PILOT SPIN
Spin Zone => Spin Zone => Topic started by: Number7 on July 12, 2019, 12:19:03 PM
-
How many times will democrats (communists) proclaim mmgw as the single most important issue facing mankind, while study after study refuted every word they say?
https://www.infowars.com/new-finnish-study-finds-no-evidence-for-man-made-climate-change/
-
but but but are these peer-reviewed studies?
-
but but but are these peer-reviewed studies?
It appears not. It's not from any journal as far as I can tell, and half the references are from one of the authors. Not attacking the conclusions, but peer reviewed and published in a top journal would be a good thing.
Then again, anyone accepting the paper for publication would instantly be shunned and lose any hope of funding in the future. No leading publication would touch it just because. Yay academia!
-
Peer review is no longer valid as the majority of peers are far left progressive, and want the outcome to be the same. I don't trust much of academia anymore. They can't even answer what percentage of climate change is caused by man and what is caused by nature. They also can't say what the money will go to, and how it will "fix" climate change. What if natural climate change fluctuates as we know it does, and drastically. There is no reliable baseline in which to measure against.
CO2 is NOT a pollutant. It occurs naturally and in large quantities. Maybe if we could bribe the SUN somehow, that may help. How'd that work out for Icarus?
-
CO2 is NOT a pollutant. It occurs naturally and in large quantities. Maybe if we could bribe the SUN somehow, that may help. How'd that work out for Icarus?
CO2 is an interesting chemical. It occurs naturally and we can tolerate it, but in large enough quantities it is lethal.
Seems to me that CO2 sort of fits the definition of pollutant.
-
CO2 is an interesting chemical. It occurs naturally and we can tolerate it, but in large enough quantities it is lethal.
Seems to me that CO2 sort of fits the definition of pollutant.
Well, not in the way the MMGW promoters say it is. Water in large enough quantities is lethal. Is water a pollutant? We EXHALE CO2. We drink water. Plants need CO2 to survive.
We largely addressed actual air and water pollutants in the 70's and for a good reason and are still regulating and limiting them to this day. However the MMGW crowd now wants to drastically limit a naturally occurring substance like CO2 for dubious reasons by a Cap and Trade program similar to actual, harmful pollutants (emissions) that industry produce.
-
CO2 is an interesting chemical. It occurs naturally and we can tolerate it, but in large enough quantities it is lethal.
Seems to me that CO2 sort of fits the definition of pollutant.
Dihydrogen Oxide is another chemical that occurs naturally, and we can tolerate it, but in large enough quantities it too is lethal. It's also a solvent. And it can be a conduit for many types of pollutants.
-
Y'all might enjoy this.....
https://townhall.com/tipsheet/cortneyobrien/2019/07/12/um-aocs-staff-is-undermining-her-green-new-deal-n2549948
-
Just looked over the paper... simply incredible. No source for the data used in the figures (except for Fig. 1). No description of the methods used for the theoretical calculations. Virtually all of the references are to their own writings. Then they have the gall to say "We have proven that the GCM-models used in IPCC report AR5 cannot compute correctly the natural component included in the observed global temperature." wtf???
I was under the impression that U of Turku had a reputable climate science program, but looking at their site (at least the English version), I don't see these guys mentioned at all. Maybe they are a couple of grad students?
I'm always interested to read well-researched and well-written papers that reach conclusions at odds with the "consensus", but this one is a head scratcher, in the same league as Gerlich and Tscheuschner, almost. IMO it doesn't deserve the attention it's getting.
-
check out the latest Dilbert (14 July 2019)
https://dilbert.com/
-
Just looked over the paper... simply incredible. No source for the data used in the figures (except for Fig. 1). No description of the methods used for the theoretical calculations. Virtually all of the references are to their own writings. Then they have the gall to say "We have proven that the GCM-models used in IPCC report AR5 cannot compute correctly the natural component included in the observed global temperature." wtf???
I was under the impression that U of Turku had a reputable climate science program, but looking at their site (at least the English version), I don't see these guys mentioned at all. Maybe they are a couple of grad students?
I'm always interested to read well-researched and well-written papers that reach conclusions at odds with the "consensus", but this one is a head scratcher, in the same league as Gerlich and Tscheuschner, almost. IMO it doesn't deserve the attention it's getting.
I don’t like it when either side of the debate makes shit up and calls it science.
Where did you find the original paper? The article in the link provided no real information.
-
I don’t like it when either side of the debate makes shit up and calls it science.
Where did you find the original paper? The article in the link provided no real information.
Click on “paper”, the second word in the article. The paper presents the results and conclusions of their own experimental observations. Nothing wrong with that. Now it is up to others to duplicate those results. Until efforts to duplicate have been made and failed, their conclusions can be presumed valid for now, or at least plausible and cannot be ignored.
-
I don't need a study to realize that Man Made Climate Change is a hoax, and a scam hatched by control freak Progressives to further consolidate wealth and power, and give more control to GOVERNMENT. All most people have are their incomes, not much real wealth in the big picture. The elites want to reduce that by taking some for "climate change". Why? It will create yet more dependency on government.
We see the likes of Barbara Streisand who just flew her three dogs, separately from her, to London to attend her concert. People like Al Gore, and Leo DiCaprio haven't reduced their carbon footprints. They are huge. But they expect us to suffer?
-
I don’t like it when either side of the debate makes shit up and calls it science.
Where did you find the original paper? The article in the link provided no real information.
Very strange. When I click on the link "paper" in the first sentence of that article, I'm sent here:
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1907.00165.pdf
which is the original paper on arXiv.
-
Click on “paper”, the second word in the article. The paper presents the results and conclusions of their own experimental observations. Nothing wrong with that. Now it is up to others to duplicate those results. Until efforts to duplicate have been made and failed, their conclusions can be presumed valid for now, or at least plausible and cannot be ignored.
Except that their paper provides NO information as to how their observations were made. How can their results be replicated without that info?
Lacking that, we're forced to judge the plausibility of their conclusions by whether they contradict established science, no? Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence... and the claim that low cloud cover CONTROLS ("practically", whatever that means) Earth's climate is far from ordinary. That doesn't make it wrong, but it raises the bar for acceptance.
I also see there's a discussion of this paper on WUWT... anyone interested might want to check it out.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/07/12/new-paper-no-experimental-evidence-for-the-significant-anthropogenic-climate-change/
-
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence...
