Global Warming [Comment by mortals only, please]

[jusplay4fun]

https://principia-scientific.com/new-discovery-nasa-study-proves-carbon-dioxide-cools-atmosphere/

There are articles that have different points of view. The stories are buried to be sure.

More lazy facts from the quacks at NASA.

lucky I found stories that you fail to believe.

I did not read in the article the NET impact. The article claims CO2 blocks sunlight, BUT does not address its ability to reflect IR Radiation BACK to the earth. I think a key mechanism is not discussed.

PSI seems to have a political bent and inclination to "Expose Lies." The following quote is from the SAME article cited above.

Please Donate Below To Support Our Ongoing Work To Expose The Lies About COVID19

If one looks long enough, one can find ALL kinds of lies and many attempts to support lies online, so keep digging for the lies, Fat Bastard.

NOTE that there is NO NAME associated with the authorship of the article, only:

Published on May 31, 2015

Written by PSI Senior Scientist

WHO?

Further:

NASA’s Langley Research Center has collated data proving that “greenhouse gases” actually block up to 95 percent of harmful solar rays from reaching our planet, thus reducing the heating impact of the sun.

Collating data does not equal "PROVING." The unnamed author does not understand the difference between proving a correlation and proving a cause. This is a BAD CONCLUSION by the unnamed author. Is the author suxi?

Here is one of the cited references (#2) in that article. Note that the source is editorialized, not a good thing to do in a "Scientific" Paper:

[2] Brooks, C.E.P. (1951). “Geological and Historical Aspects of Climatic Change.” In Compendium of Meteorology, edited by Thomas F. Malone, pp. 1004-18 (at 1016). Boston: American Meteorological Association. It shows the American Meteorological Society had refuted the concept of a GHE in 1951 in its Compendium of Meteorology. The AMS stated that the idea that CO2 could alter the climate “was never widely accepted and was abandoned when it was found that all the long-wave radiation [that would be] absorbed by CO2 is [already] absorbed by water vapor.”

NOTE further that this source is 1951 when we knew SO Much less and had so much LESS data. The sensors for CO2 on Mauna Loa was not even up and running in 1951.

The link provided in Source #1 ACTUALLY asks for a donation and does not take me to this ALLEGED NASA link and data. hmmmm....I wonder why? Why I cannot READ this claim of NASA data conflicting with the consensus of 97% or more of climate scientists? I suggest that this is simply A LIE.

OH, I AM shocked: I clicked the link for source #3 and what do I see? ANOTHER appeal to donate money to them. I am sure Fat Bastard clicked ALL THREE sources and donated LOTS of money to further support those LIES.

I also like putting the NASA logo at the top of the article to make IT LOOK like this is official NASA information; it is simply MORE MISLEADING information by the article.

Where PSI claims to be a charity, we learn that:

A community interest company (or CIC) is a special form of non-charitable limited company, which exists primarily to benefit a community or with a view to pursuing a social purpose, rather than to make a profit for shareholders.May 30, 2018

Note that at the TOP right of the article, they ask for donations there TOO.

BOTTOM LINE here: What is this site? A place begging for money to support their WHACK THEORIES and WRONG point of view.

Also, while looking at PSI, I learn:

The numbers of scientific papers rejecting anthropogenic global warming remains miniscule for 20 years

https://www.theguardian.com/environment ... spapers-tv

What's really striking about the research is the red line on the graph showing the number of papers that claim something else is to blame, such as the sun or natural cycles.

[bigtoughralf]

jp you really need to learn to structure and/or condense these essays of yours

[jusplay4fun]

Greenhouse Gas Impacts

#1
President Biden quoted some of the stats (regarding GWP) in his recent speech from Glasgow.

