Climate Change Denial

[mspohr]

It seems to be a recurring problem that people will post climate change denial items to various threads. This usually causes a long digression while the same tired old arguments (sometimes with a new twist) are rehashed.
I am proposing to start a thread for these climate change denial discussions so they will not derail other threads. Denial posts can be moved to this thread.
This will give the climate change denial people a place to discuss all of their ideas without sidetracking other threads. Anyone who wants to engage the denialists can also participate in this thread.
I would like the current "Climate Change Global Warming" thread to be reserved for discussion of the effects of climate change, future climate change, etc. and not for discussion of whether or not climate change exists.
Hopefully, this will improve the quality of the posts.

 

[nwdiver]

Pretty good source...

 

[mspohr]

Skeptic Arguments and What The Science Says
Skeptic Argument vs What the Science Says
1 "Climate's changed before" Climate reacts to whatever forces it to change at the time; humans are now the dominant forcing.
2 "It's the sun"
In the last 35 years of global warming, sun and climate have been going in opposite directions

3 "It's not bad" Negative impacts of global warming on agriculture, health & environment far outweigh any positives.
4 "There is no consensus"
97% of climate experts agree humans are causing global warming.

5 "It's cooling" The last decade 2000-2009 was the hottest on record.
6 "Models are unreliable"
Models successfully reproduce temperatures since 1900 globally, by land, in the air and the ocean.

7 "Temp record is unreliable" The warming trend is the same in rural and urban areas, measured by thermometers and satellites.
8 "Animals and plants can adapt" Global warming will cause mass extinctions of species that cannot adapt on short time scales.
9 "It hasn't warmed since 1998"
Every part of the Earth's climate system has continued warming since 1998, with 2015 shattering temperature records.

10 "Antarctica is gaining ice" Satellites measure Antarctica losing land ice at an accelerating rate.
11 "Ice age predicted in the 70s" The vast majority of climate papers in the 1970s predicted warming.
12 "CO2 lags temperature" CO2 didn't initiate warming from past ice ages but it did amplify the warming.
13 "Climate sensitivity is low" Net positive feedback is confirmed by many different lines of evidence.
14 "We're heading into an ice age" Worry about global warming impacts in the next 100 years, not an ice age in over 10,000 years.
15 "Ocean acidification isn't serious" Ocean acidification threatens entire marine food chains.

More here
Arguments from Global Warming Skeptics and what the science really says

 

[mspohr]

Top 10 climate change deniers.

Before the Flood - Top 10 Climate Deniers

This is from the movie Before the Flood (Leonardo DiCaprio)
If you could know the truth about the threat of climate change — would you want to know? Before the Flood, presented by National Geographic, features Leonardo DiCaprio on a journey as a United Nations Messenger of Peace, traveling to five continents and the Arctic to witness climate change firsthand. He goes on expeditions with scientists uncovering the reality of climate change and meets with political leaders fighting against inaction. He also discovers a calculated disinformation campaign orchestrated by powerful special interests working to confuse the public about the urgency of the growing climate crisis. With unprecedented access to thought leaders around the world, DiCaprio searches for hope in a rising tide of catastrophic news.

There is an excellent discussion guide on the web site:
https://s3.amazonaws.com/takeshape-...7a-aad6-7f1aedd823fe/BTF-discussion-guide.pdf

 

[nwdiver]

Anyone subscribe to the podcast 'Political Climate'?

 

[mspohr]

Anyone subscribe to the podcast 'Political Climate'?

Haven't seen it.
Is this it?
Listen to Our New Podcast, Political Climate

The Energy Gang | Weekly Business Podcast on Energy, Cleantech and the Environment

 

[nwdiver]

Haven't seen it.
Is this it?
Listen to Our New Podcast, Political Climate

The Energy Gang | Weekly Business Podcast on Energy, Cleantech and the Environment

Yep; That's it.

 

[DragonWatch]

Please look the other way, nothing to see here.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/worl...c46ee8cb3dce_story.html?wpisrc=nl_most&wpmm=1

Fifty years ago, I walked this historic plaza with Vietnam in my rear view mirror ~ still in uniform. Last year, my gifted human (wife) of 46+ years and I spent three days there and attended a Context tour on climate change. Venice flooded two days after we left. In the above picture there is no evidence of raised platforms. Fifty years ago, well Climate Change/sea level rise was buildings sinking, not inundated.

Corruption is at the heart of their failed attempt at controlled man made sea gates.

 

[SummerlinChiro]

Greetings from Las Vegas!

I don't drink the global warming Kool Aid, but I love electric cars!

Ordered a M3P Blue on Black on 11/7, and eagerly awaiting my VIN.

I have been an electric car fan for a long time, always have plans to convert various vehicles using EVTV.me components and info (RIP Jack Rickard) but, you know, life.

I intend to go modify my M3P for better handling, ride, and performance.

Any other Jack Rickard fans on here?

Dr. Hans Conser
Summerlin Chiropractor

 

[nwdiver]

I don't drink the global warming Kool Aid, but I love electric cars!

Are you confused by the Math or the Physics? I'm an engineer... maybe I can help.

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?

 

[SummerlinChiro]

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.

 

[nwdiver]

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.

My degree is in nuclear engineering so Thermodynamics is my bread and butter. The only thing I've studied more is radiative transfer (aka shielding).

CO2 blocks outgoing radiation in the IR spectrum. The Earth cools in the IR spectrum. So does Venus. CO2 is why Venus is hotter than Mercury.

 

[nwdiver]

Cooler things never heat warmer things, but that is exactly what their (stupid) models do.

