Comments by "" (@1965ace) on "CBS Mornings" channel.

People rely on media too much, they see a little 3 minute puff piece and are convinced by some "expert" when all sides of the issue are needed to make a good choice. Drugs should only be used after diet and lifestyle choices are failing. I'm sure she thinks she's right but she is not the source of the information only a believer. LDL is a complicated issue and levels are only based on statistics not individuals and other issues that are often ignored such as insulin resistance , that is a much more powerful indicator of heart disease risk and can be managed with diet.
2
Only liberal Californians would build on a sandy cliff next to the ocean and be amazed that a "sinkhole" appeared.
1
Trump wasn't behind it, he didn't call for it and, it in no way benefitted him. That was a show put on by antifa and the DC police.
1
Who are the idiots that bought it?
1
You mean like most other viruses????!!!!! Gee who would have guessed.
1
I want people to understand that Carbon Dioxide (what you exhale) described as a Green House Gas is never discusses in terms of emissions. As night falls Carbon Dioxide radiates Infrared energy (all materials do but some are better at it like CO2) this is important in the cooling cycle of earth. Once a molecule of CO2 loses some energy it can absorb energy from gases like Nitrogen and Oxygen and then pass that again as infrared. The heat capacity is the same for absorbtion and emission which means during a day night cycle CO2 helps warm as much as it helps cool. From all I've seen on the climate hype propaganda this fact is never mentioned. They want you to miss half the information and the truth about their Man Made Global Warming Theory.
1
@superstormthunder3 We have 4.6 billion years of climate change (warming and cooling) The natural correlation was that when earth warmed it released more carbon in the carbon cycle, this positive reinforcement was a result not the cause. Another question to ask is why just before and during atmospheric Co2 was at it's peak did earth fall into ice ages?
1
@superstormthunder3 Let's look at the glass as half full, instead of fretting about change you first have to acknowledge the relative stability of climate with in earth's history. There are very strong feedback mechanisms that obviously overlap. Let's examine the primary GHG , water vapor. It is 4 times more potent than CO2 and 100 times (on average) more prevalent. Roughly 400 times more powerful, and yet it swings between 20,000 ppm to 60,000 ppm in hours and days. Co2 on the other hand is 420 ppm and may increase 5 ppm in a year. Based on scale alone any temperature feedback effecting H2O will vastly overshadow any contribution by CO2.
1
@superstormthunder3 Apply your faulty logic to your statement that the only way water vapor increases is temperature increase. Then why isn't that out of control? GHG water vapor increases causing warming and thus causing more water vapor? It's more complicated than that.
1
@superstormthunder3 Why do you think global water vapor is fairly consistent? Sounds like a very strong feedback mechanism... related to temperature and thus offsetting the bogus MMGW CO2 theory?
1
@superstormthunder3 So logic goes over your head ? Let me introduce you to the simplistic (more valid) theory your assumptions spawn. H2O is disconnected to global warming and cannot counteract any rising global temperatures.
1
@superstormthunder3 once again you claim it’s an amplifier and a product. So which is it? ….. both think about it!!
1
@superstormthunder3 what are the thermo feed backs?
1
@superstormthunder3 yes positive , evaporation and negative clouds. Are you that uninformed?
1
@superstormthunder3 Yes when it gets warmer H2O and CO2 increase in the atmosphere from evaporation in the ocean. H2O gas can condense into clouds and reflect high energy light away from the earth ....cooling it. On a longer scale more temperate climate encourages plant life that is a natural carbon sink. Examples of thermal feedback.
1
@superstormthunder3 2nd reply, Now for some critical thinking we know that in relation to IR elemental and molecular absorption and emission is equal. Atmospheric temperature increases and decreases only by convection and radiation. Outside of the atmosphere earth can only warm and cool by radiation, convection cannot occur in a vacuum. So, and I know this is not reported widely, GHGs cool the earth by radiating heat back into space. That is the other side of the coin when it comes to GHGs. Lets consider a cooling cycle called night the earths surface is still warm and radiating heat and convecting heat (cooling). The earth's now, relatively warm atmosphere, is radiating heat and some of it is lost into the vacuum of space. Some of it is also absorbed by GHGs which also radiate losses into space. Understand energy conversion, the bulk of warm atmospheric energy is contained in non-GHGs nitrogen and oxygen. They are perfectly capable of cooling through convection but are very ineffective in radiating because of certain narrow bandwidths. So we know GHGs will pick up energy from radiation and convection then radiate that energy. It can also bump into a lower energy molecule and convect energy into the lower energy molecule ( that is how GHGs warm non-GHGs). I'll let you digest this, let me now what your thoughts are.
1
@superstormthunder3 The earth cools by emission of infrared light. The conversion of energy to infrared is the only way the earth can cool so by whatever effect GHGs contribute to warming they also convert that energy to cool. Energy is constantly being exchanged by convection and conduction but the only way to loose energy to a vacuum is radiation (Infrared). You seem to think this is a one way street. Absorption and emission is equal in CO2 as it is in every molecule. The vast majority of heat energy in the atmosphere is contained in Nitrogen and Oxygen. CO2 is only 1/2500th of the atmosphere. It's contribution is in the ability to convert energy between convection and radiation. It's a gateway that works both ways.
1