Live from Davos Switzerland I give you Al "Albert" Gore: "...it's been predicted in model calculations that there's a 75% chance that within 5-7 years, the polar ice cap will disappear..." (Not an exact quote, but sums it up.)
Notice how A.I. bot of the cabal, known as R.I., replies to 'Fitz301' (who was responding to my post) changed the direction and started talking about the south pole/Antarctica in the past tense 90 million years ago. It's the typical deflection by not addressing Al 'Alberto' Gores totally outlandish blathering about a 75% chance that within 5-7 years, the polar ice caps will disappear. Couldn't/wouldn't say a damn thing to defend a representative of the Green God.
Well R.I. bot, is Alberto and his 'scientists' (whom live their lavish lifestyles on taxpayer funded government grants) who made the computer model projections right or wrong? Nobody gives a fly F about what "Pangea" was like or the south pole 90 million years ago. You can't handle the inconvenient truth.
Originally posted by WonderBoy: Notice how A.I. bot of the cabal, known as R.I., replies to 'Fitz301' (who was responding to my post) changed the direction and started talking about the south pole/Antarctica in the past tense 90 million years ago. It's the typical deflection by not addressing Al 'Alberto' Gores totally outlandish blathering about a 75% chance that within 5-7 years, the polar ice caps will disappear. Couldn't/wouldn't say a damn thing to defend a representative of the Green God.
Well R.I. bot, is Alberto and his 'scientists' (whom live their lavish lifestyles on taxpayer funded government grants) who made the computer model projections right or wrong? Nobody gives a fly F about what "Pangea" was like or the south pole 90 million years ago. You can't handle the inconvenient truth.
This is a reference to something that Al Gore said in 2009, but what he actually said was this:
quote
The North Pole will be ice-free in the summer by 2013 because of man-made global warming.
That is a somewhat more conservative prediction than "the polar ice caps will disappear", because he was only talking about the northern or Arctic polar ice cap, and he was only talking about summer in the Northern Hemisphere. He wasn't saying that all the ice in the Arctic will be gone by the summer of one of the next 5-7 years (after 2009) and that's all the ice in the Arctic that will ever be. He wasn't speaking clearly, but he was talking about the sea ice in the Arctic and when, in the yearly cycle of seasons, the amount of sea ice in the Arctic would be down to its smallest amount, during any particular year.
I don't have any particular reason to stand up for Al Gore. He's not a scientist. He doesn't perform or publish scientific research. As far as I know, he's not part of any established institution that has scientists on its staff.
If anyone wants to drill down on what Al Gore said (instead of what they think Al Gore said) and how it lines up with scientific data and research, this is a good "read" and it's not very long:
Al Mediawhore was full crap then, and he's still full of crap.
Must have run out of "An Inconvenient Snowjob" checks, because, once again, when there's money to be had, he's out schilling the same BS grift from 30 years ago.
Hey Al, get some new material! We've seen this act already!
[This message has been edited by Fitz301 (edited 01-21-2023).]
The world’s oceans absorbed record amounts of heat from the atmosphere last year [2022], which slowed the rise of temperatures over land, while fueling powerful storms and weather systems that are damaging communities across the globe, federal climate scientists said.
The amount of heat energy contained in the top layer of the world’s oceans has been growing each year since 2019 and is now at record levels, according to a new report by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration released Thursday[, January 12, 2023.]
That's as much as I could read, without subscribing ($) to the Wall Street Journal.
"World’s Oceans Absorbed Record Heat From Warming Climate in 2022"
quote
Temperatures hit record levels across parts of Europe, while global average temperature was sixth-highest since record-keeping began, NOAA says
When the arctic was lush and and green millions of years ago, it wasn't AT the arctic. Plus the planet likely had a different tilt to it.
Just because it's there now, doesnt mean it always has been.
As for the other end of the planet, do some research on Admiral Richard Byrd and Operation Highjump. Lot's of good pics and videos online. It wasnt always a frozen wasteland either.
