Antarctica hits warmest temperature ever recorded

[jc456]

View attachment 305395 There's no denying it now.

The Antarctic Peninsula recorded a high of 65 degrees this week, the hottest temperature ever recorded there.

The reading was taken Thursday at Esperanza Base along Antarctica's Trinity Peninsula.

Antarctica hits warmest temperature ever recorded

Antarctica logs hottest temperature on record of 18.3C

And they just discovered very warm water under a huge glacier there. This glacier holds back much of the ice shelf from flowing right into the sea. Not good.

why?

 

[jc456]

Yes but the new land isn't in places desirable for people, largely tundra and mountain, far removed from civilization needing developed, meantime, major cities would be under water. Much of the existing used and desired land might become uninhabitable or undesirable. You don't just pick up millions of people, cities, ports, highways, etc., and move them.

You dont know how Antartica would turn out if the GW myth were true.

The world has been much warmer in the past and LIFE was far more abundant.

We are exiting an ice age, and life struggles waiting for spring. Give me a tropical planet any day.

Antarctica used to be a tropical continent full of dinosaurs and palm trees. But then, other parts of the planet were like a sauna. The climate is always changing, but mankind's window of adaptability is fairly narrow compared to most life. We have built our entire civilization based on conditions of the last few thousand years during the subboreal and subatlantic chronozones and those conditions won't last.

Instead of passively waiting to adapt to changing climate conditions, wouldn't it be better to learn how to control them to best suit our needs? Technology exists to do just that, so why aren't those who claim to be upset about global warming considering them?

ARTIFICIAL TREES COULD OFFSET CARBON DIOXIDE EMISSIONS – Climate Change

You're joking, right? We may be able to influence or sway climate a bit, but we can no more CONTROL climate than we can move asteroids from hitting the planet.

It's no joke. If you read the article, it's clear that technology already exists to draw enough CO2 from the air to not only stop global warming but to reverse it if a sufficient number of these machines are placed around the world. Similar machines have been developed to draw off the more densely packed CO2 molecules from water. By controlling the amount of CO2 in the air and water, we can control climate change. It's not even a difficult concept to understand, so why do we hear nothing about it from those who claim to be concerned about climate change? Obviously, because this has become a political and ideological issue and climate changes fanatics have no use for any solution that is politically and ideologically neutral.

oh for fk sake. the globe is 75% water. are you claiming that 75% of the globe can be affected by 3% of the people in less than 3% of the landmass? WTF is wrong with you losers? hly mthr fk.

 

[jc456]

Deflection...I get it....I'm used to it as a matter of fact.

More like reflection...
How China's giant solar farms are transforming world energy
Get it ?

you really weren't sane when you posted this were you?

you know the planet is 75% water? no pollution.

 

[the other mike]

oh for fk sake. the globe is 75% water. are you claiming that 75% of the globe can be affected by 3% of the people in less than 3% of the landmass? WTF is wrong with you losers? hly mthr fk.

You are not quite as smart as you thought you were are you?

What Percent of Earth is Water? - Universe Today

While the oceans cover 71% of the Earth’s surface, they only account for 0.02% of our planet’s total mass.

 

[jc456]

oh for fk sake. the globe is 75% water. are you claiming that 75% of the globe can be affected by 3% of the people in less than 3% of the landmass? WTF is wrong with you losers? hly mthr fk.

You are not quite as smart as you thought you were are you?

What Percent of Earth is Water? - Universe Today

While the oceans cover 71% of the Earth’s surface, they only account for 0.02% of our planet’s total mass.

Angelo, I thought you were smarter than this. what part of the total mass contribute to the CO2 in the atmosphere?

 

[the other mike]

Angelo, I thought you were smarter than this. what part of the total mass contribute to the CO2 in the atmosphere?

You're going to try to weasel out of it now , but you said 75% of the globe is water.

But to answer your deflective question you ever heard of volcanoes?

 

[2aguy]

View attachment 305395 There's no denying it now.

The Antarctic Peninsula recorded a high of 65 degrees this week, the hottest temperature ever recorded there.

The reading was taken Thursday at Esperanza Base along Antarctica's Trinity Peninsula.

Antarctica hits warmest temperature ever recorded

Antarctica logs hottest temperature on record of 18.3C

And now...the truth......had to wait for this....lies on the climate are reported at warp speed...the truth takes a while to get out...

