2024 Antarctic sea ice winter maximum second lowest on record

[AzogtheDefiler]

I do have to say one thing about the members of this message board, they are top-notch in debasing, insulting those that disagree with their views and show such disdain for data, statistics and facts.

It is like sheep

View attachment 1052711

 

[Luckyone]

I suggest you check out this...

Loading…

www.google.com

and then ask yourself if you are qualified to debate this issue with the author of the FBI FRAUD CASE homO hid in the CLOSET....

I am not debating anything. I provided an article and a link as information. You do whatever you want to do. I don't personally give a damn about you.

By the way, what does Obama have anything to do with this. He wasn't personally an expert on Climate change, was he. Wasn't he doing the same thing I am doing, which is go with the probabilities based on the amount of experts that say that Global Warming is a problem?

Geez, stupidity on top of stupidity. How do you live with yourself. If I was you, I would hate who I am am and do everything in my power to gain knowledge and learn. I had to do that when I was 18 and it took me many years to learn. Are you too old to learn?

 

[EMH]

what does Obama have anything to do with this

Well, if she and Black Bigot Eric Holder had a molecule of concern for truth and patriotism to America, CO2 FRAUD would have been prosecuted a decade ago...

 

[Luckyone]

Well, if she and Black Bigot Eric Holder had a molecule of concern for truth and patriotism to America, CO2 FRAUD would have been prosecuted a decade ago...

What a load of misinformed biased BS

 

[ReinyDays]

Once again, let me state that I personally do not know anything about Global warming or its potential problems. What I do is read and when I read that 97% of the scientists agree that it is a problem, I go along with that from pure common sense of probable results.

You brought the Stefan Boltzmann law into play (had never heard of him of his theory before), so what I did as I always do, it find information about the law he stated.

His law has a high probability of being correct. As the Earth warms, more heat is released so in the long run, is all evens out, right?

I did then ask the following question and I got the following AI generated answer:

"If stefan boltzmann's law is correct, does that mean that global warming will not be a problem/"

and here is the answer I got:

"No, even if Stefan-Boltzmann's law is correct, it does not mean that global warming will not be a problem for Earth; while the law suggests a natural feedback mechanism where a warmer Earth radiates more energy back into space, the complexities of Earth's atmosphere, including the greenhouse effect, mean that increased greenhouse gases can still significantly raise global temperatures despite this feedback loop"

Your turn to debate this.

I'm not going to debate AI ... why do you think abstentions should be counted as "yes" votes? ...

Ask AI what they mean by "feedback loop" ... Stefan-Blotzmann Law predicts equilibrium ... and this law includes the theoretical and mathematical expression of this "Greenhouse Effect" ... I'm not sure you're competent enough to ask the right question here ...

But here's an easy one ... point to any place in the whole world where climate has changed in the past 100 years ... that should be easy, the way we've been pumping the CO2 into the atmosphere ... anyplace at all ... Antarctica is still a polar wasteland, Köppen Classification EF (= perpetual winter) ...

Climate Change is New Speak for global warming, because global warming isn't scary ... it's the population that's afraid who will trust their government, I don't think the Mockingjay movies made that clear enough ... and thank you for burning coal to tell us the evils of burning coal ...

 

[Luckyone]

I'm not going to debate AI ... why do you think abstentions should be counted as "yes" votes? ...

Ask AI what they mean by "feedback loop" ... Stefan-Blotzmann Law predicts equilibrium ... and this law includes the theoretical and mathematical expression of this "Greenhouse Effect" ... I'm not sure you're competent enough to ask the right question here ...

But here's an easy one ... point to any place in the whole world where climate has changed in the past 100 years ... that should be easy, the way we've been pumping the CO2 into the atmosphere ... anyplace at all ... Antarctica is still a polar wasteland, Köppen Classification EF (= perpetual winter) ...

Climate Change is New Speak for global warming, because global warming isn't scary ... it's the population that's afraid who will trust their government, I don't think the Mockingjay movies made that clear enough ... and thank you for burning coal to tell us the evils of burning coal ...

One thing that I do KNOW because it is common sense.

For the past 100 years, we have been pouring Carbon Dioxide into the earth's atmosphere. That was not something that had ever happened before. Carbon Dioxide is toxic (many people commit suicide by closing the escape hatch for carbon dioxide in their cars and then closing themselves in the car).

As such, Carbon Dioxide cannot be a positive for this planet and yet we (as a race) have been filling the atmosphere with it. I also know from common sense that people die from too much sugar, too much salt, too much fat, too much of most everything even though those things by themselves are not as toxic as Carbon Dioxide. This tells me (through common sense( that some damage to the atmosphere must be happening and since the release of this much carbon dioxide is preventable (is man made), something should be done to stop it.

