US Rep: "Food Shortages Are Coming" - Crops Destroyed - UK Limits Purchases

submitted by Tom_Bombadil from (youtube.com)

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]Tom_Bombadil[S] 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (4 children)

I'll take you at your word that all of the things you covered are happening in Europe.

There are numerous extreme climate circumstances occurring at any given time, and the media are masterfully identifying each legit example, and making up even more.

If it's an extreme weather event then the climate scientist will blame it on global warming.

It's important to identify who's responsible for making these claims. They call themselves "climate scientist", but they're are not. They are computer modelers who make computer simulation models.

Actual physicists investigate the physics of weather and climate. They are called meteorologists.
They keep quiet about the global warming hoax, because they fear losing grant funding, etc. This is disgraceful, but everyone has to eat.
I'm sure you are aware of how the game works.

"Climate scientists" will always say "the models predict", so they can say anything, and blame mistakes on inaccurate models. The polar ice was supposed to have all melted by the years 2000, 2010, and 2020. The oceans were rising, and the coastal cities would all be submerged in each scenario. However, we can go to any costal city with a 100 year old port, and see that the ocean hasn't risen in any significant way.

Rumor has it we have only 10 years of polar ice remaining (2030).

Evaluating any given extreme event (droughts, floods, glacial melt, etc. Is misleading because the climate is the seasonal aggregate.

Even events that span years and decades don't equate to climate changes.

This modeling fraud is the identical scam that was used to predict millions of Covid deaths. Some schemers in a UK university predicted the Coco flu would be a catastrophe, and they used this to sabotage the global economic system.

Here's an example from just today highlighting the way the Coco hoax is being used to advance the climate hoax.

"CLIMATE LOCKDOWN" - The End Game Becomes Clear: Post-Human Future

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (3 children)

I know meteorologists. I studied mathematics with a lot of physics. Meteorology is a branch of physics but in my times just branched off after the fourth semester. And the German Meteorologist don't keep quit. Many times they proved that maybe not even the actual temperatures but the volatility of regional weather events has risen over the last 50 years dramatically. This includes precipitation, ground cloud coverage (ice caps melting) and the mixture of gases that actually make up the atmosphere locally.

And since these and more parameters have risen in the last centuries and decades (even more) it is only natural to assume that they will rise further in the near future. The word greenhouse gas is no joke because from observation we can clearly infer that we live in a giant greenhouse.

Your argumentation goes like this: Even though we have seen the ball falling down one million times it may be going up to the sky next time we let it loose. Of course it could but where is the reason here ?

Of course this is impossible to disprove because most models of physics itself we have are empirical by nature since we made them through observation of nature.

Physics uses mathematics but it is not the same so you can't prove its laws like this is possible in mathematics.

But denying the quite natural reasoning behind this, i thought this could not be possible.

I personally only would try myself on regional weather models and not those on a global scale. Because these are reasonably and statistically provable exact within intervals of confidence. Even for 100 years in the future.

The real problem is that over 65% (conservatively estimated) of human population lives in coastal areas. With sea levels rising every year this will lead to migration in a never-seen scale.

The city i live in and the one i'm moving to will both be like Venice whereas Hamburg, Bremen and other bigger coastal cities (like almost all of the Netherlands and most of Denmark e.g.also) will be underwater. There isn't even one climate model for my region that says otherwise.

And most likely i will live even long enough to see this.

[–]Tom_Bombadil[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

The word greenhouse gas is no joke because from observation we can clearly infer that we live in a giant greenhouse.

False.

Greenhouses are fundamentally different form the so-called greenhouse gases.

Greenhouse walls are generally transparent to visible light, but opaque to infrared light.

Greenhouse walls absorbs and emits infrared inside the greenhouse.

The IR absorbion and emission helps the greenhouse retain of the radiant heat inside the greenhouse.

Greenhouse effects include broad spectrum infrared absorbion/emission.

CO2 is a gas. It is not a form of condensed matter. It has no lattice structure to support the absorbion/emission of a continuous spectrum.

Gases can only absorb/emit discreet EM frequencies (absorbion/emission bands).
This is an inherent physical property of all gases.

Fun fact: A lattice structure is a necessary to emit a continuous EM spectrum. The sun emits a continuous spectrum.

Therefore...

CO2 absorbs IR light in 3 discreet wavelengths (2.7, 4.3 and 15 micrometers (µM)).
CO2 is 100% transparent to all other IR frequencies.

Similarly narrow absorbion bands exist in each of the so-called "greenhouse gases", although the discreet bands will be unique for each type of gaseous molecule.

Note: The gaseous physics of discreet absorbion bands also applies to gaseous water vapor.

Clouds are formed of water or ice (not gaseous water vapor). Condensed matter.

Clouds also have a high albedo (% of light reflectivity) , and reflects back a significant % of the infrared light emitted from the ground surface. Cloud reflection is not the greenhouse effect.

Crucially liquid water is condensed matter and has a lattice structure, and can absorb/emit major regions of a continuous spectrum.

Clouds are formed of liquid water, or ice crystals.
The lattice structure of these materials allows for the infrared absorbion/emission (plus albedo reflectivity).

The greenhouse effect can be applied to cloudbcover, because the IR from the surface is being absorbed and emitted back to the surface.

The so-called greenhouse gases do not have the necessary physical properties to produce the greenhouse effect.

Your argumentation goes like this: Even though we have seen the ball falling down one million times it may be going up to the sky next time we let it loose. Of course it could but where is the reason here ?

No. My argument is very different.

My argument is man made "global warming" from so-called greenhouse gases is scientific fraud on a fundamental level.

Broad spectrum absorbion/emission can only occur in greenhouse trace gases CO2 is roughly ~0.04% of the atmosphere.

00.04% is commonly rounding error.

It's physically impossible for a gas to behave this way.

It's a hoax.

There isn't even one climate model for my region that says otherwise.

This is precisely the point I'm making.

You probably won't ever see a "climate model" that will ever suggest global warming is fake, because the models are fake.

It shouldn't be that difficult to factor the narrow absorbion rates if CO2 into their models.

It's basic physics.

Basic physics is often made to appear complex when it produces the wrong answer.

The climate modeler's job depends on the global warming hoax industry.

Anyone who makes legit models that accurately represent the basics of CO2 absorbion physics won't find work in the hoax industry.

Let me know if your interested in evidence that substantiates my position.

I won't waste your time if you're not ready.

I suspect you have the background to understand the technical details.

The physics is fairly straight forward.

You could probably understand the truth of the global warming hoax.

However...

I won't waste your time if you're not ready.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

You only refer to CO2. I had a physics course about terraforming on Mars that goes exactly the other way than your argumentation. But ok. I can agree to disagree on this one.

There is Methane also. Which comes out of permafrost grounds, the heating oceans and from overdoing livestock. So you maybe denied one gas, even though i don't follow your argumentation.

But a greenhouse is as you yourself said more than about the atmosphere.

All the further provable arguments i brought you didn't even touch.

So no: I deny climate change is a hoax. There are way more arguments for it than against it. And the rising volatility in many parameters of atmosphere physics and meteorology which is undeniable but one if my main points you completely ignored. Why ?

[–]Tom_Bombadil[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

There is Methane also.

Also a gas. The exact same principal applies.

All the further provable arguments i brought you didn't even touch.

I didn't address any of your other points, because the idea of "greenhouse gases" has been fundamentally refuted.

Global warming is predicated on the notion that excess gaseous carbon molecules in the air cause increases in climate temp. .

This idea is easily debunked based on freshman level chemistry/physics.

If there is excess volaitility in the weather, then you need to be look into another influencing factor to identify the cause.

Trace amounts of so-called "Greenhouse gases" cannot be the culprit.

A CO2 increase from 00.035% to 00.041% in over 120 years is absurd!

That's an increase of 6 : 100,000 molecules! With only 3 absorbion bands?

Every other frequency of light passed through with perfect clarity, which is functionally +99.9% of IR frequencies.
It's absurd on it's face, but it never gets discussed.

EM absorbion in gases doesn't physically behave this way. Period.

The IPCC will be including solar forcing in their 2022 models. The idea that the primary source for the energy was conveniently omitted from their models is laughable.

Just another example of blatant scientific fraud.

Keep in mind that I get where you're coming from. I was fooled for decades.

The good news is it's a hoax.
The bad news is the motivation for the hoax is much worse than the climate change threat (for mankind).

I'm sure you don't like what I'm saying, but I didn't pick the physical nature of the universe.

Feel free to let me know if you've found any errors in my assessment of the gas physics.

I have no doubt you understand exactly what I am pointing out, and how these details fundamentally undermine the global warming narrative.

What I'm saying is true, which means what they are claiming is not.