What's new
US Message Board 🦅 Political Discussion Forum

Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Global Warming Liars

ChemEngineer

Diamond Member
Joined
Feb 5, 2019
Messages
3,895
Reaction score
3,332
Points
1,940
http://GlobalWarmingLiars.blogspot.com

THE LIE: An overwhelming consensus of scientists support global warming.

This lie is based on a 2009 article by Maggie Kendall Zimmerman, then a student at the University of Illinois.
As stated in the Wall Street Journal, "The '97 percent' figure in the Zimmerman/Doran survey represents the views of only 79 respondents who listed climate science as an area of expertise and said they published more than half of their recent peer-reviewed papers on climate change. Seventy-nine scientists—of the 3,146 who responded to the survey—does not a consensus make."
The WSJ went on to elaborate further: "The survey's questions don't reveal much of interest. Most scientists who are skeptical of catastrophic global warming nevertheless would answer "yes" to both questions. The survey was silent on whether the human impact is large enough to constitute a problem. Nor did it include solar scientists, space scientists, cosmologists, physicists, meteorologists or astronomers, who are the scientists most likely to be aware of natural causes of climate change."
So much for that lie one hears so often and so loudly.
THE LIE: Humans are causing catastrophic changes in earth's climate by burning fossil fuel and increasing carbon dioxide.
This lie is based on the extremely disingenuous and anti-scientific Keeling Curve, below.

This terribly misleading graph is intended to scare you into immediate action.
Just adding water vapor, which constitutes 1.5% of the atmosphere, or 15,000 parts per million, that graph above becomes this below, far more realistic, more honest, less misleading:


Other greenhouse gases, such as methane and nitrous oxide, are omitted from graphs and discussion.
If in fact humans were the primary, or even major contributor to carbon dioxide production, then the highest concentrations of CO2 would be industrial and population centers around the globe, instead of the rain forests of Africa and South America:

THE LIE: Global catastrophe, "tipping point"! We must do something now!
This incredible lie is preached by Al Gore, the United Nations, bureaucracies beholden to research billions, and by Barack Obama. Obama recently flew on Air Force One from Washington, D.C. to California, to play a round of golf with his friends, the same way he uses Air Force One to fly to Democrat fund-raisers all over the U.S.
Preaching doom and gloom to you little people is what they do, but not what they practice themselves. At the most recent Global Warming Scare-Fest, in Davos, Switzerland, the Scare-Mongers flew 1,700 private jets, rather than videoconference. Don't do as they do, do as they say.
Net global emission of CO2 looks nothing like human production of CO2. Rather, CO2 is the product of temperature and soil moisture.


THE LIE: Big oil billions are driving "deniers"
Budget requests from a few of the U.S. government agencies for global warming "research" money, just in 2011:

NOAA $437 million
NSF $480 million
NASA $438 million
DOE $627 million
DOI $171 million
EPA $169 million
USDA $159 million

ON OCTOBER 6, 2010, UC SANTA BARBARA PHYSICS PROFESSOR EMERITUS, HAROLD LEWIS, RESIGNED FROM THE AMERICAN PHYSICAL SOCIETY IN PROTEST OF THE GLOBAL WARMING FRAUD. HIS LETTER READS IN PART:“FOR REASONS THAT WILL SOON BECOME CLEAR MY FORMER PRIDE AT BEING AN APS FELLOW ALL THESE YEARS HAS BEEN TURNED INTO SHAME, AND I AM FORCED, WITH NO PLEASURE AT ALL, TO OFFER YOU MY RESIGNATION FROM THE SOCIETY. “IT IS OF COURSE, THE GLOBAL WARMING SCAM, WITH THE (LITERALLY) TRILLIONS OF DOLLARS DRIVING IT, THAT HAS CORRUPTED SO MANY SCIENTISTS, AND HAS CARRIED APS BEFORE IT LIKE A ROGUE WAVE. IT IS THE GREATEST AND MOST SUCCESSFUL PSEUDOSCIENTIFIC FRAUD I HAVE SEEN IN MY LONG LIFE AS A PHYSICIST. ANYONE WHO HAS THE FAINTEST DOUBT THAT THIS IS SO SHOULD FORCE HIMSELF TO READ THE CLIMATEGATE DOCUMENTS, WHICH LAY IT BARE. (MONTFORD’S BOOK ORGANIZES THE FACTS VERY WELL.) I DON’T BELIEVE THAT ANY REAL PHYSICIST, NAY SCIENTIST, CAN READ THAT STUFF WITHOUT REVULSION. I WOULD ALMOST MAKE THAT REVULSION A DEFINITION OF THE WORD SCIENTIST. “SO WHAT HAS THE APS, AS AN ORGANIZATION, DONE IN THE FACE OF THIS CHALLENGE? IT HAS ACCEPTED THE CORRUPTION AS THE NORM, AND GONE ALONG WITH IT." - END OF QUOTE BY PROFESSOR LEWIS

