Remember me
▼ Content

"Global Dimming" - A Brand New "Buzzword"?



Page 1 of 212>
"Global Dimming" - A Brand New "Buzzword"?16-04-2022 23:08
sealover
★★★☆☆
(803)
"Global Dimming" - A Brand New "Buzzword"?

No discussion about the science of climate change would be complete without global dimming being incorporated.

The data makes no sense without it.

Global dimming is NOT a brand new "buzzword".

I'm getting pretty old, and I remember it well as a young science student.

"Nuclear winter".

Past mass extinction events.

The written historic record.

Crop failures in China pinpoint the year of the big volcanic eruption that ended the Minoan civilization.

The sky grew so dark for a year that crops froze in China.

By the time people invented thermometers they had more proof.

Krakatoa (probably not spelled right), east of Java.

When that volcano blew, there were cold-induced crop failures far and wide.

And there was temperature data showing that it really got COLDER that year.

More recently, temperatures were rising fast at the end of the 80s, early 90s.

Then Mt Pinatubo blew its top. It got COLDER that year world wide.

Then it went back to rising temperatures.

But those 1990s temperatures would have risen even FASTER without the enhanced GLOBAL DIMMING caused by rising emissions from China.

Some of global dimming is caused by the sun blocking effect of the anthropogenic emissions themselves.

Dark soot. Light absorbing sulfur compounds, etc.

But much of global dimming is caused by the effect of anthropogenic aerosols on cloud formation.

Aerosol particles provide a nucleus for droplet formation, as water droplets condense and form clouds.

In the presence of aerosols, clouds are comprised of much smaller droplets, in much larger numbers, than natural clouds.

These clouds are far more reflective, but not so great for providing rain.

Global dimming is such an important piece of the puzzle that it needs its own thread for a focused discussion.
17-04-2022 01:47
HarveyH55Profile picture★★★★★
(4239)
Basically, you are promoting CFC charged aerosol cans, to spray sulfur compounds throughout the atmosphere, to cool the planet. A lot of species aren't liberal, and like a warmer environment. Are the proposed sulfur compounds safe, or will only be a small problem, for a few thousand species.

The planet is doing fine. It's been handling keep us alive, a whole lot longer than liberal alarmist.

Or is this sort of an advanced warning, that your Comrade Vlad is going to cause a nuclear winter soon?
RE: deliberate emission of aerosols is STUPID17-04-2022 02:27
Im a BM
★★☆☆☆
(158)
deliberate emission of aerosols is STUPID.

I've had some time to review sealover's posts.

I noticed at least a DOZEN saying it would be a TERRIBLE IDEA to deliberately spew aerosols to get some more global dimming.

This is a geoengineering scheme that, unfortunately, is being taken seriously.

Ironically, global dimming is actually GOOD for plants.

Full sunlight is just a little TOO bright for maximum productivity.

But any rational discussion of climate change has to include some reality.

Global dimming is a big part of that reality. NOT just a "buzzword".

I imagine that sealover would have answered if there had been an actual question about the science involved.

Then again, some members may have already earned permanent ignore status.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

HarveyH55 wrote:
Basically, you are promoting CFC charged aerosol cans, to spray sulfur compounds throughout the atmosphere, to cool the planet. A lot of species aren't liberal, and like a warmer environment. Are the proposed sulfur compounds safe, or will only be a small problem, for a few thousand species.

The planet is doing fine. It's been handling keep us alive, a whole lot longer than liberal alarmist.

Or is this sort of an advanced warning, that your Comrade Vlad is going to cause a nuclear winter soon?
17-04-2022 03:29
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(11757)
squeal over wrote:"Global Dimming" - A Brand New "Buzzword"?

I heard/read it first from you.

squeal over wrote:No discussion about the science of climate change would be complete without global dimming being incorporated.

There is no science in the Climate Change religion.

squeal over wrote:The data makes no sense without it.

There is no "The Data".

squeal over wrote:Global dimming is NOT a brand new "buzzword".

To me it is, and that's all that matters as far as I am concerned.

squeal over wrote: I'm getting pretty old

Aren't we all?

squeal over wrote:... and I remember it well as a young science student

Ummm, no, you were pursuing a "Teaching" degree. You weren't focused on being good at anything because you weren't planning on adding any value.

squeal over wrote:Past mass extinction events.

How are you defining "past mass extinction events" and how do you know there were any in the first place?

squeal over wrote:The written historic record.

Redundant. History is the recorded writings. Anything prior is "prehistoric."

squeal over wrote:Crop failures in China pinpoint the year of the big volcanic eruption that ended the Minoan civilization.

Because of your extensive "science" training, you know exactly how dependent science is on such proxy measures. It's like "truth" in the palm of your hand. Of course soil samples are particularly accurate at determining the moment a civilization ended to within plus-or-minus thirty milliseconds ... unless you have a gamma-spec to provide added precision.

squeal over wrote:The sky grew so dark for a year that crops froze in China.

I know. I was there and watched in amazement as it happened. Fortunately, I recorded the exact moment the darkness began and the moment it subsided, so at least we have that.

squeal over wrote:By the time people invented thermometers they had more proof.

Back in 1996, they officially changed the correct term from "scientific proof" to "proxy measure" because these techniques were so much more accurate than direct measurements. You might remember the announcement that they were releasing the Java programming language as an encapsulation of the proxy classes approved by the science council of Columbia University.

squeal over wrote:Krakatoa (probably not spelled right), east of Java.

This was also released as a proxy data class in 1996.

squeal over wrote:When that volcano blew, there were cold-induced crop failures far and wide.

I know, I know ... I had to put on a jacket.

squeal over wrote:And there was temperature data showing that it really got COLDER that year.

Licked fingers received heavier weighting prior to the data homogenization, after the data harmonization, in conjunction with the removal of the raw data.

squeal over wrote:More recently, temperatures were rising fast at the end of the 80s, early 90s.

Faster than a bat outta' hell. Everybody got blisters.


squeal over wrote:But those 1990s temperatures would have risen even FASTER without the enhanced GLOBAL DIMMING caused by rising emissions from China.

Some of global dimming is caused by the sun blocking effect of the andro-trans emissions themselves.

