These are the Morons Who are Running Climate with Our Government

[IlliniApp]

It's all relative. the 5-8%'ers are morons compared to you. For sure. But then one has to question anyone's intelligence who thinks a 0.04% of CO2 means that it isn't a significant contributor to temperature. Of course you need to talk to someone who understands chemistry and physics. It is all relative.

In your case, you have been bombarded on this forum many times with information such as:

"Carbon dioxide (CO2), despite being present in a small percentage of the Earth's atmosphere, has a significant impact on its warming through the greenhouse effect. Here's a detailed explanation of the process:

1. Absorption of Infrared Radiation: CO2 molecules are particularly effective at absorbing infrared radiation, which is the heat energy emitted by the Earth. The Earth absorbs sunlight, which warms its surface, and then radiates this energy back towards space as infrared radiation. While some gases in the atmosphere, like nitrogen and oxygen, are mostly transparent to infrared radiation, CO2 absorbs this energy efficiently.
2. Vibrational Modes: The molecular structure of CO2 allows it to vibrate in ways that interact with infrared radiation. These vibrational modes can absorb infrared radiation at specific wavelengths, particularly around 15 micrometers, which is a significant component of Earth's outgoing energy.
3. Re-radiation: Once CO2 molecules absorb infrared radiation, they don't hold onto the energy. Instead, they re-radiate it in all directions. This redistribution of energy sends some of the heat back towards the Earth’s surface, effectively trapping the heat in the atmosphere rather than allowing it to escape into space.
4. Amplification by Feedbacks: The initial warming caused by CO2 can lead to additional effects that amplify warming. For example, warmer temperatures can cause more water to evaporate, and since water vapor is itself a powerful greenhouse gas, this can lead to further warming—a positive feedback loop.
5. Long Atmospheric Lifetime: CO2 has a long lifetime in the atmosphere compared to other greenhouse gases. Once released, it can continue affecting the climate system for hundreds to thousands of years. This prolonged presence magnifies its impact on atmospheric warming.
6. Concentration Increase: Over the past century, human activities, particularly the burning of fossil fuels and deforestation, have significantly increased the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere. This increase from pre-industrial levels of about 280 parts per million (ppm) to over 400 ppm today enhances its greenhouse effect, leading to more substantial warming.

The combined effect of these factors means that even a relatively small increase in CO2 concentration can lead to a disproportionately large increase in warming, making it a critical factor in global climate change." [ChatGPT]

So, what are the origins of your bias? Do you own oil or gas wells?

So, did the ideal CO2 ppm for human flourishing occur just before the Industrial Revolution began?

 

[Terrel L. Shields]

Judith Curry is no hack extremist. She is a well-versed scientist and certainly not alone in sharing these thoughts.

Thirty Years of Climate Concerns

Soon after it passed, the summer of 1988 was described as “the hottest in more than a century.” Researchers described the heat as consistent and used a (then) relatively new idea that carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuels were building up in the atmosphere, causing the Earth to warm...

www.mackinac.org

“There’s no emergency” – dissident climatologist Dr Judith Curry on the ‘manufactured scientific consensus’ on climate change

Dr Judith Curry explains her objection to the "manufactured scientific consensus" on climate change and how far removed reality really is.

www.biznews.com

Carbon dioxide is not the knob controlling global warming - GLOBE-Net

According to astrophysicist Dr. Nir Shaviv the sun is the main driver of climate change

globe-net.com

 

[RCA]

Judith Curry is no hack extremist. She is a well-versed scientist and certainly not alone in sharing these thoughts.

Thirty Years of Climate Concerns

Soon after it passed, the summer of 1988 was described as “the hottest in more than a century.” Researchers described the heat as consistent and used a (then) relatively new idea that carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuels were building up in the atmosphere, causing the Earth to warm...

www.mackinac.org

“There’s no emergency” – dissident climatologist Dr Judith Curry on the ‘manufactured scientific consensus’ on climate change

Dr Judith Curry explains her objection to the "manufactured scientific consensus" on climate change and how far removed reality really is.

www.biznews.com

Carbon dioxide is not the knob controlling global warming - GLOBE-Net

According to astrophysicist Dr. Nir Shaviv the sun is the main driver of climate change

globe-net.com

You shouldn't get so excited by Judity Curry's statements. She is just being far more cautious in her statements about earth warming being caused by humans. She says more proof is needed. She also thinks that all sides of the issues need to be weighed together. For example, exactly how much damage is minining lithium doing to the environment compared to the potential for warming. What are all the costs and benefits. She throws some cold water on the environmentalists and her opinions get exaggerated by the conservative climatoligists, and then winds up having her statements taken out of context by others.

When you are biased, you have a blind spot. When you have a blind spot, you are biased.

 

[Terrel L. Shields]

So, neither you nor your grandchildren will live long enough to see 4' of sea level rise, nor CO2 do anything but make things greener, and just like in the 70s when CO2 was going to make the world COLDER... Not one climate model meets the Karl Popper test of science must be falsifiable. If you cannot test it, then it is still not science. And computer models are untestable because they require dealing with assumptions. And those assumptions are not testable either.

 

[RCA]

So, neither you nor your grandchildren will live long enough to see 4' of sea level rise, nor CO2 do anything but make things greener, and just like in the 70s when CO2 was going to make the world COLDER... Not one climate model meets the Karl Popper test of science must be falsifiable. If you cannot test it, then it is still not science. And computer models are untestable because they require dealing with assumptions. And those assumptions are not testable either.

You are so confident. But you are not in a good area. Insects, infestations, poor air quality and much more are your future.

 

[Terrel L. Shields]

 

[Terrel L. Shields]

 

[Terrel L. Shields]

 

[Terrel L. Shields]

So about that Arctic ice rebound... - Climate Discussion Nexus

This January we mentioned Tony Heller’s observation that Arctic sea ice was at its highest level for January 9 in 20 years, and that there has been no downward trend in the minimum since 2006. This comment caused a firestorm that bid fair to accomplish what nature and humans could not and turn...

climatediscussionnexus.com

The change is sea ice in the Arctic is unchanged basically since 2008. That's "weather". But the sudden change in 1979 (the exact year satellite data became available) was "climate change".

Meanwhile, back at the ranch and keep in mind the IPCC has found no correlation between hurricanes and "climate change"...

While we would not wish to distract anyone currently trying to outrun a T. Rex, we do want to alert you to a singularly deadly windstorm that must surely furnish conclusive proof of man-made climate change in all its horror. No, not the somnolent Atlantic hurricane season finally producing a lone, albeit hellish Hurricane Helene. Rather, from Cody Cassidy’s gripping How to Survive History, (and we mention the T. Rex because the subtitle is How to Outrun a Tyrannosaurus, Escape Pompeii, Get Off the Titanic, and Survive the Rest of History’s Deadliest Catastrophes), we bring you the off-the-scale, 300 mph town-leveling, locomotive-hurling “Tri-State Tornado” of… wait… what’s this? March 18, 1925? Yes indeed, nearly a century ago. And you’d better run. Or better yet, hide. Especially if you’re one of those people who says the weather is so obviously way worse today than ever in the past that the science is settled.​

​

The weather is the weather and this "climate change" is simply "weather". With barely 100 years of records and uniform instrumentation, new record lows and highs will be set somewhere upon a nigh daily basis. Look up the big weather day of 11/11/1911 in the Midwest if you don't think so.

 

[Digger88]

this is what our future looks like. norway is best case scenario now bc they are powered by hydro mostly but eventually there will be little to no need to ever stop when driving an ev if we build enough nuke plants. they what will the haters say?

https://twitter.com/x/status/1841469340282913256