NOBEL LAUREATE IN PHYSICS, IVER GIAIVER LIKEWISE RESIGNED IN DISGUST FROM THE AMERICAN PHYSICAL SOCIETY ON SEPTEMBER 13, 2011 OVER THIS ONGOING SCANDAL PARADING AS "SCIENCE". IT IS ANYTHING BUT.

THE LIE: Why would scientists lie! For money, and for cowardice. They don't want to be blackballed by other cowards.
 

Crick

Gold Member
Joined
May 10, 2014
Messages
17,666
Reaction score
2,583
Points
290
Location
N/A
http://GlobalWarmingLiars.blogspot.com

THE LIE: An overwhelming consensus of scientists support global warming.

This lie is based on a 2009 article by Maggie Kendall Zimmerman, then a student at the University of Illinois.
As stated in the Wall Street Journal, "The '97 percent' figure in the Zimmerman/Doran survey represents the views of only 79 respondents who listed climate science as an area of expertise and said they published more than half of their recent peer-reviewed papers on climate change. Seventy-nine scientists—of the 3,146 who responded to the survey—does not a consensus make."
The WSJ went on to elaborate further: "The survey's questions don't reveal much of interest. Most scientists who are skeptical of catastrophic global warming nevertheless would answer "yes" to both questions. The survey was silent on whether the human impact is large enough to constitute a problem. Nor did it include solar scientists, space scientists, cosmologists, physicists, meteorologists or astronomers, who are the scientists most likely to be aware of natural causes of climate change."
So much for that lie one hears so often and so loudly.
THE LIE: Humans are causing catastrophic changes in earth's climate by burning fossil fuel and increasing carbon dioxide.
This lie is based on the extremely disingenuous and anti-scientific Keeling Curve, below.


This terribly misleading graph is intended to scare you into immediate action.
Just adding water vapor, which constitutes 1.5% of the atmosphere, or 15,000 parts per million, that graph above becomes this below, far more realistic, more honest, less misleading:


Other greenhouse gases, such as methane and nitrous oxide, are omitted from graphs and discussion.
If in fact humans were the primary, or even major contributor to carbon dioxide production, then the highest concentrations of CO2 would be industrial and population centers around the globe, instead of the rain forests of Africa and South America:

THE LIE: Global catastrophe, "tipping point"! We must do something now!
This incredible lie is preached by Al Gore, the United Nations, bureaucracies beholden to research billions, and by Barack Obama. Obama recently flew on Air Force One from Washington, D.C. to California, to play a round of golf with his friends, the same way he uses Air Force One to fly to Democrat fund-raisers all over the U.S.
Preaching doom and gloom to you little people is what they do, but not what they practice themselves. At the most recent Global Warming Scare-Fest, in Davos, Switzerland, the Scare-Mongers flew 1,700 private jets, rather than videoconference. Don't do as they do, do as they say.
Net global emission of CO2 looks nothing like human production of CO2. Rather, CO2 is the product of temperature and soil moisture.


