Greenie-Weenies Knowledge Base matches CO² Levels...

[LittleGreenMan]

Do you know what percentage of the atmosphere is Co²? The proponents of so-called climate change and their so-called experts speak in tons of this & that in the atmosphere because it sounds bigger than life. Actually, numbers and statistics can be exaggerated by liars, thieves, conmen, crooks, and experts picking-and-choosing how they wish to characterize, The Truth. Live by the sword, die by the sword.

What should jump out in your face is the fact that this Link purports Republicans are resorting to new tactics in fighting/denying climate change while at the same time not arguing the specific facts of CO² levels cited, or their relative insignificance at current levels, or the relative insignificance of the effects of their rise in recent decades, or how close they are to a point where there would be significant plant life die-off if they went down by the same amount as they have risen.

What you should also find interesting is the fact that the search, "congressional hearing + dana rohrabacher + CO2 levels" brought that Link as the first entry, and with most of the entries having very negative reviews of the subject. If you rely on the internet for information, you will be misdirected and misled on everything. Period.

The video is no longer available on YouTube but is being passed around via Email, so you can't see it, but this Link has the exchange that tells the tale. Young people and ignorant people please pay attention,-your pockets are being picked by pros. Stupid pros, but none the less too clever by twice.

 

[mark francis]

Do you know what percentage of the atmosphere is Co²? The proponents of so-called climate change and their so-called experts speak in tons of this & that in the atmosphere because it sounds bigger than life. Actually, numbers and statistics can be exaggerated by liars, thieves, conmen, crooks, and experts picking-and-choosing how they wish to characterize, The Truth. Live by the sword, die by the sword.

What should jump out in your face is the fact that this Link purports Republicans are resorting to new tactics in fighting/denying climate change while at the same time not arguing the specific facts of CO² levels cited, or their relative insignificance at current levels, or the relative insignificance of the effects of their rise in recent decades, or how close they are to a point where there would be significant plant life die-off if they went down by the same amount as they have risen.

What you should also find interesting is the fact that the search, "congressional hearing + dana rohrabacher + CO2 levels" brought that Link as the first entry, and with most of the entries having very negative reviews of the subject. If you rely on the internet for information, you will be misdirected and misled on everything. Period.

The video is no longer available on YouTube but is being passed around via Email, so you can't see it, but this Link has the exchange that tells the tale. Young people and ignorant people please pay attention,-your pockets are being picked by pros. Stupid pros, but none the less too clever by twice.

CO2 makes up about .04% of the atmosphere, proving that tiny incremental changes in the level of CO2 will have little or no impact on our environment.

 

[pjmret]

CO2 makes up about .04% of the atmosphere, proving that tiny incremental changes in the level of CO2 will have little or no impact on our environment.

how does that prove anything? duh.

a tiny amount of a deadly nerve toxin will kill you for example. duh.
"tiny" amounts of things can have impacts. duh.

its amazing how righties insist on proving they are science morons, over and over. lol

You Asked: If CO2 Is Only 0.04% of the Atmosphere, How Does it Drive Global Warming?

Short answer: A little bit goes a long way.

news.climate.columbia.edu

CO2 Makes Up Just 0.04% of Earth's Atmosphere. Here's Why Its Impact Is So Massive

Reader question: I heard that carbon dioxide makes up 0.04 percent of the world's atmosphere.

www.sciencealert.com

 

[LittleGreenMan]

how does that prove anything? duh.

a tiny amount of a deadly nerve toxin will kill you for example. duh.
"tiny" amounts of things can have impacts. duh.

its amazing how righties insist on proving they are science morons, over and over. lol

You Asked: If CO2 Is Only 0.04% of the Atmosphere, How Does it Drive Global Warming?

Short answer: A little bit goes a long way.

news.climate.columbia.edu

CO2 Makes Up Just 0.04% of Earth's Atmosphere. Here's Why Its Impact Is So Massive

Reader question: I heard that carbon dioxide makes up 0.04 percent of the world's atmosphere.

www.sciencealert.com

Horseshit. Faulty use of analogy.

 

[pjmret]

Horseshit. Faulty use of analogy.

did you read the links?

your OP was the real horseshit

thanks for proving you are a science *****. Which considering how easy it is to find and educate yourself on actual science, is really quite amusing that you chose to remain ignorant

 

[LittleGreenMan]

did you read the links?

your OP was the real horseshit

thanks for proving you are a science *****. Which considering how easy it is to find and educate yourself on actual science, is really quite amusing that you chose to remain ignorant

Your science can't predict past weather, but you can predict the weather 50 years from now. ? Your climate models disregard clouds and the modifying effects of limiting heat by blocking sunshine, and then the reciprocal effects of clouds dissipating when the Earth cools. Back-and-forth, back-and-forth, ad infinitum, keeping us in a range. A bigger problem is the simple question of why these faulty models have existed at all in academia, much less for as long as 50 years. What kind of science is taught by morons in our ~best universities~ when this is the best they can do with so-called climate science? But it's not even limited to bad science at universities, worldwide: Nobel Prizes have been awarded for these faulty studies.