What Happened on Day 2 of the COP26 Climate Change Summit
President Biden headed home from Glasgow with agreements to cut methane emissions and deforestation, but he rebuked the leaders of China and Russia for not attending.

and:

President Biden joined in a collective global pledge to curb methane emissions. Mr. Biden said that for the first time, the Environmental Protection Agency plans to limit release of the potent greenhouse gas from oil and gas rigs across the United States.CreditCredit...
Jessica Lutz for The New York Times

https://www.nytimes.com/live/2021/11/02/world/cop26-glasgow-climate-summit

#2

Greenhouse Gases, CO2, CO2e, and Carbon: What Do All These Terms Mean? August 2012

Author: Matthew Brander1 Internal Reviewer: Gary Davis1 1 Ecometrica

There are lots of terms which get used, such as “greenhouse gases”, “CO2”, “CO2e”, and “carbon”, and what they all mean can get confusing. A brief explanation of these key terms is given below.

Greenhouse gases

A greenhouse gas (or GHG for short) is any gas in the atmosphere which absorbs and re‐emits heat, and thereby keeps the planet’s atmosphere warmer than it otherwise would be.

The main GHGs in the Earth’s atmosphere are water vapour, carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O) and ozone.

GHGs occur naturally in the Earth’s atmosphere, but human activities, such as the burning of fossil fuels, are increasing the levels of GHG’s in the atmosphere, causing global warming and climate change.

The Kyoto Protocol is an international treaty for controlling the release of GHGs from human activities, and the GHGs controlled und
The Table in the article does not copy and paste well; this format can be confusing, so I suggest that you go to the URL Link to see it better.

https://ecometrica.com/assets/GHGs-CO2-CO2e-and-Carbon-What-Do-These-Mean-v2.1.pdf

Greenhouse Gas Global Warming Potential (GWP) 1. Carbon dioxide (CO2) 1 2. Methane (CH4) 25 3. Nitrous oxide(N2O) 298 4. Hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) 124 – 14,800 5. Perfluorocarbons (PFCs) 7,390 – 12,200 6. Sulfur hexafluoride (SF6) 22,800 7. Nitrogen trifluoride (NF3) 3 17,200

I tried a different way to cop that table and this looks more understandable (11/6/21):
Table 1. Kyoto Gases (IPCC 20072).
Greenhouse Gas
Global Warming
Potential (GWP)
1. Carbon dioxide (CO2) 1
2. Methane (CH4) 25
3. Nitrous oxide(N2O) 298
4. Hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) 124 – 14,800
5. Perfluorocarbons (PFCs) 7,390 – 12,200
6. Sulfur hexafluoride (SF6) 22,800
7. Nitrogen trifluoride (NF3) 3 17,200


It’s worth noting that different greenhouse gases last in the atmosphere for different lengths of time, and they also absorb different amounts of heat.

The “global warming potential” (or “GWP”) of a GHG indicates the amount of warming a gas causes over a given period of time (normally 100 years). GWP is an index, with CO2 having the index value of 1, and the GWP for all other GHGs is the number of times more warming they cause compared to CO2.

E.g. 1kg of methane causes 25 times more warming over a 100 year period compared to 1kg of CO2, and so methane as a GWP of 25.

Carbon dioxide Carbon dioxide (CO2) is the most common GHG emitted by human activities, in terms of the quantity released and the total impact on global warming.
As a result the term “CO2” is sometimes used as a shorthand expression for all greenhouse gases, however, this can cause confusion, and a more accurate way of referring to a number of GHGs collectively is to use the term “carbon dioxide equivalent” or “CO2e” (explained below).

Because CO2 is considered the most important greenhouse gas some GHG assessments or reports only include CO2, and don’t consider the other greenhouse gases, and this can lead to an understatement of total global warming impact.

Greenhouse gas inventories are more complete if they include all GHGs and not just CO2. Carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e) “Carbon dioxide equivalent” or “CO2e” is a term for describing different greenhouse gases in a common unit.