Can you argue against this "common sense" approach. Can you say that carbon dioxide has NO EFFECT on our atmosphere? Can you say that bringing the amount of carbon dioxide down will not help our atmosphere at all?

 

[ReinyDays]

One thing that I do KNOW because it is common sense.

For the past 100 years, we have been pouring Carbon Dioxide into the earth's atmosphere. That was not something that had ever happened before. Carbon Dioxide is toxic (many people commit suicide by closing the escape hatch for carbon dioxide in their cars and then closing themselves in the car).

As such, Carbon Dioxide cannot be a positive for this planet and yet we (as a race) have been filling the atmosphere with it. I also know from common sense that people die from too much sugar, too much salt, too much fat, too much of most everything even though those things by themselves are not as toxic as Carbon Dioxide. This tells me (through common sense( that some damage to the atmosphere must be happening and since the release of this much carbon dioxide is preventable (is man made), something should be done to stop it.

Can you argue against this "common sense" approach. Can you say that carbon dioxide has NO EFFECT on our atmosphere? Can you say that bringing the amount of carbon dioxide down will not help our atmosphere at all?

Why do you accept abstentions as "yes" votes ... you brought this up as the basis for your faith in the Climate Change rhetoric ...

If carbon dioxide is dangerous ... doesn't it seem hypocritical to be producing it to post on the internet? ... just curious because you seem to be ramping up the emotions here and I'm not sure why you're getting upset ...

Let the experts speak for themselves ... they don't need your help ... and maybe take a class in biology and learn why plant life depends on carbon dioxide ... in many cases, exclusively from the atmosphere ...

 

[EMH]

What a load of misinformed biased BS

So why did homO go SILENT for two years... about the "greatest threat" .... and then she bought beachfront property on an island last hit by Cat 5 winds in.... 1938....

 

[EMH]

Carbon Dioxide is toxic (many people commit suicide by closing the escape hatch for carbon dioxide in their cars and then closing themselves in the car).

Carbon MONOXIDE... idiot...

Loading…

www.google.com

have been filling the atmosphere with it

What percent of the atmosphere is CO2?

Can you say that carbon dioxide has NO EFFECT on our atmosphere?

The highly correlated satellite and weather balloon data told us that, which inspired another CO2 FRAUd FUDGE JOB in 2005...

Key claim against global warming evaporates

Satellite and weather balloon data used to argue that climate models were wrong and that global warming isn't really happening turns out to be based on faulty analyses, according to three new studies.

www.nbcnews.com

satellite and weather balloon data have actually suggested the opposite, that the atmosphere was cooling


Translation from NBC spin - for more than three decades of rising atmospheric CO2, the two and only two measures of atmospheric temps, satellites and balloons, showed precisely NO WARMING in the atmosphere...

 

[Luckyone]

Carbon MONOXIDE... idiot...

Loading…

www.google.com

What percent of the atmosphere is CO2?







The highly correlated satellite and weather balloon data told us that, which inspired another CO2 FRAUd FUDGE JOB in 2005...

Key claim against global warming evaporates

Satellite and weather balloon data used to argue that climate models were wrong and that global warming isn't really happening turns out to be based on faulty analyses, according to three new studies.

www.nbcnews.com

satellite and weather balloon data have actually suggested the opposite, that the atmosphere was cooling


Translation from NBC spin - for more than three decades of rising atmospheric CO2, the two and only two measures of atmospheric temps, satellites and balloons, showed precisely NO WARMING in the atmosphere...

Last warning, one more unwarranted insult (idiot) I put you on ignore

 

[Luckyone]

ussWhy do you accept abstentions as "yes" votes ... you brought this up as the basis for your faith in the Climate Change rhetoric ...

If carbon dioxide is dangerous ... doesn't it seem hypocritical to be producing it to post on the internet? ... just curious because you seem to be ramping up the emotions here and I'm not sure why you're getting upset ...

Let the experts speak for themselves ... they don't need your help ... and maybe take a class in biology and learn why plant life depends on carbon dioxide ... in many cases, exclusively from the atmosphere ...

There has always been carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and there always will be as it is created by plants. It is essential to life. Nonetheless, anything on the extremes are bad.

