What climate change? I don't see no stinking climate change!!!

[rupol2000]

Yes I have personally verified corpuscular properties of photonic light.
Every physics student is made to.

If you shine a light through a thin slit, it will show diffraction on the target.
Meaning it will show dark and light spots, from constructive and destructive interference, from both sides of the slit.
But if you only shoot 1 photo at a time, it does the same thing, even though interference can't be taking place.

Another example of corpuscular manifestation of photons is the solar sail concept.
Light does have impact energy.

To perceive this as "proof of the bombing" you need to eat a kilogram of LSD or be born a nerd

 

[Rigby5]

What climate is always changing we are not in any and I’m in danger of the earth going anywhere

Climate normally has a 110,000 year long cycle.
We are accelerating an additional artificial heating cycle on top of the hottest part of the natural cycle, in less than 200 years.

 

[Maxnovax]

Climate normally has a 110,000 year long cycle.
We are accelerating an additional artificial heating cycle on top of the hottest part of the natural cycle, in less than 200 yeaStop! I will not tolerate terrorism

Climate normally has a 110,000 year long cycle.
We are accelerating an additional artificial heating cycle on top of the hottest part of the natural cycle, in less than 200 years.

Stop! I will not tolerate terrorism! Leave poor people alone.. you’re already jacking up the price of inflation on goods because of gas.. STOP now you have time .. live your life have fun..

 

[rupol2000]

Rigby5 Do you know that Plank by "quantum" understood not a piece of shit but a portion of the wave? Who was the first to use this term in the sense of a piece of shit? What kind of beatnik? Was that Jimi Hendrix?

 

[Rigby5]

Hahaha. In the spring the plants grow and absorb CO2 form the air, converting the C into it's stems and leaves and such and releasing O2. In the fall when it gets cold the leaves fall and decompose, releasing the most of CO2 that decomposition creates. Every year. The plants don't take that much CO2 out of the air.

YES!
The annual CO2 cycles are also obvious within the much larger and continual climate changing CO2 cycle.
Here is the Mona Loa CO2 readings.
But the amount of CO2 plants take out of the air depends on the length of time.
In the 110,000 year long climate cycle, plants have plenty of time to take out a lot of CO2.

 

[LAUGHatLEFTISTS]

The NORMAL ice age and warming cycle is 110,000 years long.
We have accelerated that down to about 200 years.
That can't be natural.

Here is a graph showing how temp and CO2 correlates, and how vastly high we have recently increased CO2 by over 30%.
This does not show the heat increase this will cause, because it takes time.
But this excess CO2 is going to prevent heat radiation out into space, so has to increase heat retention and temperatures.
This also shows how past ice age and warming cycles have normally been about 110,000 years long.

Speaking of graphs, maybe you can explain why Micheal Manns team at Penn State deliberately manipulated the data to show an extreme spike in temperature in their infamous Hockey Stick Graph? The very graph that started the entire climate change movement.

 

[LAUGHatLEFTISTS]

Nonsense.
There is no faith involved.
We know what causes the 110,000 long warming and ice age cycles.
We know we are vastly altering it, by increasing CO2 content of the planet's atmosphere by 40%.
We know CO2 MUST retain more heat.
There is nothing at all based on faith or belief.

There is not a single shred of evidence proving climate change is caused by man. Sorry.

 

[Rigby5]

Speaking of graphs, maybe you can explain why Micheal Manns team at Penn State deliberately manipulated the data to show an extreme spike in temperature in their infamous Hockey Stick Graph? The very graph that started the entire climate change movement.

But there is a definite "hockey stick" rise in global temperature.
That is not possible to question.
The problem is the flattening of the curve after the 1997 hottest year?
And what most people believe is the explanation to that is phase change and thermal mass.
By that I mean that ice melting on glaciers, mountains, poles, etc., as well as deep ocean currents, cause a delay in rising temperatures.
But that is the closest skeptics can get.

 

[rupol2000]

Rigby5 The motivation of these scammers was apparently the following: the concept of a wave without a medium in which it propagates is a logical absurdity. Nobody would have taken this seriously at a time when there were serious scientists in science. Therefore, in order to justify the movement of light in a "vacuum", it was necessary to "prove" that light is a particle, because the flight of a particle in a vacuum does not sound as stupid as a wave in a vacuum. Then they got confused in their verbiage, and all scientists left science. Therefore, they found some kind of ridiculous compromise, which already does not make sense, but is so idiotic that none of the townsfolk will understand it. This suits them.

