then you are making a huge mistake. If some preacher of mystical magical physics miracles isn't explaining the science to you such that the assertion becomes clear and intuitive, then you have no reason for believing any of it as being true. If you feel a high-pressure sales pitch revolving around "if you don't believe as I am so ordering, I will call you theriouthly thtupid and lot's of other names" then you know that there is no science involved in the predicate.


Nearly zero? Your implication that there is some science at all takes me aback. Don't fall for it. There is no science involved anywhere, only science denial.


It would appear that you wasted hours of your life that you will never get back. The moment you noticed that the speaker in question did not open with an unambiguous definition of the global climate that did not violate physics and did not contain obvious contradictions, you should have immediately changed your plans and instead spent that time with friends and family.


... and you are babbling. Look at you, talking about climate changes like that even means anything. What is your unambiguous definition of the global climate? That was a rhetorical question, obviously you don't have one. No such unambiguous definition exists. Global Warming and Climate Change are zany religions, and religions never define their terms.

Look, you fell for it. Just watch out for it next time. You only live once, and you shouldn't be wasting your time listening to religious sermons hailed as settled sceince. If there is no unambiguous definition of the global climate (devoid of contradictions and physic violations) right up front, you are wasting your time from that moment on.


It would. CO2 is plant food.


Nope. Ice cores are terribly deformed and stretched and altered by the extreme weight of the ice above. All trapped atmospheric gases seep over the milennia and there is next-to-nothing that can be concluded. Also, climate preachers often fool gullibles into believing that the entire planet was however they are describing the one spot of the ice core. Stupid.


One would be gullible to believe that there are actually any climate models. Nothing that isn't formally and unambiguously defined can be modeled, and nobody has ever formally and unambiguously defined the global climate without violating physics or without imposing logical contradictions.

There are no climate models.


Congrats. This is all you need. Notice that nothing about your good stewardship requires you to babble and gibber about the global climate.


I like it. Not a single mention of the global climate. Excellent! You aren't bullying anyone either, or demanding that we tax the shit out of ourselves in order to save the planet. You've got a solid program.


I see that you clued-in on that word "climate" and immediately recognized it for the boooooolsch't that it is.


Not scientists ... scheisters.


The you need to start demanding science instead of begging for the opinions of every yahoo who has your ear.


Sign me up.


I like your perspective. Your slogan should be "Show me the science!" or "Environmentalism talks, Climate crap walks."

Wow, that was an impressively thorough reply! I'll cop to my laziness kicking in here, so I'll take the easy route and say point taken, tough to argue with most of that. I could try nitpicking, but I know you'd just make me defend it, so I'll wave the white flag. Thanks for the effort!

 

[gfm7175]

Tell me what was wrong with the isotope discussion.

Of course you know what I'm talking about....so show the class what a BIG DOG you are in science.

Or not. I know you won't. You wouldn't know a 12-C from a 235-U. Just admit it: you don't know the science behind any of this. Meanwhile I know quite a lot. I can go on if you like.

How this: can you tell me why a CO2 molecule absorbs IR but an O2 molecule doesn't? Bet you can't.

It's irrelevant. Absorption of surface-emitted IR by any gas or vapor in the atmosphere does not warm the Earth.

 

[Daylight63]

It's irrelevant.

Like DNA evidence is irrelevant to a crime scene. LOL.

It's a fingerprint. Just because YOU don't know what isotopes are doesn't make it meaningless.

Absorption of surface-emitted IR by any gas or vapor in the atmosphere does not warm the Earth.

LOL. YOu know we've KNOWN that CO2 has the proper dipole moment to absorb IR photons and we've known this for almost 200 years now, right? You DO know this, right? You MUST know that any high school chemistry lab with an FTIR can demonstrate the effect in like 20 seconds, right? You must ALSO know that energy can be neither created nor destroyed. But yet you think it incapable of warming the earth?

Wow.

You don't even know how the earth NORMALLY works. Hint: it's those IR-absorbing WARMING gases like CO2 and CH4 that keep the surface of the earth from being nearly uninhabitably cold. O2 and N2 (the majority gases in our atmosphere) can't do that.