[This message has been edited by MidEngineManiac (edited 01-22-2023).]
When the arctic was lush and and green millions of years ago, it wasn't AT the arctic. Plus the planet likely had a different tilt to it.
Just because it's there now, doesnt mean it always has been.
As for the other end of the planet, do some research on Admiral Richard Byrd and Operation Highjump. Lot's of good pics and videos online. It wasnt always a frozen wasteland either.
You're referring to shifts in the earth's magnetic axis. That's a "pole shift".
I've been discussing the earth's diurnal or rotational axis—not the earth's magnetic axis. It's the diurnal (daily) rotation of the earth around its axis where the angle of the sunlight at the polar regions came in to the discussion about the prevailing climate in the Arctic and Antarctic and how it was different and warmer at times. I don't want to repeat what I said. I think it's mostly on the page before this one, where I said.
You do have a good point, though, about "tilt". That would be the tilt of the earth's rotational axis, relative to the orbital plane of the earth as it travels around the sun. The Precession of the Equinoxes.
I don't think that is considered the dominant factor in terms of the "greening" of the Antarctic continent 90 million years ago, or the similar lush, temperate climate of the Arctic of 125,000 years ago that was inferred upon the basis of DNA evidence. Samples from Greenland (I think) that were dated to 125,000 years ago and still had "readable" DNA. But if I were going to take that up (and I should), I would go to the research reports in Nature and try to see if connections were made with the roughly 26,000-year cycle that is the Precession of the Equinoxes.
"Good catch"
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 01-22-2023).]
Point is/was, with the Arctic/Antarctic at their current position, they have no choice but be what they are. Cant be anything else, that's just the way solar radiation and suns angles work.
If they have evidence of being anything but frozen wasteland in the distant past, that can only mean they were somewhere else to receive the suns energy at a different distance and angle. NOT that the dinosaur faawwwwttttssssss warmed the entire globe.
What caused them to change position (weight imbalance, asteroid hit, alien nukes, bad taco bell squirts, ) is actually irrelevant. It was long before humans and carbon dioxide hystaria.
Thats just grade-school globe-and-flashlight stuff.
[This message has been edited by MidEngineManiac (edited 01-22-2023).]
Speaking of farts, why is it that ONLY cow farts alledgedly contribute to "globull warming"? No other animal farts?
Cows are ruminants, meaning they chew their cud, but so are deer, bison, elk, sheep, antelope, goats, camels, llamas, etc. (you get my point), and none of these other ruminants fart? Just cows?
BS!
Why just cows? HINT: is it because we eat them most of all? It's where steaks come from, and Billy-Boy gates doesn't want us eating steaks? He may have a wittle temper tantrum...
Either that or he's only experimenting on cows and when he perfects yet another genocide bioweapon, then beef will be "what's for dinner" again.
We all know what the "elite" idiots are up to, well everybody except the ignorant sheep among us, that is.
[This message has been edited by Fitz301 (edited 01-23-2023).]
Originally posted by Wichita: The Arctic ocean freeze and thaw cycle over enormous amount of ice, around 10,000,000 square kilometers every single year. But we don't see the Greta Gore floods wiping away the beachfront properties every. Why?
The surface of the seas in the Arctic freezes during fall and winter, forming ice packs. The ice packs thaw during spring and summer, and become seawater again. This seasonal cycle between seawater and ice pack has no effect on sea level. It's not adding to (or subtracting from) the amount of water in the oceans.
Sea level doesn't change when seawater at the surface of the ocean freezes and forms ice packs. Sea level doesn't change when the ice packs melt and revert to seawater again. It's in accordance with Archimedes principle of buoyancy.
No matter how thick the pack ice (or ice packs), this is frozen water that's floating on the sea. It's actually above sea level. It displaces or "pushes upwards" the same volume of seawater that equals its mass. You could be in the Arctic and looking upwards at pack ice that is so thick that it rises above you. But that doesn't change the sea level where you would be, at that place in the Arctic, and it doesn't change the sea level anywhere else around the world.