Conservation of Energy. If you add energy to something or prevent energy from escaping it heats up. The 'temperature' radiated by CO2 is irrelevant. We're not talking about conduction but radiation. The equivalent 'temperature' of your microwave is < 17K or < -256C but it can boil water. How? Because water interacts with the wavelength and your microwave can add energy to the water. Same way more IR bouncing around in the atmosphere due to more CO2 causes warming.

 

[nwdiver]

@WarpedOne

Curious as to what you think the correct answers are .... does your microwave not work?

SCIENCE!

 

[drtimhill]

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.

No, they dont have the thermodynamics and physics wrong. Literally (yes, literally) thousands of trained expert climatologists and scientists from every country, every political persuasion, and every faith have checked, analyzed, and pored over many many sources of data. And they all, all, agree that global warming is real, happening now, is man-made, and needs to be addressed.

It is irresponsible, and frankly stunning, to think otherwise. This is not something to be decided by ridiculous made-up YouTube videos, or absurd arguments based on pseudo-scientific rubbish conjured out of thin air. It's a fact, and denial at this point in time is pathetic.

And no, I dont apologize to anyone for being forthright here .. we are in a mess as a race and need to face reality.

 

[CyberGus]

And no, I dont apologize to anyone for being forthright here .. we are in a mess as a race and need to face reality.

There are many avenues for addressing the climate crisis, but "The Internet" probably isn't one lol

I think we can all agree that less pollution is a good thing, more efficiency is a good thing, and Teslas are awesome

 

[SummerlinChiro]

Where you lose it is “IR bouncing around the atmosphere“
Heat only moves from warm to hot

Watch this video to understand:

This is Why They Won’t DEBATE ME!

Conservation of Energy. If you add energy to something or prevent energy from escaping it heats up. The 'temperature' radiated by CO2 is irrelevant. We're not talking about conduction but radiation. The equivalent 'temperature' of your microwave is < 17K or < -256C but it can boil water. How? Because water interacts with the wavelength and your microwave can add energy to the water. Same way more IR bouncing around in the atmosphere due to more CO2 causes warming.

 

[SummerlinChiro]

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

Care to form an actual argument?

No, they dont have the thermodynamics and physics wrong. Literally (yes, literally) thousands of trained expert climatologists and scientists from every country, every political persuasion, and every faith have checked, analyzed, and pored over many many sources of data. And they all, all, agree that global warming is real, happening now, is man-made, and needs to be addressed.

It is irresponsible, and frankly stunning, to think otherwise. This is not something to be decided by ridiculous made-up YouTube videos, or absurd arguments based on pseudo-scientific rubbish conjured out of thin air. It's a fact, and denial at this point in time is pathetic.

And no, I dont apologize to anyone for being forthright here .. we are in a mess as a race and need to face reality.

 

[nwdiver]

Where you lose it is “IR bouncing around the atmosphere“
Heat only moves from warm to hot

Watch this video to understand:

This is Why They Won’t DEBATE ME!

So how does your microwave use microwaves that are < -256C to heat water to boiling at ~100C?

Why is Venus hotter than Mercury?

Energy is Energy. Energy has to be conserved. Heat is the primary way energy is conserved. If a photon is trying to escape into space and it's absorbed and deflected by a molecule of CO2 the earth stays warmer because energy is conserved. That's the law. The ~50% increase in CO2 has resulted in a 'shielding effect' of ~1.5w/m^2. That's 1.5w/m^2 LESS that is escaping into space with CO2 at 400ppm than it was at 280ppm. That's just math. That 1.5w/m^2 adds up to >1600x more energy than all of humanity uses annually. All the coal, gas, nuclear... everything. SCIENCE!

 

[SummerlinChiro]

Sure, here you go:

My conclusions after slogging through a few hundred climate papers:

There’s no such thing as a greenhouse effect in our atmosphere, because there’s no glass holding in the air and preventing convective motion

The natural production and absorption of CO2 is extremely difficult to quantify, and swamps human output; so they don’t even know for sure if humans are actually increasing the CO2 - the increase may be a result of natural variability

The earth temperature is also difficult to quantify, and most of the databases are massaged by the climatologists - the RAW data shows no warming over the last 100 years

All the proxy/geological data show temps leading CO2 or no correlation

They try to add in radiative heat transfer like it’s separate from the thermodynamics - this is where they really botch it - so they double count the incoming solar flux in the IPCC report

CO2 levels really have no direct effect on temperature, the oceans are not acidifying, CO2 and/or warming is NOT damaging to coral... In fact, corals evolved during the Cambrian explosion when it was significantly warmer, with much higher CO2 levels than now

We are at very low CO2 levels, and the small increase we have had is nothing but good for the planet: It is plant food, and promotes greening and makes plants more drought resistant

The atmosphere is actually heated adiabatically By the force of gravity on the mass of the atmosphere.

Factors that affect the earths temperature do not include the gas mix, but rather albedo and mass of the atmosphere and the sun’s output

The suns output aka solar flux varies very little, but the solar wind does vary a lot.

The heavy solar wind particles interact with the magnetosphere of the earth, so that when we have low solar wind, there are more cosmic rays let into the atmosphere of the earth. More cosmic rays, means more cloud seeding, thus increasing the albedo and lowering the earth’s temperature

What this means is that there seems to be a correlation between the solar cycles and heating and cooling of the earth, something like a 30 to 50 year cycle.

Since we are in a very low solar minimum right now, I predict more heavy snow covers like we have this year, and more storms and continue cooling over the next 15 to 30 years

You can get a masters degree in climatology without taking any statistics whatsoever, and even I, a lowly Chiropractor, had to take a year of stats in undergrad

Both my microwaves work fine, thanks

@WarpedOne

Curious as to what you think the correct answers are .... does your microwave not work?

SCIENCE!