Media’s Horribly Dishonest Antarctica Propaganda

The NY Times wrote, “Antarctica, the coldest, windiest and driest continent on Earth, set a record high temperature on Thursday, underscoring global warming”


But the fact that Antarctica is the coldest place on earth, has nothing to do with a temperature record at a single weather station, Esperanza. Esperanza is located at the warmest, most northerly part of the mountainous Antarctica peninsula. Esperanza is most sensitive to El Nino warming. It most sensitive to the southward flow of warm moist subtropical winds. And Esperanza’s topography always amplifies temperatures when winds from the northwest cause foehn wind events. What happened at Esperanza has nothing to do with Antarctica’s overall climate trends, never mind any global warming trend.

The Guardian wrote, Antarctica “is one of the fastest warming places on earth, heating by almost 3°C [5.4°F] over the past 50 years”. However, the Guardian hides the fact they are using zombie data. Recent research shows a cooling trend since the year 2000 and that contradicts any CO2 driven global warming theory.




In the 2016 peer-reviewed paper “Absence of 21st century Warming on Antarctic Peninsula consistent with Natural Variability”, Antarctic climate experts documented that from 1979–1997, Antarctic had indeed experienced the globe’s fastest warming temperatures, increasing by 3.2 °C [5.8 °F] per century.

In contrast, from 1999–2014, temperatures then decreased at a rate 4.7 °C [8.5 °F} per century. This strong cooling trend is rarely reported or referred to by media alarmists.


Dishonestly, the Guardian ignores the recent cooling trends to suggest a recent one day Esperanza temperature record is “a sign that warming in Antarctica is happening much faster than global average” and “is the foreshadowing of what is to come.” Likewise the NY Times dishonestly claims, “The high temperature is in keeping with the earth’s overall warming trend, which is in large part caused by emissions of greenhouse gases.

The Guardian’s author Graham Readfearn engages in his typical alarmist distortions to write, “Previous research from 2012 found the current rate of warming in the region was almost unprecedented over the past 2000 years.”

Really? Almost unprecedented? The paper he refers to actually stated, “Although warming of the northeastern Antarctic Peninsula began around 600 years ago, the high rate of warming over the past century is unusual (but not unprecedented) in the context of natural climate variability over the past two millennia.

The BBC gets the prize for going completely off the rails stating, “Scientists warn that global warming is causing so much melting at the South Pole, it will eventually disintegrate – causing the global sea level to rise by at least three metres (10ft) over centuries.”

But there has been no warming trend at the south pole nor in east Antarctica as exemplified by the Dumont D’Urville weather station.

 

[the other mike]

View attachment 305395 There's no denying it now.

The Antarctic Peninsula recorded a high of 65 degrees this week, the hottest temperature ever recorded there.

The reading was taken Thursday at Esperanza Base along Antarctica's Trinity Peninsula.

Antarctica hits warmest temperature ever recorded

Antarctica logs hottest temperature on record of 18.3C

And now...the truth......had to wait for this....lies on the climate are reported at warp speed...the truth takes a while to get out...

Media’s Horribly Dishonest Antarctica Propaganda

The NY Times wrote, “Antarctica, the coldest, windiest and driest continent on Earth, set a record high temperature on Thursday, underscoring global warming”


But the fact that Antarctica is the coldest place on earth, has nothing to do with a temperature record at a single weather station, Esperanza. Esperanza is located at the warmest, most northerly part of the mountainous Antarctica peninsula. Esperanza is most sensitive to El Nino warming. It most sensitive to the southward flow of warm moist subtropical winds. And Esperanza’s topography always amplifies temperatures when winds from the northwest cause foehn wind events. What happened at Esperanza has nothing to do with Antarctica’s overall climate trends, never mind any global warming trend.

The Guardian wrote, Antarctica “is one of the fastest warming places on earth, heating by almost 3°C [5.4°F] over the past 50 years”. However, the Guardian hides the fact they are using zombie data. Recent research shows a cooling trend since the year 2000 and that contradicts any CO2 driven global warming theory.




In the 2016 peer-reviewed paper “Absence of 21st century Warming on Antarctic Peninsula consistent with Natural Variability”, Antarctic climate experts documented that from 1979–1997, Antarctic had indeed experienced the globe’s fastest warming temperatures, increasing by 3.2 °C [5.8 °F] per century.