For any quantity and type of greenhouse gas, CO2e signifies the amount of CO2 which would have the equivalent global warming impact. A quantity of GHG can be expressed as CO2e by multiplying the amount of the GHG by its GWP. E.g. if 1kg of methane is emitted, this can be expressed as 25kg of CO2e (1kg CH4 * 25 = 25kg CO2e).

I enlarge font for emphasis for those who cannot easily comprehend such a "huge mass" of information. When I do so for those less capable, I am accused of writing like those whose grammar and delivery is NOT good. I get criticized either way, so I will write and present in a way that I think is most helpful for those willing to learn and so that they can do so more effectively.

#3
Also, taken from the Executive Summary of this very LONG and rather scholarly report:
https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/sites/2/2019/06/SR15_Full_Report_High_Res.pdf

All 1.5°C pathways involve limiting cumulative emissions of long-lived greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide and nitrous oxide, and substantial reductions in other climate forcers (high confidence).

and:

1.5°C emission pathways are defined as those that, given current knowledge of the climate response, provide a one in-two to two-in-three chance of warming either remaining below 1.5°C or returning to 1.5°C by around 2100

[2dimes]

Personally I don't like to waste things.

I like to recycle, but some guys brought a machine and some trucks across the back lane here, they took an entire perfectly good house to the land fill.

[jusplay4fun]

Biden apologizes for Trump-era absence on climate, pitching a robust agenda that’s on shaky ground at home

November 1, 2021 at 7:50 p.m. EDT

GLASGOW, Scotland — Speaking at a high-profile climate summit that attracted more than 100 world leaders, President Biden apologized Monday for the Trump administration’s inaction on climate, lending a personal note to his administration’s efforts to sharply reverse the U.S. position on what he views as an existential issue.

“I guess I shouldn’t apologize — but I do apologize for the fact that the United States and the last administration pulled out of the Paris accords and put us sort of behind the eight ball a little bit,” said Biden, speaking briefly at a breakout meeting of world leaders at the COP26 climate summit.

Presidents rarely apologize for broad U.S. policies, even when they are pushing to change them, and the message carried additional resonance for being delivered overseas. Biden’s comments, which came during a smaller meeting after his address to the opening session of the climate conference, highlighted the policy U-turn that he is seeking and underscored how Biden is using this foreign trip to move America away from his predecessor’s policies.

During the Trump administration, the United States, the world’s largest economy, walked away from the Paris climate accord and was virtually invisible at international climate talks. The Biden administration in contrast has shown up in force in Glasgow, with a delegation featuring not only the president, but also a big majority of his Cabinet and a sizable group of career officials. American luminaries such as former president Barack Obama and former vice president Al Gore are also taking part.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-environment/2021/11/01/cop26-biden-glasgow-america/

[jusplay4fun]

As a chemist, the role of nitrous oxide, N2O (AKA laughing gas) as a Greenhouse Gas interested me as this is not well publicized.

Nitrous oxide, commonly known as "laughing gas", is a chemical compound with the chemical formula N2O. At room temperature, it is a colorless non-flammable gas, with a pleasant, slightly sweet odor and taste. It is used in surgery and dentistry for its anesthetic and analgesic effects.

https://www.rcsb.org/ligand/N2O#:~:text=Nitrous%20oxide%2C%20commonly%20known%20as,its%20anesthetic%20and%20analgesic%20effects.

Here is what I learned from one source:

In 2019, nitrous oxide (N2O) accounted for about 7 percent of all U.S. greenhouse gas emissions from human activities. Human activities such as agriculture, fuel combustion, wastewater management, and industrial processes are increasing the amount of N2O in the atmosphere. Nitrous oxide is also naturally present in the atmosphere as part of the Earth's nitrogen cycle, and has a variety of natural sources. Nitrous oxide molecules stay in the atmosphere for an average of 114 years before being removed by a sink or destroyed through chemical reactions. The impact of 1 pound of N2O on warming the atmosphere is almost 300 times that of 1 pound of carbon dioxide.1

Globally, about 40 percent of total N2O emissions come from human activities.2 Nitrous oxide is emitted from agriculture, land use, transportation, industry, and other activities

https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/overview-greenhouse-gases

I tried to copy a graph below, but "It was not possible to determine the dimensions of the image."

