Climate Change Denial

[drtimhill]

In the 1960s and ’70s Newsweek, Time, Life, National Geographic, and others said man-made global-cooling would causes billions of deaths (crop failures and starvation). Professor Kenneth E.F. Watt at the University of California in 1970 predicted an ice age would arrive when the world be 4 degrees colder in 1990 and 11 degrees colder by 2000.

In 2005, the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) said sea-level rises, increased hurricanes, and desertification caused by “man-made global warming” would lead to massive population disruptions. The 2005 UNEP predictions said, by 2010, 50 million “climate refugees” would be frantically fleeing from those regions affected such as the Caribbean and low-lying Pacific islands and along with coastal areas. However, by 2010 those “affected regions” experienced significant population growth that placed them some of the fastest-growing places on Earth.

In 2007, 2008, and 2009, Al Gore (The Goracle), predicted the North Pole would be “ice-free” in the summer by around 2013 because of “man-made global warming.” Contrary to Gore’s and other alarmists predictions, satellite data showed that Arctic ice volume as of summer of 2013 had actually expanded more than 50 percent over 2012 levels. During October 2013, sea-ice levels grew at the fastest pace since records began in 1979.

Look up "Cherry Picking" here. And explain these photos.

 

[nwdiver]

There's no bias. I'm just not a chiro-believer. (I'm an MD).

Chiropractors are basically budget Homeopaths. Or is it the other way around? Really doesn't matter.

 

[SSonnentag]

 

[nwdiver]

View attachment 614797

When did physics stop working? Why is Venus hotter than Mercury then?

 

[SageBrush]

So, have you studied thermodynamics?

The climatologists have the thermodynamics and physics wrong. They measure radiative transfer and think it represents the thermodynamics. Cooler things never heat warmer things, but that is exactly what their (stupid) models do.

What are your education credentials ?

I ask because every physical science society of merit in the WORLD accepts the thermodynamics of AGW. You must be really special to have caught a fundamental flaw in the model that every leading physicist in the world has missed.

 

[drtimhill]

Your entire post is an appeal to authority, which is a logical fallacy

One final note about "appeal to authority", which you also seem not to understand. The fallacy of appealing to authority is taken to mean relying on an absolute or an unsubstantiated authority.

Example 1: "St Anselm made it clear that God considers sex outside of marriage to be a sin."
Example 2: "Richard Dawkins has stated that evolution is a scientific fact."

These are both references to authority in some general sense, but only example 1 is a fallacy. Why? Because example 1 quotes St Anselm as an absolute authority. If we inquire why he thinks this, there is no answer other than "because he said so". What about example 2? Well, if we ask why professor Dawkins holds this opinion, we can point to a truly vast wealth of careful scientific research and study that backs him up. So, in this case professor Dawkins it not the final authority, he is merely a reference that can be used, as it were, as an abbreviation for the scientific research.

In fact, all true scientific study is an exercise in the elimination of authority, replacing it with the presentation of verifiable evidence, demonstrable logical reasoning from that evidence and testable hypotheses that support (or, sometimes, refute) a theory.

So, referencing the vast corpus of scientific is valid, and is in no way, shape or form, a fallacy.

 

[drtimhill]

Here are some facts for you to chew on.

The human body contains about 4g of Iron, or about 0.008% by mass. Take it away and you have no red blood cells and you die. It's not about the relative amounts of a substance, its about how critical that substance is, and what percentage change in the amount of that substance there is. The same applies to CO2 .. sure it forms a small percentage of the atmosphere. So what?

 

[drtimhill]

Spare me your anti-chiropractic bias.

I’m the one arguing FOR science here

So provide some peer-reviewed science to support your position.

 

[drtimhill]

How do you measure the temperature of a wave?

I never said radiation did not go from cold to hot, what I said was cold objects do not warmer objects, second law of thermodynamics

You should really watch the video linked above

But radiation from a colder object can heat a warmer object. When radiation leaves the colder object, it doesnt "know" in advance what the temperature of the object it encounters will be. However, when it is absorbed by a target object, it will contribute to the total thermal energy of that object, regardless of the objects temperature. Otherwise the energy content of the radiation would be destroyed, which breaks the laws of physics.