Here is an example of a food that is nutricious for the body but damaging if taken in extremes

A nutritious food that can be bad if consumed in extreme quantities is cruciferous vegetables like broccoli, cauliflower, kale, and Brussels sprouts, which contain compounds that can interfere with iodine absorption when eaten in very large amounts, potentially impacting thyroid function if someone is already iodine deficient; other examples include cinnamon which can be beneficial in moderation but may have negative effects if consumed excessively due to its potent properties

This example of yours is idiotic and meant to influence. Shame on you.

 

[Clipper]

I do have to say one thing about the members of this message board, they are top-notch in debasing, insulting those that disagree with their views and show such disdain for data, statistics and facts.

It is like sheep

View attachment 1052711

They only think what subhuman Trump & his asslickers on Faux & other right wing hacks tell them what to think.

Jim Jones is smiling about millions of people brainwashed by the biggest liar in history.

 

[dudmuck]

There has always been carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and there always will be as it is created by plants. It is essential to life. Nonetheless, anything on the extremes are bad.

Here is an example of a food that is nutricious for the body but damaging if taken in extremes

A nutritious food that can be bad if consumed in extreme quantities is cruciferous vegetables like broccoli, cauliflower, kale, and Brussels sprouts, which contain compounds that can interfere with iodine absorption when eaten in very large amounts, potentially impacting thyroid function if someone is already iodine deficient; other examples include cinnamon which can be beneficial in moderation but may have negative effects if consumed excessively due to its potent properties

This example of yours is idiotic and meant to influence. Shame on you.

Plants:
During photosynthesis, plants use sunlight to convert carbon dioxide from the air into glucose (sugar) and oxygen, releasing the oxygen back into the atmosphere.
Animals:
Animals inhale oxygen and use it to break down glucose, producing carbon dioxide as a byproduct which they exhale.

Plants and animals: How many are they?, global warming, Dr. Victor M. Ponce, San Diego State University, California

ponce.sdsu.edu

 

[EMH]

Last warning, one more unwarranted insult (idiot) I put you on ignore

LOL!!!

If you do not understand the difference between CO and CO2, then it is YOU would is an IDIOT....

 

[EMH]

They only think what subhuman Trump & his asslickers on Faux & other right wing hacks tell them what to think.

Jim Jones is smiling about millions of people brainwashed by the biggest liar in history.

Don't apply left wing parroting moron orthodoxy to the other side, because it isn't there...

When ego Trumps truth = Trump and the Covid Vax, and why we needed a primary, not a coronation

It is time to call a spade a spade. Donald Trump is a COMPLETE DISASTER on the subject of Covid. He has NO CLUE what he is blabbering, and he never had a clue and never got one. He is minus $9 trillion plus the Murderous Fraud Vax death total, which is likely in the millions already...

www.usmessageboard.com

 

[Luckyone]

Plants:
During photosynthesis, plants use sunlight to convert carbon dioxide from the air into glucose (sugar) and oxygen, releasing the oxygen back into the atmosphere.
Animals:
Animals inhale oxygen and use it to break down glucose, producing carbon dioxide as a byproduct which they exhale.

Plants and animals: How many are they?, global warming, Dr. Victor M. Ponce, San Diego State University, California

ponce.sdsu.edu

so?

 

[ReinyDays]

There has always been carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and there always will be as it is created by plants. It is essential to life. Nonetheless, anything on the extremes are bad.

Here is an example of a food that is nutricious for the body but damaging if taken in extremes

A nutritious food that can be bad if consumed in extreme quantities is cruciferous vegetables like broccoli, cauliflower, kale, and Brussels sprouts, which contain compounds that can interfere with iodine absorption when eaten in very large amounts, potentially impacting thyroid function if someone is already iodine deficient; other examples include cinnamon which can be beneficial in moderation but may have negative effects if consumed excessively due to its potent properties

This example of yours is idiotic and meant to influence. Shame on you.

You claim no knowledge of this material ... yet you claim my example is idiotic? ... the shame should be yours ...

... but then you claim no knowledge of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics so of course you wouldn't know who Ludwig Boltzmann was ... he only help found Modern Physics ... the sad part is at these temperatures, Classical Physics gives us satisfactory answers ...

I've offered SB as a start to a debate ... you've rejected that ... you also refuse to answer my question about your so-called "consensus" ... and that is an answer in itself ... you will distort the truth to make your point, and I assume you will lie as well ... starting with "lies of omission" ... why are you counting abstentions as "yes" votes? ... is the answer you're a lair? ...

Aren't you embarrassed coming here proclaiming your ignorance of basic meteorology? ... nevermind radiative physics ... ha ha ha ... which definition of temperature are you using? ... do you even know why there's more than one official scientific definition of temperature? ... maybe old Ludwig has a point eh? ...