THE LIE: Big oil billions are driving "deniers"
Budget requests from a few of the U.S. government agencies for global warming "research" money, just in 2011:

NOAA $437 million
NSF $480 million
NASA $438 million
DOE $627 million
DOI $171 million
EPA $169 million
USDA $159 million


ON OCTOBER 6, 2010, UC SANTA BARBARA PHYSICS PROFESSOR EMERITUS, HAROLD LEWIS, RESIGNED FROM THE AMERICAN PHYSICAL SOCIETY IN PROTEST OF THE GLOBAL WARMING FRAUD. HIS LETTER READS IN PART:“FOR REASONS THAT WILL SOON BECOME CLEAR MY FORMER PRIDE AT BEING AN APS FELLOW ALL THESE YEARS HAS BEEN TURNED INTO SHAME, AND I AM FORCED, WITH NO PLEASURE AT ALL, TO OFFER YOU MY RESIGNATION FROM THE SOCIETY. “IT IS OF COURSE, THE GLOBAL WARMING SCAM, WITH THE (LITERALLY) TRILLIONS OF DOLLARS DRIVING IT, THAT HAS CORRUPTED SO MANY SCIENTISTS, AND HAS CARRIED APS BEFORE IT LIKE A ROGUE WAVE. IT IS THE GREATEST AND MOST SUCCESSFUL PSEUDOSCIENTIFIC FRAUD I HAVE SEEN IN MY LONG LIFE AS A PHYSICIST. ANYONE WHO HAS THE FAINTEST DOUBT THAT THIS IS SO SHOULD FORCE HIMSELF TO READ THE CLIMATEGATE DOCUMENTS, WHICH LAY IT BARE. (MONTFORD’S BOOK ORGANIZES THE FACTS VERY WELL.) I DON’T BELIEVE THAT ANY REAL PHYSICIST, NAY SCIENTIST, CAN READ THAT STUFF WITHOUT REVULSION. I WOULD ALMOST MAKE THAT REVULSION A DEFINITION OF THE WORD SCIENTIST. “SO WHAT HAS THE APS, AS AN ORGANIZATION, DONE IN THE FACE OF THIS CHALLENGE? IT HAS ACCEPTED THE CORRUPTION AS THE NORM, AND GONE ALONG WITH IT." - END OF QUOTE BY PROFESSOR LEWIS

NOBEL LAUREATE IN PHYSICS, IVER GIAIVER LIKEWISE RESIGNED IN DISGUST FROM THE AMERICAN PHYSICAL SOCIETY ON SEPTEMBER 13, 2011 OVER THIS ONGOING SCANDAL PARADING AS "SCIENCE". IT IS ANYTHING BUT.

THE LIE: Why would scientists lie! For money, and for cowardice. They don't want to be blackballed by other cowards.

1) AGW deniers love to react to consensus comments with the size of the Zimmerman/Doran survey. They conveniently ignore the numerous other surveys, polls and studies, examining the opinions of THOUSANDS of scientists and finding GREATER than 97% support for the IPCC's conclusions.

2) Isotopic analysis of the CO2 in the Earth's atmosphere as well as a simple book-keeping analysis of the amount of CO2 that would be produced by the amount of fossil fuels humans have burned, BOTH show conclusively that virtually every fucking MOLECULE of CO2 added to the atmosphere since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution was produced by the combustion of fossil fuel.

3) AGW is an existential threat to fossil fuel industries. Anyone who thinks that they wouldn't bend the truth to hold off that threat, just as the tobacco industry did to the finding of tobacco's relationship to several different cancers, is an ignorant fool.
 

johngaltshrugged

Diamond Member
Joined
Oct 15, 2020
Messages
3,515
Reaction score
6,862
Points
1,938
It's a global scam & has been going on for over 100 years.
They still get some low info types to buy in but most people still just laugh at them. That's why they have been going after kids with this for the past 2 decades.
People are getting rich off this grift & now they want to use it to crash the world for a reset

And here come the bed wetters to tell us why clouds are so scary

climate change.jpg
 
OP
ChemEngineer

ChemEngineer

Diamond Member
Joined
Feb 5, 2019
Messages
3,895
Reaction score
3,332
Points
1,940
It's a global scam & has been going on for over 100 years.
They still get some low info types to buy in but most people still just laugh at them. That's why they have been going after kids with this for the past 2 decades.
People are getting rich off this grift & now they want to use it to crash the world for a reset

And here come the bed wetters to tell us why clouds are so scary

View attachment 663422

You're smarter than folks say you are. I mean it!
I'm not playin' witchoo.
 

jehanne1431

Platinum Member
Joined
Nov 7, 2018
Messages
774
Reaction score
576
Points
920
http://GlobalWarmingLiars.blogspot.com

THE LIE: An overwhelming consensus of scientists support global warming.

