Search results

Actually the theory was that it would decrease storm intensity… but so far, there is no measurable difference that we can tell. (All within variance)… And all the hype about a couple inches per century in ocean rise (when tides fluctuate it by many feet per day, not counting storm surge, etc)...

Each doubling of CO2 is a degree of warming… (diminishing returns). Most won’t explain why this warming is bad. And it’s come down from 7000 ppm and we had ice ages. So yes, CO2 is going up, it started its trend up long before internal combustion (as it warms the ocean releases CO2… far more...

https://climate.mit.edu/ask-mit/how-do-greenhouse-gases-trap-heat-atmosphere This is typical of what they said... notice: "Greenhouse gas molecules in the atmosphere absorb light, preventing some of it from escaping the Earth. This heats up the atmosphere and raises the planet’s average...

Thank you for intelligent answers. (On another thread they are all idiots that can't even understand the point made and keep arguing consensus or surface tems, so they keep answering something other than what I was asking -- but you're on point). I do understand the in-and-out balance. Even...

Because that's the theory of CO2 and warming?!?! (That CO2 is a greenhouse gas that traps light and converts it into heat).I t's like you people are unaware of what the theory is. It's saying that CO2 (e.g. air) is capturing more heat than it was, because the concentration of CO2 is going up...

Science isn't consensus, that's politics. As Albert Einstein said “Genius abhors consensus because when consensus is reached, thinking stops. Stop nodding your head.” Probably coming from when, "One hundred German physicists claim Einsteins theory of relativity is wrong." Einsteins reply was...

You'd seem less hypocritical if you had a problem with all their repeated insults of me and moronic quips, then when I reflect 1/100th of it back, you think I'm the problem. It makes you look as hypocritical as they are. Do you have anything that says that. That's not what CO2 theory was for...

It’s not acting on outgoing energy… it’s acting on both incoming and outgoing, and incoming is always more than reflected (outgoing). The light/energy doesn’t come from the earth, it comes from the sun, and a small percentage is reflected out. And it’s captured both ways.

Except those don't refute what I'm saying.... I'm saying, "it's warming in the wrong way".... the oceans shouldn't be out warming the atmosphere. You reply, "but the surface temps are warming... so I'm right." That doesn't mean what you think it means.

Thanks for being the first person in the climate discussion to try to actually make a point on topic, and offer a link. The problem is that it's a bit of garbage. The theory said that CO2 warms first... and there's more CO2 the higher you go (due to volume or circumfrance of a sphere thing)...

Actually, you have not. So far, I point out the science -- that gas doesn't heat liquid as easily as the other way around, and the CO2 theory said that CO2 would be stimulated by the light -- and would warm first. And we are observing the opposite. This is a paradox discussing by real...

(1) The inaccuracy of temp records cuts both ways -- that also disproves that it's gone up significantly. Right. Noise is noise. (The confidence in your accuracy is decreased by the same amount you're questioning their accuracy) (2) we are talking about near term immediate effects. We can...

Correct. But for CO2 theory to be correct, less sun would get down. And for the ocean to warm because of diminished radiation, less convection/evaporation (aka the air temp has to go up first). We aren’t seeing the right effects.

That's what I'm saying... for the ocean temp to increase, CO2 AGW theory says that you'd need to see a HUGE rise in air temp (especially up high and at the poles). They keep showing the oceans increasing, but not showing that the air temps (especially upper air temps) increased as much for a...

You are not reading well... (1) The more energy captured by CO2 up high, the less gets down to the ocean. So the ocean should always be heating less than the upper atmosphere (relatively) -- assuming the same radiation and the only thing that changed was CO2 (2) Yes, I know that a little less...

So you think that's a compelling explanation for why Surface temps are exceeding upper atmosphere temperature rise (where the CO2 is)? And that doesn't show that since you have no actual scientific data to support your point, you're resorting to ignorance based ad hominems? (a) I moved to...