Yesireee, Bob. We have countless peer-reviewed studies showing that all of that atmospheric material just absorbs sunlight but never increases in temperature itself, so it doesn't heat up the atmosphere around it or radiate any more than it already did. The energy is just destroyed into nothing. It's great!
RE: Global Dimming - The Cosmic Ray Connection17-04-2022 04:10
sealover
★★★☆☆
(803)
Global Dimming - The Cosmic Ray Connection

What do cosmic rays have to do with global dimming?

The answer may surprise you.

Natural aerosols have always existed.

Aerosols, natural or anthropogenic, have always been able to cause nucleation of cloud droplet formation.

Cosmic rays can interact with the aerosols and droplets to enhance formation of many very small droplets in a more highly reflective cloud.

Periods of history with more cosmic ray activity have included more global dimming.

There was a time when this finding was distorted to claim that cosmic rays, or lack thereof, were responsible for the alleged anthropogenic global warming.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

sealover wrote:
"Global Dimming" - A Brand New "Buzzword"?

No discussion about the science of climate change would be complete without global dimming being incorporated.

The data makes no sense without it.

Global dimming is NOT a brand new "buzzword".

I'm getting pretty old, and I remember it well as a young science student.

"Nuclear winter".

Past mass extinction events.

The written historic record.

Crop failures in China pinpoint the year of the big volcanic eruption that ended the Minoan civilization.

The sky grew so dark for a year that crops froze in China.

By the time people invented thermometers they had more proof.

Krakatoa (probably not spelled right), east of Java.

When that volcano blew, there were cold-induced crop failures far and wide.

And there was temperature data showing that it really got COLDER that year.

More recently, temperatures were rising fast at the end of the 80s, early 90s.

Then Mt Pinatubo blew its top. It got COLDER that year world wide.

Then it went back to rising temperatures.

But those 1990s temperatures would have risen even FASTER without the enhanced GLOBAL DIMMING caused by rising emissions from China.

Some of global dimming is caused by the sun blocking effect of the anthropogenic emissions themselves.

Dark soot. Light absorbing sulfur compounds, etc.

But much of global dimming is caused by the effect of anthropogenic aerosols on cloud formation.

Aerosol particles provide a nucleus for droplet formation, as water droplets condense and form clouds.

In the presence of aerosols, clouds are comprised of much smaller droplets, in much larger numbers, than natural clouds.

These clouds are far more reflective, but not so great for providing rain.

Global dimming is such an important piece of the puzzle that it needs its own thread for a focused discussion.
RE: Shifting Geography of Global Dimming17-04-2022 04:27
sealover
★★★☆☆
(803)
Shifting Geography of Global Dimming

There was a time when most of the world's anthropogenic aerosol emissions originated from North America or Europe.

The geography of global dimming was a consequence of its point of origin.

The north Atlantic, for example.

For more than a century, until the late 1970s, aerosol emissions from Europe caused significant dimming over the north Atlantic.

When European countries took measures to significantly reduce aerosol emissions, there was significantly less dimming over the north Atlantic.

Unprecedented drought in Africa has been attributed to this change.

Other places that didn't use to emit so many aerosols are now major emitters.

The newest shift in global dimming geography is over the Indian Ocean.

India finally got to contribute her fair share of pollution to the atmosphere.

At least this will relieve some of the coral bleaching in the Indian Ocean.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

by by

sealover wrote:
Global Dimming - The Cosmic Ray Connection

What do cosmic rays have to do with global dimming?

The answer may surprise you.

Natural aerosols have always existed.

Aerosols, natural or anthropogenic, have always been able to cause nucleation of cloud droplet formation.

Cosmic rays can interact with the aerosols and droplets to enhance formation of many very small droplets in a more highly reflective cloud.

Periods of history with more cosmic ray activity have included more global dimming.

There was a time when this finding was distorted to claim that cosmic rays, or lack thereof, were responsible for the alleged anthropogenic global warming.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

sealover wrote:
"Global Dimming" - A Brand New "Buzzword"?

No discussion about the science of climate change would be complete without global dimming being incorporated.

The data makes no sense without it.

Global dimming is NOT a brand new "buzzword".

I'm getting pretty old, and I remember it well as a young science student.

"Nuclear winter".

Past mass extinction events.

The written historic record.

Crop failures in China pinpoint the year of the big volcanic eruption that ended the Minoan civilization.

The sky grew so dark for a year that crops froze in China.

By the time people invented thermometers they had more proof.

Krakatoa (probably not spelled right), east of Java.

When that volcano blew, there were cold-induced crop failures far and wide.

And there was temperature data showing that it really got COLDER that year.

More recently, temperatures were rising fast at the end of the 80s, early 90s.

Then Mt Pinatubo blew its top. It got COLDER that year world wide.

Then it went back to rising temperatures.

But those 1990s temperatures would have risen even FASTER without the enhanced GLOBAL DIMMING caused by rising emissions from China.

Some of global dimming is caused by the sun blocking effect of the anthropogenic emissions themselves.

Dark soot. Light absorbing sulfur compounds, etc.

But much of global dimming is caused by the effect of anthropogenic aerosols on cloud formation.

Aerosol particles provide a nucleus for droplet formation, as water droplets condense and form clouds.

In the presence of aerosols, clouds are comprised of much smaller droplets, in much larger numbers, than natural clouds.

These clouds are far more reflective, but not so great for providing rain.

Global dimming is such an important piece of the puzzle that it needs its own thread for a focused discussion.
17-04-2022 05:11
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(11757)
squeal over wrote: Global Dimming - The Ray Charles Connection




squeal over wrote:What does Ray Charles have to do with global dimming?




squeal over wrote:The answer may surprise you. Undercover disguises have always existed.




squeal over wrote:Aerosols, natural or anthropogenic, have always been able to cause nucleation of cloud droplet formation directly on the scalp.




squeal over wrote:Ray Charles can interact with the aerosols and droplets to enhance formation of many very small droplets in a more highly reflective cloud.




squeal over wrote:The decades of increased Ray Charles activity have included more global dimming.




squeal over wrote:There was a time when this finding was distorted to claim that cosmic Ray Charles was actually Charles Manson running around allegedly creating anthropogenic global warming.