We don't even have to expand this lack of common sense exhibited by university staff to race relations that study CRT, DEI and their own belly buttons. University-educated people who can't differentiate between males and females? Science? From what planet? Over-priced university educations are in the process of becoming a thing of the past. A better, more focused and cheaper substitute exists in online courses that can be had for relative peanuts in your own home. So much for $400,000 salaries for part-timers the likes of Elizabeth Warren.

Ask yourself how many problems we have are the product of university-educated "people". GIGO

 

[pjmret]

Your science can't predict past weather, but you can predict the weather 50 years from now. ? Your climate models disregard clouds and the modifying effects of limiting heat by blocking sunshine, and then the reciprocal effects of clouds dissipating when the Earth cools. Back-and-forth, back-and-forth, ad infinitum, keeping us in a range. A bigger problem is the simple question of why these faulty models have existed at all in academia, much less for as long as 50 years. What kind of science is taught by morons in our ~best universities~ when this is the best they can do with so-called climate science? But it's not even limited to bad science at universities, worldwide: Nobel Prizes have been awarded for these faulty studies.

We don't even have to expand this lack of common sense exhibited by university staff to race relations that study CRT, DEI and their own belly buttons. University-educated people who can't differentiate between males and females? Science? From what planet? Over-priced university educations are in the process of becoming a thing of the past. A better, more focused and cheaper substitute exists in online courses that can be had for relative peanuts in your own home. So much for $400,000 salaries for part-timers the likes of Elizabeth Warren.

Ask yourself how many problems we have are the product of university-educated "people". GIGO

It is the most worrying development in the science of climate change for a long time. An apparently settled conclusion about how sensitive the climate is to adding more greenhouse gases has been thrown into doubt by a series of new studies from the world’s top climate modeling groups.

The studies have changed how the models treat clouds, following new field research. They suggest that the ability of clouds to keep us cool could be drastically reduced as the world warms — pushing global heating into overdrive.

Models do include clouds, science ***** lol

 

[mark francis]

how does that prove anything? duh.

You prove nothing by your opposition to scientific reports and you disprove nothing. You just talk.

 

[pjmret]

You prove nothing by your opposition to scientific reports and you disprove nothing. You just talk.

I posted links showing how your post was stupid
You are of course welcome to remain a science *****

 

[mark francis]

I posted links showing how your post was stupid
You are of course welcome to remain a science *****

You believe leftists are right about climate change, but you follow narratives that are debatable at best. Leftist fact checkers tell you that they have proven their narratives and disproven reports from other sources, but they are either lying or deliberately misleading many times. Leftist fact checkers are extremely biased toward leftist narratives so that is what they teach even if unsupported or poorly supported by facts.

Here is a leftist fact-checker report:
Fact check: Global temperatures and atmospheric CO2 levels correlated (usatoday.com) 1-10-23
FACT CHECK
Fact check: Global temperatures and atmospheric CO2 levels are correlated, contrary to claim

Kate S. Petersen
USA TODAY
The claim: Greenhouse effect is a hoax, global warming uncorrelated with CO2 levels

A Dec. 17 Facebook post (direct link, archive link) claims a CO2-driven greenhouse effect is not causing modern climate change.

"The greenhouse effect is a hoax," reads the post's caption. "There is no correlation between a higher level of CO2, and higher temperature. The year 1998 was warmer than 2013, although the atmosphere had less CO2."

The post also features a video that describes four purported mismatches between CO2 concentrations and global temperatures since 1887. A narrator in the video then claims that, based on this evidence, global CO2 levels and temperature are not correlated.

Our rating: False

Global temperature and CO2 levels are correlated and both have risen overall since the late 1880s, according to researchers. However, the Earth's average temperature fluctuates from year to year due to natural variability in Earth's climate systems. This means that it's possible for a certain year to be cooler than a previous year, even if CO2 concentrations have risen. The greenhouse effect has repeatedly been verified in experiments since at least the 1800s.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

The fact-checkers here repeat the leftist global warming hysteria narrative, but they prove nothing. They are blowing smoke, nothing else.

