Comments by "Michael Lenczewski" (@kayakMike1000) on "ThePrint" channel.

CO2 is NOT a likely cause of warming. It is a tiny trace gas in the atmosphere that has a narrow band infrared absorption. H2O is much more common and is a broad band infrared absorber that actually absorbs the same wavelengths. Put another way.. Infrared heat in the atmosphere many times more likely to get trapped by H2O. CO2 is too rare AND too specific to capture much infrared radiation. Furthermore, the warmer the oceans become the less able they are able to contain CO2. It's possible that a large amount of CO2 is coming from the ocean if the earth is truely warming. Oceanic concentrations of CO2 has been observed to increase if I recall correctly, so if we ARE warming and the ocean is therefore a net emitter of CO2, where is THAT CO2 coming from?
4
234 scientists were hired to compile "scientific" information about anthropogenic global warming. They delivered a report that guarantees a need for another report.
3
Hey, scientists and experts also do gain of function research on viruses. Why should we trust these jokers?
2
@NewPipeFTW confession through projection? What have I said that you can disprove with actual EMPIRACLE data? Besides, I prefer to be called a heretic by your dumb cult.
1
@NewPipeFTW . You could show me a billion scientists spouting the same dumb idea, I still would not be satisfied. I read the reports, and formulate ideas from there. You're just regurgitating what someone else's ideas are. That's called religion where I am from. Besides, you didn't read the IPCC report, I can tell. They indicated low confidence that any changes in flooding, wildfires, hurricanes, tornadoes, are apparent from anthropogenic climate change. The actual data does not support your conjecture. Furthermore, the IPCC report does report that the satellite data shows a trend in green across the land, especially in arid areas. To my knowledge, when plants can be grown better in more areas, humans that like to eat plants have more food. That sounds beneficial.
1
This one time, a huge bubble of lava ascended from the outer core of the earth as nuclear material there decayed and gave out energy. That bubble erupted on the surface as a giant continent sized volcanic event called a basalt lava flow. There were lots of furry woodland creatures and many trees burned... The earth recovered just fine. There is no tipping point
1
Its caused by climate change. Caused by humans. Because science. The freezing water is caused by carbon dioxide released by fossil fuels. Its all a conspiracy by the rich oil comoanies.
1
@user-bm9fo5kr1l no, they were different scientists. Polio vaccine was developed in 1952, back when people still had compassion for each other. The scientists and researchers who developed the covid vaccine are big pharma companies that also knowingly distributed highly addicting drugs to millions of Americans. The platform that is currently used now is actively censoring reasonable criticism and sells your data to make money. It used to be about the science, the humanity, the progress. Now it's about the money.
1
@user-bm9fo5kr1l I thought about it more and I think I disagree with you even more. It's wise not to trust people blindly, even alleged scientists and researchers. There are reasonable arguments against anthropogenic CO2 causing climate change. There are many dishonest politicians that claim a fight to save the planet and base policy on it. There exists reasonable evidence that climate scientists fudge their data to support a conclusion.
1
@user-bm9fo5kr1l scientists are people and these days we need reform for honesty and integrity. STEM is great, I am an engineer myself, but some of these old fashioned virtues are sorely lacking in the quest to always be the smartest researcher, to make the discovery, to win the grant money, or win the respect from your peers. The peer review process is basically devolved science into grade school peer pressure. There is a repeatability crisis, rampant bias, and just human bullshit drama in academia these days. Yes, that's why I am an engineer and not a scientist and yes I am bitter, but the pay is pretty good and the products we make are quite advanced clean technology, so I am happy. But I don't trust anyone in academia, except for my sister who did get her PhD. She was the smart one.
1
I hope it gets even warmer. Life does much better in warmer temperatures.
1
@NewPipeFTW what evidence do you have that molds, algae, and viruses will overwhelm stressed species in a warmer environment? Would not the same be true in a cooler environment? How would a warmer environment cause the ocean to acidify? The ocean is alkaline and will likely remain so until the sun goes red giant and boils away all the water. True story, rain has a pH of about 5.5, mostly from absorbing nitrogen oxides reacting with water to form weak nitric acid. You may want to read some actual science books on how everything works rather than some dumb headlines.
1
@NewPipeFTW you could just link the article. Besides, I AM a qualified researcher. I get paid to do research and development. Sea water is not blood. Your blood doesn't have a huge reserve of calcium carbonate rubble swirling around it... This would tend to buffer any change in pH. This is why the ocean remains ALKALINE at 8.1 pH despite being at the bottom of a my mostly nitrogen atmosphere. So this acidosis idea is completely stupid. At worst, ocean becomes slightly LESS alkaline, but never becomes acidic. Next this ocean acidification has a few serious problems... The carbon dioxide concentration increases in the water, a tiny portion of this becomes carbonic acid and reduces the pH of the ocean. But now, that CO2 is not in the air to actually CAUSE the temperature to increase. Furthermore, warmer temperatures of the Earth's surface means that the oceans will be warmer and able to dissolve less CO2, the ocean tends to become an emitter of CO2. If you look at the CO2 graph, you'll see it's got a cyclical component to it... There is much CO2 dissolved in seawater from geothermal vents, some geologists have hypothesized that some of the recent CO2 increases could be from undersea geothermal vents and ocean out gassing. What observations were made to support their conclusions? There is no data, just people saying some dumb shit and you claiming it's from a qualified source. This is not science. You need to discuss your hypothesis, a method for testing your hypothesis, data from your experiment, and see if your hypothesis is valid.
1
@NewPipeFTW oyster farmers on the us west coast probably have localized PH changes based on runoff from farms and all the homeless people shitting in the streets. It's a land management problem, not an atmospheric CO2 problem. You're in a lousy cult, start thinking for yourself and chemistry isn't really THAT HARD.
1