BUT... when ice sheets and glaciers, in Antarctica and Greenland (the two biggest) and other places melt, the meltwater flows into the ocean. Or the glaciers themselves, lubricated by meltwater, slide off the land and into the ocean, becoming ice bergs. These are processes that move water from land areas to oceans and so, increase the amount of water in the oceans—and that causes sea levels to rise.
To model what happens when ice sheets on land or glaciers melt or flow into the sea, the experiment would have to start, not with the ice cube already floating in the water in that measuring cup, but with the ice cube—having been taken from the freezer section of the refrigerator across the room—in the hand of Greta Thunberg before she drops it into the water. That would cause the water level in the measuring cup to rise, proportionate to the mass of the ice cube. Ergo, sea level rise.
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 01-23-2023).]
Originally posted by rinselberg: If anyone wants to drill down on what Al Gore said (instead of what they think Al Gore said) and how it lines up with scientific data and research, this is a good "read" and it's not very long:
Has anything Al Gore, the charlatan, the quack, proven true. Has any green scare promise been proven true ?
Whah whah whah. The Planet's temperature will be one degree higher in 100 years. What is the ideal temperature that the gawds think is ideal ?
There are lies, damn lies, statistics, and false science.
I don't know how you believe in science. I view it as a theory, not a fact.
What gets me is why don't people question lies, damn lies, statistics, and false science. Scientists always question.
The surface of the seas in the Arctic freezes during fall and winter, forming ice packs. The ice packs thaw during spring and summer, and become seawater again. This seasonal cycle between seawater and ice pack has no effect on sea level. It's not adding to (or subtracting from) the amount of water in the oceans.
Sea level doesn't change when seawater at the surface of the ocean freezes and forms ice packs. Sea level doesn't change when the ice packs melt and revert to seawater again. It's in accordance with Archimedes principle of buoyancy.
No matter how thick the pack ice (or ice packs), this is frozen water that's floating on the sea. It's actually above sea level. It displaces or "pushes upwards" the same volume of seawater that equals its mass. You could be in the Arctic and looking upwards at pack ice that is so thick that it rises above you. But that doesn't change the sea level where you would be, at that place in the Arctic, and it doesn't change the sea level anywhere else around the world.
BUT... when ice sheets and glaciers, in Antarctica and Greenland (the two biggest) and other places melt, the meltwater flows into the ocean. Or the glaciers themselves, lubricated by meltwater, slide off the land and into the ocean, becoming ice bergs. These are processes that move water from land areas to oceans and so, increase the amount of water in the oceans—and that causes sea levels to rise.
To model what happens when ice sheets on land or glaciers melt or flow into the sea, the experiment would have to start, not with the ice cube already floating in the water in that measuring cup, but with the ice cube—having been taken from the freezer section of the refrigerator across the room—in the hand of Greta Thunberg before she drops it into the water. That would cause the water level in the measuring cup to rise, proportionate to the mass of the ice cube. Ergo, sea level rise.
That's why when I posted "the same s**t again" here, I started with Wichita's latest remark in the Quote format.
I don't want Wichita not to understand what really is a simple concept.
Every time I explain it again, I think my explanation becomes more complete, and more clearly worded. "Practice makes perfect."
I don't want to PM him about it. That just seems... I dunno. I'd rather post the explanation again, as I just did, and hope he reads and understands it.
It's important to remember that the Arctic (proper) is an ocean, whereas Antarctica is a continent. That could be what's confusing him. He might not have even realized that his latest remark, which he framed as a question, goes right back to this very same "ice cube in a measuring cup of water" meme.
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 01-23-2023).]
The surface of the seas in the Arctic freezes during fall and winter, forming ice packs. The ice packs thaw during spring and summer, and become seawater again. This seasonal cycle between seawater and ice pack has no effect on sea level. It's not adding to (or subtracting from) the amount of water in the oceans.