Agreed.
Hence why MMCC or whatever they are trying to package it as now is bogus.
-
Except that their paper provides NO information as to how their observations were made. How can their results be replicated without that info?
Lacking that, we're forced to judge the plausibility of their conclusions by whether they contradict established science, no? Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence... and the claim that low cloud cover CONTROLS ("practically", whatever that means) Earth's climate is far from ordinary. That doesn't make it wrong, but it raises the bar for acceptance.
I also see there's a discussion of this paper on WUWT... anyone interested might want to check it out.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/07/12/new-paper-no-experimental-evidence-for-the-significant-anthropogenic-climate-change/
Interesting discussion. I made it pretty far in before I started to fall asleep... ;D
-
Interesting discussion. I made it pretty far in before I started to fall asleep... ;D
Heh. I admit I only read the first 30 or so posts myself, but I was impressed that some of the folks there were able to discuss the science intelligently. One name I recognize is Javier, who has contributed a number of articles on paleoclimate on Judith Curry's site. He has done extensive work on multi-centennial and multi-millennial climate cycles during the Holocene. I'm not sure what his full name is though, nor how much of his work is published/peer-reviewed.
-
Every time the leftists point out that the science is settled, I think it’s important to ask them which science? Is it the science that says the sea level will rise 15’ in the next 10 yes, the one that says we are all going to be dead in the next 11 years 8 months, or the science that says we’re going to have just a 2.7 degree rise in temperatures by 2100. Maybe it’s the science that says we don’t quite know what’s going on, or the science that claims we are in a cooling cycle.
The people doing climate science can’t agree on what the science says and that needs to be highlighted when the issue is “settled.
-
Every time the leftists point out that the science is settled, I think it’s important to ask them which science? Is it the science that says the sea level will rise 15’ in the next 10 yes, the one that says we are all going to be dead in the next 11 years 8 months, or the science that says we’re going to have just a 2.7 degree rise in temperatures by 2100. Maybe it’s the science that says we don’t quite know what’s going on, or the science that claims we are in a cooling cycle.
The people doing climate science can’t agree on what the science says and that needs to be highlighted when the issue is “settled.
This is the whole problem. The people so passionate that we need to “save” the planet because of MMGW really don’t know what the fuck they’re talking about. That would be the majority of the herd.
-
Funny how the left will wrap themselves around whatever nonsense a faux academic proclaims about MMGW, but attack vociferously anything that casts a shadow of doubt on their religion.
-
Funny how the left will wrap themselves around whatever nonsense a faux academic proclaims about MMGW, but attack vociferously anything that casts a shadow of doubt on their religion.
Because the responses and supposed "fixes" of climate change all revolve around penal fees, fines, surcharges and Taxes going to government to be redistributed. What will they do with the money to "fix" man made climate change? What if natural climate change increases? Will it "fix" that too?
What will the punitive measure for using fossil fuel do to the U.S. and world economy? How will the poor and middle income earner afford much higher energy costs? Will they be able to travel to work? Will they have to forgo food to buy gasoline and heat their homes? Why do the elite that promote MMGW NOT use less fossil fuels?
Why can't MMGW proponents answer these questions?
-
Why can't MMGW proponents answer these questions?
The same reason they can't tell you where the money will come from to pay for "medicare for all" and the "free tuition for all", as well as "student loan forgiveness" and everyone's favorite, "reparations for all".
-
Margaret Hoover had John Delaney on Firing Line last week - one of the saner of the Dem candidates IMO. Anyway it came up that at least AOC and Sanders are proponents of an economic philosophy called Modern Monetary Theory. Seems MMTers believe the government cannot become insolvent if it borrows in its own currency, all they need to do is print more of it - so that might explain some of it.
So maybe they won't turn us into Greece after all - maybe more like Venezuela... <yikes>
-
The same reason they can't tell you where the money will come from to pay for "medicare for all" and the "free tuition for all", as well as "student loan forgiveness" and everyone's favorite, "reparations for all".
Of course the money comes from the government!
-
Margaret Hoover had John Delaney on Firing Line last week - one of the saner of the Dem candidates IMO. Anyway it came up that at least AOC and Sanders are proponents of an economic philosophy called Modern Monetary Theory. Seems MMTers believe the government cannot become insolvent if it borrows in its own currency, all they need to do is print more of it - so that might explain some of it.
So maybe they won't turn us into Greece after all - maybe more like Venezuela... <yikes>
Yes, money, like anything else is a COMMODITY with the same economic and market forces controlling its VALUE. "Print" more of it and/or make is extremely cheap to acquire (artificially increased supply) makes its value go down across the board. Think 1930's Germany where wheelbarrows full of Deutsche Marks were worthless.
As we know BAD things happen when people can not afford to buy their basic needs. At that point ammunition becomes the most valuable commodity.
-
Margaret Hoover had John Delaney on Firing Line last week - one of the saner of the Dem candidates IMO. Anyway it came up that at least AOC and Sanders are proponents of an economic philosophy called Modern Monetary Theory. Seems MMTers believe the government cannot become insolvent if it borrows in its own currency, all they need to do is print more of it - so that might explain some of it.
So maybe they won't turn us into Greece after all - maybe more like Venezuela... <yikes>
Wow. That sounds like something cooked up by someone who does not grasp the concept of "inflation".
Money is nothing more than a symbol representing real things. Print more money when there is no growth in real life things, you simply dilute its value. Simple, but apparently beyond the intellectual ability of some people.
-
Fo the conservatives here, all someone has to do is report something with which they agree. No need to check little things like where the data came from or had anyone reputable actually reviewed it. I'm just glad all science doesn't work like this, or we'd not have a lot of the amazing technological and medical advances with which we've been blessed as a society.
-
Fo the conservatives here, all someone has to do is report something with which they agree. No need to check little things like where the data came from or had anyone reputable actually reviewed it. I'm just glad all science doesn't work like this, or we'd not have a lot of the amazing technological and medical advances with which we've been blessed as a society.
Yet none of the "climate scientists" nor their political masters, can answer ANY of the questions I posed above.
-
Yet none of the "climate scientists" nor their political masters, can answer ANY of the questions I posed above.
Even the perfesser doesn't actually believe the hoax. He just wants everyone else to believe it.
-
Even the perfesser doesn't actually believe the hoax. He just wants everyone else to believe it.