This lie is based on a 2009 article by Maggie Kendall Zimmerman, then a student at the University of Illinois.
As stated in the Wall Street Journal, "The '97 percent' figure in the Zimmerman/Doran survey represents the views of only 79 respondents who listed climate science as an area of expertise and said they published more than half of their recent peer-reviewed papers on climate change. Seventy-nine scientists—of the 3,146 who responded to the survey—does not a consensus make."
The WSJ went on to elaborate further: "The survey's questions don't reveal much of interest. Most scientists who are skeptical of catastrophic global warming nevertheless would answer "yes" to both questions. The survey was silent on whether the human impact is large enough to constitute a problem. Nor did it include solar scientists, space scientists, cosmologists, physicists, meteorologists or astronomers, who are the scientists most likely to be aware of natural causes of climate change."
So much for that lie one hears so often and so loudly.
THE LIE: Humans are causing catastrophic changes in earth's climate by burning fossil fuel and increasing carbon dioxide.
This lie is based on the extremely disingenuous and anti-scientific Keeling Curve, below.


This terribly misleading graph is intended to scare you into immediate action.
Just adding water vapor, which constitutes 1.5% of the atmosphere, or 15,000 parts per million, that graph above becomes this below, far more realistic, more honest, less misleading:


Other greenhouse gases, such as methane and nitrous oxide, are omitted from graphs and discussion.
If in fact humans were the primary, or even major contributor to carbon dioxide production, then the highest concentrations of CO2 would be industrial and population centers around the globe, instead of the rain forests of Africa and South America:

THE LIE: Global catastrophe, "tipping point"! We must do something now!
This incredible lie is preached by Al Gore, the United Nations, bureaucracies beholden to research billions, and by Barack Obama. Obama recently flew on Air Force One from Washington, D.C. to California, to play a round of golf with his friends, the same way he uses Air Force One to fly to Democrat fund-raisers all over the U.S.
Preaching doom and gloom to you little people is what they do, but not what they practice themselves. At the most recent Global Warming Scare-Fest, in Davos, Switzerland, the Scare-Mongers flew 1,700 private jets, rather than videoconference. Don't do as they do, do as they say.
Net global emission of CO2 looks nothing like human production of CO2. Rather, CO2 is the product of temperature and soil moisture.


THE LIE: Big oil billions are driving "deniers"
Budget requests from a few of the U.S. government agencies for global warming "research" money, just in 2011:

NOAA $437 million
NSF $480 million
NASA $438 million
DOE $627 million
DOI $171 million
EPA $169 million
USDA $159 million


ON OCTOBER 6, 2010, UC SANTA BARBARA PHYSICS PROFESSOR EMERITUS, HAROLD LEWIS, RESIGNED FROM THE AMERICAN PHYSICAL SOCIETY IN PROTEST OF THE GLOBAL WARMING FRAUD. HIS LETTER READS IN PART:“FOR REASONS THAT WILL SOON BECOME CLEAR MY FORMER PRIDE AT BEING AN APS FELLOW ALL THESE YEARS HAS BEEN TURNED INTO SHAME, AND I AM FORCED, WITH NO PLEASURE AT ALL, TO OFFER YOU MY RESIGNATION FROM THE SOCIETY. “IT IS OF COURSE, THE GLOBAL WARMING SCAM, WITH THE (LITERALLY) TRILLIONS OF DOLLARS DRIVING IT, THAT HAS CORRUPTED SO MANY SCIENTISTS, AND HAS CARRIED APS BEFORE IT LIKE A ROGUE WAVE. IT IS THE GREATEST AND MOST SUCCESSFUL PSEUDOSCIENTIFIC FRAUD I HAVE SEEN IN MY LONG LIFE AS A PHYSICIST. ANYONE WHO HAS THE FAINTEST DOUBT THAT THIS IS SO SHOULD FORCE HIMSELF TO READ THE CLIMATEGATE DOCUMENTS, WHICH LAY IT BARE. (MONTFORD’S BOOK ORGANIZES THE FACTS VERY WELL.) I DON’T BELIEVE THAT ANY REAL PHYSICIST, NAY SCIENTIST, CAN READ THAT STUFF WITHOUT REVULSION. I WOULD ALMOST MAKE THAT REVULSION A DEFINITION OF THE WORD SCIENTIST. “SO WHAT HAS THE APS, AS AN ORGANIZATION, DONE IN THE FACE OF THIS CHALLENGE? IT HAS ACCEPTED THE CORRUPTION AS THE NORM, AND GONE ALONG WITH IT." - END OF QUOTE BY PROFESSOR LEWIS

NOBEL LAUREATE IN PHYSICS, IVER GIAIVER LIKEWISE RESIGNED IN DISGUST FROM THE AMERICAN PHYSICAL SOCIETY ON SEPTEMBER 13, 2011 OVER THIS ONGOING SCANDAL PARADING AS "SCIENCE". IT IS ANYTHING BUT.

THE LIE: Why would scientists lie! For money, and for cowardice. They don't want to be blackballed by other cowards.
The one claim science has made I will accept as fact is that the last ice age that covered much of the earth lasted from approximately 120,000 BC to 10,000 BC. Then came a dramatic warm up and the earth has been in this warmer mode for the last 12,000 years. I do not know the answer, but what caused this ice age to occur and what caused this dramatic warm up or change in global climate?

No matter what it was, I seriously doubt mankind’s influence is a zero factor against forces that immense. God is in charge of the weather, not man, and not “mother nature.“ Humanity suffers far greater today because billions, if not trillions of dollars that could be spent on their serious issues is being wasted on climate change, green jobs, et al. as well as how many universities and “Al Gore’s” are profiting nicely from it. These politicians and profiteers cannot be trusted.
 
Last edited:

Sunsettommy

Diamond Member
Joined
Mar 19, 2018
Messages
13,969
Reaction score
11,545
Points
2,250
1) AGW deniers love to react to consensus comments with the size of the Zimmerman/Doran survey. They conveniently ignore the numerous other surveys, polls and studies, examining the opinions of THOUSANDS of scientists and finding GREATER than 97% support for the IPCC's conclusions.

2) Isotopic analysis of the CO2 in the Earth's atmosphere as well as a simple book-keeping analysis of the amount of CO2 that would be produced by the amount of fossil fuels humans have burned, BOTH show conclusively that virtually every fucking MOLECULE of CO2 added to the atmosphere since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution was produced by the combustion of fossil fuel.

3) AGW is an existential threat to fossil fuel industries. Anyone who thinks that they wouldn't bend the truth to hold off that threat, just as the tobacco industry did to the finding of tobacco's relationship to several different cancers, is an ignorant fool.

1) Crick lies once again saying Climate realists deny the AGW conjecture when they don't.

The numerous surveys are irrelevant because consensus arguments are for politics NOT science research where REPRODUCIBLE research trumps everything including that worn out consensus crap.

There have been many consensus errors and some of them kill a lot of people or generate suffering until someone finally cuts through the bullshit.

You have been corrected many times on this, yet you continue to lie over it.

Shame on you!

2) Yet another lies since it is well known that a warming ocean releases more CO2 and CO2 from so called fossil fuels are the same as the CO2 produced by nature.

3) This doesn't make a lick of sense since AGW doesn't drive climate change anyway so stop the lying!
 
OP
ChemEngineer

ChemEngineer

Diamond Member
Joined
Feb 5, 2019
Messages
3,895
Reaction score
3,332
Points
1,940
Lotsa smart people here on dis board I tell ya.
The knuckleheads go on my Ignore List.
"It takes an order of magnitude more effort to refute bullshit than it required to produce it." - Brandolini's Principle
 

jehanne1431

Platinum Member
Joined
Nov 7, 2018
Messages
774
Reaction score
576
Points
920
Lotsa smart people here on dis board I tell ya.
The knuckleheads go on my Ignore List.
"It takes an order of magnitude more effort to refute bullshit than it required to produce it." - Brandolini's Principle
Correct! And I like the similar thoughts of St. Thomas More ----- "'Tis a shorter thing and sooner done to write heresies than to answer them."

It's a life long lesson. We all engage in futility when measured by results.
 

Billy_Bob

Diamond Member
Joined
Sep 4, 2014
Messages
28,173
Reaction score
16,192
Points
1,445
Location
Top Of The Great Divide
The one claim science has made I will accept as fact is that the last ice age that covered much of the earth lasted from approximately 120,000 BC to 10,000 BC. Then came a dramatic warm up and the earth has been in this warmer mode for the last 12,000 years. I do not know the answer, but what caused this ice age to occur and what caused this dramatic warm up or change in global climate?

No matter what it was, I seriously doubt mankind’s influence is a zero factor against forces that immense. God is in charge of the weather, not man, and not “mother nature.“ Humanity suffers far greater today because billions, if not trillions of dollars that could be spent on their serious issues is being wasted on climate change, green jobs, et al. as well as how many universities and “Al Gore’s” are profiting nicely from it. These politicians and profiteers cannot be trusted.
We may have just stumbled onto what caused the rapid warm up. Dr. David Archibald of SHO (Solar Heiolos Observatory) wrote about solar dimming About 10 years ago. They noted a shift in downwelling solar radiation which appeared, at first to reduce solar cell output by 10%. When they evaluated this region of the suns output 0.2 to 1.1um they found it was simply a shift in energy from a more energetic spectrum to a longer wave, less energetic spectrum. IE: dimming.

What they failed to look at initially, was what on earth was being affected besides solar panels. Earth's oceans are warmed to depth by emitted energy in the 0.2-0.6um region of the suns downwelling radiation. We lost approximately 1w/m^2 in downwelling radiation in this region and when it shifted (dimmed) the ocean could no longer uptake this energy. 72% of earth's surface is water. This is a significant loss of energy absorption. IT took 10 years for the buffer we call our oceans to release the energy they had stored and now we are cooling and nothing on earth is going to stop it.

Were in our third deep dive in the ENSO (equatorial north south oscillations). Our oceans have lost 3 deg C in ten years. Like a light switch the sun can give us warmth or take it away as we have just witnessed.
 

ReinyDays

Gold Member
Joined
Oct 5, 2019
Messages
7,998
Reaction score
3,807
Points
210
Location
State of Jefferson
We may have just stumbled onto what caused the rapid warm up. Dr. David Archibald of SHO (Solar Heiolos Observatory) wrote about solar dimming About 10 years ago. They noted a shift in downwelling solar radiation which appeared, at first to reduce solar cell output by 10%. When they evaluated this region of the suns output 0.2 to 1.1um they found it was simply a shift in energy from a more energetic spectrum to a longer wave, less energetic spectrum. IE: dimming.

What they failed to look at initially, was what on earth was being affected besides solar panels. Earth's oceans are warmed to depth by emitted energy in the 0.2-0.6um region of the suns downwelling radiation. We lost approximately 1w/m^2 in downwelling radiation in this region and when it shifted (dimmed) the ocean could no longer uptake this energy. 72% of earth's surface is water. This is a significant loss of energy absorption. IT took 10 years for the buffer we call our oceans to release the energy they had stored and now we are cooling and nothing on earth is going to stop it.

Were in our third deep dive in the ENSO (equatorial north south oscillations). Our oceans have lost 3 deg C in ten years. Like a light switch the sun can give us warmth or take it away as we have just witnessed.

Are you seriously suggesting that our grass today isn't green anymore? ... that's nonsense and you should know it ...

When they evaluated this region of the suns output 0.2 to 1.1um they found it was simply a shift in energy from a more energetic spectrum to a longer wave, less energetic spectrum. IE: dimming.

What a diaper-load ... 0.2 to 1.1 µm is exactly the same as 200 to 1100 nm ... which includes the entirety of the visible light spectrum ... this can only occur if the temperature of the Sun is reduced, Wein's Law in case you forgot ... less energy output would also require a new and smaller equilibrium with gravity ... and this would be clearly noticeable to everyone every eclipse season ...

No more annular eclipses ... obviously, everyone else in the world disagrees:


=====

ETA: That 97% has been raised to 104% now ... remember, any scientific paper that doesn't mention climate, or weather, is counted as a positive trial ... the harmonics of leopardite in southern Gabon doesn't deny man-made CCC, so that's considered a ringing endorsement humans are boiling our oceans off ... see the connection? ...

This is from people who believe in hypercanes after all ...
 
Last edited:

Billy_Bob

Diamond Member
Joined
Sep 4, 2014
Messages
28,173
Reaction score
16,192
Points
1,445
Location
Top Of The Great Divide
Are you seriously suggesting that our grass today isn't green anymore? ... that's nonsense and you should know it ...

When they evaluated this region of the suns output 0.2 to 1.1um they found it was simply a shift in energy from a more energetic spectrum to a longer wave, less energetic spectrum. IE: dimming.

What a diaper-load ... 0.2 to 1.1 µm is exactly the same as 200 to 1100 nm ... which includes the entirety of the visible light spectrum ... this can only occur if the temperature of the Sun is reduced, Wein's Law in case you forgot ... less energy output would also require a new and smaller equilibrium with gravity ... and this would be clearly noticeable to everyone every eclipse season ...

No more annular eclipses ... obviously, everyone else in the world disagrees:


=====

ETA: That 97% has been raised to 104% now ... remember, any scientific paper that doesn't mention climate, or weather, is counted as a positive trial ... the harmonics of leopardite in southern Gabon doesn't deny man-made CCC, so that's considered a ringing endorsement humans are boiling our oceans off ... see the connection? ...

This is from people who believe in hypercanes after all ...
Solar Radiation-spectrum-summary1.jpg


ITs actually just half of the visible spectrum and in the UV. It is this UV area that heats our oceans to depth. I said nothing of grass. The grass is not adversely affected by this section of the spectrum. The change is near 1w/m^2 in the oceans but not on land. The portion which heats the land is relatively unchanged.
As to the laughable "boiling the oceans off", that prediction is not possible in our atmosphere until the sun begins enlarging, before going super nova.
 
Last edited:
OP
ChemEngineer

ChemEngineer

Diamond Member
Joined
Feb 5, 2019
Messages
3,895
Reaction score
3,332
Points
1,940
Notice that water vapor absorbs far more heat energy than carbon dioxide does.
Add to this the fact that water vapor constitutes ~15,000 ppm in our atmosphere compared to ~410 ppm carbon dioxide. Carbon dioxide is trivial except in the demented minds of sanctimonious climate change fanatics. This is science. They practice emotionalism and being offended, as if that makes them right.


Absorption spectra2.png
 

ReinyDays

Gold Member
Joined
Oct 5, 2019
Messages
7,998
Reaction score
3,807
Points
210
Location
State of Jefferson
View attachment 669336

ITs actually just half of the visible spectrum and in the UV. It is this UV area that heats our oceans to depth. I said nothing of grass. The grass is not adversely affected by this section of the spectrum. The change is near 1w/m^2 in the oceans but not on land. The portion which heats the land is relatively unchanged.
As to the laughable "boiling the oceans off", that prediction is not possible in our atmosphere until the sun begins enlarging, before going super nova.

Green light comes from the Sun ... there no other natural source in the solar system ... any change in sunlight at these wavelengths will be immediately "reflected" by the color of the grass ...

Proof positive the sun isn't changing ... didn't they have UVB photometers in your astrophysics class? ...
 

Crick

Gold Member
Joined
May 10, 2014
Messages
17,666
Reaction score
2,583
Points
290
Location
N/A
It's a global scam & has been going on for over 100 years.
They still get some low info types to buy in but most people still just laugh at them. That's why they have been going after kids with this for the past 2 decades.
People are getting rich off this grift & now they want to use it to crash the world for a reset

And here come the bed wetters to tell us why clouds are so scary

View attachment 663422

Anthropogenic global warming has not been a concern for over 100 years and, of course, is not a scam. The people most often "buying in" are those with even a basic foundation in physical science and that you should characterize the world's PhDs as "low info types" simply identifies the depth of your own personal DK-ism. AGW denialism is the home of the ignorant. When you choose to use a cartoon to make your point, rather than attempting to refute the science assessment of, say, AR5 or 6, it is obvious that you lack both the ability and the resources to mount an effective argument supporting your claims.