 

[Rigby5]

There is not a single shred of evidence proving climate change is caused by man. Sorry.

There is plenty of evidence humans have increased atmospheric CO2 by about 40%, and there is no way that could not then cause global warming.

 

[Independent thinker]

I'm in Texas. This is the 2nd year of nearly a half century living in Texas and this is the 2nd year in a row now this scene is being replicated!
SNOW. Cold. Where's the stinking climate change? I thought the world was getting warmer?
So why in my nearly 50 years living in Texas have we seen two consecutive snow years if the climate is warming?
Wait... could it be those prognosticators of the 70s were right?
The return of the Ice Age?
Global cooling was a conjecture, especially during the 1970s, of imminent cooling of the Earth culminating in a period of extensive glaciation, due to the cooling effects of aerosols and orbital forcing. Some press reports in the 1970s speculated about continued cooling; these did not accurately reflect the scientific literature of the time, which was generally more concerned with warming from an enhanced greenhouse effect.

Global cooling - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

2/3/22 11:18AM Texas
View attachment 596513

The left will tell you that if it is hot, that is climate change

The left will tell you that if it is cold, that is climate change.

The left will tell you that if it rains, that is climate change.

The left will tell you that if snows, that is climate change.

Why can't you understand their reasoning?

 

[rupol2000]

There is plenty of evidence humans have increased atmospheric CO2 by about 40%, and there is no way that could not then cause global warming.

But there is no evidence that CO2 is harmful. There is indirect evidence that it is useful, for example, it is used for skin rejuvenation

 

[Rigby5]

Rigby5 The motivation of these scammers was apparently the following: the concept of a wave without a medium in which it propagates is a logical absurdity. Nobody would have taken this seriously at a time when there were serious scientists in science. Therefore, in order to justify the movement of light in a "vacuum", it was necessary to "prove" that light is a particle, because the flight of a particle in a vacuum does not sound as stupid as a wave in a vacuum. Then they got confused in their verbiage, and all scientists left science. Therefore, they found some kind of ridiculous compromise, which already does not make sense, but is so idiotic that none of the townsfolk will understand it. This suits them.

I do not get your point.
If light did not have mass, then Black Holes would not exist, since gravity could not affect something without mass.

 

[Rigby5]

The left will tell you that if it is hot, that is climate change

The left will tell you that if it is cold, that is climate change.

The left will tell you that if it rains, that is climate change.

The left will tell you that if snows, that is climate change.

Why can't you understand their reasoning?

Global warming mean weather has more energy, so storms are bigger and can travel further south, away from the North Pole.

 

[rupol2000]

I do not get your point.
If light did not have mass, then Black Holes would not exist, since gravity could not affect something without mass.

Modern physics defines mass as a degree of inertia. A wave has mass, according to the definition of modern physics.

 

[Rigby5]

But there is no evidence that CO2 is harmful. There is indirect evidence that it is useful, for example, it is used for skin rejuvenation

Plants also love CO2.
But the point is, CO2 converts photons into vibratory heat that can not radiate out into space.
So that means more planetary heat retention.

 

[Rigby5]

Modern physics defines mass as a degree of inertia. A wave has mass, according to the definition of modern physics.

Yes, light waves must also have some mass, but very little.
We can detect how light is slightly bent by a planet, for example.

 

[rupol2000]

Fields were also invented as a surrogate for Aether in order to "explain" such phenomena as induction. Newton would explain this by bombarding pieces of shit flying out of their conductor that affect other pieces of shit and accelerate them. Theoretically, this sounds plausible in the contex of Neutonianism.

 

[maybelooking]

Doesn't matter, it's too late to do anything about it now.

if it exists, there was NEVER anything we could do about it.

 

[rupol2000]

Plants also love CO2.
But the point is, CO2 converts photons into vibratory heat that can not radiate out into space.
So that means more planetary heat retention.

Oil and coal have kept this warm for billions of years, why hasn't this led to "global warming"?