You can go to the URL Link above and see it for yourself. I will summarize and say that the graph shows basically a constant level of N2O emissions 1990 to 2019

https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2021-04/gases-by-n2o-2021-line.png

I will add this quote, from the EPA link, which is useful to understand the concept of ppm or Part Per Million:

Concentration, or abundance, is the amount of a particular gas in the air. Larger emissions of greenhouse gases lead to higher concentrations in the atmosphere. Greenhouse gas concentrations are measured in parts per million, parts per billion, and even parts per trillion. One part per million is equivalent to one drop of water diluted into about 13 gallons of liquid (roughly the fuel tank of a compact car). To learn more about the increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, visit the Climate Change Indicators: Atmospheric Concentrations of Greenhouse Gases page.

[bigtoughralf]

How much electricity is used displaying each of jp's essays? How many polar bears have been made homeless as a direct result? It must be at least two.

[jimboston]

…. to draw better conclusion than the ones he chooses to express here.

[jimboston]

Did the IQ level drop in this Forum since you started to post again, Jim?

I mean this is actually funny… but the truth is the IQ level of posts in the Forum is way below the peak high of 7-10 years ago.

[2dimes]

I find it ridiculous to suggest Jim has a low IQ. I may disagree with his opinions but he often displays a reasonable amount of thought.

[Dukasaur]

Did the IQ level drop in this Forum since you started to post again, Jim?

I mean this is actually funny… but the truth is the IQ level of posts in the Forum is way below the peak high of 7-10 years ago.

So, you are admitting fault?

[fat bastard]

I did not write any of the articles i have made links to for your viewing pleasures So you really can not call me anything other someone who wants you to consider other views.

With a little thought you can see a carbon dashboard type screen where u yes u have a fixed amount of carbon credits per month. So maybe the government would setup your credits each month...maybe 2 trips to the store, water usage 100 gals per month, natural gas for heat allows you to set thermostat to 60 degrees in the winter etc,etc,etc.

When they come to your house and you begin to be TOLD hard choices your attitude will change.

We are going to be squeezed tighter and tighter till there will be conflicts around the world.

I do hope you folks are special and will not be subject the coming controls to your life.

the squeeze starts now.

Come on guys how about chart for how much money will need to be spent to save us from a few degrees.

[jusplay4fun]

I did not write any of the articles i have made links to for your viewing pleasures So you really can not call me anything other someone who wants you to consider other views.

With a little thought you can see a carbon dashboard type screen where u yes u have a fixed amount of carbon credits per month. So maybe the government would setup your credits each month...maybe 2 trips to the store, water usage 100 gals per month, natural gas for heat allows you to set thermostat to 60 degrees in the winter etc,etc,etc. When they come to your house and you begin to be TOLD hard choices your attitude will change.
We are going to be squeezed tighter and tighter till there will be conflicts around the world.
I do hope you folks are special and will not be subject the coming controls to your life.

I did consider your views and pointed out the fallacies in your ONE source that cites 1951 data and points of view. I see you did not dig up more questionable articles for me to consider further and for my viewing pleasure.

Global Warming was not even on the Radar of anyone in 1951. We did not even know of the ozone hole at that time or predict THAT would happen.

As far as Carbon dashboard:
1) it has not yet happened;
2) I am not sure Americans would support such a thing;
3) the opposition to masks and the COVID Vaccine indicate such a proposal would not be supported by many;
4) proposed EPA regulations to reduce methane emissions significantly will not have a major impact on most consumers, as I see things.
5) I did work with an environmental group over many years and saw the impact of EPA and VA DEQ efforts and regulation; (I cite this to offer some knowledge of such matters from a work perspective and that I see the need to balance environmental and economic matters.)

