Comments by "" (@DanielSMatthews) on "UN Climate Change Conference begins" video.

@yanniritsarntyios5744 Poor Yanni has a fractured and very incomplete (primary school level) understanding of science and is incapable of interpreting the things he quotes. More water vapour and heat generates convection cells that act as heat pumps that take the energy up to 20 km or higher which is above 90% of the atmospheric gases (by mass) and that heat is then radiated off into space allowing the vapour to phase change into water and return to the surface to repeat the heat transport cycle. Furthermore those cloud cells are white and reflect additional heat into space before it can interact with the surface of the Earth. It is a self regulating system. Most of that also occurs over the deep oceans as they cover the majority of the Earth's surface and have a far lower albedo compared to land areas. If you don't have all of the facts you can't see the big picture and understand how the entire climate-weather engine functions, this is essentially the problem with the climate catastrophist zealots.
5
@yanniritsarntyios5744 Hah we got you liar, you should have actually checked the real data, the drop in CO2 production by humans at that time (according to the UN) was almost 3 times greater than even the CO2 drop you quoted. But you have missed the point, rate is the delta not the absolute value, furthermore if 7% (7/100) is still so low that it is lost in the noise then how can you empirically prove that 100% would make a difference? How can you measure to parts per million but not be able to see 1 part in 10 in the data due to "noise"? Can you now see how fundamentally flawed and illogical your claims are? You are an order of magnitude or more out of touch with reality.
4
@yanniritsarntyios5744 CO2 levels follow warming trends rather than cause them, this is basic chemistry and physics knowledge. Go and look up the chart for CO2 solubility in water at different temperatures.
4
@yanniritsarntyios5744 #FAIL try and use a rational and factual argument next time.
3
@yanniritsarntyios5744 #FAIL try and use a rational and factual argument next time.
3
@yanniritsarntyios5744 I am not ignorant enough to consider that a valid argument. In fact you are completely innumerate if you think that statement is even remotely logical. "Drop in the bucket" is not a measurement it is a useless metaphor used by dishonest people without an actual scientific argument to put forward.
3
@yanniritsarntyios5744 CO2 is not a potent greenhouse gas (there is no actual evidence of that), its minor effects are totally dominated and overshadowed by the water phase shift heat transport mechanism which is self regulating. It comes down to the total amount of mass at play and if it is in motion. No gas can dominate the H2O heat engine as it is many orders of magnitude more massive. You seem to be ignorant of thermodynamics, and without that any implication that you have a clue about climatology is hilarious. It is pretty obvious that you have zero science training are are just desperately parroting talking points supplied to you.
3
Where is the evidence that it is actually "due to Anthropogenic CO2 emissions" given that the official dataset the Keeling Curve did not show a proportional drop in the rate of CO2 rise during the 2020 economic slowdown due to covid restrictions? All of that is UN approved data, one claim of theirs against another, but they don't add up, so how do you explain that? And don't be childish today as everyone is watching and wants a mature and well considered, honest, answer from you. I'll wait....
2
The purpose of the 26th UN Climate Change Conference is to figure out how to get away with completely disrespecting democracy so as to reconfigure the world's economy to make the elite even richer while the middle class of the western world sees their lives slide further into poverty and servitude.
1
@peterwoodward6144 Peter that is unprovable either way, go and study some formal logic. One cannot disprove the existence of something that one cannot fully define. Only another god could know if a god existed or not. This is why even Richard Dawkins is an agnostic rather than an atheist.
1
@peterwoodward6144 And your way of thinking is inferior to my more logical way of thinking which BTW underpins the philosophy of science itself, and thus you no better than those you see yourself as better than. Sorry but that is how it is, and why treating others with respect is a wiser choice.
1