Edited on 17-04-2022 05:14
17-04-2022 08:02
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(18410)
sealover wrote:
"Global Dimming" - A Brand New "Buzzword"?

No discussion about the science of climate change would be complete without global dimming being incorporated.

Buzzword fallacies. Define 'climate change'.
sealover wrote:
The data makes no sense without it.

What data?
sealover wrote:
Global dimming is NOT a brand new "buzzword".

I'm getting pretty old, and I remember it well as a young science student.

You never learned science. You discard it.
sealover wrote:
"Nuclear winter".

What nuclear winter?
sealover wrote:
Past mass extinction events.

Which one?
sealover wrote:
The written historic record.

A series of void references. Meh.
sealover wrote:
Crop failures in China pinpoint the year of the big volcanic eruption that ended the Minoan civilization.

The sky grew so dark for a year that crops froze in China.

Cut and pasting from Wikipedia again, eh?
sealover wrote:
By the time people invented thermometers they had more proof.

Thermometers are not a proof.
sealover wrote:
Krakatoa (probably not spelled right), east of Java.

When that volcano blew, there were cold-induced crop failures far and wide.

And there was temperature data showing that it really got COLDER that year.

It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth.
sealover wrote:
More recently, temperatures were rising fast at the end of the 80s, early 90s.

It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth.
sealover wrote:
Then Mt Pinatubo blew its top. It got COLDER that year world wide.

It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth.
sealover wrote:
Then it went back to rising temperatures.

It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth.
sealover wrote:
But those 1990s temperatures would have risen even FASTER without the enhanced GLOBAL DIMMING caused by rising emissions from China.

Buzzword fallacy. It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth. What 'emissions' do you refer to?
sealover wrote:
Some of global dimming is caused by the sun blocking effect of the anthropogenic emissions themselves.

What anthropogenic emissions? Water vapor does not block the Sun. Carbon dioxide does not block the Sun.
sealover wrote:
Dark soot. Light absorbing sulfur compounds, etc.

What dark soot? What sulfur compounds?
sealover wrote:
But much of global dimming is caused by the effect of anthropogenic aerosols on cloud formation.

Clouds are not formed by aerosols.
sealover wrote:
Aerosol particles provide a nucleus for droplet formation, as water droplets condense and form clouds.

Clouds are not formed by aerosols.
sealover wrote:
In the presence of aerosols, clouds are comprised of much smaller droplets, in much larger numbers, than natural clouds.

Clouds are not formed by aerosols. Droplets vary in size according to cloud density and nothing else.
sealover wrote:
These clouds are far more reflective, but not so great for providing rain.

Clouds absorb infrared light quite well. They are not reflective to infrared light.
sealover wrote:
Global dimming is such an important piece of the puzzle that it needs its own thread for a focused discussion.

Buzzword fallacy.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan

While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
17-04-2022 08:07
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(18410)
...deleted severely damaged quoting...
Im a BM wrote:
deliberate emission of aerosols is STUPID.

I've had some time to review sealover's posts.

You are sealover. You are responding to yourself.
Im a BM wrote:
I noticed at least a DOZEN saying it would be a TERRIBLE IDEA to deliberately spew aerosols to get some more global dimming.

This is a geoengineering scheme that, unfortunately, is being taken seriously.

Ironically, global dimming is actually GOOD for plants.

Buzzword fallacy.
Im a BM wrote:
Full sunlight is just a little TOO bright for maximum productivity.

Compositional error fallacy.
Im a BM wrote:
But any rational discussion of climate change has to include some reality.

Buzzword fallacies. You still haven't defined 'climate change' or 'reality'. Don't try, I know you can't.
Im a BM wrote:
Global dimming is a big part of that reality. NOT just a "buzzword".

Buzzword fallacies.
Im a BM wrote:
I imagine that sealover would have answered if there had been an actual question about the science involved.

You are sealover.
Im a BM wrote:
Then again, some members may have already earned permanent ignore status.

Genetic fallacy.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan

While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
17-04-2022 08:20
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(18410)
...deleted sock quote...
sealover wrote:
Global Dimming - The Cosmic Ray Connection

Buzzword fallacy.
sealover wrote:
What do cosmic rays have to do with global dimming?

Void question. Buzzword fallacy.
sealover wrote:
The answer may surprise you.

Natural aerosols have always existed.

Aerosols, natural or anthropogenic, have always been able to cause nucleation of cloud droplet formation.

Clouds do not form due to aerosols.
sealover wrote:
Cosmic rays can interact with the aerosols and droplets to enhance formation of many very small droplets in a more highly reflective cloud.

Clouds are opaque to infrared light.
sealover wrote:
Periods of history with more cosmic ray activity have included more global dimming.

Buzzword fallacy.
sealover wrote:
There was a time when this finding was distorted to claim that cosmic rays, or lack thereof, were responsible for the alleged anthropogenic global warming.

It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan

While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
17-04-2022 20:17
HarveyH55Profile picture★★★★★
(4239)
Don't clouds protect us from the deadly sun rays? Would clouds ten to reflect a lot of the 'heat' rays back out to space, so they never get a chance to fry the delicate surface of this planet? All we ever needed to do, is encourage cloud formation. Though, I guess that would work out as well for solar farmers. Least the power companies wouldn't have to pay homeowners as much, for electricity they can't sell.

Just a guess, but clouds would prevent any thermal runaway, as they have, for millions, and millions of years. Mankind might be sloppy tenants of this world, but they don't run the show.
18-04-2022 02:01
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(18410)
HarveyH55 wrote:
Don't clouds protect us from the deadly sun rays?

No. The atmosphere does...especially with the presence of oxygen and ozone.
HarveyH55 wrote:
Would clouds ten to reflect a lot of the 'heat' rays back out to space,so they never get a chance to fry the delicate surface of this planet? All we ever needed to do, is encourage cloud formation. Though, I guess that would work out as well for solar farmers. Least the power companies wouldn't have to pay homeowners as much, for electricity they can't sell.