6) BUT,

7) Doing major things to reduce Man-made Global Warming will take a major attitude change. We need to waste LESS energy and use our Resources more intelligently.

8 ) Carbon (and thus CO2, the product of burning fossil fuels) is too pervasive in our society to change easily. Think about what we use Oil, Coal, and natural gas for: (a) transportation (of people and goods); (b) heating our homes and work places; (c) manufacturing processes; AND (d) production of electricity; (e) more?

10) Even Electric cars need A RELIABLE fuel to power them, ultimately. We do not plug electric cars into a solar panel, as some seem to think.

11) I read where my local electric utility for the state of VA will spend at least $10 Billion on Wind Turbines.

Dominion Energy Inc.’s offshore wind farm will cost about $2 billion more than expected, the Richmond-based Fortune 500 utility’s chair, president and CEO, Bob Blue, said during a third quarter earnings call Friday.

Instead of the previously estimated $7.8 billion, the 2.6-gigawatt Coastal Virginia Offshore Wind (CVOW) commercial project will cost approximately $9.8 billion, Blue said, attributing the roughly 25% cost increase to rising commodities expenses and general cost pressures across a number of industries right now amid mounting inflation. Additionally, Blue cited costs associated with the need to build about 17 miles of new transmission lines and other onshore infrastructure associated with the project.

https://www.virginiabusiness.com/article/dominion-offshore-wind-farm-cost-climbs-to-to-9-8b/

12) Dominion Energy has also (apparently) invested LOTS in Solar Panels and solar farms (and, ironically, cut down trees to make that system work). I did look to find information on this, but I did not find any information on how they spend on THIS. I saw at least two large solar "farms" as I rode my bicycle in the Richmond area. We went 25-31 miles on most of our rides.

[jusplay4fun]

I love how energized he is about trying to prove something that's already been proven. Next he's gonna start a thread debunking the flat earth theory.

and, you were saying...?

and, ONE MORE denier who is HERE, NOW:

by fat bastard on Wed Nov 03, 2021 8:03 pm

https://principia-scientific.com/new-di ... tmosphere/

There are articles that have different points of view. The stories are buried to be sure.

More lazy facts from the quacks at NASA.

lucky I found stories that you fail to believe.

ralf, you were wrong AGAIN.

AND, for the record, ralf, are you really a vegetarian, or do you eat chicken? Which lie do you want to defend or admit?

The longer this discussion continues, and the more who post, the more we realize the lies (or, at the least, the lack of facts and lack of understanding) by ralf.

[jusplay4fun]

I don't know about all the technical stuff you speak about in your rant about how bad it is on earth.

I can ask you to look back all the articles from the 1970's regarding global warming.

I think you're misremembering the 70s. Global warming was not on anybody's radar in the 70s. There were a few scientists warning about it in the 70s, even in the 60s, but they were obscure and largely unknown to the public. Global warming really didn't start being publicly discussed until '88 or '89.

They had everyone afraid. Only 10 ten years left. The 1970's were full of MSM bullshit that never happened.

Again, I think you're misremembering the 70s. The 70s saw a lot of very successful environmental actions.

When I was a kid, Lake Erie smelled like a sewer and was pretty much a toxic waste dump. There were a lot of drastic actions taken by the various states and provinces to strictly limit what you could dump in the Great Lakes, and today they're all largely revitalized. Improved sewage treatment, the phosphates ban, and stricter enforcement of laws on industrial effluents all contributed to getting the Great Lakes cleaned up.

At roughly the same time, we first became aware of the damage that acid rain was doing. Again the federal governments of Canada and the U.S. were dragging their asses on doing anything, so again the state and provincial governments of the various Great Lakes states and provinces brought in tough new limits on sulfur emissions and got that problem under control.

