Question for JPP Climate Enthusiasts

[USFREEDOM911]

As I recall, that map is for economic costs associated with climate adaptation.
It says nothing about damage to ecosystems. Though, as I understand it - and surmise from your post - most conservatives do not give a rats ass about wildlife, ecosystems, and the biological integrity of our planet - or even what happens to other people on the planet. As long as you're okay, f*ck everything else on the planet, eh?

You mean like birds flying into the blades of a wind powered turbine or being cooked by solar farms.

 

[Into the Night]

AND

When the earth doesn't end in 12 years, liberals will just say it's because of the changes that THEY were able to accomplish.

Kind of like the way they 'saved the whales'?

 

[USFREEDOM911]

What about it? Are you seriously suggesting that all nuclear power plants are subject to massive tidal waves??

I know it's been a concern for the one in AZ.

 

[Into the Night]

I think it’s mostly water vapor that’s responsible, actually lol.

No gas or vapor is capable of warming the Earth.

* You can't create energy out of nothing.
* You can't trap or slow heat.

 

[USFREEDOM911]

Oh no... You're "PUNISHING" a forum poster!!!!! OH BOY OH JOY!!!!!!!!!

Have you noticed her orgasmic joy, over actually announcing it!!

 

[USFREEDOM911]

When we are standing shoulder to shoulder here on the Home Planet, ... it will be too late.

.

 

[Into the Night]

Have to agree with Moon on that.

The earth would be a very cold place without an atmosphere. It doesn’t ‘warm’ the planet any more than a blanket
‘warms’ you on a cold night—but the blanket does slow down the loss of your body heat.

Earth’s atmosphere does basically the same thing but that by no means validates global warming.

No gas or vapor has the capability to warm the Earth, not even it's atmosphere.

* You cannot create energy out of nothing.
* You cannot trap or slow heat.
* You cannot trap light.

 

[USFREEDOM911]

Kind of like the way they 'saved the whales'?

Let us not forget the poor Polar Bears.

 

[cancel2 2022]

Have to agree with Moon on that.

The earth would be a very cold place without an atmosphere. It doesn’t ‘warm’ the planet any more than a blanket
‘warms’ you on a cold night—but the blanket does slow down the loss of your body heat.

Earth’s atmosphere does basically the same thing but that by no means validates global warming.

33 degrees Celsius to be precise, this is textbook stuff. You don't need a Ph.D in atmospheric physics to know that.

 

[USFREEDOM911]

You need to convince me that you are not going to be a waste of time, and that you have legitimate training and expertise to even pontificate on this topic.

I do not have the time or inclination to waste on armchair expert poseurs.
Doing a ten minute google search and parroting, or even misrepresenting, a few things you read on a blog does not make you an expert.

Do you have a PhD in atmospheric science? what university is it from? And point me to your original research published in peer reviewed scientific journals.

Saving parts of this, to use when a JPP liberal decides to post about anything they don't have a PHD in. :;good4u

 

[Cypress]

Neither do a bunch of "progressive" jackass presidential hopefuls who are simply parroting things they have heard and are pandering to their base composed of pimply faced adolescents and old hippys


Same goes for a bunch of "progressive" jackass presidential hopefuls who are simply parroting things they have heard and are pandering to their base composed of pimply faced adolescents and old hippys


Same goes for a bunch of "progressive" jackass presidential hopefuls who are simply parroting things they have heard and are pandering to their base composed of pimply faced adolescents and old hippys


Don't even try it! We've heard straight from the horse's(jackass's)mouth Ban meat, ban air travel, ban nuclear, ban fossil, ban coal!


This was something I thought the paris accords was supposed to do. There's still a butt load of countries signed onto that thing, what have they come up with?



But, but, but...the national debt! The deficit!


I heard somewhere that at a cost of about 16 TRILLION DOLLARS,we might be able to lower the global temp by 1.5 degrees C by 2035. For 16 TRILLION DOLLARS, I better need an arctic parka and an engine block heater to run my truck, and I live in South Florida



You're on an "obscure message board", you don't have "the expertise, training, and knowledge" to make a judgement like that

For future reference, I am going to have to remember not to waste my valuable time reading your posts. Which are almost entirely composed of slogans, caricatures, guesswork, assertion, and containing no links to reputable scientific organizations or journals. with expertise in climate sciende.

But worst of all, your writing is extremely uninspired, unoriginal, and just mind-numbingly boring.

Please do not waste my valuable time like that again.

 

[cancel2 2022]

For future reference, I am going to have to remember not to waste my valuable time reading your posts. Which are almost entirely composed of slogans, caricatures, guesswork, assertion, and containing no links to reputable scientific organizations or journals. with expertise in climate sciende.

But worst of all, your writing is extremely uninspired, unoriginal, and just mind-numbingly boring.

Please do not waste my valuable time like that again.

Crypiss, expert in hectoring sanctimonious pompous bullshit.

 

[Stretch]

Carbon emissions from energy use from the US are the lowest since 1992, the year that the
United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) came into existence.

China & India are "destroying" the earth.