Like all good fanatics, the faux professor pretends to support legitimate climate science while screeching about a warm day in February as “proof” of mmgw.
His religion is not climate change.
It’s statism and the end of personal liberty in favor of central planning.
-
And none of the fanatics can answer the question, what temperature SHOULD the Earth be? They don't know... and truly they don't care. It's all about transferring money to the government. Any excuse will do. If man-made climate change is proved to be bogus, then just pick the next natural change. Oh no! The Earth's magnetic pole is shifting! The cause MUST be man-made magnetic change. We have to send all YOUR money to government!
-
Peer review is no longer valid as the majority of peers are far left progressive, and want the outcome to be the same. I don't trust much of academia anymore. They can't even answer what percentage of climate change is caused by man and what is caused by nature.
Most climatologists attribute virtually all recent changes to human created greenhouse gases. That a handful disagree with that attribution is pretty much par for the course in science. Your criteria for acceptance of academic science is absurd. You are concentrating on arguing over truth of claims based on who originated them rather than dissecting the claims themselves.
They also can't say what the money will go to, and how it will "fix" climate change. What if natural climate change fluctuates as we know it does, and drastically. There is no reliable baseline in which to measure against.
Academics who propose "fixes" for problems are injecting their own opinions - happens in all fields since at least the ancient Greeks.
CO2 is NOT a pollutant. It occurs naturally and in large quantities.
CO2 makes up what fraction of the atmosphere?
I realize that socialists have latched onto climate change as a reason to socialize the means of production (e.g. one of several scary ignorant articles I've seen on this:
"We Can’t Beat Climate Change Under Capitalism. Socialism Is the Only Way."
http://inthesetimes.com/article/21837/socialism-anti-capitalism-economic-reform (http://inthesetimes.com/article/21837/socialism-anti-capitalism-economic-reform) ) but I think it is a horrible mistake to employ logical fallacies (basically anti-science arguments) to beat back socialist nonsense.
-
Most climatologists attribute virtually all recent changes to human created greenhouse gases.
Most climatologists who want to keep their funding and/or get published. Any dissent will not be tolerated by the editors.
We had a similar problem years ago in my field. Research was split into technical or managerial investigations. Unfortunately the managerials had control of the top journals. If you were technical you were out of luck and stuck into the lower level journals with a severe penalty on promotion and tenure. The science is settled. Managerial research is the way of the future! But today the pendulum has swung in the other direction with technicals in charge of the top journals. Managerial? Feh.
So global cooling GREAT. Then global warming GREAT. Then climate change GREAT. Get on board the current academic train or get left behind.
-
Fo the conservatives here, all someone has to do is report something with which they agree. No need to check little things like where the data came from or had anyone reputable actually reviewed it. I'm just glad all science doesn't work like this, or we'd not have a lot of the amazing technological and medical advances with which we've been blessed as a society.
yup. No one here questioned the report. No one at all. ::) ::) ::) ::)
-
yup. No one here questioned the report. No one at all. ::) ::) ::) ::)
Well, he did say conservatives, not everyone. Or maybe he missed post #8.
Whatever... <shrug>
-
Margaret Hoover had John Delaney on Firing Line last week - one of the saner of the Dem candidates IMO. Anyway it came up that at least AOC and Sanders are proponents of an economic philosophy called Modern Monetary Theory. Seems MMTers believe the government cannot become insolvent if it borrows in its own currency, all they need to do is print more of it - so that might explain some of it.
So maybe they won't turn us into Greece after all - maybe more like Venezuela... <yikes>
Need to ask the Weimar Republic how that works. “Modern” monetary policy is not modern nor sound. It has been done before and it put Adolf Hitler in power.
-
Fo the conservatives here, all someone has to do is report something with which they agree. No need to check little things like where the data came from or had anyone reputable actually reviewed it. I'm just glad all science doesn't work like this, or we'd not have a lot of the amazing technological and medical advances with which we've been blessed as a society.
How about the moderate liberals?
If we were talking physics instead of climate change, we would still not have figured out the gravitational constant. We have a vague idea that something makes apples fall, but no clue what is really going on. There is so much unknown that only a fanatic or a useful idiot would be stating the science is settled.
-
Fo the conservatives here, all someone has to do is report something with which they agree. No need to check little things like where the data came from or had anyone reputable actually reviewed it. I'm just glad all science doesn't work like this, or we'd not have a lot of the amazing technological and medical advances with which we've been blessed as a society.
Project much mikey?
-
I've said this before, but it bears repeating. If someone really could show that there's no greenhouse warming, or could show definitively that it's not anthropogenic, they'd be able to publish in the top journals. Scientists are people, and we love the new. Someone breaking paradigms is new.
The reason such publications don't exist (except self-published missives by no one) is the data doesn't exist. Can't make conclusions without it.
-
Horseshit, even when babbled by progressive academics, still smells like horseshit, mikey.
-
I've said this before, but it bears repeating. If someone really could show that there's no greenhouse warming, or could show definitively that it's not anthropogenic, they'd be able to publish in the top journals. Scientists are people, and we love the new. Someone breaking paradigms is new.
The reason such publications don't exist (except self-published missives by no one) is the data doesn't exist. Can't make conclusions without it.
Why should we have to prove its not happening? We are not calling for more taxes, fees, surcharges and penalties on the use of fossil fuels. The proposed "fixes" will make all products and services much more expensive, and energy much more expensive. What will government do with the money to fix climate change? How will they be able to tell if any of it is working if the climate changes naturally as it does?
I will tell you. It will got to yet another SLUSH FUND to buy votes, and place people in more dependency, and government control.
Want to drive your gas powered car? You can pay a lot more for gas, then maybe restricted to certain times when you can drive it and certain places you can drive it. Want to fly your plane? NO. Convert to electric first, then we'll talk. Meanwhile let it SIT and ROT.
-
Why should we have to prove its not happening?
Because a whole bunch people have shown that it is.
-
Because a whole bunch people have shown that it is.
Nope and nope. And you are babbling the bullshit line trying to prove something that isn’t so.... again.
-
Because a whole bunch people have shown that it is.
Not in any objective, nor convincing manner. Studies are ALL OVER THE PLACE. Also, some of them have been caught changing data, using false data, and using poor modeling assumptions to get the outcomes they want. No, the science is NOT settled, and the debate is NOT over.