In contrast, from 1999–2014, temperatures then decreased at a rate 4.7 °C [8.5 °F} per century. This strong cooling trend is rarely reported or referred to by media alarmists.


Dishonestly, the Guardian ignores the recent cooling trends to suggest a recent one day Esperanza temperature record is “a sign that warming in Antarctica is happening much faster than global average” and “is the foreshadowing of what is to come.” Likewise the NY Times dishonestly claims, “The high temperature is in keeping with the earth’s overall warming trend, which is in large part caused by emissions of greenhouse gases.

The Guardian’s author Graham Readfearn engages in his typical alarmist distortions to write, “Previous research from 2012 found the current rate of warming in the region was almost unprecedented over the past 2000 years.”

Really? Almost unprecedented? The paper he refers to actually stated, “Although warming of the northeastern Antarctic Peninsula began around 600 years ago, the high rate of warming over the past century is unusual (but not unprecedented) in the context of natural climate variability over the past two millennia.

The BBC gets the prize for going completely off the rails stating, “Scientists warn that global warming is causing so much melting at the South Pole, it will eventually disintegrate – causing the global sea level to rise by at least three metres (10ft) over centuries.”

But there has been no warming trend at the south pole nor in east Antarctica as exemplified by the Dumont D’Urville weather station.

I'm not the media and the OP was spot on.

 

[2aguy]

View attachment 305395 There's no denying it now.

The Antarctic Peninsula recorded a high of 65 degrees this week, the hottest temperature ever recorded there.

The reading was taken Thursday at Esperanza Base along Antarctica's Trinity Peninsula.

Antarctica hits warmest temperature ever recorded

Antarctica logs hottest temperature on record of 18.3C

And now...the truth......had to wait for this....lies on the climate are reported at warp speed...the truth takes a while to get out...

Media’s Horribly Dishonest Antarctica Propaganda

The NY Times wrote, “Antarctica, the coldest, windiest and driest continent on Earth, set a record high temperature on Thursday, underscoring global warming”


But the fact that Antarctica is the coldest place on earth, has nothing to do with a temperature record at a single weather station, Esperanza. Esperanza is located at the warmest, most northerly part of the mountainous Antarctica peninsula. Esperanza is most sensitive to El Nino warming. It most sensitive to the southward flow of warm moist subtropical winds. And Esperanza’s topography always amplifies temperatures when winds from the northwest cause foehn wind events. What happened at Esperanza has nothing to do with Antarctica’s overall climate trends, never mind any global warming trend.

The Guardian wrote, Antarctica “is one of the fastest warming places on earth, heating by almost 3°C [5.4°F] over the past 50 years”. However, the Guardian hides the fact they are using zombie data. Recent research shows a cooling trend since the year 2000 and that contradicts any CO2 driven global warming theory.




In the 2016 peer-reviewed paper “Absence of 21st century Warming on Antarctic Peninsula consistent with Natural Variability”, Antarctic climate experts documented that from 1979–1997, Antarctic had indeed experienced the globe’s fastest warming temperatures, increasing by 3.2 °C [5.8 °F] per century.

In contrast, from 1999–2014, temperatures then decreased at a rate 4.7 °C [8.5 °F} per century. This strong cooling trend is rarely reported or referred to by media alarmists.


Dishonestly, the Guardian ignores the recent cooling trends to suggest a recent one day Esperanza temperature record is “a sign that warming in Antarctica is happening much faster than global average” and “is the foreshadowing of what is to come.” Likewise the NY Times dishonestly claims, “The high temperature is in keeping with the earth’s overall warming trend, which is in large part caused by emissions of greenhouse gases.

The Guardian’s author Graham Readfearn engages in his typical alarmist distortions to write, “Previous research from 2012 found the current rate of warming in the region was almost unprecedented over the past 2000 years.”

Really? Almost unprecedented? The paper he refers to actually stated, “Although warming of the northeastern Antarctic Peninsula began around 600 years ago, the high rate of warming over the past century is unusual (but not unprecedented) in the context of natural climate variability over the past two millennia.