Sea level doesn't change when seawater at the surface of the ocean freezes and forms ice packs. Sea level doesn't change when the ice packs melt and revert to seawater again. It's in accordance with Archimedes principle of buoyancy.
No matter how thick the pack ice (or ice packs), this is frozen water that's floating on the sea. It's actually above sea level. It displaces or "pushes upwards" the same volume of seawater that equals its mass. You could be in the Arctic and looking upwards at pack ice that is so thick that it rises above you. But that doesn't change the sea level where you would be, at that place in the Arctic, and it doesn't change the sea level anywhere else around the world.
BUT... when ice sheets and glaciers, in Antarctica and Greenland (the two biggest) and other places melt, the meltwater flows into the ocean. Or the glaciers themselves, lubricated by meltwater, slide off the land and into the ocean, becoming ice bergs. These are processes that move water from land areas to oceans and so, increase the amount of water in the oceans—and that causes sea levels to rise.
To model what happens when ice sheets on land or glaciers melt or flow into the sea, the experiment would have to start, not with the ice cube already floating in the water in that measuring cup, but with the ice cube—having been taken from the freezer section of the refrigerator across the room—in the hand of Greta Thunberg before she drops it into the water. That would cause the water level in the measuring cup to rise, proportionate to the mass of the ice cube. Ergo, sea level rise.
If you think forum member Wichita doesn't already know that, then you're not paying attention. Have you had your chain pulled recently?
In my last job, I managed a fleet of trucks hauling produce out of Cal. I have had a lot of contact with CARB. They are evil, but fortunately, not very bright.
Originally posted by cliffw: Why do you think we are ever going to believe your Green bullzhit, ?
If you scroll back a ways, you would see a remark from Wichita. He framed it as a question. He asked "Why don't we see..?"
I offered my explanation of the why of "Why don't we see..."
My explanation is grounded in the most commonplace and historically earliest knowledge of physics, including Archimedes principle of buoyancy. It's an explanation that has nothing to do with carbon dioxide, or greenhouse gases, or whether or not the earth's climate is warming, or anything like that.
So what's your "beef"..? It's being perceived here as a wide-angle beef, or a beef that's looking down from 30,000 feet. A beef that does not follow directly from what I explained in reaction to that remark from Wichita. A beef that finds its expression in the abstract and the metaphysical; not the concrete or the existential. A beef redolent of ivy-covered brick and dark, muted color schemes; of patterned wallpapers and mid-20th century lighting fixtures.
It's a beef I will not eat.
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 01-23-2023).]
Originally posted by cliffw: Why do you think we are ever going to believe your Green bullzhit, ?
quote
Originally posted by rinselberg: If you scroll back a ways, you would see a remark from Wichita. He framed it as a question. He asked "Why don't we see..?"
I offered my explanation of the why of "Why don't we see..."
My, is that the best that you can do ? I see that you do have a problem touting reasons explaining why Global Warming is real, and that the planet is doomed.
The End Is Near, the world will cease to exist.
quote
Originally posted by rinselberg: My explanation is grounded in the most commonplace and historically earliest knowledge of physics, including Archimedes principle of buoyancy. It's an explanation that has nothing to do with carbon dioxide, or greenhouse gases, or whether or not the earth's climate is warming, or anything like that.
Like I said, your a funny guy. Do you even understand physics ? Your the poster child for evolution.
Are you scared that we will not evolve if the temperature goes up one degree. In 100 years.
quote
Originally posted by rinselberg: So what's your "beef"..?
It's damn sure is not something that tastes like meat.
quote
Originally posted by rinselberg: It's being perceived here as a wide-angle beef, or a beef that's looking down from 30,000 feet. A beef that does not follow directly from what I explained in reaction to that remark from Wichita. A beef that finds its expression in the abstract and the metaphysical; not the concrete or the existential. A beef redolent of ivy-covered brick and dark, muted color schemes; of patterned wallpapers and mid-20th century lighting fixtures.