There is no such thing as a 'heat' ray (unless you read science fiction). Solar panels are designed to make use of visible light.
HarveyH55 wrote:
Just a guess, but clouds would prevent any thermal runaway, as they have, for millions, and millions of years. Mankind might be sloppy tenants of this world, but they don't run the show.

What thermal runaway? What would cause it?


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan

While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
18-04-2022 04:08
duncan61
★★★★☆
(1729)
Its tongue in cheek ITN.You are one serious cat.Harvey.I am still working on what clouds do
18-04-2022 04:37
HarveyH55Profile picture★★★★★
(4239)
Into the Night wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:
Don't clouds protect us from the deadly sun rays?

No. The atmosphere does...especially with the presence of oxygen and ozone.
HarveyH55 wrote:
Would clouds ten to reflect a lot of the 'heat' rays back out to space,so they never get a chance to fry the delicate surface of this planet? All we ever needed to do, is encourage cloud formation. Though, I guess that would work out as well for solar farmers. Least the power companies wouldn't have to pay homeowners as much, for electricity they can't sell.

There is no such thing as a 'heat' ray (unless you read science fiction). Solar panels are designed to make use of visible light.
HarveyH55 wrote:
Just a guess, but clouds would prevent any thermal runaway, as they have, for millions, and millions of years. Mankind might be sloppy tenants of this world, but they don't run the show.

What thermal runaway? What would cause it?


It's a buzzword thread, felt obligated to throw a few fear mongering phrases in for our liberal readers. Maybe I used them incorrectly. I don't speak liberal-English fluently.
RE: Global Dimming, Albedo, and Evaporative Cooling.18-04-2022 19:28
sealover
★★★☆☆
(803)
Global Dimming, Albedo, and Evaporative Cooling.

Anthropogenic global dimming is a major counterbalance to anthropogenic global warming.

Not enough to STOP global warming, but enough to SLOW IT WAY DOWN.

Global dimming influences how much of the visible light entering the atmosphere actually reaches the earth's surface.

Fun fact - In tropical countries they don't need greenhouses to keep plants warm enough. But you often see black net mesh structures used to provide a little shade for plant nurseries. Blocking just enough sunlight with the black mesh netting improves the growth of the seedlings, compared to direct sunlight, regardless of whether or not it is a "shade tolerant" species or not. The sun wasn't nearly as bright when photosynthesis first evolved as it is today.

But what happens to the visible sunlight that does NOT get blocked by global dimming when it reaches the surface?

It depends a lot on ALBEDO and EVAPORATIVE COOLING.

Albedo is term used to quantify how much visible light is reflected by a surface.

Dark surfaces have low albedo. White or light colored surfaces have high albedo. It is no secret that a black tee shirt gets hotter than a white one when you are out in the sun.

Human activity has changed the albedo of the earth's surface in many places.

Snow and ice used to be the most reflective surfaces on earth.

Dark soot from human activity has darkened the ice and snow, causing it to absorb more visible light, transform it into heat, and melt the ice more rapidly.

Humans have cleared much of the earth's natural forest cover for agriculture.

The albedo of barren soil, especially after drying, is much higher than the albedo of a green leaf. That land now absorbs more visible light to transform into heat.

The deforested site now reflects back more visible light.

Did that make it COOLER? NO. Just the opposite.

It was ten or twenty degrees cooler before they cleared the forest.

How does higher albedo result in higher temperature? It doesn't.

The difference is evaporative cooling.

The leaves of the forest were transpiring a lot of water before the forest was cleared. The dark, low albedo leaves were absorbing the visible light and transforming it into heat. But most of the heat was consumed by the evaporation of water as the leaves transpired it.

A standing body of water does the same thing, but not nearly as well.

Sunlight hits the water, visible light is transformed into heat, and there is cooling.

But that cooling is limited by how much surface area of water contacts the atmosphere.

Within the leaves of a tree shading 100 square meters of soil surface, there are orders of magnitude more surface area than 100 square meters of standing water. Much more evaporative cooling from trees than from standing water.

What happens to the heat that is removed from the earth's surface by evaporative cooling?

That heat is released somewhere else later, when the water vapor condenses back to liquid water. This heat is typically released far from the earths surface, and much of it radiates back out to space.

Without evaporative cooling, the surface would be a LOT warmer.

As the sun's increasing luminosity caused more and more of the water on Venus to evaporate, warmer water vapor was lost to outer space, little by little.

Venus was already steam sauna while there was still water on the surface.

Once the last of the water was lost to outer space, there was no more evaporative cooling on Venus. No more clouds of water to block incoming light either. That's when the steam sauna became an oven.



================================================



sealover wrote:
"Global Dimming" - A Brand New "Buzzword"?

No discussion about the science of climate change would be complete without global dimming being incorporated.

The data makes no sense without it.

Global dimming is NOT a brand new "buzzword".

I'm getting pretty old, and I remember it well as a young science student.

"Nuclear winter".

Past mass extinction events.

The written historic record.

Crop failures in China pinpoint the year of the big volcanic eruption that ended the Minoan civilization.

The sky grew so dark for a year that crops froze in China.

By the time people invented thermometers they had more proof.

Krakatoa (probably not spelled right), east of Java.

When that volcano blew, there were cold-induced crop failures far and wide.

And there was temperature data showing that it really got COLDER that year.

More recently, temperatures were rising fast at the end of the 80s, early 90s.

Then Mt Pinatubo blew its top. It got COLDER that year world wide.

Then it went back to rising temperatures.

But those 1990s temperatures would have risen even FASTER without the enhanced GLOBAL DIMMING caused by rising emissions from China.

Some of global dimming is caused by the sun blocking effect of the anthropogenic emissions themselves.

Dark soot. Light absorbing sulfur compounds, etc.

But much of global dimming is caused by the effect of anthropogenic aerosols on cloud formation.

Aerosol particles provide a nucleus for droplet formation, as water droplets condense and form clouds.

In the presence of aerosols, clouds are comprised of much smaller droplets, in much larger numbers, than natural clouds.

These clouds are far more reflective, but not so great for providing rain.

Global dimming is such an important piece of the puzzle that it needs its own thread for a focused discussion.
18-04-2022 22:48
HarveyH55Profile picture★★★★★
(4239)
Load of crap. I live in Florida, and the mesh is used to keep bugs, and other wildlife from feeding on the plants...

