2 ms·
I agree, I feel the burden of proof is in the new theory, rather than - here is a hypothesis, prove its wrong. It's pretty clear in the small scale studies co
by godmode2019 6y ago
I agree,
I feel the burden of proof is in the new theory, rather than - here is a hypothesis, prove its wrong.
It's pretty clear in the small scale studies co2 concentration affects temperature in the direction or warming in the long term and the short term affect of cooling because less energy makes it to the surface. (Similar to clouds or smog/ smoke blocking light)
But a causing extreme cold weather events..
- hn_throwaway_99 6y ago> the short term affect of cooling because less energy makes it to the surface That's absolutely not true, and I've never even heard climate change skeptics argue that.
- godmode2019 6y agohttps://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2021/02/210202164535.htm https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2021/02/210202164535.h...
- carbonguy 6y agoThis article is referring to the effect of a class of compounds called "aerosols," which does not include CO2. Aerosols do prevent some fraction of solar energy from reaching Earth's surface, but this is separate from the effect of increased CO2 concentrations.
- godmode2019 6y agoKeep reading. Aerosols are human emitions, carbon heavy pollution being a order of magnitude bigger than the others. The carbon heavy aerosols turn into co2. When I was in China I experienced this first hand , it was super hot summer weather very very high pollution. Over night their was freak rain the must of cleared the air because it was the bluest sky's I have ever seen. This tropical weather suddenly because the coldest I have ever been. The pollution acted like a blanket trapping the warmth. With that blanket gone, I had to rush to the store and buy a large winter jacket. I reread your comment and we may be disagreeing on terms. [Edit] removed an article
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]