-
Not in any objective, nor convincing manner. Studies are ALL OVER THE PLACE. Also, some of them have been caught changing data, using false data, and using poor modeling assumptions to get the outcomes they want. No, the science is NOT settled, and the debate is NOT over.
It's willing imbeciles like mikey that further the lies of the mmgw religion. Instead of approaching the topic with a proper amount of suspicion, he wants to impose his communist beliefs just like every other religion fanatic.
-
It's willing imbeciles like mikey that further the lies of the mmgw religion. Instead of approaching the topic with a proper amount of suspicion, he wants to impose his communist beliefs just like very other religion fanatic.
I would like to see his reaction when they implement some of the their "fixes" like:
Limiting where you can drive a gasoline or diesel powered vehicle
Limiting the mileage of gas/diesel vehicles
Higher taxes on fossil fuels (which drive up the price of everything)
Using the "smart meter" your electric company forced you to buy which they installed to limit your air conditioning usage during high peak times (Summer)
Putting padlocks on your airplane because it burns leaded gasoline
Implementing a Cap and Trade scheme on business, industry and individuals
-
I've said this before, but it bears repeating. If someone really could show that there's no greenhouse warming, or could show definitively that it's not anthropogenic, they'd be able to publish in the top journals. Scientists are people, and we love the new. Someone breaking paradigms is new.
The reason such publications don't exist (except self-published missives by no one) is the data doesn't exist. Can't make conclusions without it.
Again, not even you believe in the MMGW, MMCC hoax.
-
If communists (democrats) believed a word of their mmgw religious scam they wouldn’t have to demand that everyone who knows the truth prove it isn’t true.
-
The sad thing is there exists no evidence nor will there ever to convince conservatives that a) the Earth is warming and )b we are responsible. It will never happen. Odin could appear on high with his Valkyries and say as much, and conservatives would just call it a Liberal hoax. It absolutely doesn't matter what happens. Conservatives will never ever believe it.
-
The sad thing is there exists no evidence nor will there ever to convince conservatives that a) the Earth is warming and )b we are responsible. It will never happen. Odin could appear on high with his Valkyries and say as much, and conservatives would just call it a Liberal hoax. It absolutely doesn't matter what happens. Conservatives will never ever believe it.
You don’t even believe it.
Isn’t that an elitist attitude you’re taking?
-
The sad thing is there exists no evidence nor will there ever to convince conservatives that a) the Earth is warming and )b we are responsible. It will never happen. Odin could appear on high with his Valkyries and say as much, and conservatives would just call it a Liberal hoax. It absolutely doesn't matter what happens. Conservatives will never ever believe it.
Look, stupid. Your fake god hasn’t showed up and proclaimed that the progressive lie is actually true, so assigning truth to your lies is not on the menu for those who think instead of follow orders from their communist masters.
-
The sad thing is there exists no evidence nor will there ever to convince conservatives that a) the Earth is warming and )b we are responsible. It will never happen. Odin could appear on high with his Valkyries and say as much, and conservatives would just call it a Liberal hoax. It absolutely doesn't matter what happens. Conservatives will never ever believe it.
I thought as a scientist you would actually pay attention to things.
Not one conservative here or anywhere that I know of believe that climate change is not happening.
What we generally don’t believe, and certainly don’t believe that the facts exist, that “we are responsible.” The earth has been heating and cooling long before “we” humans inhabited the earth. And even when we humans have inhabited the earth, these cycles have continued pretty much constantly.
Given that we have a 27 million degree furnace 1AU from us, that makes up 99.8% of the mass of our solar system, that provides for life on earth, I’m a little skeptical that man and our SUVs are having any material impact on earth’s climate, given that giant ball of fire in our neighborhood having a say in things.
-
Given that we have a 27 million degree furnace 1AU from us, that makes up 99.8% of the mass of our solar system, that provides for life on earth, I’m a little skeptical that man and our SUVs are having any material impact on earth’s climate, given that giant ball of fire in our neighborhood having a say in things.
Is your skepticism based on the science or something else?
Because I understand the science, I don't find it implausible at all that we could be largely or completely responsible for the recent warming. Humans have had profound impacts on their local environment for thousands of years - driving species to extinction, rendering whole islands treeless and unfit for human habitation, more recently the urban heat island effect... I would not be surprised in the least if GHGs were the main or only cause for the rise in global mean temperatures over the last 50 or so years. The greenhouse effect is real (not only on Venus, but also on Earth, as witness the existence of liquid water on Earth 3.5 billion years ago when the Sun's energy output was maybe 30% lower than it is today) and the increase in CO2 concentrations over the past 200 years is our doing. There isn't the slightest doubt about that.
What I object to is saying it's proven when it's not. Attribution is VERY tricky when you don't have a handle on natural variation. The most they should be saying is that GHGs are at least part of the cause, and if they aren't a major part now, they will be. On those points the science is rock solid.
In its pure form the greenhouse effect is treated using radiative transport theory. That part is well understood. Factoring in the effects of feedbacks - both positive and negative - is what we don't yet have a good handle on. Estimates of the equilibrium climate sensitivity - how much the global mean temperature would rise if the CO2 concentration were to double - now vary between 1.5C and 4.5C, with some estimates as high as 6C. So there's a huge range there. Until we can pin down the ECS a lot better than that, it's irresponsible to say that global warming is a crisis, and until we have a better handle on natural climate cycles on scales larger than a few decades, it's irresponsible to attribute ALL of the current warming to GHGs.
-
Is your skepticism based on the science or something else?
Because I understand the science, I don't find it implausible at all that we could be largely or completely responsible for the recent warming. Humans have had profound impacts on their local environment for thousands of years - driving species to extinction,
Let's see, over 5 billion species that have inhabited earth since creation have gone extinct. And the majority of that was before man was ever here.
rendering whole islands treeless and unfit for human habitation,
Most of North America was once under water. Many deserts around the world were once lush and green. All this took place long before man appeared.
-
Let's see, over 5 billion species that have inhabited earth since creation have gone extinct. And the majority of that was before man was ever here.
Most of North America was once under water. Many deserts around the world were once lush and green. All this took place long before man appeared.
Neither of those facts invalidate anything I said. So why post them?
-
Neither of those facts invalidate anything I said. So why post them?
Yet in the 1970's the "Green House Effect" was to cause an ICE AGE that was imminent decades ago. What happened?