Deforested, for agriculture? Just swapping one form of vegetation, for another. Leaf color is an adaptation for the environment the plant is growing in. Lot of plants around me, change color, depending on which side of the house I plant them. Same type plant will be a light shade of green in the front yard, but definitely darker in the backyard.

Of course local conditions don't mean they apply to the entire planet, always.
20-04-2022 18:05
GretaGroupieProfile picture★★☆☆☆
(348)
sealover wrote:
White or light colored surfaces have high albedo.

I am white and when I was p-tuting one of my clients said I had a very high albedo too and that is why I was so hot.




20-04-2022 21:02
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(18410)
HarveyH55 wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:
Don't clouds protect us from the deadly sun rays?

No. The atmosphere does...especially with the presence of oxygen and ozone.
HarveyH55 wrote:
Would clouds ten to reflect a lot of the 'heat' rays back out to space,so they never get a chance to fry the delicate surface of this planet? All we ever needed to do, is encourage cloud formation. Though, I guess that would work out as well for solar farmers. Least the power companies wouldn't have to pay homeowners as much, for electricity they can't sell.

There is no such thing as a 'heat' ray (unless you read science fiction). Solar panels are designed to make use of visible light.
HarveyH55 wrote:
Just a guess, but clouds would prevent any thermal runaway, as they have, for millions, and millions of years. Mankind might be sloppy tenants of this world, but they don't run the show.

What thermal runaway? What would cause it?


It's a buzzword thread, felt obligated to throw a few fear mongering phrases in for our liberal readers. Maybe I used them incorrectly. I don't speak liberal-English fluently.

Fair enough. The Liberal language is not English, though it kind of looks like it.
It takes time to learn another language.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan

While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
20-04-2022 21:44
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(18410)
...deleted talking to yourself spam...
sealover wrote:
Global Dimming, Albedo, and Evaporative Cooling.

And now for a trip through discarding the Stefan-Boltzmann law.
sealover wrote:
Anthropogenic global dimming

Buzzword fallacy.
sealover wrote:
is a major counterbalance to anthropogenic global warming.

Buzzword fallacy. It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth. Math error: missing boundary.
sealover wrote:
Not enough to STOP global warming, but enough to SLOW IT WAY DOWN.

Buzzword fallacy. A buzzword has no speed.
You cannot trap thermal energy. You cannot trap heat. You cannot trap light.
sealover wrote:
Global dimming influences how much of the visible light entering the atmosphere actually reaches the earth's surface.

Wups. Now you're denying Thenevin's law. The Earth includes the atmosphere.
sealover wrote:
Fun fact - In tropical countries they don't need greenhouses to keep plants warm enough.

Plants have no temperature sensors. The only thing related to temperature that affects them is freezing (which disrupts and destroys cells), and burning them.
sealover wrote:
But you often see black net mesh structures used to provide a little shade for plant nurseries. Blocking just enough sunlight with the black mesh netting improves the growth of the seedlings, compared to direct sunlight, regardless of whether or not it is a "shade tolerant" species or not.

Someday you MIGHT learn what photosynthesis is and what it does.
sealover wrote:
The sun wasn't nearly as bright when photosynthesis first evolved as it is today.

How do you know? Did you go back in time to measure it?
sealover wrote:
But what happens to the visible sunlight that does NOT get blocked by global dimming when it reaches the surface?

Sunlight is a wide spectrum of frequencies, most of which are NOT visible light.
sealover wrote:
It depends a lot on ALBEDO and EVAPORATIVE COOLING.

Buzzword fallacy. Now you enter into discarding the Stefan-Boltzmann law and the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
sealover wrote:
Albedo is term used to quantify how much visible light is reflected by a surface.

WRONG. The correct term is emissivity. There is no frequency term in the Stefan-Boltzmann law or in emissivity. 'Albedo' is just the inverse of emissivity and is a commonly used buzzword.
sealover wrote:
Dark surfaces have low albedo. White or light colored surfaces have high albedo. It is no secret that a black tee shirt gets hotter than a white one when you are out in the sun.

WRONG. Emissivity has no frequency term. You are ignoring the Stefan-Boltzmann law.
sealover wrote:
Human activity has changed the albedo of the earth's surface in many places.

It is not possible to measure the emissivity of the Earth (or it's albedo).
sealover wrote:
Snow and ice used to be the most reflective surfaces on earth.

There is no frequency term in emissivity. Snow and ice absorb infrared light quite well.
sealover wrote:
Dark soot from human activity has darkened the ice and snow, causing it to absorb more visible light, transform it into heat, and melt the ice more rapidly.

It is not possible to transform light into heat.
Absorption of visible light does not convert to thermal energy. What soot are you speaking of?
sealover wrote:
Humans have cleared much of the earth's natural forest cover for agriculture.

There are now more trees than ever before (as far as any record goes). Oh...agriculture is plants too.
sealover wrote:
The albedo of barren soil, especially after drying, is much higher than the albedo of a green leaf. That land now absorbs more visible light to transform into heat.

Agriculture is not barren soil. Since you have declared high albedo to be lower emissivity, such surfaces are absorbing LESS light, not more. So...the soil is hotter because it absorbed LESS light????!? Use the correct term, 'emissivity'. It will save you from this kind of confusion.
sealover wrote:
The deforested site now reflects back more visible light.

You are not locked in paradox. You cannot claim that barren soil is more reflective and not more reflective at the same time.
sealover wrote:
Did that make it COOLER? NO. Just the opposite.
It was ten or twenty degrees cooler before they cleared the forest.

It is not possible to measure the temperature of a forest or of the Earth.

Forests are incapable of destroying energy. Energy cannot be destroyed.
sealover wrote:
How does higher albedo result in higher temperature? It doesn't.

Paradox.
sealover wrote:
The difference is evaporative cooling.

Paradox. There is no such thing as 'evaporative cooling' (except as an engineering term). Buzzword fallacy. You fail to understand the concept of heat...probably because are are attempting to discard the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
sealover wrote:
The leaves of the forest were transpiring a lot of water before the forest was cleared. The dark, low albedo leaves were absorbing the visible light and transforming it into heat.