Together, China and India accounted for nearly half (212.2 million tons) of the increase in
global carbon emissions (426.4 million tons). EU emissions were also up
(1.5% and 42.4 million tons, see chart) with just Spain accounting for 44% of the increase
in EU emissions.

China produces 1/3 of ocean's plastic litter.

Let bored-with-the-good-life Gen XYZ find some other excuse for their existence
other than not having a WWll to be concerned about, having the climate as their cause du jour.
Useless delusional twits.

 

[Into the Night]

Should I believe a world renowned MIT atmospheric physics professor like Richard Lindzen or you?

Neither. Believe the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann law.

Now that's a tough one!!

Not really. These are theories of science. You can either deny them (and deny science) or you can accept them.

* You can't create energy out of nothing. No gas or vapor is a source of energy for the Earth. (1st law of thermodynamics)
* You can't trap or slow heat (0th, 1st, and 2nd law of thermodynamics)
* You can't trap light. (Planck's law)
* You can't use a colder gas or vapor to warm an already warmer surface. (2nd law of thermodynamics)
* You can't reduce the radiance of Earth (by trapping infrared light) and increase its temperature at the same time. (Stefan-Boltzmann law)

It's not about what I say or what Richard Lundzen says. It's about these theories of science that you simply choose to ignore.

The 'greenhouse effect' is not possible.

You wouldn't even be here to post that bullshit if water vapour wasn't a greenhouse gas.

Sure I would. Water has no capability to warm the Earth using infrared light emitted from Earth's surface.

 

[Into the Night]

33 degrees Celsius to be precise, this is textbook stuff. You don't need a Ph.D in atmospheric physics to know that.

Argument from randU fallacy. False authority fallacy. Textbooks are not a proof. University degrees are not a proof.

Science is not a textbook. It is not a university degree. It is not any government organization, university, scientist, group of scientists, or uses any elite voting bloc. It is simply a set of falsifiable theories.

* You cannot create energy out of nothing.
* You cannot trap or slow heat.
* You cannot trap light.
* You cannot warm a warmer object with a cooler one.
* You cannot reduce the radiance of Earth and increase it's temperature at the same time.

The theories of science which you ignore are the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann law. The 'greenhouse effect' is not physically possible.

 

[Into the Night]

For future reference, I am going to have to remember not to waste my valuable time reading your posts. Which are almost entirely composed of slogans, caricatures, guesswork, assertion, and containing no links to reputable scientific organizations or journals. with expertise in climate sciende.

Science is not a political organization. It is not a journal or magazine. It has no theories about that which is unquantifiable, such as climate. There is no climate science. Science is not a link, quote, or video on YouTube. It is not any scientist or group of scientists. It is not people at all.

Science is a set of falsifiable theories.

You simply choose to ignore three of those theories: the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann law.

But worst of all, your writing is extremely uninspired, unoriginal, and just mind-numbingly boring.

Inversion fallacy.

Please do not waste my valuable time like that again.

Your time is not valuable. You want to surrender it to the Marxist collective, remember?

 

[Truth Detector]

When we are standing shoulder to shoulder here on the Home Planet, ... it will be too late.

Some need to be reminded more than once.

3% of land surface is covered by urban areas. This is what makes the leftists arguments so stupid and lame.

 

[Truth Detector]

For future reference, I am going to have to remember not to waste my valuable time reading your posts.

Yes, we know; your preference is......

 

[Darth Omar]

No gas or vapor is capable of warming the Earth.

* You can't create energy out of nothing.
* You can't trap or slow heat.

Yes you can lol.

Blankets work for a reason: they *slow* the transfer of heat from a warm body to a cold body. Water vapor in the atmosphere slows the loss of heat from the warm body [earth] to the cold body [space] based on the same principle.

The reason daytime temps in the desert can reach a 100 degrees but fall drastically at night is because the air is so dry. But when it’s that hot in Atlanta during the day, the nights are miserable on account of the humidity [water vapor] in the air. It slows the transfer of heat to space.

You’re not conceding anything to the Climate Enthusiasts by allowing for the existence of Green House gases. Carbon dioxide just isn’t a climatologically important constituent of the atmosphere no matter how desperately they try and make it one. Carbon dioxide IS biologically important though: life couldn’t exist without it.

 

[Cypress]

Science is not a political organization. It is not a journal or magazine. It has no theories about that which is unquantifiable, such as climate. There is no climate science. Science is not a link, quote, or video on YouTube. It is not any scientist or group of scientists. It is not people at all.

Science is a set of falsifiable theories.

You simply choose to ignore three of those theories: the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann law.

Inversion fallacy.

Your time is not valuable. You want to surrender it to the Marxist collective, remember?

So that is your long-winded way of saying that >>

You have no training or expertise in atmospheric science.
You do not have a Ph.D in atmospheric science.
You do not conduct original research in climate science.
You have no peer reviewed publications in science journal.
At best, you have read some blog articles about climate.

That's all I needed to know. You do not have the training, expertise, or knowledge for me to put the slightest weight on anything you say about this topic. And therefore, a complete waste of my time to indulge your assertions, claims, and postulations.