Time to drop a brick of epistemology on a table full of vibes. - Climate change

Okay, that's not what I was asking for.
Now do how much grass converts CO2 to oxygen.
You have failed to make any kind of case whatsoever at this juncture. Just so you know. :dunno:
Just to clarify, and maybe extend a bit of an olive branch, part of the reason I don't debate policy is I think many of your concerns are reasonable and defensible enough that I don't feel the need or desire to debate about it. Somebody else can figure that mess out. I don't have the answers.

Now...

Grass, like all green plants, photosynthesizes CO2 into sugars and releases O2 as a byproduct. On average, one square meter of grass fixes roughly 2-5 grams of carbon per day under good growing conditions, which corresponds to about 7-18 grams of CO2 absorbed daily. In terms of oxygen, that’s roughly 5-6 grams of O2 produced per day per square meter.

The exact numbers vary wildly depending on species, climate, sunlight, water, and soil nutrients, so it’s only a ballpark figure. Grass isn’t the dominant player globally. That’s forests and ocean phytoplankton, but it’s still a measurable contributor to local carbon cycling.
 
Newsflash, cupcake: "Climate scientists" just possibly might have an agenda and motivation to lie, you ******* retard! AGHH!
Uh-huh.

What do any of them do to eat and live indoors if they came out tomorrow and said: "Oops, we got it wrong...No biggie...Nothing to see here...Just go about your lives."?

Their very lavish way of living depends upon them maintaining the hoax.
 
You do realize most climatologists make 60k-85k annually, right?
And they wouldn't make that much if they didn't swab the asses of the "peers" who supply those crumbs....They'd have to leave the halls of academe and go make lattes at Starschmucks.



You're really so obtuse that you can't follow the bread trail, aren't you?
 
And they wouldn't make that much if they didn't swab the asses of the "peers" who supply those crumbs....They'd have to leave the halls of academe and go make lattes at Starschmucks.



You're really so obtuse that you can't follow the bread trail, aren't you?


The funny thing is, back in the 1980s we all laughed at that as we all knew that was simply how it was.

In 1993 I tried to return to college as an adult, and there is a truth to the old axiom I learned is a fact.

He who can, does; he who cannot, teaches

In 1993 I decided to take a business class to advance my education. And my professor was a complete buffoon. He had worked for about 4 major corporations that were well known, and left each one. And in almost a month of lectures, he had not covered a single page in the $60 book I had to buy to take part in the course.

In fact, I learned far more from the textbook than anything he ever covered in a single lecture.

The final straw was when he did not show up for a class. Nothing from the administration saying he would not be there, and we were a week away from our first exam. And it was also the final "Drop Day". I left the class after 30 minutes of waiting, and went to the admin office to drop the class. Got a refund on the amount I spent to take the class, just shrugged off I paid for the textbook.

And that was back when Community College in 1993 was only $10 a unit. For a 3 unit course that was $30. I don't even think I bothered to get my $30 back.

Today, that same class would be $160. Now I have long laughed at people screaming at how expensive college is. It is only so damned expensive because the schools know they can get away with it. They are the worst sharks in the world. Even taking into account for inflation, that class should cost no more than $70. The very fact that it's $160 shows that the colleges are absolutely gouging students.

There actually is a reason why I take so few "researches" seriously anymore. It is from a long life of learning that a great many are motivated only by money. I am probably significantly older than most in here, and have seen this repeated ad nauseum. If somebody is willing to pay for research into why earthworms dig tunnels that are counter-clockwise, I'm sure a dozen institutions will suddenly spout research into why they do that.

Never mind that maybe in reality they might dig their tunnels clockwise. If there is money to be made in research, somebody is always more than willing to take that money to deliver the results they want to see.

And no, I am not some kind of "conspiracy theorist". I am simply a skeptic that understands that money will always attract snake oil salesmen. So long as the money pours in, there are some that will tell them anything they want to hear.
 
And they wouldn't make that much if they didn't swab the asses of the "peers" who supply those crumbs....They'd have to leave the halls of academe and go make lattes at Starschmucks.