You cannot transform light into heat. Heat is not a form of energy.
sealover wrote:
But most of the heat was consumed by the evaporation of water as the leaves transpired it.

Heat cannot be stored. Heat cannot be stored.
sealover wrote:
A standing body of water does the same thing, but not nearly as well.

A standing body of water evaporates better than a plant, since a plant must suck all that water up through a single trunk.
sealover wrote:
Sunlight hits the water, visible light is transformed into heat, and there is cooling.

You cannot transform light into heat. Heat is not a form of energy. Absorption of visible light does not convert to thermal energy. It converts to chemical energy.
sealover wrote:
But that cooling is limited by how much surface area of water contacts the atmosphere.

No. Plants must suck the water up through a single trunk to get it to their leaves.
sealover wrote:
Within the leaves of a tree shading 100 square meters of soil surface, there are orders of magnitude more surface area than 100 square meters of standing water. Much more evaporative cooling from trees than from standing water.

There is no such thing as 'evaporative cooling' except as an engineering term.
sealover wrote:
What happens to the heat that is removed from the earth's surface by evaporative cooling?

You cannot store heat. You cannot remove it either. You are again discarding Thenevin's law.
sealover wrote:
That heat is released somewhere else later,

You cannot store heat. You cannot 'release' heat.
sealover wrote:
when the water vapor condenses back to liquid water.

The formation of a cloud is by heating, not by releasing heat. It's called convective heating. Clouds do not necessarily form.
sealover wrote:
This heat is typically released far from the earths surface,

Heat cannot be stored or released.
sealover wrote:
and much of it radiates back out to space.

ALL of it radiates into space.
sealover wrote:
Without evaporative cooling, the surface would be a LOT warmer.

There is no such thing as 'evaporative cooling' except in engineering. Buzzword fallacy.
sealover wrote:
As the sun's increasing luminosity caused more and more of the water on Venus to evaporate, warmer water vapor was lost to outer space, little by little.

Venus never had water. Not enough oxygen. The atmosphere of Venus is mostly carbon dioxide.
sealover wrote:
Venus was already steam sauna while there was still water on the surface.

No steam. No water.
sealover wrote:
Once the last of the water was lost to outer space,

Water doesn't vent to outer space from a planet. You seem to be ignoring gravity now.
sealover wrote:
there was no more evaporative cooling on Venus.

Buzzword fallacy.
sealover wrote:
No more clouds of water to block incoming light either.

Venus is covered with thick clouds.
sealover wrote:
That's when the steam sauna became an oven.

No water. No sauna. An oven, yes...due to it's thick and heavy atmosphere and proximity to the Sun.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan

While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
21-04-2022 04:10
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(11757)
GretaGroupie wrote:
squeal over wrote:
White or light colored surfaces have high albedo.

I am white and when I was p-tuting one of my clients said I had a very high albedo too and that is why I was so hot.

He said you had a high "libido".

The word "albedo" is a popular word amongst people who are pretending to be smart and educated. "Albedo" does not exist in science; it only exists in the scientifically illiterate dogma of the Global Warming/Climate Change lexicon.

Basically, if a person uses the word "albedo" then he is not a scientist but is desperate for people to think he is a science genius.

-----------------

Now, the rest of the answer: Science uses the term "emissivity." It is one of the components of the Stefan-Boltzmann law. Emissivity is the percentage of energy that is absorbed by matter. That is what is important because that energy is what gets converted into thermal energy and increases temperature. Whenever temperature is increasing, that is the amount of thermal energy that is increasing.

The percentage of energy that is not absorbed is called "albedo." It is reflected away and becomes irrelevant. It is gone. Elvis has left the building. Warmizombies will distract you by directing your attention to this irrelevant energy that has reflected away and treat it like it is everything that is important.

Anyway, the Stefan-Boltzmann law, along with the 1st law of thermodynamics is what kills greenhouse effect dead, and that destroys Global Warming which pulls the rug out from under Climate Change.

So listen for the word "albedo" and feel free to laugh out loud. Here, I'll give you an example:

squeal over wrote:White or light colored surfaces have high albedo.

LOL! Too funny! Tell us how this kills the planet!
21-04-2022 10:56
duncan61
★★★★☆
(1729)
I like the word albedo and know what it means.I like shiny and reflective too.Greta this is for you.The only energy we get is from the sun.It varies.Different things reflect that energy differently.It varies.I have spent the last 3 years trying to discover if human activity is disturbing stuff as is being claimed by alarmists and it is a bit but not to the we are going to die of overheating extent.I have never claimed to be a scientist or know anything.Regards Duncan
21-04-2022 17:02
GretaGroupieProfile picture★★☆☆☆
(348)
IBdaMann wrote:
LOL! Too funny! Tell us how this kills the planet!

Thank you IBM I will try laughing next time I write to seelover so maybe he will laught and feel better too.




21-04-2022 17:08
GretaGroupieProfile picture★★☆☆☆
(348)
duncan61 wrote:
I have never claimed to be a scientist or know anything.Regards Duncan

Thank you Duncan and I am not a scientist too.

I have a mirror that has different light settings for day and night to put my make up on so I guess more light is reflecxted in the day and less light is relfected at night or there would not be two settings on my mirror.

it looks like this but this is not it



21-04-2022 20:02
Im a BM
★★☆☆☆
(158)
Do you really think that Greta is transexual?

You publish that for the world to see.

Some of us find it very disturbing when adults not only flaunt their sexuality in the most public way possible..

When an adult projects their own sick and twisted sexuality on to a child like Greta.

Most disturbing.

I believe there is a word for it.

Is that really the reason you like Greta so much?

Because you project your own twisted sexuality on to HER?

There is also a word for people who get off on publicly flaunting their sexuality.

But when it is projected on to children, as you do with Greta.

I'm not laughing.

-------------------------------------------------------------------

GretaGroupie wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
LOL! Too funny! Tell us how this kills the planet!

Thank you IBM I will try laughing next time I write to seelover so maybe he will laught and feel better too.

