And that statement is absolutely FALSE
This has been known ever since Svante Arrhenius learned CO2 was a greenhouse gas in the 1800s
2024 Sea Surface Temperature exceed previous records by wide margin
- Thread starter Joes Place
- Start date
And that statement is absolutely FALSE
This has been known ever since Svante Arrhenius learned CO2 was a greenhouse gas in the 1800s
'your' LOL
I know when a Nobel prize winner is speaking from ignorance on a topic he knows nothing about.
Exxon knew is was a problem since the 1970s.
You can watch that 3-part Frontline series online for free, and actually LEARN something.
Why would they?
A "denier", by definition, is someone who will pass disinformation and lies.
Unscientific stuff that you lap up willingly.
You are switching arguments, I didn't say CO2 was not a greenhouse gas, I said "Earth’s temperature is primarily determined by cloud cover, not carbon dioxide emissions from burning fossil fuels".
Have you ever stood outside in the summer and a cloud floats overhead? The temperature can drop significantly while the cloud is overhead.
Are you really going to argue that blocking the sun doesn't decrease the temperature? Why do you think people stand in the shade on a hot sunny day? You can't really be this dense can you?
What do you say to all the libs living in mansions flying jets. Or people moving to Vegas Denver Phoenix so cal? literal fvcking deserts.
You are deflecting, please tell me where I said we need to eliminate all CO2. That is the exact opposite of what I am arguing. You are on the side of eliminating all CO2 emissions.
You just schooled yourself. haha
Clouds are what we are talking about. They are very important when predicting climate. This is the same reason a volcano can continuously spew co2 into the air and not change the weather/climate. But after an eruption, they create large clouds that have caused cooling for an extended period of time.
That you think a guy that won a novel prize in quantum mechanics and has NEVER published a single paper with respect to ANYTHING climate is who you think is someone credible on the topic. That's how I know you're full of shit about being a "scientific researcher".
If you have kids, do you not care about all the illegals flooding our country thanks to an open door policy from Biden on day 1 of his admin? I would rather focus on something tangible we can fix.
You said CO2 is not an important greenhouse gas.
I explained to you that w/o any of it in the atmosphere, Earth would be uninhabitable for us.
NASA agrees:
A computer model developed by NASA scientists at the Goddard Institute for Space Science shows that without carbon dioxide, the terrestrial greenhouse would collapse and plunge Earth into an ice bound state. Today, the average temperature is+15oC. Within 50 years the average temperature would drop to -21oC without the warming provided by atmospheric carbon dioxide.
W/o CO2 to act as a greenhouse gas, most water vapor would be locked up in frozen ice.
And clouds actually can COOL the planet thru the albedo effect (which I'm certain you'll have to Google now)
How many scientific papers on climate have you published?
If I have published a paper on climate, does that automatically mean I am more credible than you? What about a "climate denier" who has published more than 200 papers on climate? does he deserve more credit than climate supporters who have not published any papers?
The point I am making is that there are lots of aspects that play into the climate. It is impossible to be an expert in every aspect of the climate. This is why we should welcome all disciplines to give their input on climate change.
Climate change is not settled science which is why i find it ridiculous that you think you know the truth and everyone else is wrong. The science we have today is different than what we will know in 20 years. Science is always evolving. It is anti-scientific to exclude the opinions of a certain group because they don't agree with what you believe.
There are many scientists who were not proven right until after they died. They believed something to be true when the consensus was wrong. Is it impossible that this will happen again?
Once again, you know you are wrong, so you change the subject. I already said the clouds can cool the planet. I never said CO2 wasn't a greenhouse gas, where are you coming up with these ideas?
Its like you are arguing with yourself until you convince yourself you are right.
I bet you have the low libedo effect going on, if you know what im saying
You're a farmer, or a former farmer, right? Please explain how you intend to run your $500,000 combine on wind and solar.
It really is amazing how monumentally stupid the right is on this issue.
I guess that shouldn't be a surprise as they're monumentally stupid on most issues these days. Absolute shame what happened to that party.
It's quite simply an issue that will not be adequately addressed by humans,... How far are you willing to go to solve this problem?,.. Guess what, that's not far enough.
This line of reasoning is beyond stupid.
Would you suggest to a person who comes from a historically obese family to just say "**** it, I'm screwed and eat like trump?" Or should they do what they can to get and stay healthy?
Humans have caused significant climate change - oh well, it will never be what it was originally so **** it, let's keep polluting!
Totally different situation,.. A singular person can definitely effect control over their own body,.. However, that same singular person cannot effect measurable control over climate change.
Which is why we need everyone to recognize the situation and demand changes.
People like you are the problem.
People are the problem,.. Too many of them, and none of them want to live in caves.
No, lack of caring is the problem. No one has to live in a cave, unless they want to.
Joes Place...hmm? Oh, yeah. That's the dude that says the only trusted science comes from university sponsored PhD's publishing studies in peer-reviewed journals, right?
Yet today he posts this garbage from Twitter (X) - a chart along with some dire warnings about global warming.
Turns out the guy (@rdlarter) had this to say about his post: it was a "spur of the moment thought after reading an article..."
Sounds like more junk science from our resident junk scientist.
🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
Hey moron, check the citations at the bottom of the graph
You really think US policies will change the climate enough to make a difference?
I follow Dr. Matthew Wielicki. He's an interesting scientist who is often misquoted and mislabeled. He's not a climate denier, in fact just the opposite.
Matthew Wielicki website
LMFAO. You mean the guy who left the U of Alabama for "too much wokeness"?
The guy featured on PragerU?
Of course you follow him.
You don’t care about the debt when Republicans are in the White House. You never do. Hypocrite.
Never said that.
You claimed "other things" kept the Earth warm, not CO2.
I'm pointing out that you are an idiot, and incorrect on that point.
The reason volcanoes can "spew CO2 into the air and not change the weather/climate", is because WE spew >130x MORE CO2 than all volcanoes combined, terrestrial and submarine, annually.
130x more.
Go look it up, if you think it is not accurate.
We'll hold on and wait for your "assessment" here...
And yet the climate has changed less than 1.5 degrees over the past 100 years. Yet when a volcano erupted in 1815 in Indonesia, it caused the following year to decrease by 3 degrees due to the clouds from ash blocking the sun. The effects were felt even in the usa.
This was a volcanic explosively index of 7, compared to Mt. St. Helens which was a 5.
The clouds have a much greater potential to affect the climate than co2 does.
I listen to the Tom Nelson podcast on YouTube. He has on lots of good guests including Matthew Wielicki.
Those effects last about a year... that's it. It wasn't but a blip of a climatic event
And neither is what we are currently living in. It’s a shakedown of wealthy nations and an attempt to lower the standard of living of the American people.
Then why is it noteworthy that 2023 was the hottest year on record? This seems to be a frequent point that your side likes to point out.
I agree that 1 year does not make climate change. But there are so many inconsistencies in your sides arguments.
I have also seen theories that as the earth warms, moisture in the air will increase which will increase cloud cover. This in turn will block some of the sun which will have a cooling effect.
Similar threads