Hey tumbleweed.... I'm not. And if water was reflecting the radiation you're talking about -- that means surface temperatures wouldn't be rising as much as the atmospheric temps (because it would be reflected off). That still means that surface temps shouldn't be rising more than atmospheric...

That's called solar forcing (not Greenhouse effect). And yes, if the surface temps are going up, that's an indication of solar forcing and variations in solar output or Milankovitch cycles -- but not of CO2 forcing. Again, you have that backwards. Transfer from gas -> liquid is low because...

I don't get your point? You think that promordial oooze was 500M years ago? It was 3,500M. Over half the timeline we had dinosaurs and higher level life. But geologically, the earth is near an all time low in both temp and CO2. Dinosaurs thrived with 5x the CO2 of today. The chart just shows...

You’re reading that backwards. (And apologies/slight correction/clarification… they don’t capture energy well from a gas… I’d explained it in the first post, but shorthanded it in the post you quoted). Water/solids by nature of more mass, can heat up a lot of air. (That’s how it works to...

I don’t get your point. And it seems to have no relevance to mine. My point was if they cared about the environment, they would subsidize solar/EV regardless of income, that they don’t, shows they care more about the environment as an excuse for Marxism (wealth redistribution), or the...

(1) trees offset carbon, so buy more wood/paper product to incentivize growing more trees (2) most carbon capture is going to be sea based and will happen without us. Temps and CO2 go up, so does sea or wetland flora. (3) The earth survived for 5 billion years and brought down CO2 levels from...

You didn’t say transportation, you said ICE cars. A mature person just says, “oops, my bad” and apologizes/corrects the mistake, instead of playing ego games to save face. And you not responding is no punishment. You actually have been unable or unwilling to answer any direct questions posed...

BTW you started the thread with a profound misunderstanding, “CO2 produced by ICE cars is responsible of temperature increasing in the world.”… I didn’t see you answer or admit the mistake (or seen you admit any mistake on the thread), but you do realize the following: (1) ICE vehicles are...

Again, you dodge the questions asked because they are too hard. Now answer the questions. And I don’t think the politics you are whining about is what they mean by no politics. I’m not saying vote Trump/Biden or go red/blue.. I just pointed out the truth that if you give politicians control of...

Notice: you didn’t answer that or any question I’ve posed. In science, if you ask a question, the theory must answer it (if relevant to the theory), or it is incomplete. In politics, if they can’t answer they change the topic, or respond to something else… because the question is in the way...

The ignorance or dishonesty of that statement is profound. What it says is that you think greedy people with biases like politicisns aren’t going to exploit whatever they can to advantage themselves or their political agenda? Do you truly believe (are that gullible) that human nature of self...

In all of the recorded/observed history of the earth, the warming of the planet over today’s temps resulted in more/better plant and animal life. CO2 is plant food, and cold deaths exceed heat death 10 or 100 to 1. So why do you think warming is bad this time and only this time? And if it is...

When you pick one outlier to fit your political agenda, and ignore all the other measurements that disagree, this is called the cherry picking fallacy, and is not science but politics. Just like if you have 3 points that support you and one datapoint that disagrees? In politics that’s a win, in...

You rubes don’t understand the basics of physics. Liquids can’t capture gas heat well. If CO2 was this mirror effect you seem to think it is, it would be reflecting the direct light out and preventing it from coming in, better than holding it in. And if you cared about the environment, you...

I don't think you seem to understand the basic physics. Gasses heat liquids and solids extremely poorly because of differences in density. And you're wrong, "The point of AGW is that greenhouse gases capture outbound energy"... it also captures inbound energy (light) as well as outbound (even...

(1) I never said (a) the sun sends heat to the earth (b) the earth surface converts heat into light (c) you never gave an example of the car in the sun (d) if you did it's irrelevant to the point. (2) It's not climate change denial to understand the science better than a 3rd grader who thinks...

As I said -- CO2 absorbs energy because the molecule is the same size as the wavelength of IR light in certain frequencies. That captures some of the light as it goes by (in and out). That's how it heats up. It reflects that vibration to nearby molecules -- also air and up high, that can only...

please cite anything that says that. If that was true (the albedo is high), it would be reflecting more light into space (preventing it from entering) than it would back at the earth. As there is more light/heat from the sun than the earth.