Originally posted by Wichita: The Arctic ocean freeze and thaw cycle over enormous amount of ice, around 10,000,000 square kilometers every single year. But we don't see the Greta Gore floods wiping away the beachfront properties every [sic] Why?
The sea alledgedly rose "102.5 millimeters" (4 inches), really? The whole 4 INCHES?
Buy boats everybody, the world's coming to an end yet again!
So would this be based on a flat plane ocean, or the real one where most waves, on a calm day, are over 4 inches?
"Run for your lives kids, here come a 102.5 millimeter wave...AAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHH!!!! - I hope our home owners insurance is paid up!!"
What f-tard would actually believe this BS?
Time for the climate change carbon loonies to get real jobs, the truth of the matter is humans are the carbon they want to get rid of. Carbon dioxide is not now, nor was it ever, a "greenhouse gas", and "globull warming" is a complete hoax. Period.
[This message has been edited by Fitz301 (edited 01-24-2023).]
Izzat the same "quantum mechanics" the Sectreters and law of attractioners use to "manifest" free mansions, ferrari's and buckets of cash ?
Dat one ????
Dont seem to be working out too well for either group of suckers. Just more proof that if you serve bullsheet with a flaky topping, some liberal will eat it.
[This message has been edited by MidEngineManiac (edited 01-24-2023).]
The sea alledgedly rose "102.5 millimeters" (4 inches), really? The whole 4 INCHES?
Buy boats everybody, the world's coming to an end yet again!
So would this be based on a flat plane ocean, or the real one where most waves, on a calm day, are over 4 inches?
"Run for your lives kids, here come a 102.5 millimeter wave...AAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHH!!!! - I hope our home owners insurance is paid up!!"
What f-tard would actually believe this BS?
Time for the climate change carbon loonies to get real jobs, the truth of the matter is humans are the carbon they want to get rid of. Carbon dioxide is not now, nor was it ever, a "greenhouse gas", and "globull warming" is a complete hoax. Period.
Lo and behold! A worthwhile question (which I've highlighted using boldface) emerges from the detritus of this ridiculous little rant.
The crown jewel of current day sea level measurement is radar altimetry from the Sentinel-6 series of satellites in Low Earth Orbit, about 830 miles above the earth's land and ocean surfaces.
The latest in this series is Sentinel-6B, currently scheduled for launch in 2026:
quote
The [Sentinel-6B] satellite will carry several instruments to support science goals. The Poseidon-4 Altimeter will bounce signals off the ocean surface. Sea surface height will be determined based on the time it takes each pulse to travel from the satellite to the ocean and back again. An Advanced Microwave Radiometer (AMR) will retrieve the amount of water vapor between the satellite and ocean, which affects the travel speed of radar pulses. Radio Occultation Antennas will measure the delay of radio signals between Jason-CS and global navigation satellites (GPS) as they slice through different layers of the atmosphere. Other onboard instruments will be used to determine the satellite’s position, including a Precise Orbit Determination (POD) suite comprising Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS) receivers, a Laser Retroreflector Array (LRA) and a Doppler Orbitography Radio-positioning Integrated by Satellite (DORIS) system. Instruments will also perform data downlinks (S-band and X-band antennas), and supply power (Solar Array).
At the end of last year, NASA awarded the launch services contract for the Sentinel-6B mission to SpaceX, which must have brought a smile to Elon Musk's famous face as he was busy with "whatever", involving Twitter.
An intelligent question from the unlikeliest of sources.
Lo and behold.
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 01-24-2023).]
Originally posted by rinselberg: The crown jewel of current day sea level measurement is radar altimetry from the Sentinel-6 series of satellites in Low Earth Orbit, about 830 miles above the earth's land and ocean surfaces.