21-04-2022 20:16
Im a BM
★★☆☆☆
(158)
To clarify the point about "sick and twisted sexuality".

The "sick and twisted" part is to project it on to a child, such as Greta.

Consenting adults can bump uglies any way they like.

Don't project your sexuality on to a child. That IS sick and twisted.

I look at Greta's face and see classic features of autism.

She ain't no tranny, I'm pretty sure.

She's not a scientist either, and her fifteen minutes of fame should be over.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Im a BM wrote:
Do you really think that Greta is transexual?

You publish that for the world to see.

Some of us find it very disturbing when adults not only flaunt their sexuality in the most public way possible..

When an adult projects their own sick and twisted sexuality on to a child like Greta.

Most disturbing.

I believe there is a word for it.

Is that really the reason you like Greta so much?

Because you project your own twisted sexuality on to HER?

There is also a word for people who get off on publicly flaunting their sexuality.

But when it is projected on to children, as you do with Greta.

I'm not laughing.

-------------------------------------------------------------------

GretaGroupie wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
LOL! Too funny! Tell us how this kills the planet!

Thank you IBM I will try laughing next time I write to seelover so maybe he will laught and feel better too.

21-04-2022 21:56
HarveyH55Profile picture★★★★★
(4239)
Greta isn't a child. She's 19-20 years old now. She retired when she turned 18... Personally, I could care less, she's a liberal, which means she can choose whatever she wants, and that's okay. Least she isn't trolling climate sites, as a sock-puppet, promote a manure-fetish... She's probably like you, and doesn't socialize much. Her only sexual relationship, is with herself...

Im a BM wrote:
To clarify the point about "sick and twisted sexuality".

The "sick and twisted" part is to project it on to a child, such as Greta.

Consenting adults can bump uglies any way they like.

Don't project your sexuality on to a child. That IS sick and twisted.

I look at Greta's face and see classic features of autism.

She ain't no tranny, I'm pretty sure.

She's not a scientist either, and her fifteen minutes of fame should be over.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Im a BM wrote:
Do you really think that Greta is transexual?

You publish that for the world to see.

Some of us find it very disturbing when adults not only flaunt their sexuality in the most public way possible..

When an adult projects their own sick and twisted sexuality on to a child like Greta.

Most disturbing.

I believe there is a word for it.

Is that really the reason you like Greta so much?

Because you project your own twisted sexuality on to HER?

There is also a word for people who get off on publicly flaunting their sexuality.

But when it is projected on to children, as you do with Greta.

I'm not laughing.

-------------------------------------------------------------------

GretaGroupie wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
LOL! Too funny! Tell us how this kills the planet!

Thank you IBM I will try laughing next time I write to seelover so maybe he will laught and feel better too.

22-04-2022 15:08
SwanProfile picture★★★★☆
(1218)
HarveyH55 wrote:
Greta isn't a child. She's 19-20 years old now. She retired when she turned 18... Personally, I could care less, she's a liberal, which means she can choose whatever she wants, and that's okay. Least she isn't trolling climate sites, as a sock-puppet, promote a manure-fetish... She's probably like you, and doesn't socialize much. Her only sexual relationship, is with herself...

Im a BM wrote:
To clarify the point about "sick and twisted sexuality".

The "sick and twisted" part is to project it on to a child, such as Greta.

Consenting adults can bump uglies any way they like.

Don't project your sexuality on to a child. That IS sick and twisted.

I look at Greta's face and see classic features of autism.

She ain't no tranny, I'm pretty sure.

She's not a scientist either, and her fifteen minutes of fame should be over.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Im a BM wrote:
Do you really think that Greta is transexual?

You publish that for the world to see.

Some of us find it very disturbing when adults not only flaunt their sexuality in the most public way possible..

When an adult projects their own sick and twisted sexuality on to a child like Greta.

Most disturbing.

I believe there is a word for it.

Is that really the reason you like Greta so much?

Because you project your own twisted sexuality on to HER?

There is also a word for people who get off on publicly flaunting their sexuality.

But when it is projected on to children, as you do with Greta.

I'm not laughing.

-------------------------------------------------------------------

GretaGroupie wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
LOL! Too funny! Tell us how this kills the planet!

Thank you IBM I will try laughing next time I write to seelover so maybe he will laught and feel better too.



Greta does not vote so she is less than nothing
22-04-2022 16:32
GretaGroupieProfile picture★★☆☆☆
(348)
Im a BM wrote:
Is that really the reason you like Greta so much?

I like Greta cause she is brave and willing to tell the truth and I think she is not afraid of who she is like me so that is why I am happy she may be tranny too.

Seelover you sound very angry about sex and it makes you unhappy like talking about climate change but when I was p-tuting everyone was happy and no one was agry.

Maybe you should try p-tuting and not be so angry about sex.

seelovers do not enter sign



22-04-2022 19:42
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(18410)
GretaGroupie wrote:
Im a BM wrote:
Is that really the reason you like Greta so much?

I like Greta cause she is brave and willing to tell the truth


She was told the scripture and she was told what to say and used by her parents in most disgusting way to promote the Church of Global Warming. It worked. She is now a celebrity, and her parents are riding on her fame.

She is the product of what her parents have taught her, nothing more. She has almost no mind of her own...almost like a ventriloquist dummy.

Frankly, I think it's sad to see this kind of child abuse.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan

While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
23-04-2022 00:10
SwanProfile picture★★★★☆
(1218)
GretaGroupie wrote:
Im a BM wrote:
Is that really the reason you like Greta so much?

I like Greta cause she is brave and willing to tell the truth and I think she is not afraid of who she is like me so that is why I am happy she may be tranny too.

Seelover you sound very angry about sex and it makes you unhappy like talking about climate change but when I was p-tuting everyone was happy and no one was agry.

Maybe you should try p-tuting and not be so angry about sex.

seelovers do not enter sign


Greta Thunberg has autism, so indeed she might be like you

AUTISTIC
23-04-2022 02:15
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(11757)
Swan wrote:Greta Thunberg has autism, so indeed she might be like you

Why would any rational adult believe that?

Autism is quite observable, and Greta doesn't have it.

