• Have you tried out dark mode?! Scroll to the bottom of any page to find a sun or moon icon to turn dark mode on or off!

diy solar

diy solar

We will be tested very soon..!!!

That said, I'm not so clear on the science supporting a CO2 greenhouse connection at an atmospheric temperature level.
no, the "greenhouse effect" is the reference to extra CO2 in the atmosphere "being similar" to a glass greenhouse in your yard - the CO2 being like the glass - holding in extra heat. Nothing to do with plants.
 
no, the "greenhouse effect" is the reference to extra CO2 in the atmosphere "being similar" to a glass greenhouse in your yard - the CO2 being like the glass - holding in extra heat. Nothing to do with plants.
Yes, that is the claim that I dispute until proven otherwise. I have yet to see any actual scientific evidence beyond raw assertions of the fact that CO2 is like glass in a greenhouse, holding in heat that other gases would not. When we look at the various gas laws relied on by chemists, we see no special category for one gas over another.

Charles LawV/T=K
Boyle's LawPV=K
Avogadros lawV/n=K
Ideal Gas LawPV=nRT

These laws, which govern the relationship of gases to their temperatures and volumes, are all equally applicable to N2, O2, CO2, CO, NOx, CH4, O3, He, H2, or any other gas present in our atmosphere.

I have yet to see any definitive reason, or comparison to other gases, that would show why CO2 is more heat retentive than, say, N2--the most common gas in our atmosphere. Any gas can be heated, and any gas can radiate that heat: CO2 is hardly unique in that department, and perhaps it is that people were looking for a scapegoat, and observed that the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere had been steadily rising, that they connected the two dots...a matter of conjecture.

I have tried some online research as to how CO2 causes global warming, but have never seen it explained in any of what I have read how CO2 is more heat retentive than any other gas. If it is that the various gases have differing heating coefficients, where might I find a table of this information showing their respective numbers? Why do I not find anyone explaining how, for example, the covalent bonds present in CO2 are more heat retentive than the ionic bonds of other gases (assuming such were the difference--I find that most of the gases are bonded covalently, and with double or triple bonds)? And, if such were the case, would the principal gas laws apply differently to CO2 than to the other gases?

I'm not ready to accept that CO2 is a "greenhouse gas" simply on the basis of some scientist saying "because I said so." And I haven't seen any other reason given.
 
Last edited:
There is clear evidence of the heat trapping effects of atmospheric gases.
Look at the other planets for additional evidence - Mars without much atmosphere, and Venus - which is hotter than Mercury - do to it's gaseous atmosphere.
 
There is clear evidence of the heat trapping effects of atmospheric gases.
Look at the other planets for additional evidence - Mars without much atmosphere, and Venus - which is hotter than Mercury - do to it's gaseous atmosphere.
And I would readily accept that. But what is the difference between CO2 and N2? Why is one a supposed cause of global warming, and the other not? Have you any study that you could point me to that establishes the scientific reasons behind identification of CO2 as the culprit?

Most today like to shout from the hilltops, as @Primal1 posted, "Trust the science." But why do they need to repeat this ad nauseum? Isn't it because many are presently distrusting the scientists--and with good reason?

We've all been lied to, in the name of "science." After awhile, people will wise up to the fact.

Not even the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) seems to have a "fact sheet" showing the relative warming ratios or properties of the various "greenhouse gases." See HERE for a list of what they do have. If the experts don't have this information, it's unlikely folk posting here will have it either. My own suspicion is that the theory has insufficient basis in fact to be able to support with scientific rationale.

Even if one acknowledges that some gases can absorb more heat than others, due to differing heat capacities (we all know that H2O has a high heat capacity, right?), this is not at all the same as saying that such gases will cause the environment itself to heat more rapidly. Putting water in one bowl, and leaving another empty--with both outside in full sun, will quickly dispel the idea of water causing the bowl to heat more quickly! Even if left there for days, the bowl with water will never reach the high temperatures of the empty bowl in the sun.
 
There are thousands of scientific papers on the heat trapping (and other) charateristics of various atmospheric gases. It is incumbent on the individual to inform themselves of the evidence, if you feel skeptical. The heat trapping effects of water vapour, CO2, CH4 have been widely studied - the reason that N2 (atmospheric Nitrogen) is less important is due to the minimal interaction of infra-red radiation on N2 compared to other molecules in the atmosphere - the information is there for the reading.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DPC
The Earth's atmosphere is about 78% nitrogen, 21% oxygen and 1% other gases, including argon, carbon dioxide, neon and others. CO2 makes up roughly 0.0427% of the Earth's atmosphere. Venus's atmosphere is 96% CO2. That means the CO2 concentration in the Venusian atmosphere is 2,248 times that of Earth, yet it's average surface temperature is only 15 times that of Earth's. Venus is also roughly 1/3 closer to the Sun than the Earth, resulting in much more solar energy being imparted on the atmosphere. Surely that has a very large effect on the planet's temperature, no?

Here's the rub - water vapor is by far the greatest "greenhouse gas" on the Earth. Where does it come from? 90% is from evaporation of bodies of water across the planet, 10% is from plants. Why isn't water vapor a focal point of climate savers? Because there is nothing that can be done by humans to reduce it and, most importantly, the powers that be cannot create some elaborate "carbon credit" scheme to steal untold billions of dollars from the population. CO2 is being used as a measuring stick, simply because it is something they can point at as being "man-made". Follow the $$$....

The Earth has always been in a constant state of change. CO2 levels have been much higher and lower in the past than they are today. There is NOTHING that can be done by humans to stop the natural cycles that occur on this planet.
  • Every year the Sun is a little bit brighter than the year before.
  • Every year a little more of the planet is razed by humans, reducing O2 production, reducing CO2 absorption.
  • Every year the oceans are damaged by humans, reducing O2 production, reducing CO2 absorption.
If and when it hits the tipping point, there will be a collapse and the majority of land-based O2 breathing organisms will pay the price. Once the majority of humans are gone, plants will thrive, O2 levels will increase, the temps will slowly drop and the cycle will begin again.

I remember as a child - many "experts" and "scientists" said, with great certainty, that there was an ice age coming. They had lots of graphs, charts and scientific papers explaining the how's and why's.

Very recently, "scientists" developed a "vaccine" that does not prevent the disease it is supposed to protect us from. Instead of being dismissed as the outright bullshit that it is, they literally altered the definition of the word vaccine to fit their new narrative - and the majority of the general public bought it all - hook, line and sinker. "Experts" told us that we needed to wear face coverings to stop the spread. Legislation was passed to protect big pharma from lawsuits created on behalf of people maimed or killed by these so-called "vaccines". Follow the $$$...

People who actually analyzed the data and used their brains to determine the truth are ridiculed to this day. People participating in this very thread are guilty of ignoring that readily available data, yet they want others to believe a "theory" or "hypothesis" on something incredibly more complex (the climate).

This meme sums up the utter ridiculousness of what passes for "science" in the world today:

Bob Super Powers.jpg

We need more real science. We need more common sense. Neither are likely to happen with an ignorant populace that has been taught to believe that a government knows what's best for them.
 
Last edited:
During my Master of Arts degree, one 'research' paper was basically an assignment to take pure unadulterated, published and peer reviewed data, and make it say whatever you wanted it to say, often contrary to the original publisher's intent. You would be surprised how easy it was to imprint your bias into a science based article so it said exactly what you wanted, regardless of what the data really said.

No, it was not a mass media degree, but the project made it much easier to spot data covered with fecal matter to support a hidden bs agenda.
 
Just a reminder for everyone discussing climate change with the true believers here. You're arguing with the same idiots who were/are wearing a Covid mask in their car ALONE. Climate change activists are the same morons who screamed for masks, vaccinations and working from home. They're literally the Chicken Littles of the world.... Or mask-holes it also applies. They deserve the same response now as they did then, point and laugh. It's the same type of "science" parroted by the same "experts" with a targeted message intended for scaring the same audience.




 
Last edited:
Tested, and failed. You would think this was satire but my understanding is it is real. I'm glad California is getting what they voted for. Democrats can't get anything right they even misspelled DIE , as DEI.

What an idiot. Like someone who is going to burn to death in a fire gives a rat's ass about the race / creed / color / sex / etc. of a rescuer ? As long as they are strong enough to carry my 6' 2" 240 lb. ass out, I could care less what they look like or what they are. I'd be very appreciative for the help.

Again, what an idiot. I guess nobody has ever been overcome by smoke and required getting carried out by a fire fighter before ?
 
What an idiot. Like someone who is going to burn to death in a fire gives a rat's ass about the race / creed / color / sex / etc. of a rescuer ? As long as they are strong enough to carry my 6' 2" 240 lb. ass out, I could care less what they look like or what they are. I'd be very appreciative for the help.

Again, what an idiot. I guess nobody has ever been overcome by smoke and required getting carried out by a fire fighter before ?

It's the whole issue of liberalism, they want to be someone or something they aren't because they hate being the losers they are.

Therfore fuck you, no matter how many people die it's acceptable as long as the unqualified get to be firefighters, soldiers, engineers, pilots, doctors and such.

How dare they be kept from doing what they want just because they're unqualified? According to liberal logic, as long as the unqualified people who didn't put in the work and can't do the job, get the job it's making the world a better place.

Fucking over other people and causing innocent people to die so the unqualified can have the job they want is the responsibility of every liberal. If your idiotic policies aren't negatively impacting other people's lives what kind of liberal are you?
 
I remember as a child - many "experts" and "scientists" said, with great certainty, that there was an ice age coming. They had lots of graphs, charts and scientific papers explaining the how's and why's
and based on the long cycle glacial periods that would likely have been the case - except humanity interrupted those long cycles, by releasing gigatones of sequestered carbon (from deep geological deposits) into the atmosphere, where it interacts with solar radiation and changes the heat retained by the earth instead of lost.
Here's the rub - water vapor is by far the greatest "greenhouse gas" on the Earth. Where does it come from? 90% is from evaporation of bodies of water across the planet,
it is, and thus another self-reinforcing loop, as additional GHG raise the global temperatures, more watervapor is created and increases the heating effect - leading to even more evaporation in an ever increasing self-reinforcing mechanism humanity will not be able to control.
Loss of moisture increases risks to crops and forested lands -ever larger wildfires and greater reinforcing of the effects that created the moisture loss from land in the first place.
 
May we need to set all the coal beds and oil fields on fire at once and measure the temperature changes.
Only then will people be convinced..
 
May we need to set all the coal beds and oil fields on fire at once and measure the temperature changes.
Only then will people be convinced..
That's not going to happen. God is reserving a sufficient quantity of all that fuel for His own use to sanitize the planet after this sin experiment is finished. In Noah's time there was a worldwide flood. Prior to the Flood the earth's oceans did not yet exist, and trees were very large. Vegetation covered the earth. It is the heaps of all that organic matter that, buried by the Flood, became the fossil fuels we use today. The next cleansing of the planet will be by fire, and those fossil fuels will come into play at that time.
 

diy solar

diy solar
Back
Top