Like I said, your a funny guy. Why is it anymore accurate than the crown jewel of yesterday ? Is the Sentinel-6 the be all end all measurement of sea level ? Will the Green Cult use it to say the sea level has gone up 30'. What happens if the Sentinel-6 orbits one inch lower than "about" 830 miles ? Will the Green Cult say "I told you so" ?
Taking that second idea first, I just don't see any way that the world can increase the amount or the effectiveness of forested areas so that the removal of CO2 from the atmosphere via forest metabolism (photosynthesis) could even begin to counteract greenhouse gas-driven global warming. Much has been published about this. Even if there were some mathematical possibility of it, I can't see this reforestation and additional forestation happening fast enough to be of any practical effect.
As far as your mother's greenhouse, there surely was CO2 in the air that it enclosed. The ambient concentration of CO2 in the troposphere, during whatever years that your mom's greenhouse was greenhousin'. In considering how I might respond to your post, my pleasantly garrulous friend, I actually learned something new; to wit (as I like to say):
quote
In 1827, Joseph Fourier, a French mathematician and physicist, wondered why Earth's average temperature is approximately 15°C (59°F). He reasoned that there must be some type of balance between the incoming energy and the outgoing energy to maintain this fairly constant temperature. His calculations indicated that Earth should actually be much colder (-18°C or 0°F).
To have an average temperature of 15°C (59°F), Fourier knew that there had to be another process occurring in the atmosphere—something similar to the way a greenhouse retains heat. A greenhouse's glass enclosure allows visible light to enter and be absorbed by the plants and soil. The plants and soil then emit the absorbed heat energy as infrared radiation. The glass of the greenhouse then absorbs that infrared radiation, emitting some of it back into the greenhouse and thus keeping the greenhouse warm even when the temperature outside is lower.
Because the two processes are similar, the name “greenhouse effect” was coined to describe Fourier's explanation. However, part of a greenhouse's warmth results from the physical barrier of the glass, which prevents the warmer air from flowing outward. So despite the fact that the atmospheric greenhouse effect has some processes in common with an actual [glass-enclosed] greenhouse, the overall mechanisms driving the greenhouse effect [in the earth's atmosphere] are different and more complex.
While I was mulling over what I might like to say about the accuracy of sea level measurements from the Sentinel-6 series of satellites, I stumbled across this:
"Seas will likely rise even faster than worst-case scenarios predicted by climate models"
quote
It looks like the climate models are too conservative.
Let me hive off the first few paragraphs of this article; to wit:
quote
Sea levels will probably rise faster than most climate models predict, according to a new study.
In 2019, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), a United Nations scientific body that reports on climate change, said that the global sea-level average would likely rise at least 2.00 feet (0.61 meters) by the year 2100, but no more than 3.61 feet (1.10 m). Those numbers come from models that account for climate change and ocean heating, ongoing greenhouse gas emissions and potential changes in human behavior to prevent more warming.
In this new study, researchers examined models of sea level through the lens of historical data. They looked at how fast sea levels rose in the past as Earth warmed and extrapolated to predict sea-level rise forward in time. They found that existing sea-level models tend to lowball sea-level rise when compared with more straightforward extrapolations from the historical record.
"This comparison suggests that the likely upper level of sea-level projections in recent IPCC reports would be too low," the researchers wrote in a paper published Feb. 2 in the journal Ocean Science.
Originally posted by rinselberg: I just don't see any way that the world can increase the amount or the effectiveness of forested areas so that the removal of CO2 from the atmosphere via forest metabolism (photosynthesis) could even begin to counteract greenhouse gas-driven global warming.
I am not surprised. No, you are not an expert and, you are not exercising common sense. Where did I mention forested areas, ? That article mentioned trees. All vegan plants consume CO2. By the way, how much CO2 does one tree eliminate ? If I have two cars, will two trees cover my "carbon footprint" ? How many trees does John Kerry, Al Gore and et all need to plant ? Gee. If they are so concerned about saving the planet, all of man kind, all of animal life, plant life, Why don't they quit flying their private jets, ?
quote
Originally posted by rinselberg: As far as your mother's greenhouse, there surely was CO2 in the air that it enclosed. The ambient concentration of CO2 in the troposphere, during whatever years that your mom's greenhouse was greenhousin'.
