NASA - ''Ozone Hole Is Now The Smallest On Record''

[Guest]

Errr ... but ... but Trump ......err ... orange?

[footeab@yahoo.com + 2,135]

Oh dear, another climate nutter who can't do math.  Lets see roughly 1.74 E^17 Watts hit the earth every second.

Entire energy consumed by humanity(2017) for an entire year(assume zero renewable) from wikipedia(🙄 cuz lazy) is 1.62E17WH

So, ~one hour of sunlight hitting the earth is equal to ~100% of every joule of energy used by humanity in a year according to wikipedia..... (since I am lazy)

8766 hours per year.  So, 1/8766 extra energy to radiate to space for equilibrium. = 0.000114

So, solve in reverse for Delta T using basic 100% proven physics which have never been broken.  Stephan Boltzman Law. 

Radiative forcing due to increase temp to space goes by the 4th power of Temperature.

So, 1/8766 quad root is: = 0.1033 Delta C

So earth, assuming zero renewable(hydro, solar, wind etc) has warmed by 0.1C....

The end of the world is nigh.

This is what the climate nutters are claiming is 10X larger than reality(claiming ~1C)..... and will continually increase in an asymptotic fashion.... 

The squirrels have lost the nut.

When off by an entire magnitude via very oh so basic physics + assymptotic heating... 🤣🤣🏆

Try basic energy balance

Enjoy science

[Guest]

f**k**g gold 

this will still get ''present your case'' reply though LOL 🤣

🏆🏆🏆

 

Edited October 26, 2019 by Guest

[footeab@yahoo.com + 2,135]

4 minutes ago, DayTrader said:

f**k**g gold 

this will still get ''present your case'' reply though LOL 🤣

 

What is hilarious is that since the squirrels have lost their nut they appear to have lost the ability to do a simple mental check for stupidity along the way. 

if you moved the earth to the position of Venus, the earth would have the EXACT same temperature as Venus even though Venus has 97???%%% CO2 and the other 3% is Sulpheric acid???   Same goes if Venus was moved to the Orbit of Earth when you use 1atm.  Same goes for the planetoid/moon Titan. 

Why?  Increased solar radiation when closer orbit and good ol' Stephen Boltzmann black body radiation equations which have never been disproven no matter how many climate squirrels dance and chitter chatter away.

Now if humanity somehow doubles the PRESSURE of earth, then yes, the temperature will massively increase.  Uh... Good luck on that one...

Until then, the entire climate scam is a massive denial of basic physics because some losers without purpose in their lives, hate themselves and ergo hate humanity as they see themselves as a stain upon the earth.  Their religion?  Worship of mother nature.  "GAIA"  It sure as Hell is not physics and logic they are using. 

[Guest]

Well now you're just 'diverting' and 'shooting the messenger instead of hearing the message' ...

Oh no wait, now I remember ...

The message is horse shit, hence said shooting of messenger 

9 minutes ago, footeab@yahoo.com said:

the entire climate scam is a massive denial of basic physics because some losers without purpose in their lives, hate themselves and ergo hate humanity as they see themselves as a stain upon the earth.

🏆

Edited October 26, 2019 by Guest

[Douglas Buckland + 6,308]

2 hours ago, DayTrader said:

f**k**g gold 

this will still get ''present your case'' reply though LOL 🤣

🏆🏆🏆

 

Over to you Remake It! Argue with that (this should be telling...).

[Guest]

''Enjoy science'' ... (and popcorn)

No diverting @remake it  please! 

You're up ... time to fix those faulty wires ... and concentrate on the message please. 

Hint - you are the squirrel. 

Edited October 26, 2019 by Guest

[remake it + 288]

3 hours ago, footeab@yahoo.com said:

Try basic energy balance

Enjoy science

Climate change relates to temperature at the surface of the planet and you have not shown how variability occurs, but if you reckon you have nailed it, send your paper to be published and see how it goes,

[Boat + 1,315]

3 hours ago, Douglas Buckland said:

197 countries trying to scam money through the Paris Accord said that ozone depletion was a danger to humanity - although most could not spell it.

You know, the bit in the Paris Accord that dictates each ‘developed’ nation hast to fork over USD 100 billion YEARLY to ‘undeveloped’ nations (Note: China is not considered a developed nation) so that they can do something (no plan or business model yet presented) with it to mitigate the climate change damage done to them by those dastardly developed nations.

And you wonder why the US pulled out of the Accord!!!

 

Each developed nation to cough up 100 billion per year. Could you show us a link of who those countries are? Who got the money and how much by country. 

[Douglas Buckland + 6,308]

9 minutes ago, remake it said:

Climate change relates to temperature at the surface of the planet and you have not shown how variability occurs, but if you reckon you have nailed it, send your paper to be published and see how it goes,

Do you take great pleasure in repeatedly posting nonsensical replies, or is it simply that this is the best ‘debating’ tactic you have in your arsenal?

YOU mention ‘variability’, but YOU have failed to explain how this occurs or how it relates to climate change.

If you actually have something to contribute to this, or any thread, please do. On the other hand, if you are simply going to obfuscate each and every topic, please start your own threads so that the rest of us can see who started it - and ignore it.

[Douglas Buckland + 6,308]

@BoatMy mistake, not each. But ‘developed’ countries (you can look them up) are required to supply funds of $100 billion per year, from 2020-2025.

Half a trillion dollars to be provided to (?) to be spent on something yet to be defined.

Would you agree to that?

[Guest]

19 minutes ago, Douglas Buckland said:

but YOU have failed to explain

He doesn't have to explain anything HE says Doug.  EVER!

Have you learnt nothing? 🤣

That's all he does. Accuse others of being wrong, while talking, not my words, ''horse shit'', whatever the topic is.

[remake it + 288]

10 hours ago, Douglas Buckland said:

Do you take great pleasure in repeatedly posting nonsensical replies, or is it simply that this is the best ‘debating’ tactic you have in your arsenal?

YOU mention ‘variability’, but YOU have failed to explain how this occurs or how it relates to climate change.

If you actually have something to contribute to this, or any thread, please do. On the other hand, if you are simply going to obfuscate each and every topic, please start your own threads so that the rest of us can see who started it - and ignore it.

When people post rubbish here and those many like you accept it, it's an issue for you and them, because there are thousands of real scientists who study climate and regularly publish their peer reviewed work which explains aspects of climate variability.

[Guest]

[Boat + 1,315]

11 hours ago, Douglas Buckland said:

@BoatMy mistake, not each. But ‘developed’ countries (you can look them up) are required to supply funds of $100 billion per year, from 2020-2025.

Half a trillion dollars to be provided to (?) to be spent on something yet to be defined.

Would you agree to that?

Global energy is an almost 9 trillion per year expense. 5 years is 45 trillion. So this global effort you say is a couple trillion? Seems like chump change compared to wasted obsolete military spending in various areas. But do I agree with the Paris accord? No. I would rather see those hundreds of billions go to tech solutions to force FF energy out of the market faster. In the meantime renewables are doing just fine and expanding. But obviously without those billions it will happen but slower.

[footeab@yahoo.com + 2,135]

3 hours ago, remake it said:

When people post rubbish here and those many like you accept it, it's an issue for you and them, because there are thousands of real scientists who study climate and regularly publish their peer reviewed work which explains aspects of climate variability.

And yet, all the physicists are completely shut out of the discussion... Why?  They too remember Physics 101 and the Stephan Boltzmann's Law which has never been broken.., but according to genius climate scientists, Stephan Boltzmann's law of radiation is to be ignored and we have ever increasing temperatures irregardless of the earth's energy balance.  Absolute genius. 

Likewise physicists search for planets via the use of Stephan Boltzmann's law, but you know, what the Hell do they know🤡

Edited October 26, 2019 by footeab@yahoo.com

[remake it + 288]

1 minute ago, footeab@yahoo.com said:

And yet, all the phsycists are completely shut out of the discussion... Why?  They too remember Physics 101 and the Stephan Boltzmann's Law which has never been broken.., but according to genius climate scientists, Stephan Boltzmann's law of radiation is to be ignored and we have ever increasing temperatures irregardless of the earth's energy balance.  Absolute genius. 

Where do so many people here get these crazy ideas... and when pushed to show they do not know what they are talking about, they make up even more nonsense.

[Guest]

6 minutes ago, footeab@yahoo.com said:

Absolute genius. 

The scientists he respects have been duped by a teenage girl that's why.

Ah, more denial of presented facts above.

Absolutely hopeless.

Edited October 26, 2019 by Guest

[Douglas Buckland + 6,308]

5 hours ago, DayTrader said:

The scientists he respects have been duped by a teenage girl that's why.

Ah, more denial of presented facts above.

Absolutely hopeless.

DT,

You are being ‘gender specific’ again, please slap yourself...

[Guest]

Haha apologies Doug.

It's funny, you'd think people either way would be happy the hole is smaller. End of story..? Nope, we need to bring up Trump and nonsense about what more we must do.  Yawn!!

And meanwhile ... have some more propaganda. It's some of my best photoshopping work. 

WE MUST DO MORE IN THE WEST!!!   COME ON!!

THANKYOU TO THE GRETA GANG FOR TELLING ME WHAT MY COUNTRY NEEDS TO DO

''Climate'' change ... that's one way of putting it. I'm sure they word it in China that way too. They have no choice.

#buckwheat #squirrel #amishdroid

Edited October 27, 2019 by Guest

[Douglas Buckland + 6,308]

As long as you keep in mind that only white, Anglo-Saxon, Protestant, heterosexual, males, above the age of 40, are responsible for every social ill and climate change, you should be okay...😖

 

[Guest]

Not Protestant haha ...

Phew,  it's all on you guys.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And Pooh bear.

 

[NickW + 2,714]

On 10/26/2019 at 5:49 AM, Douglas Buckland said:

197 countries trying to scam money through the Paris Accord said that ozone depletion was a danger to humanity - although most could not spell it.

You know, the bit in the Paris Accord that dictates each ‘developed’ nation hast to fork over USD 100 billion YEARLY to ‘undeveloped’ nations (Note: China is not considered a developed nation) so that they can do something (no plan or business model yet presented) with it to mitigate the climate change damage done to them by those dastardly developed nations.

And you wonder why the US pulled out of the Accord!!!

 

Why are you conflating the two issues. The decision to phase out CFC's was under the Montreal Protocol. The USA is a signatory to that accord. 

[NickW + 2,714]

On 10/26/2019 at 12:39 AM, footeab@yahoo.com said:

Basic radiative black body physics. Wouldn't matter if the atmosphere was 100% water vapor.  Black body radiation Stephan Boltzman LAW, not theory, but LAW has never been broken.  No matter how many nutter climate propaganda slanderers scream otherwise. 

Composition of atmosphere(remaining at 1 atm) matters not one whit other than how much energy is required to move the gauge 1C +/- not its energy balance. 

100% CO2 or H2O does not change the albedo of the earth other than 100% H2O would increase clouds which would cool/warm earth depending where you are.  And the biggest factor?  Cosmic rays on upper atmospheric cloud formation.

So the transparency of constituent gases in the atmosphere to visible light, UV, infrared has no influence on global temperature? 

[remake it + 288]

8 minutes ago, NickW said:

So the transparency of constituent gases in the atmosphere to visible light, UV, infrared has no influence on global temperature?