 

[ReinyDays]

Plants:
During photosynthesis, plants use sunlight to convert carbon dioxide from the air into glucose (sugar) and oxygen, releasing the oxygen back into the atmosphere.
Animals:
Animals inhale oxygen and use it to break down glucose, producing carbon dioxide as a byproduct which they exhale.

Plants and animals: How many are they?, global warming, Dr. Victor M. Ponce, San Diego State University, California

ponce.sdsu.edu

The process is called "respiration" ... almost all organisms use this energy production method ... the main exception is yeasts which ferment sugars to produce energy ...

Plants can create their own sugars by photosynthesis by day ... then at night they respirate oxygen ... on balance, plants are way way ahead of animal ... ≈ 20% oxygen in the atmosphere, 0.04% CO2 ...

Force and energy are proportional to mass ... and there's just not enough mass of carbon dioxide to make any but the least significant temperature difference ... and 1ºC is tiny ...

 

[Luckyone]

You claim no knowledge of this material ... yet you claim my example is idiotic? ... the shame should be yours ...

... but then you claim no knowledge of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics so of course you wouldn't know who Ludwig Boltzmann was ... he only help found Modern Physics ... the sad part is at these temperatures, Classical Physics gives us satisfactory answers ...

I've offered SB as a start to a debate ... you've rejected that ... you also refuse to answer my question about your so-called "consensus" ... and that is an answer in itself ... you will distort the truth to make your point, and I assume you will lie as well ... starting with "lies of omission" ... why are you counting abstentions as "yes" votes? ... is the answer you're a lair? ...

Aren't you embarrassed coming here proclaiming your ignorance of basic meteorology? ... nevermind radiative physics ... ha ha ha ... which definition of temperature are you using? ... do you even know why there's more than one official scientific definition of temperature? ... maybe old Ludwig has a point eh? ...

You stated this:

"If carbon dioxide is dangerous ... doesn't it seem hypocritical to be producing it to post on the internet?"

I countered with this:

"A nutritious food that can be bad if consumed in extreme quantities is cruciferous vegetables like broccoli, cauliflower, kale, and Brussels sprouts, which contain compounds that can interfere with iodine absorption when eaten in very large amounts, potentially impacting thyroid function if someone is already iodine deficient; other examples include cinnamon which can be beneficial in moderation but may have negative effects if consumed excessively due to its potent properties"

My counter made your statement idiotic and meant to influence.

You then respond by saying:

"You claim no knowledge of this material ... yet you claim my example is idiotic?:"

I do not need to know anything in order to answer your statement with PURE COMMON SENSE.

Since you prefer to debase my statements and knowledge, I can see that you have no interest in a debate. You are only interested in debasing me. I am not going to continue such a conversation. As it is, my OP was about bringing information to the board. I was not giving any opinion. The information is what it is and if you want to diminish it, then I suggest you go directly to the source of the information and stay away from the messenger

 

[ReinyDays]

You stated this:

"If carbon dioxide is dangerous ... doesn't it seem hypocritical to be producing it to post on the internet?"

I countered with this:

"A nutritious food that can be bad if consumed in extreme quantities is cruciferous vegetables like broccoli, cauliflower, kale, and Brussels sprouts, which contain compounds that can interfere with iodine absorption when eaten in very large amounts, potentially impacting thyroid function if someone is already iodine deficient; other examples include cinnamon which can be beneficial in moderation but may have negative effects if consumed excessively due to its potent properties"

My counter made your statement idiotic and meant to influence.

You then respond by saying:

"You claim no knowledge of this material ... yet you claim my example is idiotic?:"

I do not need to know anything in order to answer your statement with PURE COMMON SENSE.

Since you prefer to debase my statements and knowledge, I can see that you have no interest in a debate. You are only interested in debasing me. I am not going to continue such a conversation. As it is, my OP was about bringing information to the board. I was not giving any opinion. The information is what it is and if you want to diminish it, then I suggest you go directly to the source of the information and stay away from the messenger

You won't answer my question ... common sense says you're afraid to ...

What do you wish to debate if you're unable to support the claims made in the OP? ...

Nutrition? ... tell me why 0.02% more broccoli causes problems ... you know the answer, that's why you smugly pump out the CO2 knowing it's too little to matter ... so why are you here being hysterical? ...

For the record, this post has been brought to you by 100% clean renewable hydro-electricity ... and it's illegal to burn coal in the State of Oregon for the production of energy ... not that the single plant we had before was making any money ...