The amount of science you CLEARLY do not know is almost boundless. You have yet to say ONE SINGLE SCIENTIFIC thing that negates my scientific points.


Consider yourself bested.

 

[Daylight63]

Oh, look at you, quivering with smug delight as you skim my post, convinced you’ve snared this MAGA rube in your oh-so-clever trap. You’re perched there, sneering, whispering to yourself, “This red-hat dimwit’s out of his league, and I, the mighty brainiac, will crush him!” Newsflash, genius: the only dunce here is you. Your reply blares louder than a foghorn: “I’m a self-important egghead who thinks only scientists of my caliber can fathom the universe!” You might as well slap a neon billboard on your forehead flashing “CLUELESS CLOWN.”

Let’s dissect your dazzling intellect. By your airtight logic, you’re only fit to pontificate on your tiny science fiefdom. Economy? Immigration? Zip it, you’re no guru. Your takes outside environmental policy are worth less than a used tissue. Voting? Pfft, too many issues aren’t your jam, so you’re just a bumbling ignoramus, unfit for basic judgment. We’ll stuff you in a broom closet and yank you out for eco-sermons when we feel like it. Priceless. Oh, but like any mortal, when you’re stumped outside your green bubble, you’ll scurry to your handpicked “credible” experts, some books, TV talking heads, or TED Talks to prop up your “educated” hot air.

Your pitiful comeback proves you’re a brainwashed pawn, gulping the kool-aid that screams, “No libtard card, no science smarts!” Compare our posts: I served up a full platter, my environmental stance, thought process, who I trust, who I don’t. You? You kick off with this fake “folksy scientist” shtick, spoon-feeding crumbs to the unwashed masses, then slink into snide swipes about my “missing credentials.” By the end, you’re lobbing full-on insults, crowing I’m too dumb to get it, and surprise, it’s not just me, it’s all MAGA and every non-PhD peon beneath your lofty perch. Textbook libtard tantrum. You brought zero expertise, no credentials, just a tantrum about my post and lazy “MAGA” jabs. Expert in what, pray tell? Preening?

Here’s a fun challenge. Pretend you’ve dazzled me, convinced me I’m a fool led astray by bad sources. I’m all ears, ready to soak up truth through my puny skull. Drop some names, your A-list climate gurus with ironclad data and Nostradamus-level predictions. Surely, a self-anointed eco-savant like you has a Rolodex of rockstar scientists, with track records of nailing it and peer praise for their genius. I’m tingling with anticipation for you to set me straight. Thanks, your highness. ROFLMAO.

So no science on your side?

Got it.

Nice try, though, Cletus. Next time bring a gun to a gunfight, not your penis.

 

[gfm7175]

Reminder... China is not everywhere.

Reminder... Trolling is not an argument.

 

[ULTRA MAGA]

Why would they, as I noted, it is all an effort to create a false paradigm, no matter what is presented, you are going to tell us it's irrelevant using some clarabellian argument, you can lead a horse to water but you can't make it ...................

The earth is warming and the oceans are rising!!! OMFG the deer will have to take three steps in from the ocean!!

No one with a functioning brain gives a shit about climate change even if it's as bad as the worst liar claims and sure as fuck doesn't want to be taxed in it's name.

 

[Daylight63]

The earth is warming and the oceans are rising!!! OMFG the deer will have to take three steps in from the ocean!!

No one with a functioning brain gives a shit about climate change even if it's as bad as the worst liar claims and sure as fuck doesn't want to be taxed in it's name.

Make sure to tell the FEMA workers who come to help dig your town out. Don't worry. Everyone will still take care of you since it is clear you can't function as an adult.

 

[gfm7175]

Like DNA evidence is irrelevant to a crime scene. LOL.

Nope... More like how the Madison Square Garden is irrelevant to the starting point guard for the Wisconsin Badgers.

It's a fingerprint. Just because YOU don't know what isotopes are doesn't make it meaningless.

You haven't even gotten yourself out of the starting gate yet... Start by unambiguously and validly defining "climate change".