PS: Ayn Rand's character John Galt has the intellectual standing of the Cat in the Hat.
 
Last edited:

jc456

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 18, 2013
Messages
114,582
Reaction score
19,344
Points
2,180

jc456

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 18, 2013
Messages
114,582
Reaction score
19,344
Points
2,180
Anthropogenic global warming has not been a concern for over 100 years and, of course, is not a scam. The people most often "buying in" are those with even a basic foundation in physical science and that you should characterize the world's PhDs as "low info types" simply identifies the depth of your own personal DK-ism. AGW denialism is the home of the ignorant. When you choose to use a cartoon to make your point, rather than attempting to refute the science assessment of, say, AR5 or 6, it is obvious that you lack both the ability and the resources to mount an effective argument supporting your claims.

PS: Ayn Rand's character John Galt has the intellectual standing of the Cat in the Hat.
Heavy snowfall and temps below zero in Argentina. mther nature keeps fking with you jack.

 
OP
ChemEngineer

ChemEngineer

Diamond Member
Joined
Feb 5, 2019
Messages
3,895
Reaction score
3,332
Points
1,940
If it's hot, "climate change."
If it's cold, "climate change."
Too much rain, "climate change."

Rampant stupidity, "climate change."

Seasonal temperatures change all around the world 25 to 50 degrees Celsius. Climate change zealots go crazy over a promised change of 2 degrees. W.T.F.
 

jc456

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 18, 2013
Messages
114,582
Reaction score
19,344
Points
2,180
If it's hot, "climate change."
If it's cold, "climate change."
Too much rain, "climate change."

Rampant stupidity, "climate change."

Seasonal temperatures change all around the world 25 to 50 degrees Celsius. Climate change zealots go crazy over a promised change of 2 degrees. W.T.F.
if it's hot, it's always gotten hot since the earth has been in the universe. Not sure why demofks think getting hot is unusual.

If it's cold, it's been cold since the dinosaurs walked the planet. Not sure why demofks think getting cold is unusual.

And it's obvious the demofks don't know what solstice is.
 
OP
ChemEngineer

ChemEngineer

Diamond Member
Joined
Feb 5, 2019
Messages
3,895
Reaction score
3,332
Points
1,940
if it's hot, it's always gotten hot since the earth has been in the universe. Not sure why demofks think getting hot is unusual.

If it's cold, it's been cold since the dinosaurs walked the planet. Not sure why demofks think getting cold is unusual.

And it's obvious the demofks don't know what solstice is.
Your scientificalness is most depressive. I mean oppressive. That is to say uppressive.
(Did I get that right?)

Take break from the insanity Democrats have created and have some fun:

JohnsBrainCandy
 

johngaltshrugged

Diamond Member
Joined
Oct 15, 2020
Messages
3,515
Reaction score
6,862
Points
1,938
Anthropogenic global warming has not been a concern for over 100 years and, of course, is not a scam. The people most often "buying in" are those with even a basic foundation in physical science and that you should characterize the world's PhDs as "low info types" simply identifies the depth of your own personal DK-ism. AGW denialism is the home of the ignorant. When you choose to use a cartoon to make your point, rather than attempting to refute the science assessment of, say, AR5 or 6, it is obvious that you lack both the ability and the resources to mount an effective argument supporting your claims.

PS: Ayn Rand's character John Galt has the intellectual standing of the Cat in the Hat.
You were saying Einstein?
Educate yourself before you spout nonsense to people who know better.

AGW is tailor made to separate fools from their money & freedom.
Good luck with that


The facts from this news article appear to come from an article in the March 1912 issue of Popular Mechanics. The article, titled The Remarkable Weather of 1911, commented on the strange meteorological swings of the past year and pointed the finger at coal consumption and carbon emissions. The greenhouse effect was already a theory in use, having been developed by Swedish scientist Svante Arrhenius in 1896.

 

USMB Server Goals

Total amount
$45.00
Goal
$350.00

New Topics

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top