Where did that CO2 come from ? Are you saying my Mom farts ?
You must understand that air is not stratified into various gases with the densest and heaviest gases are at the bottom, while the least dense and lightest gases are at the top. If this was the case, you would not be able to breathe oxygen.
We have thermometers, rain gauges, barometers, wind speed gauges. Why do we not have CO2 gauges if the world is at stake ? Do they not want the average inhabitant of the planet to know that they are being fed bullzhit ! Somehow they measure it and spout lies they want us to think.
My vocation was the oil field, drilling oil and gas wells. Pick your poison. We had vessels, tanks, containers, storage structures. Many of them. They had an entry portal (for inside maintenance / cleaning / cleaning other reasons). Before any employee can enter, they had to get a 'confined entry permit". We had to test the air quality. They measured air quality. Oxygen percentage. H2S presence / concentration, some other thing. CO2 was not one of them.
quote
Originally posted by rinselberg: In 1827, Joseph Fourier, a French mathematician and physicist, wondered why Earth's average temperature is approximately 15°C (59°F). He reasoned that there must be some type of balance between the incoming energy and the outgoing energy to maintain this fairly constant temperature. His calculations indicated that Earth should actually be much colder (-18°C or 0°F).
They had dumb asses in 1827.
I was going to ask you. What should the preferred temperature of the planet be. Dumbazz Joseph Fourier thinks the ideal temperature of Earth should be 0°F.
quote
Originally posted by rinselberg: To have an average temperature of 15°C (59°F), Fourier knew that there had to be another process occurring in the atmosphere—something similar to the way a greenhouse retains heat. A greenhouse's glass enclosure allows visible light to enter and be absorbed by the plants and soil. The plants and soil then emit the absorbed heat energy as infrared radiation
Yeah, wrong !
Joseph Fourier knew about infrared radiation before it was discovered, So now the ideal temperature we should wish for is 59°F ?
quote
Originally posted by rinselberg: While I was mulling over what I might like to say about the accuracy of sea level measurements from the Sentinel-6 series of satellites, I stumbled across this:
"Seas will likely rise even faster than worst-case scenarios predicted by climate models"
How many false predictions will you believe, ?
Has any prediction become true ? That question would be called a clue. Here is another clue. The answer to that question is "NONE" !
[This message has been edited by cliffw (edited 01-27-2023).]
How many false predictions will you believe, ? Has any prediction become true? That question would be called a clue. Here is another clue. The answer to that question is "NONE" !
"Even 50-year-old climate models correctly predicted global warming"
quote
Climate skeptics have tried to undermine the validity of climate change by attacking the predictions of climate models. A new study assessed the accuracy of climate models dating back to 1970. The researchers found that the majority of the models correctly predicted today’s warmer world.
quote
The scientists compared actual global temperatures with 17 predictions of average global temperatures using models developed between 1970 and 2001. The majority of the models accurately predicted the 0.9 degrees Celsius of warming that has occurred since the Industrial Revolution. Ten of the models were so accurate that the study found no statistically significant difference between the temperatures they predicted and those that were directly measured.
This is a very brief article. Just a few paragraphs. It includes links to a slightly longer report in Science, and an actual research report in Geophysical Research Letters.
It is the day that vinyl chloride was purposely released into the air, under the direction of EPA ecoterrorists and "activists" to invoke a chemical reaction in the atmosphere, so in a few years time when everybody forgets about this and it's no longer in the news cycle, people like rinselberg, an ecoterrorist tool and others like him, can squawk about the resultant effects on the weather, which are yet to be determined, and will be used as further "proof of globull warming" and the rest of the ecoterrorists will give us their demands about how much more money will be extorted...oops, they will need you to be politely taxed to "stop globull warming" and how it's the fault of everyday appliances which should be banned, and how John Q. Public is to blame and should be FORCED into the "next thing" that will "combat climate change", no matter the cost.