(1) Please take a physics 101 class and get a basic understanding of the topic. (2) You can stop this at any time, just stop replying (3) If there is an energy imbalance caused by AWG/CO2 theory, it says that CO2 in the atmosphere will capture more light/heat and warm the upper atmosphere...

We were talking not about atmospheric energy imbalances but oceanic... you said 93% of the energy was getting trapped in the ocean (that's water, not the atmosphere). But the physics disagrees that's possible because of the relative density difference, and the CO2 theory that the atmosphere is...

Cite anything that supports that -- that a minor increase in CO2 will cause an outsized heating of a liquid or solid? How does that work? The only theoretical mechanism for that, would be arguing that H2O (a far more prevalent and impactful greenhouse gas than CO2) is being warmed by the...

This is dishonest. (1) You didn't thumbs down the image posted -- you thumbs downed the science of physics of convection/conduction, the basic truths about what CO2 theory is (that it will absorb light/heat), the idea that we started warming 200 years ago and it's the rate of change since...

This is gobbledygook that doesn't change the point -- and it would help if you expained what you think you mean. How would GHE break the laws of physics? (1) Yes, CO2 theory is that CO2 being loosely the same size as some infrared wavelengths, means that the more CO2, the more warming of CO2...

I have studied the science. Physics are science. Gasses don't heat liquids well. Liquids heat gassed better. (Based on relative density). AGW theory was that the atmosphere captured more infrared light and warms up (especially up high and at the poles). If the Oceans are warming, especially more...

[[Which is roughly in line with the increase in Ocean heat content.... which is where ~93% of the thermal imbalance is going.]] A basic understanding of physics means that you know that gasses don't heat up liquids (barely at all)... If the oceans are heating, it's because more light is...

Here's the basics: (1) Gas doesn't heat liquids well, it's always the other way (2) AGW (Man Made CO2) theory says that the atmosphere will warm because CO2 absorbs infrared light (reducing the amount that gets to the surface of land/ocean) (3) If you show ocean (or land) surface temps...

I'm quite annoyed with it... my wife was in the hospital (has since passed), but I was regularly commuting in the last few weeks. (I have a light hand on the wheel). It went blue, I pushed the volume button, it went red, and then told me I had a strike against me -- it was claiming a defeat...

I did it in Houston, Texas, and it was $1K -- however, my Circuit Breaker was across a 3 car garage -- so they ran it up into the attic, across 3 cars, down the wall, all in conduit, and it was 60A. So I think it varies a lot the amperage and distance -- and it'll go up if you don't have an open...

What I want is really a Model Y Plaid+.... I've driven the X... but the extra size is a bit overkill, I hate the bigger windscreen (and little shades), not a huge fan of the Falcon Wing doors. But I'd like a bump in performance and range over my Y, adjustable suspension, dash-mounted guages. And...

Sorry, I searched for mirror, and the other thread didn't show up. Once I posted this, it did below. I didn't mean to start a redundant thread. Yes, the point of "blinker" was that it shows what I can see in the mirror via the camera, and I do use that a bit. But usually, I turn my head. It...

I was wondering... with the camera, I don't really need side view mirrors (if I just use blinkers). Technically, I know it's illegal, and could get fix-it ticket. But I was wondering, if you removed the mirrors on a Telsa, how much would that impact range? Are we talking 1% or 5%? (The latter...

GM has certain advantages: (1) Their management doesn't announce with hype and miss their delivery schedules nearly as often (2) They do know how to handle the manufacturing, sales, distribution, financing, etc... (3) I prefer the Hummer styling, interior, and specs like HP, 0-60, crab mode...

I don't think so. There are ways to limit it to one per customer... or at least one per email address. Imagine a simple check -- $1,000 to confirm your spot in line -- how many individuals are going to have $100,000 to hold 100 reservations? (and that doesn't scale to thousands or millions)...