LOL. YOu know we've KNOWN that CO2 has the proper dipole moment to absorb IR photons and we've known this for almost 200 years now, right? You DO know this, right? You MUST know that any high school chemistry lab with an FTIR can demonstrate the effect in like 20 seconds, right? You must ALSO know that energy can be neither created nor destroyed. But yet you think it incapable of warming the earth?

Wow.

Then why are you attempting to create thermal energy out of nothing?

You don't even know how the earth NORMALLY works. Hint: it's those IR-absorbing WARMING gases like CO2 and CH4 that keep the surface of the earth from being nearly uninhabitably cold.
O2 and N2 (the majority gases in our atmosphere) can't do that.

The amount of science you CLEARLY do not know is almost boundless. You have yet to say ONE SINGLE SCIENTIFIC thing that negates my scientific points.

Consider yourself bested.

1) Define "climate change" in an unambiguous and valid manner.
2) Where is the additional thermal energy coming from that is required to increase Earth's temperature? (re: 1st LoT)
3) Describe precisely how a DECREASE in Earth's radiation somehow causes an INCREASE in Earth's temperature. (re: Stefan-Boltzmann Law)
4) Describe precisely how the COOLER atmosphere (a part of Earth) somehow heats the WARMER surface (also a part of Earth). (re: 2nd LoT)
5) Describe precisely how redistributing thermal energy from one part of Earth to another part of Earth somehow increases Earth's temperature.

Consider yourself bested.

 

[gfm7175]

Make sure to tell the FEMA workers who come to help dig your town out. Don't worry. Everyone will still take care of you since it is clear you can't function as an adult.

Sorry. FEMA was too busy giving away his tax money to illegal aliens to help himout.

East Palestine got no help from FEMA. Western North Carolina and Eastern Tennessee got no help from FEMA. Palisades got no help from FEMA.

Thank GOD for Samaritan's Purse.

 

[Daylight63]

1) Define "climate change" in an unambiguous and valid manner.

Systemic change in the overall climate. Hope that clarifies it for you.

2) Where is the additional thermal energy coming from that is required to increase Earth's temperature? (re: 1st LoT)

The sun. There is no "additional" energy.

Here's how global warming works:

The sun shines on the earth and fires primarily short-wave high energy photons at us. The earth absorbs those photons and "downconverts" them to lower energy, longer wavelength IR photons which radiate back out of the solid surface of the earth. Without any greenhouse gases the blackbody radiative temperature of the surface of the earth is something like 30degC LOWER than the current surface temperatures. Even if the globe were surrounded by an atmosphere of O2 and N2 without any greenhouse gases these gases lack a dipole moment to absorb IR photons, so even that atmosphere wouldn't allow the earth to be as warm as it is today.

Once those IR photons radiate back out of the surface they are absorbed by greenhouse gases like CO2 or CH4. These compounds have a dipole moment which allows them to absorb IR photons. Once absorbed the photons are re-radiated back out of the molecule and continue on their way up toward the top of the atmosphere. Only to run into greenhouse gas molecules over and over and over again. Ultimately the IR photon makes it back out to space so that the overall energy balance of the earth is net zero.

But the key is that the level at which the IR photons re-radiate back out into space gets higher and higher in the atmosphere the MORE CO2 you put in the atmosphere which pushes the re-radiation level out to more and more inefficient spaces (where there's fewer gas molecules). This temporarily creates a sort of "backlog" of IR in the atmosphere, keeping the surface warmer.

See? If you actually UNDERSTAND the science it makes sense.

3) Describe precisely how a DECREASE in Earth's radiation somehow causes an INCREASE in Earth's temperature. (re: Stefan-Boltzmann Law)

Stefan Boltzman is how you calculate the blackbody temperature of the earth, or the temperature of the earth's surface in the absence of any greenhouse gases.

4) Describe precisely how the COOLER atmosphere (a part of Earth) somehow heats the WARMER surface (also a part of Earth). (re: 2nd LoT)

That doesn't happen.

Consider yourself bested.

Now YOU try posting some science.