Sorry Global Warming Alarmists, The Earth Is Cooling (forbes.com) 5-31-12

Sorry Global Warming Alarmists, The Earth Is Cooling
May 31, 2012,03:26pm EDT

This article is more than 10 years old.

Climate change itself is already in the process of definitively rebutting climate alarmists who think human use of fossil fuels is causing ultimately catastrophic global warming. That is because natural climate cycles have already turned from warming to cooling, global temperatures have already been declining for more than 10 years, and global temperatures will continue to decline for another two decades or more.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Global Warming - Are We Being Lied To? | OilPrice.com 11-22-09

Global Warming - Are We Being Lied To?
While Mr. Leipold openly admitted that Greenpeace had released inaccurately alarming information, he still had the arrogant gall to defend their practice of “emotionalizing issues” in order to alter public opinions and bring people around to its way of thinking about issues?
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Climate myths: It's been far warmer in the past, what's the big deal? | New Scientist

Climate myths: It's been far warmer in the past, what's the big deal?

First of all, it is worth bearing in mind that any data on global temperatures before about 150 years ago is an estimate, a reconstruction based on second-hand evidence such as ice cores and isotopic ratios. The evidence becomes sparser the further back we look, and its interpretation often involves a set of assumptions. In other words, a fair amount of guesswork.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

On this date 51 years ago, climate scientists predicted a new ice age was coming | Washington Examiner 12-6-23
Wednesday, December 06, 2023

On this date 51 years ago, climate scientists predicted a new ice age was coming

by Christopher Tremoglie, Commentary Writer
March 21, 2022 01:40 PM


Climate change hysteria has been a staple of Democratic propaganda for decades now. It’s also an integral part of President Joe Biden’s Build Back Better plan. Climate change advocacy has evolved into a cult, with supporters proclaiming that science shows we are all doomed unless we change our carbon emission habits.

We are told to “trust the science,” but what if that science is wrong? After all, science predicted a new ice age on March 21, 1971, in an article in Parade magazine.

In 1971, global cooling was the climate threat du jour. Dr. Murray Mitchell of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration stated that the planet’s temperature had decreased by “one-half a degree Fahrenheit” since World War II in the 1971 article, titled “New Ice Age?” Claims of longer and harsher winters in Europe since 1940 were also cited. German meteorologist Dr. Martin Rodewald predicted that if this weather pattern continued, Europe “would be covered with the glaciers of a new ice age by the turn of the century.” In 1971, this was the science.

“American and Danish weather researchers in North Greenland, drilling down through 1400 meters of ice to read the weather record of 800 years, found that cold and warm cycles run for an average of 78 to 180 years,” the article stated. “On this basis, Dr. Rodewald does not foresee another warming trend before the year 2015.”

It is worth noting that this method of using ice to study past weather to make predictions about future weather is still used today, albeit with more modern technology.

I would argue it seems preposterous that even a decrease of half a degree Fahrenheit in 26 years between the end of World War II and 1971 would be setting up the planet for an ice age, even if that trend continued until the turn of the century. Such claims are on par with the hysteria we experience in 2022, except they predict cooling instead of warming.

Scientists have a horrible record when it comes to making climate change predictions. Whether it was global cooling in the 1970s or the current cultlike behavior warning of global warming, the only consistency about climate science is its inconsistency. It’s time to stop treating it like it is an absolute truth. If they were wrong before, there’s nothing to suggest they will not be wrong again.

It seems we have contradictions the fact-checkers failed to mention. Is the earth warming up or cooling? Maybe neither. The data showed little change for over a decade this century and more honest scientists admit the conclusions drawn from the available data are debatable.

 

[LittleGreenMan]

It is the most worrying development in the science of climate change for a long time. An apparently settled conclusion about how sensitive the climate is to adding more greenhouse gases has been thrown into doubt by a series of new studies from the world’s top climate modeling groups.

The studies have changed how the models treat clouds, following new field research. They suggest that the ability of clouds to keep us cool could be drastically reduced as the world warms — pushing global heating into overdrive.

Models do include clouds, science ***** lol

That statement is the epitome of ignorance. It is mixed-metaphor increased by an order of magnitude. Clouds block sunlight from reaching below the cloud(s), on a sliding scale dependent upon density/height of the the cloud mass in question and/or the dew point. Period. Reducing infrared sunlight from reaching below the clouds reduces the amount of heating by the same percentage. Deep water looks blue because the infrared spectrum is readily absorbed by water and UV is reflected. Clouds absorb the heat rays (infrared) of light and reflect UV back into space. Period. When clouds pass over areas with temperatures lower than the dew point precipitation occurs, reducing the density/height and allowing more IR & UV rays to penetrate the clouds, and below. This is best demonstrated by a long bank of clouds passing over an area cools the area below to the dew point such that precipitation often occurs at the trailing edge.