-
Yet in the 1970's the "Green House Effect" was to cause an ICE AGE that was imminent decades ago. What happened?
This is NOT TRUE. In the 1970s there was speculation that the next glaciation might start in a few thousand years, and there was also some speculation that human-emitted particulates ("aerosols") might help to bring about global cooling during the next decades and centuries (but not a new ice age just yet). Note: that was aerosols, NOT the Greenhouse Effect. The speculation about aerosols being the dominant effect was always just that, and the scientific community already understood greenhouse warming fairly well from radiative transport theory. So concerns about greenhouse warming largely swept those ideas aside, and evidence for ongoing warming started to mount during the next couple of decades. Today there is pretty strong consensus that the dominant effect will be greenhouse warming, but it's still not clear whether aerosols will significantly dampen that effect, or whether positive feedbacks (e.g. ice-albedo) will completely swamp it.
-
Ever wonder what the outcome would be if the earth's axis changed by .1 of a degree?
-
Neither of those facts invalidate anything I said. So why post them?
So how do you separate the extinctions from natural causes from the supposed extinctions attributed to climate change?
You also said "rendering whole islands treeless and unfit for human habitation", yet we have evidence this was happening before man ever showed up.
In other words, this has been going on since creation. You, or no one else have ever proved what effects man has had on these events.
-
azure again wraps her arms around the make believe weight of consensus in her pathetic attempt support the lies of her religion.
Anytime a lefty brings up consensus you already know that everything they’re talking about is pure bullshit and progressive talking points.
-
This is NOT TRUE. In the 1970s there was speculation that the next glaciation might start in a few thousand years, and there was also some speculation that human-emitted particulates ("aerosols") might help to bring about global cooling during the next decades and centuries (but not a new ice age just yet). Note: that was aerosols, NOT the Greenhouse Effect. The speculation about aerosols being the dominant effect was always just that, and the scientific community already understood greenhouse warming fairly well from radiative transport theory. So concerns about greenhouse warming largely swept those ideas aside, and evidence for ongoing warming started to mount during the next couple of decades. Today there is pretty strong consensus that the dominant effect will be greenhouse warming, but it's still not clear whether aerosols will significantly dampen that effect, or whether positive feedbacks (e.g. ice-albedo) will completely swamp it.
No. It wasn't just about aerosols. I was there. Were YOU? It was about the OZONE LAYER and the Greenhouse Effect causing an IMMINENT ICE AGE in the near future. They preached to us in my school about the imminent Ice Age in the 70's due to the greenhouse effect. Time magazine featured it.
Your credibility is dwindling. You seem to be a casualty of your own intellectualism.
-
This sums it up. (Robin Trower!)
-
No. It wasn't just about aerosols. I was there. Were YOU? It was about the OZONE LAYER and the Greenhouse Effect causing an IMMINENT ICE AGE in the near future. They preached to us in my school about the imminent Ice Age in the 70's due to the greenhouse effect. Time magazine featured it.
Your credibility is dwindling.
References?
Yes I was there, though I only read newspaper articles about it at the time. From what I've read more recently, imminent ice age was never anything but an extreme minority, fringe piece of speculation. The consensus was always, next ice age in maybe a few thousand years. Global cooling, possible from aerosols, but that never had enough support, either observational or theoretical, to be considered an actual prediction.
Remember that the news media have always run with every scientific paper predicting or even speculating on catastrophe without regard for how strong the evidence is, or even whether it has a lot of support in the scientific community. Catastrophism sells newspapers and TV ads.
If you have actual references to scientific review articles or papers that contradict this, please post them. I don't put much stock in what the news media said (or say today) about scientific matters since they generally haven't the background to put things in the proper context.
-
References?
Yes I was there, though I only read newspaper articles about it at the time. From what I've read more recently, imminent ice age was never anything but an extreme minority, fringe piece of speculation. The consensus was always, next ice age in maybe a few thousand years. Global cooling, possible from aerosols, but that never had enough support, either observational or theoretical, to be considered an actual prediction.
Remember that the news media have always run with every scientific paper predicting or even speculating on catastrophe without regard for how strong the evidence is, or even whether it has a lot of support in the scientific community. Catastrophism sells newspapers and TV ads.
If you have actual references to scientific review articles or papers that contradict this, please post them. I don't put much stock in what the news media said (or say today) about scientific matters since they generally haven't the background to put things in the proper context.
What was the result and outcome of the claims the scientific community made at the time? I don't need studies or links to show what happened. We have decades of history. NOTHING...…….
You're squirming.
-
What was the result and outcome of the claims the scientific community made at the time? I don't need studies or links to show what happened. We have decades of history. NOTHING...…….
You're squirming.
You're either not reading what I'm writing, or you're badly misinterpreting what you're reading. The scientific community NEVER SAID what you're attributing to them. There were a few speculative papers, that's all.
If I'm wrong, prove it.
-
You're either not reading what I'm writing, or you're badly misinterpreting what you're reading. The scientific community NEVER SAID what you're attributing to them. There were a few speculative papers, that's all.
If I'm wrong, prove it.
No. I have decades of evidence that no Ice Age occurred. You can post the scientific studies that indicated otherwise. So where did the few speculative papers come from? Where did the Media hysteria come from? You said it was all due to aerosols. That's no longer the case?
-
No. I have decades of evidence that no Ice Age occurred. You can post the scientific studies that indicated otherwise. So where did the few speculative papers come from? Where did the Media hysteria come from? You said it was all due to aerosols. That's no longer the case?
I remember all the hysteria over aerosols. Then there were all the charts showing a large hole in the ozone layer. We were being told, over and over the hole was growing bigger and the earth was cooling, and the next ice age was almost here.
Mass extinction and starvation were just around the corner. Yep, any day now....... :o
-
No. I have decades of evidence that no Ice Age occurred. You can post the scientific studies that indicated otherwise. So where did the few speculative papers come from? Where did the Media hysteria come from? You said it was all due to aerosols. That's no longer the case?
Of course no ice age occurred. No one (or practically no one) expected it to, CERTAINLY not in this time frame.
I said that the only credible mechanism for global cooling on short time scales (few decades) was aerosols. I also said that aerosols are still being debated as a possible MITIGATING factor to greenhouse warming. It's generally thought that the effect is smaller than GHW plus the known feedbacks.