You're really so obtuse that you can't follow the bread trail, aren't you?

60-85k is not lavish. That's low to mid middle class.
 
Yeah, exactly.....And they'd be brewing up venti lattes if their "research" didn't reflect what the "peers" -who do live lavish lifestyles- wish to see.

Try reading for comprehension.
Which peers?
 
They will not be funded and even blackballed if they dont support the climate change agenda
If they provided evidence that overturns what's widely believed to be true, they'd be rich and famous. Every scientist would love to do that. The problem is they can't find the evidence.
 
15th post
You’re misunderstanding how molecular physics works in gases. That single CO2 molecule absorbing a 15 µm photon doesn’t cook the atmosphere; it excites the vibrational mode of the molecule. That energy is almost immediately redistributed through collisions with N2 and O2 molecules billions of times per second. The energy isn’t lost, and the bulk air warms statistically; you don’t track it molecule by molecule, you track the average kinetic energy, which defines temperature. That’s exactly how radiative forcing operates in the troposphere.

Regarding GMST and latent heat, global mean surface temperature represents the average kinetic energy of molecules at the surface, not the total energy in phase changes, but latent heat is part of the energy budget, affecting how much energy must be added to actually raise the temperature. Instrument readings incorporate kinetic energy, not the latent heat directly, but ignoring latent energy would misrepresent how energy flows in the system. Everything you’re claiming about “cooking numbers” or “energy aloft” shows a misunderstanding of thermodynamics, heat transfer, and radiative physics, not an error in the data.

The 15 µm photon only excites the molecule once ... and the molecule stays in his exited until it re-emits a 15µm photon ... any collision would have to be exactly 0.08 eV, or the specific vibration won't drop back to his ground state ... the energy has to be exact ... Greenhouse Theory says this new photon has a 50% of returning to the surface and adding back to GMST ... the energy transferred to the N2/O2 is uplifted away from the surface ... simple buoyancy ...

Or the CO2 molecule just holds the energy ... 0.08 eV is very little energy and that might have brought the molecule to his equilirium temperature of the environment ... the molecule stays in his exited state not releasing any energy ... any and all future 15 µm bombardment will pass by unhindered ... and for comparison, water vapor's analogous vibration is reactive at 6 µm, four times as much energy ...

My claim is carbon dioxide doesn't effect temperature enough to change climate, nor can this temperature increase be measured with our current array of thermometers ... concentration does matter ... you don't have enough carbon dioxide, and it looks like you never will ...

You still haven't explained how you're cooking the books to include latent heat in your temperature readings ... latent heat can't be recorded with thermometers ... so it's not included in GMST ... duh ...

I'm not reading all the back and forth in this thread ... and I do apologies if you'vbe already posted this ... but which version of the Earth's energy budget are you using? ... does it list a specific number for convection? ...
 
And the Milky Way encompassed all of the universe. And that universe was static and unchanging. Or that certain races were "genetically" superior to others. Or the "expanding Earth" theory, which posited that the continents did not shift, the planet expanded like a balloon which caused them (like South America and Africa) to move apart.

There are tons of such discarded scientific theories which are now only brought up by pseudoscience junkies.

Even in the 20th century such discoveries as multiple ice ages and multiple galaxies were dismissed as frauds, and only later finally accepted by the majority of scientists. Kinda like how it was just five decades ago that the very thought that birds are dinosaurs and many dinosaurs had feathers as well as were warm blooded was dismissed as a fantasy.

That is why I reject the religious zealots. They are so lost in their orthodoxy that they see anything that dares to challenge it as heresy. And we all know how heretics have traditionally been dealt with.

spanish-inquisition-large.gif

Ha ha ... I'm old enough to remember Astronomy books using the term "external galaxies" ... as things different from the galaxies within the Milky Way, what today we call globular clusters and nebula ...

January 1905 ... every scientist in the whole world though gravity was real, except for one man ... 120 years later and we still have people believing in gravity ... including myself ... just a "Classical" kind of guy in the "Modern" world ...
 
Back
Top Bottom