Water exists within a tight range of temperatures and readily changes from a solid to its gas form and back within a tight range. The volume of water and the percentage of Earth's surface covered has allowed Earth to stay within a temperature range that has supported animal life for 575,000,000 years. Think about that, 575,000,000 years through uncountable cycles of Sol's sunspot activity which powers the climate from hotter to colder, back-and-forth, back-and-forth. But the Greenie-Weenies tell you that the system will cease working in a hundred years. We can destroy the small pocket we live in near the surface of earth, but the climate will go on cycling back-and-forth for a long, long time.

This is not rocket science. But we still have more to learn, so don't tell me that the science is settled.

 

[pjmret]

That statement is the epitome of ignorance. It is mixed-metaphor increased by an order of magnitude. Clouds block sunlight from reaching below the cloud(s), on a sliding scale dependent upon density/height of the the cloud mass in question and/or the dew point. Period. Reducing infrared sunlight from reaching below the clouds reduces the amount of heating by the same percentage. Deep water looks blue because the infrared spectrum is readily absorbed by water and UV is reflected. Clouds absorb the heat rays (infrared) of light and reflect UV back into space. Period. When clouds pass over areas with temperatures lower than the dew point precipitation occurs, reducing the density/height and allowing more IR & UV rays to penetrate the clouds, and below. This is best demonstrated by a long bank of clouds passing over an area cools the area below to the dew point such that precipitation often occurs at the trailing edge.

Water exists within a tight range of temperatures and readily changes from a solid to its gas form and back within a tight range. The volume of water and the percentage of Earth's surface covered has allowed Earth to stay within a temperature range that has supported animal life for 575,000,000 years. Think about that, 575,000,000 years through uncountable cycles of Sol's sunspot activity which powers the climate from hotter to colder, back-and-forth, back-and-forth. But the Greenie-Weenies tell you that the system will cease working in a hundred years. We can destroy the small pocket we live in near the surface of earth, but the climate will go on cycling back-and-forth for a long, long time.

This is not rocket science. But we still have more to learn, so don't tell me that the science is settled.

science ***** doesn't believe science. lol.

you claimed models didn't include clouds, i proved you were wrong.

i'd suggest taking the loss and not looking more stupid.
but its your choice.

 

[pjmret]

You believe leftists are right about climate change, but you follow narratives that are debatable at best. Leftist fact checkers tell you that they have proven their narratives and disproven reports from other sources, but they are either lying or deliberately misleading many times. Leftist fact checkers are extremely biased toward leftist narratives so that is what they teach even if unsupported or poorly supported by facts.

Here is a leftist fact-checker report:
Fact check: Global temperatures and atmospheric CO2 levels correlated (usatoday.com) 1-10-23
FACT CHECK
Fact check: Global temperatures and atmospheric CO2 levels are correlated, contrary to claim

Kate S. Petersen
USA TODAY
The claim: Greenhouse effect is a hoax, global warming uncorrelated with CO2 levels

A Dec. 17 Facebook post (direct link, archive link) claims a CO2-driven greenhouse effect is not causing modern climate change.

"The greenhouse effect is a hoax," reads the post's caption. "There is no correlation between a higher level of CO2, and higher temperature. The year 1998 was warmer than 2013, although the atmosphere had less CO2."

The post also features a video that describes four purported mismatches between CO2 concentrations and global temperatures since 1887. A narrator in the video then claims that, based on this evidence, global CO2 levels and temperature are not correlated.

Our rating: False

Global temperature and CO2 levels are correlated and both have risen overall since the late 1880s, according to researchers. However, the Earth's average temperature fluctuates from year to year due to natural variability in Earth's climate systems. This means that it's possible for a certain year to be cooler than a previous year, even if CO2 concentrations have risen. The greenhouse effect has repeatedly been verified in experiments since at least the 1800s.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

The fact-checkers here repeat the leftist global warming hysteria narrative, but they prove nothing. They are blowing smoke, nothing else.

Sorry Global Warming Alarmists, The Earth Is Cooling (forbes.com) 5-31-12

Sorry Global Warming Alarmists, The Earth Is Cooling
May 31, 2012,03:26pm EDT

This article is more than 10 years old.