You really have to ask where the media hysteria came from? You know as well as I do that hysteria is their life's blood.
Where in the heck are you coming from on this?
-
I’m still waiting for the water to cover all of NYC...
It’s running about six years late as it is....
The lack of integrity in the academic community over the fake hysteria and outright lies with regard to mmgw and mmgc and all their other lies has gotten so old that the majority have just tuned out the bullshit and ignored all the science is settled lies.
-
I’m still waiting for the water to cover all of NYC...
It’s running about six years late as it is....
The lack of integrity in the academic community over the fake hysteria and outright lies with regard to mmgw and mmgc and all their other lies has gotten so old that the majority have just tuned out the bullshit and ignored all the science is settled lies.
Wasn't it the perfesser that was telling us sea level was rising?
Funny thing, I have boated up and down the east coast and gulf coast. On the east coast I can show you boat houses that were built in the 20's and 30's, and the water level on their foundations are still the same today as when they were built.
-
I remember all the hysteria over aerosols. Then there were all the charts showing a large hole in the ozone layer. We were being told, over and over the hole was growing bigger and the earth was cooling, and the next ice age was almost here.
Mass extinction and starvation were just around the corner. Yep, any day now....... :o
Well, you're confusing several things there, but that's to be expected if you're just following the media's coverage of this.
The hole in the ozone layer has nothing to do with global cooling. It's quite real, due mostly to CFCs, and the fear there was mutations and increased cancer rates due to solar UV. It's still a concern for southern hemisphere folks, but it's shrinking since the stuff was banned for most uses.
Aerosols = fine particulates suspended in air, e.g. smoke, smog, etc. Are you thinking about aerosols as in spray cans? Yes CFCs were used as propellants in those things, until the use was banned. But that's not what I'm talking about at all.
-
Well, you're confusing several things there, but that's to be expected if you're just following the media's coverage of this.
The hole in the ozone layer has nothing to do with global cooling. It's quite real, due mostly to CFCs, and the fear there was mutations and increased cancer rates due to solar UV. It's still a concern for southern hemisphere folks, but it's shrinking since the stuff was banned for most uses.
Aerosols = fine particulates suspended in air, e.g. smoke, smog, etc. Are you thinking about aerosols as in spray cans? Yes CFCs were used as propellants in those things, until the use was banned. But that's not what I'm talking about at all.
I don't blindly follow the media, I leave that to people who believe shit like NPR is not biased.
And I'm not a part of the climate change religion.
-
This sums it up. (Robin Trower!)
Robin Trower! I saw him live way back when I was young and too stupid to wear earplugs at rock concerts.
-
I don't blindly follow the media, I leave that to people who believe shit like NPR is not biased.
And I'm not a part of the climate change religion.
If that's supposed to be a dig at me, it's damned weak. I never said NPR wasn't biased. ALL news sources today are politically slanted. They always had a political bent, it's just worse today because they confuse facts with analysis and can't report hard news without editorializing.
NPR does a better job of staying objective when reporting the news than most, but they're worse today than the 3 big TV networks were when I was growing up, IMO.
-
If that's supposed to be a dig at me, it's damned weak. I never said NPR wasn't biased. ALL news sources today are politically slanted. They always had a political bent, it's just worse today because they confuse facts with analysis and can't report hard news without editorializing.
NPR does a better job of staying objective when reporting the news than most, but they're worse today than the 3 big TV networks were when I was growing up, IMO.
Agree on the bias, but you have to admit it is at least 95% LEFTIST BIAS. There are very few right leaning "news" outlets. Even Fox News has shifted Left in many ways, but they've always at least had Leftist representation, even on their conservative OPINION shows which they tell you they are conservative opinion shows UP FRONT. Unlike CNN, NBC, MSNBC, ABC, CBS, PBS, etc.
So let's still count Fox as "right" leaning. Who else? OAN maybe, and a few talk radio shows, and publications. That's it. The rest are ALL Far Left Progressive and support Democrats and their agenda.
-
Agree on the bias, but you have to admit it is at least 95% LEFTIST BIAS. There are very few right leaning "news" outlets. Even Fox News has shifted Left in many ways, but they've always at least had Leftist representation, even on their conservative OPINION shows which they tell you they are conservative opinion shows UP FRONT. Unlike CNN, NBC, MSNBC, ABC, CBS, PBS, etc.
So let's still count Fox as "right" leaning. Who else? OAN maybe, and a few talk radio shows, and publications. That's it. The rest are ALL Far Left Progressive and support Democrats and their agenda.
No argument there. I'm just saying the antidote to bias on one side isn't bias on the other - it's avoiding bias altogether when reporting the news. And at that all of the news outlets have failed, miserably. Worse, they seem totally oblivious to the problem and to their role in helping to polarize the country more and more.
-
No argument there. I'm just saying the antidote to bias on one side isn't bias on the other - it's avoiding bias altogether when reporting the news. And at that all of the news outlets have failed, miserably. Worse, they seem totally oblivious to the problem and to their role in helping to polarize the country more and more.
Totally agree. I think I saw the biggest change with how the media treated the Vietnam War, then with the book, then movie "All the Presidents Men" and the Watergate hearings. It was reinforced that the Media, especially Television Media could create "news" and greatly influence outcomes and public opinion. Hearst knew this many year before.
I heard a remark by John Feinstein recently on a sports talk radio station. He's a veteran, and well know journalist and author who has commented and written about all topics but a lot sports related. He's also a long time Washington Post columnist. He recently talked about Jim Bouton's death who wrote the controversial baseball book "Ball Four". He said the only other book that influenced him more as a journalist was "All the President's Men". Why? I will speculate. It turned journalism into largely political, Left Wing ACTIVISM, and removed "News Reporting" from journalism.
Ask any Journalism major why they want to be in the Media. They will almost always say to affect CHANGE, not report the news, nor the facts. They are all for the most part Democrat supporting, Far Left activists, not journalists.
-
Unsurprisingly Anthony is confusing three very different things. The first is a series of studies, I believe in the late 70's, though I could be wrong about the date. They claimed that the amount of sunlight being received by the Earth was diminishing, and the deficit in energy was perhaps sufficient to bring on another Ice Age. I suspect the Ice Age verbiage was hyperbole, they didn't have the modeling capability to really predict the effect of the dimming on the environment. But the Science was really really solid, and elegantly demonstrated. The culprit was particulate industrial emissions. Since these were making very visible mess anyway new regulations were enacted to scrub particulates out of industrial emissions, and the solar dimming effect subsided.