And you will do it OR ELSE, if you want permission from the powers that be, in exchange for a few meager "freedoms" and a percentage, or pitance if you will, of your hard earned money will you be allowed to keep to buy the things you need (and they will tell you what you need), but only those items they deem "environmentally friendly". If you're one of the lucky few who've got your own home, you will forced to make changes to "comply" with these ecoterrorists so you too can be "certified" by the "LEEDS Standard", which is how they know who's "complying" and who should still be demonized.
And if anybody should refuse or try to argue their claims, you will branded a "climate denier" and accused of not caring about your "community", "other people" and/or "the Earth", and we will be presented with a whole slew of new Whorrywood 2 hour preachfests they call "entertainmet", like that "The Day After Tomorrow" shitshow, and the Commie News Network will be armed with a fresh set of talking points and buzzwords about how all the "evil right-wingers" and the "Trump supporters" are to blame for the world not having clean air to breathe, and how they obtained "evidence" (which they never reveal), about how Trump himself was behind it the whole time and everybody that voted for him were stupid suckers who weren't as "smart" as the "intellectual left" who would never have let this happen.
Enjoy!
[This message has been edited by Fitz301 (edited 02-12-2023).]
"Decomposition of microplastics: Emission of harmful substances and greenhouse gases in the environment" Małgorzata Kida, Sabina Ziembowicz and Piotr Koszelnik for the Journal of Environmental Chemical Engineering; February 2023. https://www.sciencedirect.c...ii/S2213343722019200
I haven't found much online about vinyl chloride as a greenhouse gas.
It certainly is a greenhouse gas, but most of the concerns about it are related to it as a carcinogen or cancer-provoking substance.
The viewgraph suggests (to me) that vinyl chloride breaks down in the environment, turning into CO2 (carbon dioxide), CH4 (methane) and C2H4 (ethylene), which are all greenhouse gases.
It's happened before:
quote
The train accident in East Palestine is not the first time that a derailment caused a release of vinyl chloride. It happened in 2012 in Paulsboro, New Jersey.
In that case, 20,000 gallons of the chemical were released... [that was] a spill, not a burn-off such as [this] East Palestine derailment, but in both instances, there was a release of vinyl chloride into the ground and into the water.
And many of them do not understand the difference between icebergs and glaciers.
This "cartoon" or meme that has circulated on social media reveals the ignorance that's behind it. The experiment that's pictured is about what happens when an iceberg melts, or the polar icepacks that form when seawater freezes and covers the surface of the ocean. The so-called "idiots" at the global warming conference (COP27) are concerned about what happens when glaciers melt—particularly, the massive glaciers of the Antarctic continent and Greenland—and how that contributes to rising sea levels. That would be a different experiment, that begins the moment before the ice cube is dropped into the water in the measuring cup.
These cartoons or memes come from the same place.
I call that place the "Dumb-net".
It's filled with people who revel about how much more scientific they are, over the the "left", while providing the evidence with these cartoons and memes that they are not.
Nice post by a non N&S/Gov civilian on the train derailment. Here comes the acid rain. One would think all media outlets would be informing the public more on this. But then again, the ruskies didn't tell their 'sheep' anything much about the minor incident at Chernobyl either. Salt the earth, baby. 3d printed edible biomatter, Forward!
Welcome to PFF A.I., please ask your question. WonderBoy: where are all the environmentalists protesting? R.I. cabal bot: not important, can't link to anyone outside of NWO cabal WonderBoy: What about destroyed pipelines that dumped toxic gases into the air? R.I. cabal bot: not important, can't link to anyone outside of NWO cabal WonderBoy:
Lots of weird sh!t going on under puppet Brandon's 'leadership'. 2030 or bust.
) is actually irrelevant. It was long before humans and carbon dioxide hystaria.
?