Climate change itself is already in the process of definitively rebutting climate alarmists who think human use of fossil fuels is causing ultimately catastrophic global warming. That is because natural climate cycles have already turned from warming to cooling, global temperatures have already been declining for more than 10 years, and global temperatures will continue to decline for another two decades or more.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Global Warming - Are We Being Lied To? | OilPrice.com 11-22-09

Global Warming - Are We Being Lied To?
While Mr. Leipold openly admitted that Greenpeace had released inaccurately alarming information, he still had the arrogant gall to defend their practice of “emotionalizing issues” in order to alter public opinions and bring people around to its way of thinking about issues?
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Climate myths: It's been far warmer in the past, what's the big deal? | New Scientist

Climate myths: It's been far warmer in the past, what's the big deal?

First of all, it is worth bearing in mind that any data on global temperatures before about 150 years ago is an estimate, a reconstruction based on second-hand evidence such as ice cores and isotopic ratios. The evidence becomes sparser the further back we look, and its interpretation often involves a set of assumptions. In other words, a fair amount of guesswork.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

On this date 51 years ago, climate scientists predicted a new ice age was coming | Washington Examiner 12-6-23
Wednesday, December 06, 2023

On this date 51 years ago, climate scientists predicted a new ice age was coming

by Christopher Tremoglie, Commentary Writer
March 21, 2022 01:40 PM


Climate change hysteria has been a staple of Democratic propaganda for decades now. It’s also an integral part of President Joe Biden’s Build Back Better plan. Climate change advocacy has evolved into a cult, with supporters proclaiming that science shows we are all doomed unless we change our carbon emission habits.

We are told to “trust the science,” but what if that science is wrong? After all, science predicted a new ice age on March 21, 1971, in an article in Parade magazine.

In 1971, global cooling was the climate threat du jour. Dr. Murray Mitchell of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration stated that the planet’s temperature had decreased by “one-half a degree Fahrenheit” since World War II in the 1971 article, titled “New Ice Age?” Claims of longer and harsher winters in Europe since 1940 were also cited. German meteorologist Dr. Martin Rodewald predicted that if this weather pattern continued, Europe “would be covered with the glaciers of a new ice age by the turn of the century.” In 1971, this was the science.

“American and Danish weather researchers in North Greenland, drilling down through 1400 meters of ice to read the weather record of 800 years, found that cold and warm cycles run for an average of 78 to 180 years,” the article stated. “On this basis, Dr. Rodewald does not foresee another warming trend before the year 2015.”

It is worth noting that this method of using ice to study past weather to make predictions about future weather is still used today, albeit with more modern technology.

I would argue it seems preposterous that even a decrease of half a degree Fahrenheit in 26 years between the end of World War II and 1971 would be setting up the planet for an ice age, even if that trend continued until the turn of the century. Such claims are on par with the hysteria we experience in 2022, except they predict cooling instead of warming.

Scientists have a horrible record when it comes to making climate change predictions. Whether it was global cooling in the 1970s or the current cultlike behavior warning of global warming, the only consistency about climate science is its inconsistency. It’s time to stop treating it like it is an absolute truth. If they were wrong before, there’s nothing to suggest they will not be wrong again.

It seems we have contradictions the fact-checkers failed to mention. Is the earth warming up or cooling? Maybe neither. The data showed little change for over a decade this century and more honest scientists admit the conclusions drawn from the available data are debatable.

actually, "climate scientists" did not particularly predict an ice age was coming. duh.

However, the clearest evidence the scientific consensus did not support the global cooling hypothesis in the 1970s is a 2008 study. It reviewed scientific literature from 1965 to 1979 and showed seven papers supported cooling, 20 were neutral and 44 backed global warming (Fig. 1, page 1333).


you are a science *****. lol

 

[mark francis]

science ***** doesn't believe science. lol.

you claimed models didn't include clouds, i proved you were wrong.

i'd suggest taking the loss and not looking more stupid.
but its your choice.

Deluded wannabe scientists are wrong about so many things they are unaware of.

 

[mark francis]

actually, "climate scientists" did not particularly predict an ice age was coming. duh.

However, the clearest evidence the scientific consensus did not support the global cooling hypothesis in the 1970s is a 2008 study. It reviewed scientific literature from 1965 to 1979 and showed seven papers supported cooling, 20 were neutral and 44 backed global warming (Fig. 1, page 1333).


you are a science *****. lol

The fact is that researchers 60 years ago claimed hundreds of years of data showed alarming trends toward damaging cooling. Researchers today claim hundreds of years of data show alarming trends towards global warming. They cannot both be right. So what does hundreds of years of data prove? Not much more than that these alarmists don't know what they are talking about.

Researchers and institutions are in business to make a living while in business. Unfortunately, greedy politicians motivated by greedy lobbyists have passed damaging government funding of projects promoted by these people that enrich these people while doing really very little for real science.