To use the microwave analogy, no part of the microwave oven is ever at 100C, yet the oven is quite capable of boiling water. You are confusing the transfer of energy by radiation with that by conduction, which is essentially a redistribution of atomic momentum (convection is merely a special case of conduction, since the warming of the convective medium is itself conduction if it happens by contact with a warm object).

 

[EV-Tiger]

Look up "Cherry Picking" here. And explain these photos.

I missed it. Which of these climate perditions you believe came true?

 

[nwdiver]

I missed it. Which of these climate perditions you believe came true?

This one;

Also this one;

Also sea level rise;

Also this;

Damage Uncovered on Antarctic Glaciers Reveals Worrying Signs for Sea Level Rise

Also this; IPCC report in 1990

Then this happens in Russia 30 years later...


Siberia Heatwave Sees Buildings Split in Two As Permafrost Thaws


If you read published research and not off-the-cuff comments by former vice presidents the observations are well within the error bars of predictions made 40 years ago.

 

[drtimhill]

I missed it. Which of these climate perditions you believe came true?

Again ... Cherry Picking. Try to present a coherent argument backed by reproducible evidence and we can discuss. Until then all you have done is point out how tricky the science is .. well we all knew that which is why the science has carefully quantified uncertainties,

Science is about formulating theories that fit the facts, not choosing the facts that fit whatever pet agenda you may have.

And has it occurred to you that there HAS been a good deal of global effort to combat warming, and that this may be the reason that some of the worse predictions from 15+ years ago have been delayed?

 

[nwdiver]

How do you measure the temperature of a wave?

If you don't have the knowledge to understand how this works;

Then you don't have the knowledge to have an informed opinion on climate change.

 

[Brando]

~ 12,800 years ago (If I remember correctly) N. America covered in ~ 2 milw thick ice sheet - Siberia was ice free
Warmed up and sea levels went up hundreds of feet [~ 400??] was warm [read not much ice]
Then ice came back again over centuries. And melted again about 11,600 years ago.
These ~2,000 years not [well] understood how warmup, iced up again, and another warm up. Large mamals went extict such as Wooly Mamouths, Saber Tooth Tigers, large flat faced bears, Giant Sloths and many more.
Latest ideas seems comet(s) hit N. America Ice sheet [~2 miles thick] and we started the current warm period [lasting so far ~ 11,700 years and sea levels went up about 400 feet again?
note: flood stories [Noah for example] all around the world, most everywhere]

Best attempted explainations by Graham Hancock and Randal Carlson - in my little readings below links are a little start.
I'm impressed humans can even imagine 20,000 years ago, sea levels up, down and up again ~400 feet in about 1,000 years??
The Official Graham Hancock Website - Graham Hancock Official Website
Randall Carlson - Sacred Geometry International

So our understanding continures to change.
As Elon Musk comments - CO2 increases are just a stupid experiment.
[We should reverse this experimant. IMHO]

And if it goes bad, it can be really really bad. So let us try to stop this experiment with electrify of transport and using solar & wind for electricity production and save oil for chemicals/plastics (pollution is of course a very big problem. hundreds of millions of tons of plastics killing our seas. stop single use plastics, please)

Sorry for my poor memory - you can easily read books by the above authors or search for YouTube talks they have both made.

Probably won't matter for me, I'm too old. But for your kids and grand kids and great grand kids - not great trends.

 

[SageBrush]

If you don't have the knowledge to understand how this works;

I'm reading Jacobson's book these days. Most of it is pretty introductory but I learned about the relative cooling of the upper stratosphere. That was interesting. It is be an inconvenient observation we should ask denialists to explain.

I also "enjoyed" the calc showing the breakeven point of methane leak leading to the CO2 equivalence with coal.