The BBC gets the prize for going completely off the rails stating, “Scientists warn that global warming is causing so much melting at the South Pole, it will eventually disintegrate – causing the global sea level to rise by at least three metres (10ft) over centuries.”

But there has been no warming trend at the south pole nor in east Antarctica as exemplified by the Dumont D’Urville weather station.

I'm not the media and the OP was spot on.

You mean except for what I just posted showing that the OP was not "spot on..." Right?

Also...

What is a foehn event? Foehn events cause rapid extreme temperature jumps simply due to changes in the air pressure as winds descend from a mountain top. During the 2015 foehn event, Esperanza’s daily temperature jumped from 0°C [32°F] 2 days before, to a record setting 17.5°C [63.5°F]. Elsewhere, Antarctic foehn winds are common and have been extensively studied, often raising maximum temperatures by 10+°C [18+°F] above normal.

As seen in figure “c” below, weather systems in 2015 had driven a warm and humid subtropical air flow from the northwest onto the northern Antarctic Peninsula. That warm air flow raised the western peninsula’s temperatures above normal. Then those winds rose up and over the peninsula’s mountain range amplifying temperatures even further on the east side of the peninsula. As the air rose, its water vapor condensed, both releasing precipitation and releasing latent heat that had further warmed the air. As that warmer and drier air passed over the mountain crest and descended onto Esperanza, temperatures warmed further as air pressure increased temperatures at a rate of over 5°F for every 1000-foot drop in altitude. A typical foehn event.

 

[jc456]

Angelo, I thought you were smarter than this. what part of the total mass contribute to the CO2 in the atmosphere?

You're going to try to weasel out of it now , but you said 75% of the globe is water.

But to answer your deflective question you ever heard of volcanoes?

it is. sure, that isn't man made. Now, what amount of mass of this planet provides man made CO2? I'll simplify the original ask.

And the globe consists of ~75% water. prove me wrong.

 

[toomuchtime_]

You dont know how Antartica would turn out if the GW myth were true.

The world has been much warmer in the past and LIFE was far more abundant.

We are exiting an ice age, and life struggles waiting for spring. Give me a tropical planet any day.

Antarctica used to be a tropical continent full of dinosaurs and palm trees. But then, other parts of the planet were like a sauna. The climate is always changing, but mankind's window of adaptability is fairly narrow compared to most life. We have built our entire civilization based on conditions of the last few thousand years during the subboreal and subatlantic chronozones and those conditions won't last.

Instead of passively waiting to adapt to changing climate conditions, wouldn't it be better to learn how to control them to best suit our needs? Technology exists to do just that, so why aren't those who claim to be upset about global warming considering them?

ARTIFICIAL TREES COULD OFFSET CARBON DIOXIDE EMISSIONS – Climate Change

You're joking, right? We may be able to influence or sway climate a bit, but we can no more CONTROL climate than we can move asteroids from hitting the planet.

It's no joke. If you read the article, it's clear that technology already exists to draw enough CO2 from the air to not only stop global warming but to reverse it if a sufficient number of these machines are placed around the world. Similar machines have been developed to draw off the more densely packed CO2 molecules from water. By controlling the amount of CO2 in the air and water, we can control climate change. It's not even a difficult concept to understand, so why do we hear nothing about it from those who claim to be concerned about climate change? Obviously, because this has become a political and ideological issue and climate changes fanatics have no use for any solution that is politically and ideologically neutral.

oh for fk sake. the globe is 75% water. are you claiming that 75% of the globe can be affected by 3% of the people in less than 3% of the landmass? WTF is wrong with you losers? hly mthr fk.

are you claiming that 75% of the globe can be affected by 3% of the people in less than 3% of the landmass?

Absolutely, and you should be embarrassed to ask such a silly question when we have hard proof it is true.

Perhaps you are not old enough to remember when scientists discovered a hole in the ozone layer that protects the Earth from many of the sun's harmful rays and scientists then decided that the hole was caused by the widespread use of chlorofluorocarbons as propellants in aerosol cans. The loss of the ozone layer would have ended nearly all life on Earth, so the discovery of this hole was a very serious business.

The destructive effects of CFC's on the ozone layer were discovered in 1974 and by 1989 a series of international protocols signs by nearly every nation on Earth banning the production and use of them. Recently, NASA reported they can directly see improvement in the ozone layer since the ban on CFC's took place. So, yes, it is clear that human activity can so radically alter the atmosphere that it threatens life on Earth.