The claim that she is autistic is standard dishonest leftist marketing.
23-04-2022 03:08
duncan61
★★★★☆
(1729)
Interesting sealover.When I write Greta I am referring to Greta lover who has a refreshing honesty about life.If she/he was within 1000 Kms I would drive there and have a coffee.I am still doing work on cloud cover and have nothing to report.Maybe I should call a journalist and get them to write a pack of lies how Aussie layman works it out.WE ARE ALL GOING TO DIE BECAUSE DRUNK PLUMBER SAID SO.
23-04-2022 03:49
SwanProfile picture★★★★☆
(1218)
IBdaMann wrote:
Swan wrote:Greta Thunberg has autism, so indeed she might be like you

Why would any rational adult believe that?

Autism is quite observable, and Greta doesn't have it.

The claim that she is autistic is standard dishonest leftist marketing.


Greta Thunberg has Asperger's syndrome a type of autism.
https://www.appliedbehavioranalysisprograms.com/faq/autism-affects-greta-thunberg/

For many of us, finding out that Greta Thunberg has a diagnosis of Asperger's Syndrome has not lowered our opinion of her—and it shouldn't. The qualities and characteristics that Greta exudes due to being on the spectrum, along with her other disorders, that often come with the ASD territory, simply make her who she is.

Greta didn't immediately come out and tell people that she has Asperger's because she knew "many ignorant people still see it as an 'illness', or something negative," she tweeted. Instead of viewing herself as having a disability, Greta compared her autism to something mighty and influential: "I have Asperger's and that means I'm sometimes a bit different from the norm," tweeted Greta. "And given the right circumstances—being different is a superpower."

But you go on denying the truth that Thunberg admits too

Silly turd
Edited on 23-04-2022 03:51
23-04-2022 19:35
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(11757)
Swan wrote:
Greta Thunberg has Asperger's syndrome a type of autism.

But you go on denying the truth that Thunberg admits too

Silly turd

You are gullible. What a surprise.
23-04-2022 20:41
SwanProfile picture★★★★☆
(1218)
IBdaMann wrote:
Swan wrote:
Greta Thunberg has Asperger's syndrome a type of autism.

But you go on denying the truth that Thunberg admits too

Silly turd

You are gullible. What a surprise.


LOL the fact is that Greta Thunberg has autism and that she admits to this. You just spout nonsense at every chance.

Here is Greta talking about her own autism which is not as devastating as your schizophrenia

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jpptVrll-bo

Silly girl, you are so gullible.

LOL you might want to inform Greta that she does not have autism, because she knows that she does. Perhaps she can become a schizzo like you
23-04-2022 21:07
Im a BM
★★☆☆☆
(158)
without Greta ever saying it publicly, and without knowing anything about her.

The physical features of her facial expression from just a photo tell the story.

Not a value judgement at all. Just an observation, confirmed by her own words.

But based on the ugly clown's behavior... maybe schizo affective disorder.

Most obviously a sociopathic sadist.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Swan wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Swan wrote:
Greta Thunberg has Asperger's syndrome a type of autism.

But you go on denying the truth that Thunberg admits too

Silly turd

You are gullible. What a surprise.


LOL the fact is that Greta Thunberg has autism and that she admits to this. You just spout nonsense at every chance.

Here is Greta talking about her own autism which is not as devastating as your schizophrenia

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jpptVrll-bo

Silly girl, you are so gullible.

LOL you might want to inform Greta that she does not have autism, because she knows that she does. Perhaps she can become a schizzo like you
23-04-2022 21:36
sealover
★★★☆☆
(803)
Most people just probably see a control freak.

Just HAS to control the conversation.

Severe penalties for those who disobey.

The words we use must be approved in ADVANCE before we can speak.

Approval for the words we choose can only come from ONE authority.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Im a BM wrote:
without Greta ever saying it publicly, and without knowing anything about her.

The physical features of her facial expression from just a photo tell the story.

Not a value judgement at all. Just an observation, confirmed by her own words.

But based on the ugly clown's behavior... maybe schizo affective disorder.

Most obviously a sociopathic sadist.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Swan wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Swan wrote:
Greta Thunberg has Asperger's syndrome a type of autism.

But you go on denying the truth that Thunberg admits too

Silly turd

You are gullible. What a surprise.


LOL the fact is that Greta Thunberg has autism and that she admits to this. You just spout nonsense at every chance.

Here is Greta talking about her own autism which is not as devastating as your schizophrenia

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jpptVrll-bo

Silly girl, you are so gullible.

LOL you might want to inform Greta that she does not have autism, because she knows that she does. Perhaps she can become a schizzo like you
23-04-2022 22:33
HarveyH55Profile picture★★★★★
(4239)
Isn't Global Dimming, a reference to the reduction of teaching actual science in public schools, boosting the conversion rate of 'dimwit', science-ignorant young people.
24-04-2022 20:27
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(18410)
Swan wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Swan wrote:
Greta Thunberg has Asperger's syndrome a type of autism.

But you go on denying the truth that Thunberg admits too

Silly turd

You are gullible. What a surprise.


LOL the fact is that Greta Thunberg has autism and that she admits to this. You just spout nonsense at every chance.

Here is Greta talking about her own autism which is not as devastating as your schizophrenia

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jpptVrll-bo

Silly girl, you are so gullible.

LOL you might want to inform Greta that she does not have autism, because she knows that she does. Perhaps she can become a schizzo like you


I don't think you know what autism is or what the symptoms of it are.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan

While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
24-04-2022 20:28
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(18410)
sealover wrote:
Most people just probably see a control freak.

Just HAS to control the conversation.

Severe penalties for those who disobey.

The words we use must be approved in ADVANCE before we can speak.

Approval for the words we choose can only come from ONE authority.


You are describing yourself as well.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan

While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
Page 1 of 212>





Join the debate "Global Dimming" - A Brand New "Buzzword"?:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
The Rebirth Of Soviet Union Under A Better Version Brand Will Lead To World Peace524-01-2022 04:11
▲ Top of page
Public Poll
Who is leading the renewable energy race?

US

EU

China

Japan

India

Brazil

Other

Don't know


Thanks for supporting Climate-Debate.com.
Copyright © 2009-2020 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact