Climate Fraud Exposed: CO2 Doesn’t Rise Up, Trap And Retain Heat

a reply to: M5xaz

If I recall correctly, Earth had a CO2 rich atmosphere. The rise of plant life and phytoplanton scrubbed the atmosphere of CO2 and gave us an O2 rich atmosphere.

Its been over 15 years since that course that detailed the rise of plant life and early earth's atmosphere....

originally posted by: jrod
a reply to: M5xaz

If I recall correctly, Earth had a CO2 rich atmosphere. The rise of plant life and phytoplanton scrubbed the atmosphere of CO2 and gave us an O2 rich atmosphere.

Its been over 15 years since that course that detailed the rise of plant life and early earth's atmosphere....

The Earth'c atmosphere was NEVER 95 % CO2, was never Venus

And yes, the higher CO2 concentration during prehistoric eras did lead to more varied plant and animal life

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: liejunkie01

Principia-Scientia exists solely to publish anti climate change propaganda. Gases like CO2 exist in the form of molecules. These molecules bounce around at different speeds, mixing with other molecules in the atmosphere. The atmosphere is filled with carious current, including convection, analogous to the bubbles in boiling water. The paper cited in this hit piece ignores all that.

Wrong.

Basic fluid physics.

Higher density molecules like CO2 will necessarily concentrate in the lower portions of the atmosphere, while lighter gases rise.

originally posted by: M5xaz

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: liejunkie01

Principia-Scientia exists solely to publish anti climate change propaganda. Gases like CO2 exist in the form of molecules. These molecules bounce around at different speeds, mixing with other molecules in the atmosphere. The atmosphere is filled with carious current, including convection, analogous to the bubbles in boiling water. The paper cited in this hit piece ignores all that.

Wrong.

Basic fluid physics.

Higher density molecules like CO2 will necessarily concentrate in the lower portions of the atmosphere, while lighter gases rise.

Ah, that salty water business must be Fake Science too! As both sodium and chlorine have higher molecular weights than H2O, all of those elements must be lying on the bottom of the deepest ocean! Basic Physics! Ha!

Calling our American Oceans salty is an evil HOAX from Big Water and environazis and George Soros whose UN plot to preserving the supposed "fresh water" resources is a globalist attack on our precious bodily fluids!

a reply to: M5xaz

Actually, we do not really know what the Earth's atmosphere was like during its early history. Our models draw on elemental abundances combined with assumptions about insolation. Abundant light elements like hydrogen were likely boiled away if they were not bound up into heavier molecules. Venus serves as as a convenient model.

a reply to: DJW001



Some facts about greenhouse and global warming

originally posted by: mbkennel

originally posted by: M5xaz

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: liejunkie01

Principia-Scientia exists solely to publish anti climate change propaganda. Gases like CO2 exist in the form of molecules. These molecules bounce around at different speeds, mixing with other molecules in the atmosphere. The atmosphere is filled with carious current, including convection, analogous to the bubbles in boiling water. The paper cited in this hit piece ignores all that.

Wrong.

Basic fluid physics.

Higher density molecules like CO2 will necessarily concentrate in the lower portions of the atmosphere, while lighter gases rise.

Ah, that salty water business must be Fake Science too! As both sodium and chlorine have higher molecular weights than H2O, all of those elements must be lying on the bottom of the deepest ocean! Basic Physics! Ha!

Calling our American Oceans salty is an evil HOAX from Big Water and environazis and George Soros whose UN plot to preserving the supposed "fresh water" resources is a globalist attack on our precious bodily fluids!

Wrong again.

Dissolution of salt into ion in water is not the same as mixing different fluids.

Basic chemistry.

Deny ignorance

originally posted by: M5xaz

originally posted by: mbkennel

originally posted by: M5xaz

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: liejunkie01

Principia-Scientia exists solely to publish anti climate change propaganda. Gases like CO2 exist in the form of molecules. These molecules bounce around at different speeds, mixing with other molecules in the atmosphere. The atmosphere is filled with carious current, including convection, analogous to the bubbles in boiling water. The paper cited in this hit piece ignores all that.

Wrong.

Basic fluid physics.

Higher density molecules like CO2 will necessarily concentrate in the lower portions of the atmosphere, while lighter gases rise.

Ah, that salty water business must be Fake Science too! As both sodium and chlorine have higher molecular weights than H2O, all of those elements must be lying on the bottom of the deepest ocean! Basic Physics! Ha!

Calling our American Oceans salty is an evil HOAX from Big Water and environazis and George Soros whose UN plot to preserving the supposed "fresh water" resources is a globalist attack on our precious bodily fluids!

Wrong again.

Dissolution of salt into ion in water is not the same as mixing different fluids.

What is the physics and chemistry of that difference which results in the observationally-false idea that CO2 is separated from the rest of the air?

originally posted by: Greven
Principa-Scientific, the source for this utter nonsense, is a ridiculous shill site that just makes up stuff to go with its ideological leanings.

Honestly, it should be banned from linking like the rest of the ones that are, for the same reasons.

CO2 measurements are taken on top of a volcano in Hawaii, several thousand feet up down to sea level in other locations. There are hundreds of stations that record CO2 all over the world at varying altitudes, yet the variation is not enormous. The most variation is in Antarctica, as I recall.

Yes, CO2 is heavier than O2 and N2. No, it does not all fall down to the surface and cluster at ground level, because we would all have suffocated long ago if it did.

wow man..... VEGETATION?

a reply to: mbkennel

Funny how none of your posts are supported by anything other than anecdotal comments. I'm still waiting for all of the scientific data to back these claims man is destroying the planet.

originally posted by: mbkennel

originally posted by: Outlier13

A 9.3 mile wide asteroid / comet / meteor hits our planet, kills 75% of all vegetable and animal life and in the 227 years man has been burning fossil fuels we are somehow going to cause mass destruction and the death of our planet?

No it will make for a hotter climate which will disrupt weather patterns and cause problems for humanity as predicted.

Show me the scientific data that shows the direct correlation between man causing hotter climates.

a reply to: M5xaz

I never claimed Earth was 95% CO2.

We know early Earth had much more CO2 but not how much more....the estimates are 200 to 2000 times the amount of CO2 before the rise of plant life

originally posted by: Outlier13

originally posted by: mbkennel

originally posted by: Outlier13

A 9.3 mile wide asteroid / comet / meteor hits our planet, kills 75% of all vegetable and animal life and in the 227 years man has been burning fossil fuels we are somehow going to cause mass destruction and the death of our planet?

No it will make for a hotter climate which will disrupt weather patterns and cause problems for humanity as predicted.

Show me the scientific data that shows the direct correlation between man causing hotter climates.

There is tons known to the community but a few are here.

phys.org...

phys.org...

I think its funny that you gues are actually arguing about this. I thought science was pritty clear about this, and science is all about facts..... all the time.

originally posted by: thepixelpusher
a reply to: DJW001



Some facts about greenhouse and global warming

You do realize that page does not debunk the actual science, it debunks the metaphors used to explain the science in popular publications? It is like disproving relativity by pointing out that space is not a "rubber sheet."

originally posted by: bronco73

originally posted by: Greven
Principa-Scientific, the source for this utter nonsense, is a ridiculous shill site that just makes up stuff to go with its ideological leanings.

Honestly, it should be banned from linking like the rest of the ones that are, for the same reasons.

CO2 measurements are taken on top of a volcano in Hawaii, several thousand feet up down to sea level in other locations. There are hundreds of stations that record CO2 all over the world at varying altitudes, yet the variation is not enormous. The most variation is in Antarctica, as I recall.

Yes, CO2 is heavier than O2 and N2. No, it does not all fall down to the surface and cluster at ground level, because we would all have suffocated long ago if it did.

wow man..... VEGETATION?

Vegetation also needs oxygen, so it too would be dead. While the green bits get oxygen from photosynthesis (specifically, the splitting of water into H2 and O, as the CO2 part is used for carbohydrates), the roots need oxygen from the air. That's why you can drown plants in water. Some plants have evolved to live in wet conditions, either tolerating the lower oxygen content in water or (like with mangroves) alternative means of getting oxygen to the roots.

If CO2 clustered near the surface like that idiotic article and several people seem to believe in this thread, then there would be no life on this rock.

a reply to: Greven
The sun warms the earth, the sun goes through warming and cooling cycles. We have less CO2 in the air than the industrial era and ice cores prove that. Your argument is moot.

a reply to: thepixelpusher

We have less CO2 in the air than the industrial era and ice cores prove that.

Really? I thought ice core data shows something quite different from that. Can you post the data you're talking about?

a reply to: Phage

420,000 YEARS OF DATA SUGGESTS GLOBAL WARMING IS NOT ENTIRELY MAN-MADE

The Vostok ice core sample was obtained by drilling down into the ice above Lake Vostok to a depth of 3623m. The graph built from the Vostok ice core data shows us the relationship between CO2 in the atmosphere and global temperature. Contrary to current belief today, the Vostok data shows us that CO2 increases lag behind temperature increases by about 800 years. This means that CO2 is not the cause of the increased temperatures, although it might potentially play a small role. This cannot be confirmed at this time however. The Vostok graph also shows us the cyclical pattern that occurs with warming and cooling as well as the increase in CO2 levels.

a reply to: mbkennel

Mate...seriously...stop drinking the kool-aid. You apparently didn't see my initial post in this thread which had to do with critical thinking. That first article you linked IMMEDIATELY discredits itself within the second sentence. "Land use" is the key phrase.

Do you have any idea how much of the actual surface of this planet man inhabits let alone on an industrial scale? Less than 1%. How does man occupying less than 1% of the habitable land on the planet contribute to 40% of global warming?

Honestly, I want to know if you think this is even remotely logical?