First Direct Proof of Ozone Hole Recovery Due to Chemicals Ban

 

[the other mike]

Angelo, I thought you were smarter than this. what part of the total mass contribute to the CO2 in the atmosphere?

You're going to try to weasel out of it now , but you said 75% of the globe is water.

But to answer your deflective question you ever heard of volcanoes?

it is. sure, that isn't man made. Now, what amount of mass of this planet provides man made CO2? I'll simplify the original ask.

And the globe consists of ~75% water. prove me wrong.

Already did.

 

[jc456]

Antarctica used to be a tropical continent full of dinosaurs and palm trees. But then, other parts of the planet were like a sauna. The climate is always changing, but mankind's window of adaptability is fairly narrow compared to most life. We have built our entire civilization based on conditions of the last few thousand years during the subboreal and subatlantic chronozones and those conditions won't last.

Instead of passively waiting to adapt to changing climate conditions, wouldn't it be better to learn how to control them to best suit our needs? Technology exists to do just that, so why aren't those who claim to be upset about global warming considering them?

ARTIFICIAL TREES COULD OFFSET CARBON DIOXIDE EMISSIONS – Climate Change

You're joking, right? We may be able to influence or sway climate a bit, but we can no more CONTROL climate than we can move asteroids from hitting the planet.

It's no joke. If you read the article, it's clear that technology already exists to draw enough CO2 from the air to not only stop global warming but to reverse it if a sufficient number of these machines are placed around the world. Similar machines have been developed to draw off the more densely packed CO2 molecules from water. By controlling the amount of CO2 in the air and water, we can control climate change. It's not even a difficult concept to understand, so why do we hear nothing about it from those who claim to be concerned about climate change? Obviously, because this has become a political and ideological issue and climate changes fanatics have no use for any solution that is politically and ideologically neutral.

oh for fk sake. the globe is 75% water. are you claiming that 75% of the globe can be affected by 3% of the people in less than 3% of the landmass? WTF is wrong with you losers? hly mthr fk.

are you claiming that 75% of the globe can be affected by 3% of the people in less than 3% of the landmass?

Absolutely, and you should be embarrassed to ask such a silly question when we have hard proof it is true.

Perhaps you are not old enough to remember when scientists discovered a hole in the ozone layer that protects the Earth from many of the sun's harmful rays and scientists then decided that the hole was caused by the widespread use of chlorofluorocarbons as propellants in aerosol cans. The loss of the ozone layer would have ended nearly all life on Earth, so the discovery of this hole was a very serious business.

The destructive effects of CFC's on the ozone layer were discovered in 1974 and by 1989 a series of international protocols signs by nearly every nation on Earth banning the production and use of them. Recently, NASA reported they can directly see improvement in the ozone layer since the ban on CFC's took place. So, yes, it is clear that human activity can so radically alter the atmosphere that it threatens life on Earth.

First Direct Proof of Ozone Hole Recovery Due to Chemicals Ban

Absolutely, and you should be embarrassed to ask such a silly question when we have hard proof it is true.

link

 

[jc456]

Angelo, I thought you were smarter than this. what part of the total mass contribute to the CO2 in the atmosphere?

You're going to try to weasel out of it now , but you said 75% of the globe is water.

But to answer your deflective question you ever heard of volcanoes?

it is. sure, that isn't man made. Now, what amount of mass of this planet provides man made CO2? I'll simplify the original ask.

And the globe consists of ~75% water. prove me wrong.

Already did.

where? are you saying the planet isn't mostly ocean? hly fk.29.2% of the earth surface can be occupied by humans, and out of that 3% of the population is in the NH. So, again, are you saying that 3% of the surface can control CO2? I'm fking laughing.

Earth - Wikipedia

Surface
Main articles: Earth's crust, Lithosphere, Hydrosphere, Landform, and Extreme points of Earth

Present-day Earth altimetry and bathymetry. Data from the National Geophysical Data Center.