Also in the late 70s, atmospheric scientists discovered that the concentration of ozone in the atmosphere was diminishing, and Earth orbiting satellites detected a hole over Antarctica. Subsequent observations suggested the hole was growing, a big worry, since ozone is that part of the atmosphere that intercepts UV light, a potent mutagen. The chemistry suggested that chloroflourocarbons were the culprit. I don't recall if it was voluntary cooperation by industry or government regulation, but CFCs have been largely weaned out of coolant and propellant systems and replaced by other chemicals that don't react to ozone. The last I read suggested that the hole is now diminishing.
Of course the third is anthropogenic greenhouse warming, the subject of this thread, and the thing about which none of you would ever be convinced even if it bite you in the ass.
-
Of course the third is anthropogenic greenhouse warming, the subject of this thread, and the thing about which none of you would ever be convinced even if it bite you in the ass.
Here's the difference. I don't go around trying to convince people to believe what I believe. I let people make up their own minds, good, bad or indifferent.
However, you and others that are members of the church of climate change treat your religion much the way radical jihadist look at Islam. If you cannot get someone to believe your fairy tales, then the next step is disparage them.
Like I've stated over many times, not even you actually believe any of this hoax of climate change. You don't.
-
The popular belief of Science and the Media in the 1970's was that an ICE AGE was imminent. I lived through it and remember the hand wringing, and being taught about it in Science class. The causes were man made pollutants, including industrial pollutants, an CFC's.
Bottom line? It NEVER HAPPENED. So the scientists FAILED. The MEDIA FAILED, and thank goodness we didn't further ruin an already poor economy by the "fixes" they wanted to put in place. Oh, they succeeded in SCARING the weak minded just like they do today.
-
The popular belief of Science and the Media in the 1970's was that an ICE AGE was imminent. I lived through it and remember the hand wringing, and being taught about it in Science class. The causes were man made pollutants, including industrial pollutants, an CFC's.
I didn't live through it, and have only seen what happened second hand. But I think you have the gist of it.
Bottom line? It NEVER HAPPENED.
Because the relevant behaviors were changed. The amount of particulate pollution being spewed out of factories is a fraction of what it was.
-
Michael is spot on here about the three issues being confused. I wasn't aware myself that concerns about aerosols causing global cooling had anything to do with regulations limiting particulate emissions, I will have to check on that. Yes, the science on that is solid - everything else being equal, the effect will be to decrease insolation at the surface. But the imminent ice age stuff was always hyperbole, on the part of the media as I recall. That an ice age might happen in the next few thousand years was always a possibility on the table, as well as that aerosols (i.e., particulates) could make it happen somewhat sooner... but NOT, seriously, on the time scale of the next few decades.
As I recall, the phasing out of CFCs was by international treaty AND, locally, by government regulation. PBS had a nice special a few months ago on the history of the ozone hole problem and what was done to address it. Well, it was nice up until the last 5 minutes, when it turned into a blatant missive urging the same kind of approach to global warming. The assumption that CFCs occupied an equivalent place in our technology and economy to fossil fuels today is ludicrous.
-
The popular belief of Science and the Media in the 1970's was that an ICE AGE was imminent. I lived through it and remember the hand wringing, and being taught about it in Science class. The causes were man made pollutants, including industrial pollutants, an CFC's.
Bottom line? It NEVER HAPPENED. So the scientists FAILED. The MEDIA FAILED, and thank goodness we didn't further ruin an already poor economy by the "fixes" they wanted to put in place. Oh, they succeeded in SCARING the weak minded just like they do today.
Face it Anthony. We have two scientists telling us what we heard grown up was remote and hyperbolic. The science was questionable if not nonexistence. In other words, you can’t believe what you read because...science.
Similarly, these same two scientists say that with respect to man-made climate change WE are being hyperbolic; our science is questionable if nonexistent. In other words, you can’t believe what you just read in this thread because...science.
I’m not willing to try to find the articles that I’ve read that challenge the level of support for the man-made aspect of climate change while discounting the effect of natural or solar variations in climate, so apparently until you and I do some research and submit peer-reviewed studies and raw data we need to sit down and shut the fuck up. Now get back in line like a good lemming.
I guarantee you the expert scientists in Congress like chemist Ocasio-Cortez have not read a single peer-reviewed article on climate change either. But that’s ok, because what the “scientific community” is implying further her socialist goals, so the facts are irrelevant.
-
Face it Anthony. We have two scientists telling us what we heard grown up was remote and hyperbolic. The science was questionable if not nonexistence. In other words, you can’t believe what you read because...science.
Similarly, these same two scientists say that with respect to man-made climate change WE are being hyperbolic; our science is questionable if nonexistent. In other words, you can’t believe what you just read in this thread because...science.
I’m not willing to try to find the articles that I’ve read that challenge the level of support for the man-made aspect of climate change while discounting the effect of natural or solar variations in climate, so apparently until you and I do some research and submit peer-reviewed studies and raw data we need to sit down and shut the fuck up. Now get back in line like a good lemming.
I guarantee you the expert scientists in Congress like chemist Ocasio-Cortez have not read a single peer-reviewed article on climate change either. But that’s ok, because what the “scientific community” is implying further her socialist goals, so the facts are irrelevant.
I don't believe the gradual elimination of CFC's stopped the Ice Age the scientists and media tried to convince us was imminent. The other reductions in pollution were so we could continue breathing the air and drinking water. They largely worked, but they were not related to climate change.
Now, they are back claiming CO2 is now the devil. So I guess if you don't worship at the alter of the man made climate change religion you must be considered a Neanderthal DENIER and yes just STFU. Anyway, they say the science is settled and the debate is over, so we are not allowed to discuss or question it any longer. Sounds more like a concentration camp dynamic to me.
-
I don't believe the gradual elimination of CFC's stopped the Ice Age the scientists and media tried to convince us was imminent. The other reductions in pollution were so we could continue breathing the air and drinking water. They largely worked, but they were not related to climate change.
Now, they are back claiming CO2 is now the devil. So I guess if you don't worship at the alter of the man made climate change religion you must be considered a Neanderthal DENIER and yes just STFU. Anyway, they say the science is settled and the debate is over, so we are not allowed to discuss or question it any longer. Sounds more like a concentration camp dynamic to me.
