I wish I had a dollar for every thread that I’ve scrolled past.
If you think switching g to broadcasting leftist propaganda about warming is a break then you are delusional.
I will make a big prediction - the sea level will be ritually the sam 100 years from now.
There aren't many similar phenonmeon.
I’ve heard people suggest we should genetically engineer some kind of algae to get rid of CO2. Without CO2 the earth would be as dead as the moon. It was required for life long before oxygen production began. With more CO2 there is more plant life, and more animal life as a result. During the age of dinosaurs, CO2 rose to 5 or 6 times the levels of today. Jungles covered the earth and insects grew to human size. About 2 billion years ago CO2 became dangerously low and all life went nearly extinct, except for a meager 1% which held on by a thread. What therefore is the greater danger?
bkmk
This is an important article. But the author needs to distill it down so that the average citizen can understand it.
Click The Pic To Donate.
The article is way too long to wade through.
My question is since CO2 compromises 0.02% of the atmosphere and water vapor varies and can get to 100%, what sort of magic causes CO2 to cause more heating than water vapor???
The article is way too long to wade through.
My question is since CO2 compromises 0.02% of the atmosphere and water vapor varies and can get to 100%, what sort of magic causes CO2 to cause more heating than water vapor???
Cover the soil with green stuff. People are planting into nitrogen fixing cover crops now. They run a crimper/roller on the front of the tractor and a seed planter on the back. Now dust bowl effect, no top soil run off in heavy rains, way less or no commercial fertilizers, plenty of life in the soil. Reclaim the man-made deserts. Leave the cows alone. There were more Bison here a few hundred years ago than there are cows here now and they farted too.
But the narrowness of these bands implies that only items at the surface at two very specific temperatures emit IR at the two frequencies that are absorbed. That means that throughout the day (and the seasons) that the absorption rate changes constantly as the surface temperatures vary.
So only surface areas at very specific temperatures contribute to CO2 greenhouse effects: the surface elements that are too cold or too hot are outside those two narrow bands, so CO2 has zero greenhouse effect.
I doubt that what was he was trying to prove.
I think that "global warming" is true in the sense that average temperatures have been increasing since the early 18th century. But the human contribution to that increase is probably infinitesimal.
This is NOT science. This is the opposite of science. Proponents of global warming have done nothing but come up with one more socialist theory saying that human freedom is bad. Then they set about trying to come up with scientific conjecture as to why it must be true.
If atmospheric CO2 warms the atmosphere first, and the atmosphere warms the surface then why are atmospheric temperatures cooler than the bogus surface temperatures which these idiots keep trying to foist off on us?
I really like it that the author, Dr Pierre Latour, declares that you must perform an accurate ECONOMIC analysis (in addition to scientific and engineering analyses), because the cost of rapidly switching now from fossil energy sources to renewable would be astronomical.
You cannot warm or cool the planet without the media.
This is just insane to suggest otherwise.