Current Earth without water, elevation greatly exaggerated (click/enlarge to "spin" 3D-globe).
The total surface area of Earth is about 510 million km2 (197 million sq mi).[12] Of this, 70.8%,[12] or 361.13 million km2 (139.43 million sq mi), is below sea level and covered by ocean water.[115] Below the ocean's surface are much of the continental shelf, mountains, volcanoes,[83] oceanic trenches, submarine canyons, oceanic plateaus, abyssal plains, and a globe-spanning mid-ocean ridge system. The remaining 29.2%, or 148.94 million km2 (57.51 million sq mi), not covered by water has terrain that varies greatly from place to place and consists of mountains, deserts, plains, plateaus, and other landforms. Tectonics and erosion, volcanic eruptions, flooding, weathering, glaciation, the growth of coral reefs, and meteorite impacts are among the processes that constantly reshape Earth's surface over geological time.[116][117]

 

[toomuchtime_]

Instead of passively waiting to adapt to changing climate conditions, wouldn't it be better to learn how to control them to best suit our needs? Technology exists to do just that, so why aren't those who claim to be upset about global warming considering them?

ARTIFICIAL TREES COULD OFFSET CARBON DIOXIDE EMISSIONS – Climate Change

You're joking, right? We may be able to influence or sway climate a bit, but we can no more CONTROL climate than we can move asteroids from hitting the planet.

It's no joke. If you read the article, it's clear that technology already exists to draw enough CO2 from the air to not only stop global warming but to reverse it if a sufficient number of these machines are placed around the world. Similar machines have been developed to draw off the more densely packed CO2 molecules from water. By controlling the amount of CO2 in the air and water, we can control climate change. It's not even a difficult concept to understand, so why do we hear nothing about it from those who claim to be concerned about climate change? Obviously, because this has become a political and ideological issue and climate changes fanatics have no use for any solution that is politically and ideologically neutral.

oh for fk sake. the globe is 75% water. are you claiming that 75% of the globe can be affected by 3% of the people in less than 3% of the landmass? WTF is wrong with you losers? hly mthr fk.

are you claiming that 75% of the globe can be affected by 3% of the people in less than 3% of the landmass?

Absolutely, and you should be embarrassed to ask such a silly question when we have hard proof it is true.

Perhaps you are not old enough to remember when scientists discovered a hole in the ozone layer that protects the Earth from many of the sun's harmful rays and scientists then decided that the hole was caused by the widespread use of chlorofluorocarbons as propellants in aerosol cans. The loss of the ozone layer would have ended nearly all life on Earth, so the discovery of this hole was a very serious business.

The destructive effects of CFC's on the ozone layer were discovered in 1974 and by 1989 a series of international protocols signs by nearly every nation on Earth banning the production and use of them. Recently, NASA reported they can directly see improvement in the ozone layer since the ban on CFC's took place. So, yes, it is clear that human activity can so radically alter the atmosphere that it threatens life on Earth.

First Direct Proof of Ozone Hole Recovery Due to Chemicals Ban

Absolutely, and you should be embarrassed to ask such a silly question when we have hard proof it is true.

link

There is a link and it directs you to the NASA report.

 

[the other mike]

Angelo, I thought you were smarter than this. what part of the total mass contribute to the CO2 in the atmosphere?

You're going to try to weasel out of it now , but you said 75% of the globe is water.

But to answer your deflective question you ever heard of volcanoes?

it is. sure, that isn't man made. Now, what amount of mass of this planet provides man made CO2? I'll simplify the original ask.

And the globe consists of ~75% water. prove me wrong.

Already did.

where? are you saying the planet isn't mostly ocean? hly fk.

Earth's mass is only between .02 % and .05 % water.

 

[jc456]

You're joking, right? We may be able to influence or sway climate a bit, but we can no more CONTROL climate than we can move asteroids from hitting the planet.

It's no joke. If you read the article, it's clear that technology already exists to draw enough CO2 from the air to not only stop global warming but to reverse it if a sufficient number of these machines are placed around the world. Similar machines have been developed to draw off the more densely packed CO2 molecules from water. By controlling the amount of CO2 in the air and water, we can control climate change. It's not even a difficult concept to understand, so why do we hear nothing about it from those who claim to be concerned about climate change? Obviously, because this has become a political and ideological issue and climate changes fanatics have no use for any solution that is politically and ideologically neutral.

oh for fk sake. the globe is 75% water. are you claiming that 75% of the globe can be affected by 3% of the people in less than 3% of the landmass? WTF is wrong with you losers? hly mthr fk.

are you claiming that 75% of the globe can be affected by 3% of the people in less than 3% of the landmass?