 

[bobleland]

I thought the issue with CO2 is the greenhouse effect. I cannot explain in engineering terms why the interior of my car can heat up to a level that will kill an infant or pet but I know that it is real. I am skeptical of arguments are backed up with myopic academic disciplines. The issue is that there is an obvious better way to produce energy than fossil fuels. Having this kind of debate on a Tesla Forum is absurd.

 

[EV-Tiger]

Again ... Cherry Picking. Try to present a coherent argument backed by reproducible evidence and we can discuss. Until then all you have done is point out how tricky the science is .. well we all knew that which is why the science has carefully quantified uncertainties,

Science is about formulating theories that fit the facts, not choosing the facts that fit whatever pet agenda you may have.

And has it occurred to you that there HAS been a good deal of global effort to combat warming, and that this may be the reason that some of the worse predictions from 15+ years ago have been delayed?

Again .... Has it occurred to you that you have been played like a chump? The historical evidence points to a clear and resounding YES. Climate disaster perditions from the 1960s to 2009 have been proven wrong.

NONE of the apocalyptic predictions with due dates as of today have come true! NONE!

Wrong Again: 50 Years of Failed Eco-pocalyptic Predictions

Wrong Again: 50 Years of Failed Eco-pocalyptic Predictions - Competitive Enterprise Institute

 

[SageBrush]

I thought the issue with CO2 is the greenhouse effect.

Right you are.

The effect is I think pretty straightforward to write: solar visible light passes through CO2 'as is' on its through the Earth's atmosphere, but IR is absorbed by CO2 and then re-radiated after a frequency shift. The greenhouse effect occurs because solar light passes through the atmosphere to land where a fraction of it is bounced upward as IR (the black body effect) and then rather than completely radiate out to space, a fraction gets trapped in the lower atmosphere (troposphere).

You car has the same effect: visible light passes through the glass into the cabin and a part of it is converted to IR. That IR is trapped by the glass.

For the plumbers amongst us, CO2 acts as a (partial) one way radiation valve. The analogy eventually breaks down because IR is re-radiated (in a different wavelength) in all directions so there is an 'incomplete recycling' effect. You can ignore that extra complication for now, or just realize that it means that as CO2 concentrations rise the global temperature rises to a new equilibrium where the energy coming in equals the energy leaving.

 

[Spacep0d]

Again .... Has it occurred to you that you have been played like a chump? The historical evidence points to a clear and resounding YES. Climate disaster perditions from the 1960s to 2009 have been proven wrong.

NONE of the apocalyptic predictions with due dates as of today have come true! NONE!

Wrong Again: 50 Years of Failed Eco-pocalyptic Predictions

Wrong Again: 50 Years of Failed Eco-pocalyptic Predictions - Competitive Enterprise Institute

Climate disaster perdition is the very thing that it behooves citizens of Earth to prevent insomuch as we can mitigate our role in it.

 

[nwdiver]

NONE of the apocalyptic predictions with due dates as of today have come true! NONE!

Wrong Again: 50 Years of Failed Eco-pocalyptic Predictions

Wrong Again: 50 Years of Failed Eco-pocalyptic Predictions - Competitive Enterprise Institute

The sensationalized exaggerated press interpretations of science didn't pan out??? Whhhaaaaat......

The ACTUAL 'PEER REVIEWED' projections of the effects of climate change have been depressingly accurate. If you read a lot of the scientific literature from the 50s and 60s most scientists didn't think we'd behave so idiotically as to actually get to >400ppm. Clearly they VASTLY over estimated the intelligence of the boomers. Their average IQ might be 100 but the median is closer to ~80.... pathetic.

Which fact do you think is not true?

1) CO2 levels have risen >40% since humanities fossil fuel addiction started
2) The burning of Fossil Fuels has emitted more than twice as much CO2 as would be required for that rise
3) Doubling CO2 will cause a rise in global average temperature of >3C.

The radiative properties of CO2 have been known and tested for >100 years... How can all 3 be true but Global Warming false?