The damage that environmental lead was doing was curbed by getting lead out of gasoline and most paint pigments. This really didn't see fruition until the late 80s or 90s, but the initial steps began in the 70s.

The initial work to ban the most dangerous pesticides began in the 70s, starting with the DDT ban in the U.S. in the 1972. To this day, we are still using too many dangerous pesticides, but the groundwork has been done.

So I'm really not sure what you mean by things that didn't happen. A lot of problems were addressed and at least partially resolved by mobilizing public support.

Now we have better science data right? If the earth is billions of years old we do not have near enough data to predict much. Hundreds of years data ....lol

We may only have a couple hundred years of direct temperature measurements, but we actually have really good methods of determining temperatures before that. We can track the climate for 800,000 years through Arctic ice cores.

Further than that, we can look to sedimentary rocks and chemical signatures in them. For instance, the Mg/Ca ratio in calcite produced by corals and various protists is temperature dependent. The warmer the ocean, the more magnesium these organisms will absorb. The colder the ocean, the more pure the calcium uptake. The Mg/Ca ratio is a simple matter of chemistry, these organisms don't choose how much magnesium to absorb, so by analyzing the calcite deposits we have a really good way of determining the temperature of ancient oceans, and it takes us back at least 500 million years.

Before that, we have the 18-O/16-O ratio. The isotope Oxygen-18 is heavier than the common isotope Oxygen-16, and thus water molecules with 18-O in them require warmer sea temperatures to evaporate. By measuring the relative concentration of 18-O in oxidized minerals that were deposited on dry land away from oceans, we have a rough idea of how warm the seas were even beyond the 500 million year window that Mg/Ca gives us. Obviously, the further back you go, the more there is potential error in the data, but an enormous amount of work goes into refining it, and the precision gets better all the time.

The end game is what, more government ?

Well, it doesn't have to be. People could voluntarily choose to stop complicating their lives with so much materialistic claptrap. Sadly, I suspect they won't and yes, in the end there's going to be draconian action by government.

I guess half the country needs to be on fire for some people.

Pretty much.

Duk gives an excellent summary of ways to determine climate conditions before human started to take and KEEP good records of temperatures and how we can analyze data to determine climate conditions thousands and even hundreds of millions of years ago.

I will add two points here.

One is that I have read that the large of amount of air pollution that was occurring in the 1970 included sulfates and particulate matter. These forms of pollution blocked sunlight and led to less sunlight and thus lower temperatures. THAT led to predictions of Global Cooling. Many climate deniers use that argument as "proof" that our current state of knowledge is "wrong" and that Science is Wrong or inaccurate. No, as we learn more, we change our conclusions based on more and BETTER data. Better data usually leads to better conclusions, better scientific models, and a better understanding of our world.

Two is the role of proxies to determine climate and temperatures in the past.
(a) tree rings; (B) ice core samples; and (c) sediment deposits at the bottom of lakes and oceans.

(a) Tree rings and how they can be used and analyzed to determine climate conditions. The time frame is limited to oldest trees and can take us back a few thousands of years. This is well beyond the approximate 130 years ago of temperature data in the USA from thermometers and accurate records.

This caption says the oldest trees are some 5,000 years old.

This is said to be the Methuselah Tree, one of the oldest living trees in the world. Methuselah, a bristlecone pine tree in White Mountain, California is thought to be almost 5,000 years old.

https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2540/tree-rings-provide-snapshots-of-earths-past-climate/

Tree rings provide snapshots of Earth's past climate

If you look out the window, you can tell if it’s rainy or sunny right now, but that doesn’t say very much about your region’s climate—the area’s average weather conditions over a long period of time (30 years or more). However, that big tree in your backyard has been keeping a detailed climate record for decades.

Trees can live for hundreds—and sometimes even thousands—of years. Over this long lifetime, a tree can experience a variety of environmental conditions: wet years, dry years, cold years, hot years, early frosts, forest fires and more.

But how do trees keep track of this information?

If you’ve ever seen a tree stump, you’ve probably noticed that the top of a stump has a series of concentric rings. These rings can tell us how old the tree is, and what the weather was like during each year of the tree’s life. The light-colored rings represent wood that grew in the spring and early summer, while the dark rings represent wood that grew in the late summer and fall. One light ring plus one dark ring equals one year of the tree’s life.

Because trees are sensitive to local climate conditions, such as rain and temperature, they give scientists some information about that area’s local climate in the past. For example, tree rings usually grow wider in warm, wet years and they are thinner in years when it is cold and dry. If the tree has experienced stressful conditions, such as a drought, the tree might hardly grow at all in those years.

Scientists can compare modern trees with local measurements of temperature and precipitation from the nearest weather station. The National Weather Service has been keeping weather records in the United States since 1891, but very old trees can offer clues about what the climate was like long before measurements were recorded. This field—the study of past climates—is called paleoclimatology.

Since we can’t go back in time to learn about past climates, paleoclimatologists rely upon natural sources of climate data, such as tree rings, cores drilled from Antarctic ice and sediment collected from the bottom of lakes and oceans. These sources, called proxies, can extend our knowledge of weather and climate from hundreds to millions of years.

The information from proxies, combined with weather and climate information from NASA satellites, can help scientists model major climate events that shaped our planet in the past. And these models can also help us make predictions about what climate patterns to expect in the future.

[jusplay4fun]

jp you really need to learn to structure and/or condense these essays of yours

My essays are for your edification.

What's the point here, ralf? That you cannot read the Science? You do not follow the discussion?

I will make it easy for you, ralf:

1) Global Warming is real.
2) Most or ALL the current Global Warming is caused by man.
3) The major cause is using and burning fossil fuels, releasing huge amounts of CO2.
4) There are other Greenhouse gases also contributing to Global Warming (released methane and nitrous oxides are two of them).
5) We humans need to reverse these trends and methods involving release Greenhouse Gases and ways to obtain fuel.
6) These efforts will allow us to prevent further calamities in regards to the climate.

I am glad that I can help you understand the Science, ralf. Any questions?

[mookiemcgee]

jp you really need to learn to structure and/or condense these essays of yours

My essays are for your edification.

What's the point here, ralf? That you cannot read the Science? You do not follow the discussion?

I will make it easy for you, ralf:

1) Global Warming is real.
2) Most or ALL the current Global Warming is caused by man.
3) The major cause is using and burning fossil fuels, releasing huge amounts of CO2.
4) There are other Greenhouse gases also contributing to Global Warming (released methane and nitrous oxides are two of them).
5) We humans need to reverse these trends and methods involving release Greenhouse Gases and ways to obtain fuel.
6) These efforts will allow us to prevent further calamities in regards to the climate.

I am glad that I can help you understand the Science, ralf. Any questions?

Typical Woke Left lies, Let's Go Brandon.

[riskllama]

another fine quadruple posting effort by jpcogers...

[jusplay4fun]

another fine quadruple posting effort by jpcogers...

Thank you Llama. You have been edified.

[riskllama]

edified as pertaining to what? how to be a boring, long winded old f*ck?

[jusplay4fun]

edified as pertaining to what? how to be a boring, long winded old f*ck?

NO, Llama, you have that job all sewn up. Your own self-description is sufficiently cogent.

Occupation: getting goatfucked. being hard & joyless, like a russian turnip.
Interests: avoiding the goatfuck. agricultural pursuits. also, soup.

My life is full of joy and good people, unlike the joyless life you apparently lead.

Your disguise as a llama is only a step or two away from the proverbial old goat that you are.

[riskllama]

3/10...

[jusplay4fun]

a non-denial denial. Good one, Llama.

It appears you concede that you are indeed a joyless old goat. And an old fart, too.

[riskllama]

riskllama: i am the greatest.