Absolutely, and you should be embarrassed to ask such a silly question when we have hard proof it is true.

Perhaps you are not old enough to remember when scientists discovered a hole in the ozone layer that protects the Earth from many of the sun's harmful rays and scientists then decided that the hole was caused by the widespread use of chlorofluorocarbons as propellants in aerosol cans. The loss of the ozone layer would have ended nearly all life on Earth, so the discovery of this hole was a very serious business.

The destructive effects of CFC's on the ozone layer were discovered in 1974 and by 1989 a series of international protocols signs by nearly every nation on Earth banning the production and use of them. Recently, NASA reported they can directly see improvement in the ozone layer since the ban on CFC's took place. So, yes, it is clear that human activity can so radically alter the atmosphere that it threatens life on Earth.

First Direct Proof of Ozone Hole Recovery Due to Chemicals Ban

Absolutely, and you should be embarrassed to ask such a silly question when we have hard proof it is true.

link

There is a link and it directs you to the NASA report.

about a myth to control humans? nope, that isn't proof of fking anything.

 

[jc456]

Angelo, I thought you were smarter than this. what part of the total mass contribute to the CO2 in the atmosphere?

You're going to try to weasel out of it now , but you said 75% of the globe is water.

But to answer your deflective question you ever heard of volcanoes?

it is. sure, that isn't man made. Now, what amount of mass of this planet provides man made CO2? I'll simplify the original ask.

And the globe consists of ~75% water. prove me wrong.

Already did.

where? are you saying the planet isn't mostly ocean? hly fk.

Earth's mass is only .02 % water.

no one lives in the mass, they live on the surface, so let's get your ass back there.

 

[the other mike]

You're going to try to weasel out of it now , but you said 75% of the globe is water.

But to answer your deflective question you ever heard of volcanoes?

it is. sure, that isn't man made. Now, what amount of mass of this planet provides man made CO2? I'll simplify the original ask.

And the globe consists of ~75% water. prove me wrong.

Already did.

where? are you saying the planet isn't mostly ocean? hly fk.

Earth's mass is only .02 % water.

no one lives in the mass, they live on the surface, so let's get your ass back there.

So you can't admit you're wrong and you move the goalposts ? You must be a Democrat,.

 

[toomuchtime_]

It's no joke. If you read the article, it's clear that technology already exists to draw enough CO2 from the air to not only stop global warming but to reverse it if a sufficient number of these machines are placed around the world. Similar machines have been developed to draw off the more densely packed CO2 molecules from water. By controlling the amount of CO2 in the air and water, we can control climate change. It's not even a difficult concept to understand, so why do we hear nothing about it from those who claim to be concerned about climate change? Obviously, because this has become a political and ideological issue and climate changes fanatics have no use for any solution that is politically and ideologically neutral.

oh for fk sake. the globe is 75% water. are you claiming that 75% of the globe can be affected by 3% of the people in less than 3% of the landmass? WTF is wrong with you losers? hly mthr fk.

are you claiming that 75% of the globe can be affected by 3% of the people in less than 3% of the landmass?

Absolutely, and you should be embarrassed to ask such a silly question when we have hard proof it is true.

Perhaps you are not old enough to remember when scientists discovered a hole in the ozone layer that protects the Earth from many of the sun's harmful rays and scientists then decided that the hole was caused by the widespread use of chlorofluorocarbons as propellants in aerosol cans. The loss of the ozone layer would have ended nearly all life on Earth, so the discovery of this hole was a very serious business.

The destructive effects of CFC's on the ozone layer were discovered in 1974 and by 1989 a series of international protocols signs by nearly every nation on Earth banning the production and use of them. Recently, NASA reported they can directly see improvement in the ozone layer since the ban on CFC's took place. So, yes, it is clear that human activity can so radically alter the atmosphere that it threatens life on Earth.

First Direct Proof of Ozone Hole Recovery Due to Chemicals Ban

Absolutely, and you should be embarrassed to ask such a silly question when we have hard proof it is true.

link

There is a link and it directs you to the NASA report.

about a myth to control humans? nope, that isn't proof of fking anything.

Well, nothing you are able to understand, anyway.