Re: It's getting warm
Posted: Sun Jan 12, 2020 1:14 pm
You didn't know humans are to blame for some forest/bush fires?
Because you're a fully-indoctrinated, brainwashed, goosestepping moron?
Talking Canucks Hockey Since 1996
https://canuckscorner.com/forums/
You didn't know humans are to blame for some forest/bush fires?
Because you're a fully-indoctrinated, brainwashed, goosestepping moron?
Hah, sarcasm too much for you?Strangelove wrote: ↑Sun Jan 12, 2020 1:14 pmYou didn't know humans are to blame for some forest/bush fires?
Because you're a fully-indoctrinated, brainwashed, goosestepping moron?
UMMMM. Forest fires don't cause climate change.ukcanuck wrote: ↑Sun Jan 12, 2020 6:24 pmHah, sarcasm too much for you?Strangelove wrote: ↑Sun Jan 12, 2020 1:14 pmYou didn't know humans are to blame for some forest/bush fires?
Because you're a fully-indoctrinated, brainwashed, goosestepping moron?
Let’s try
Humans causing massive forest fires = anthropogenic climate change.
In theory they can.
What's ridiculous is... that analogy.Per wrote: ↑Thu Jan 09, 2020 1:43 pmYeahno, that’s not how it works.Strangelove wrote: ↑Wed Jan 08, 2020 2:56 pm
(data for pie chart: https://sciencing.com/elements-makeup-e ... 51571.html )
(the thin red line is the CO2... can you see it?)
Very little CO2 in the atmosphere.
To say a ridiculously slight rise in that minuscule amount would significantly affect the global climate is patently absurd.
Per, your "Scientific consensus" is politics, not Science...
”To say the ridiculously miniscule amount of plutonium I laced your beer with would significantly affect your health is patently absurd...”
No, but the idea that a small amount of something won't make any difference is even more ridiculous.Strangelove wrote: ↑Mon Jan 13, 2020 5:39 pmWhat's ridiculous is... that analogy.Per wrote: ↑Thu Jan 09, 2020 1:43 pmYeahno, that’s not how it works.Strangelove wrote: ↑Wed Jan 08, 2020 2:56 pm
(data for pie chart: https://sciencing.com/elements-makeup-e ... 51571.html )
(the thin red line is the CO2... can you see it?)
Very little CO2 in the atmosphere.
To say a ridiculously slight rise in that minuscule amount would significantly affect the global climate is patently absurd.
Per, your "Scientific consensus" is politics, not Science...
”To say the ridiculously miniscule amount of plutonium I laced your beer with would significantly affect your health is patently absurd...”
CO2 is not poisonous, lol...
Holy fuck Per. What does your wife say when she sees you doing that? "Don't kill me, please!"
Lol! I don't actually do that, but when people wash their hair (or clothes) outdoors, the water skeeters are in for a surprise.5thhorseman wrote: ↑Mon Jan 13, 2020 10:32 pmHoly fuck Per. What does your wife say when she sees you doing that? "Don't kill me, please!"
Lol, another ridiculous analogy, this isn't about chemistry, it's about proportionate concentrations...Per wrote: ↑Mon Jan 13, 2020 10:08 pmNo, but the idea that a small amount of something won't make any difference is even more ridiculous.Strangelove wrote: ↑Mon Jan 13, 2020 5:39 pmWhat's ridiculous is... that analogy.Per wrote: ↑Thu Jan 09, 2020 1:43 pmYeahno, that’s not how it works.Strangelove wrote: ↑Wed Jan 08, 2020 2:56 pm
(data for pie chart: https://sciencing.com/elements-makeup-e ... 51571.html )
(the thin red line is the CO2... can you see it?)
Very little CO2 in the atmosphere.
To say a ridiculously slight rise in that minuscule amount would significantly affect the global climate is patently absurd.
Per, your "Scientific consensus" is politics, not Science...
”To say the ridiculously miniscule amount of plutonium I laced your beer with would significantly affect your health is patently absurd...”
CO2 is not poisonous, lol...
Here's an idea, fill your bath tub with water. Then let loose a handful of water skeeters in it. Watch them run across the surface of the water.
Then add one drop of detergent and see what happens to the poor bugs.
You keep forgetting that it is NOT a scientific fact that CO2 is a greenhouse gas.
Look, even if CO2 were a greenhouse gas, it's a teensy weensy factor, truth is it's water vapour that is the most important.
you didnt fart apparently
It is. It most definitely is. Heck, if you follow that link you posted you can perhaps finally learn the truth:Strangelove wrote: ↑Tue Jan 14, 2020 9:43 amYou keep forgetting that it is NOT a scientific fact that CO2 is a greenhouse gas.
https://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&ei=j ... CAs&uact=5
Google is your friend...
The theory behind climate change is also grounded in observation and reason. It all started with a puzzle: By the early 1800s, physicists realized that an earth-sized rock orbiting the sun at a distance of 93 million miles should be frozen according to the known laws of physics. French physicist Joseph Fourier proposed that the atmosphere keeps the planet warm. Others tested this theory in laboratory experiments, sending a simulated version of sunlight through various gases. They found that oxygen and nitrogen had no effect on the light, but carbon dioxide did. In repeated experiments, carbon dioxide absorbed and re-radiated infrared waves, which on a planetary scale would prevent some of the sun’s energy from escaping to space.
But now climate science has something even stronger on its side, said atmospheric physicist Lee Harrison of the State University of New York, Albany. The premise is all predicted by a powerful theory in physics known as quantum mechanics, which describes in detail the behavior of light and matter on the scale of molecules, atoms and subatomic particles. Like Einstein’s theory, quantum mechanics is bolstered by hundreds of experiments. Quantum mechanics predicts how infrared radiation coming up from the earth will be affected by carbon dioxide and other gases.
“What the public doesn’t understand is the extreme interconnectedness of physical reality,” Harrison said. “If someone proposes that carbon dioxide is not a greenhouse gas, this requires ripping up essentially all of modern physics … Now you aren’t just arguing with those measurements of carbon dioxide; you are arguing with the whole body of molecular quantum mechanics and all confirming measurements.”
https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/artic ... fic-theoryHistory has shown again and again that authority which refuses belief in sound science and substitutes for it non-science in its programs can have vast costs in lives and treasures; think of the mass starvation when the Soviet party adopted Lysenko’s ideas for harvests ... or what might be coming now for the lives of coastal peoples if no action is taken in accord with sound climate science.
You keep confusing ”largest amount” with ”most important”.Look, even if CO2 were a greenhouse gas, it's a teensy weensy factor, truth is it's water vapour that is the most important.
Humans are not responsible for climate change, lol you've been hornswoggled...
Whatever Per, my statement is irrefutable... try a little research.Per wrote: ↑Tue Jan 14, 2020 1:41 pmYou keep confusing ”largest amount” with ”most important”.Strangelove wrote: ↑Tue Jan 14, 2020 1:41 pm Look, even if CO2 were a greenhouse gas, it's a teensy weensy factor, truth is it's water vapour that is the most important.
They are not the same thing.
I agree with the scientific theory that says humans have an insignificant effect on the global climate at best.Per wrote: ↑Tue Jan 14, 2020 1:41 pmStrangelove wrote: ↑Tue Jan 14, 2020 1:41 pm Humans are not responsible for climate change, lol you've been hornswoggled...
Says the guy believing in alternative facts rather than evidence based scientific theories!