Yes, but the toilet water that we will have to drink in the concentration camp dynamic will be so much cleaner if they get their way.
-
Anytime an academic demands you accept their version of reality and claim that the science is settled, you know two things.
They are lying their asses off and know it.
And they are doing so to feather their academic credentials, among other lemmings pretending to be objective scientists, gain funding, or are too stupid to see how unbelievable they are.
-
Mike, the ice age didn’t happen because we prevented it, it didn’t happen because the settled science was wrong. The ozone hole that was supposedly created by aerosols shrank even though the aerosol use was still rising. It turns out correlation is not causation...who knew.
The question today is not whether or not C02 holds more heat than nitrogen, it’s whether or not that translates into significant global temperature change. Already we see the earth changing to account, for example by growing more foliage. In an age marked by protests against deforestation, there are more trees than ever before. Nobody predicted that...because they don’t really understand the ecosystem fully.
Ergo, the science is not well enough understood to be called “settled”
-
Mike, the ice age didn’t happen because we prevented it, it didn’t happen because the settled science was wrong. The ozone hole that was supposedly created by aerosols shrank even though the aerosol use was still rising. It turns out correlation is not causation...who knew.
No. CFCs were never forecast to bring about an ice age. The speculation had to do with particulates (= aerosols, NOT the kind you spray out of a can). It was speculation, no one claimed it was settled science. There were a couple of serious papers, one of which was based on a mistake (soon caught). The others did not predict what has been claimed - they did not predict an ice age on the time scale of decades. That was mostly media hype. They forecasted a return to glacial conditions on time scales of millennia, and very tentatively, "maybe" centuries. Due to natural processes, I might add, not human activities.
The ozone hole did not begin to shrink until after most uses for CFCs were banned by international treaty. They are still in use today, but on a much smaller scale than before.
The question today is not whether or not C02 holds more heat than nitrogen, it’s whether or not that translates into significant global temperature change. Already we see the earth changing to account, for example by growing more foliage. In an age marked by protests against deforestation, there are more trees than ever before. Nobody predicted that...because they don’t really understand the ecosystem fully.
Ergo, the science is not well enough understood to be called “settled”
I agree with most of this. These questions can't be answered until we have a better handle on the climate sensitivity, and the causes of the recent warming aren't fully understood because we don't have a good handle on natural climate cycles, a.k.a. "internal variability".
-
"Science is settled."
-Sir Issac Newton speaking on the Cosmos
-
"Science is settled."
-Sir Issac Newton speaking on the Cosmos
Torquemada had a response to questions pertaining to “settled science” somewhat similar to the insane anger of the progressive left whenever anyone points out that they are all full of shit.
-
In 1896 chemist Svante Arrhenius published the first estimate on the effect of atmospheric carbon dioxide (carbonic acid in the terminology of the day). You can find the original paper here: https://www.rsc.org/images/Arrhenius1896_tcm18-173546.pdf (https://www.rsc.org/images/Arrhenius1896_tcm18-173546.pdf) Its title is "On the Influence of Carbonic Acid in the Air upon the Temperature of the Ground."
On page 267 (17 of the PDF) he wrote "I should certainly not have undertaken these tedious calculations if an extraordinary interest had not been connected with them. In the Physical Society of Stockholm there have been occasionally very lively discussions on the probable causes of the Ice Age; and these discussions have, in my opinion, led to the conclusion that there exists at yet no satisfactory hypothesis that could explain how the climatic conditions for an ice age could be realized in so short a time as that which has elapsed from the days of the glacial epoch."
Left-wing conspiracy is older than many have thought!
Seriously though - when it comes to these technical issues I pay little attention to arguments that require I figure out who is being truthful. Instead I try to figure out what the truth is using whatever modest efforts I can employ on the science. As best I have determined by my own study of the science is that carbon dioxide produced by humans affects climate. The only open technical issue (to me) is the magnitude of the effect. The next open issue is whether the climate change is generally beneficial or not. Lastly, any solutions that are required not violate libertarian non-aggression-policy.
-
Here is a fact rarely, if ever, mentioned: 26 of the 50 states set their all-time high temperature records during the 1930s that still stand (some have since been tied). And an additional 11 state all-time high temperature records were set before 1930 and only two states have all-time record high temperatures that were set in the 21st century (South Dakota and South Carolina).
https://www.accuweather.com/en/weather-blogs/realimpactofweatherwithdrjoelnmyers/throwing-cold-water-on-extreme-heat-hype/70008963
-
I think everyone agrees that the climate changes naturally, and has so drastically. I still have not received an answer on what percentage of climate change some think is man made, and what is natural. Also, if there are wide swings in natural climate change, which we know there are, how can we tell if any "fixes" we put in place are working? Are the fixes just reduced use of fossil fuels? If so, what will the taxes, fees, and other revenue do towards fixing climate change. What are governments doing with this revenue? How are they measuring the effect of whatever they are doing on climate change?
-
I think everyone agrees that the climate changes naturally, and has so drastically. I still have no received an answer on what percentage of climate change some think is man made, and what is natural. Also, if there are wide swings in natural climate change, which we know there are, how can we tell if any "fixes" we put in place are working? Are the fixes just reduced use of fossil fuels? If so, what will the taxes, fees, and other revenue do towards fixing climate change. What are governments doing with this revenue? How are they measuring the effect of whatever they are doing on climate change?
It will be clear that their efforts were successful if we are not all dead in 12 years and be the justification for more "severe" actions to keep us from death.
-
It will be clear that their efforts were successful if we are not all dead in 12 years and be the justification for more "severe" actions to keep us from death.
I fully expect to be dead in 12 years.
But it will have nothing to do with climate change.
-
The world only has twelve years to re-adjust the time when the world will end.
-
The world only has twelve years to re-adjust the time when the world will end.
Didn't Al Gore say that New York City would be under water by 2014? Well, the Inconvenient Truth is that it is not......unfortunately. :)
-
Didn't Al Gore say that New York City would be under water by 2014? Well, the Inconvenient Truth is that it is not......unfortunately. :)
It's settled science dammit!!!
-
(https://media.townhall.com/Townhall/Car/b/afb081319dAPR20190813064506.jpg)
-
The debate is Finnished.