Climate Change Denial

[SummerlinChiro]

??? No data was adjusted. If there's no warming then why are sea levels rising? Science says it's mostly due to thermal expansion of the ocean. If there's no warming how are the oceans thermally expanding? If it's not thermal expansion what's causing them to rise?

If the tales of global cooling scared you then you must recall WHY they said it would cool... so... WHY did they say it was going to cool? Please explain.


Also.... how to microwaves work?

Sea levels have been rising steadily since the last glaciation, 3.4mm per year. Simple photographs from 100+ years ago show no major change.

Remember how the Maldives were in crisis because the rising oceans were going to swamp them? They are actually growing!

Why was Greenland green when the Vikings settled there when CO2 levels were much lower?

You can't answer that simple common-sense question...

You guys on here crack me up.

Scientists are supposed to be skeptical! They sailed through the Northwest Passage in the 1850's, early 1900's, etc. That means no ice!

They thought it was going to KEEP COOLING because there was a major cooling trend from the 30's to the 70's, and humans with their limited sense of scale tend to think whatever is happening now will keep happening.

Why are the temperature "adjustments" counter to the UHI? Explain that!

Bad stats are bad stats, no matter the discipline. You can't just stupidly accept the claims of NOAA that they are measuring global temps to .01 degree of accuracy with data that is close to 50% "infilled" (aka "made up").

This is NOT good science!

Speaking of science, let's talk about modeling. The furthest that modeling can take you is to a hypothesis. Modeling is just made up numbers in a computer program. You can fiddle with it to get any outcome you want. Climatologist confuse modeling with the real world. I have a engineer friend with a PhD in modeling, he laughs at the climate modeling papers.

To summarize:

Not too long ago, Greenland was GREEN when CO2 levels were LOWER.

Life exploded on the planet when CO2 levels were more than 10X higher, this is when corals evolved.

The best temperature data over the last 120 years shows NO WARMING over the last 120 years - until you "adjust" the data, (which is what happens when you put true believer fanatics in charge of the database!)

We are actually in an ICE AGE, but luckily in an INTERGLACIAL period of the current ice age.

There is a much greater likelihood of having a true glacial period or a "little ice age" that harms humans rather than overheating.

Climate scientists have EXTENSIVE record of apocalyptic predictions than never manifest.

They also deliberately mislead by omitting data that doesn't advance their narrative.

This graph here is the smoking gun for outcome bias. Real world science numbers never correlate so tightly.

 

[nwdiver]

Sea levels have been rising steadily since the last glaciation, 3.4mm per year. Simple photographs from 100+ years ago show no major change.

Remember how the Maldives were in crisis because the rising oceans were going to swamp them? They are actually growing!

Why was Greenland green when the Vikings settled there when CO2 levels were much lower?

You can't answer that simple common-sense question...

You guys on here crack me up.

Scientists are supposed to be skeptical! They sailed through the Northwest Passage in the 1850's, early 1900's, etc. That means no ice!

They thought it was going to KEEP COOLING because there was a major cooling trend from the 30's to the 70's, and humans with their limited sense of scale tend to think whatever is happening now will keep happening.

Why are the temperature "adjustments" counter to the UHI? Explain that!

Bad stats are bad stats, no matter the discipline. You can't just stupidly accept the claims of NOAA that they are measuring global temps to .01 degree of accuracy with data that is close to 50% "infilled" (aka "made up").

This is NOT good science!

Speaking of science, let's talk about modeling. The furthest that modeling can take you is to a hypothesis. Modeling is just made up numbers in a computer program. You can fiddle with it to get any outcome you want. Climatologist confuse modeling with the real world. I have a engineer friend with a PhD in modeling, he laughs at the climate modeling papers.

To summarize:

Not too long ago, Greenland was GREEN when CO2 levels were LOWER.

Life exploded on the planet when CO2 levels were more than 10X higher, this is when corals evolved.

The best temperature data over the last 120 years shows NO WARMING over the last 120 years - until you "adjust" the data, (which is what happens when you put true believer fanatics in charge of the database!)

We are actually in an ICE AGE, but luckily in an INTERGLACIAL period of the current ice age.

There is a much greater likelihood of having a true glacial period or a "little ice age" that harms humans rather than overheating.

Climate scientists have EXTENSIVE record of apocalyptic predictions than never manifest.

They also deliberately mislead by omitting data that doesn't advance their narrative.

This graph here is the smoking gun for outcome bias. Real world science numbers never correlate so tightly.

Wow.... Gish Gallop much? All your points have already been addressed upthread. I'll be happy to refer you to where BUT first.... explain how microwaves work and we'll go from there. You keep dodging the question of radiative forcing. Why?

 

[CyberGus]

...Not too long ago, Greenland was GREEN when CO2 levels were LOWER.

You're conflating weather with climate. When the global climate gets warmer, the changing weather patterns will make some places get colder, others warmer. The temperature at any given point on the Earth has no bearing on long-term effects of man-made climate change.

 

[SummerlinChiro]

Wow.... Gish Gallop much? All your points have already been addressed upthread. I'll be happy to refer you to where BUT first.... explain how microwaves work and we'll go from there. You keep dodging the question of radiative forcing. Why?

I feel no need to explain microwave ovens to you...

Explain to me why Greenland was green when CO2 levels were lower, and has an ice sheet now with higher CO2 levels.

I'm here to discuss climate, not microwave ovens.

I have already addressed radiative forcing. Convection overwhelms radiative. Climatologists confuse radiative balance with actual thermodynamics.

 

[SummerlinChiro]

Plants did just fine with CO2 levels at 280ppm. Whatever benefit they may enjoy from CO2 at >400ppm is more than washed away by increased floods (since the amount of water vapor the atmosphere can hold increases exponentially with temperature), increased droughts (since the amount of water vapor the atmosphere can suck out of soil increases exponentially with temperature), harder freezes (since the jet stream occasionally dips further south when there's a smaller difference in temperature between the polar regions and equator), and salt water intrusion as sea rise.

How do microwaves work?

Zero evidence of increased flooding in world... Where is your proof?

 

[nwdiver]

I feel no need to explain microwave ovens to you...

Explain to me why Greenland was green when CO2 levels were lower, and has an ice sheet now with higher CO2 levels.

I'm here to discuss climate, not microwave ovens.

I have already addressed radiative forcing. Convection overwhelms radiative. Climatologists confuse radiative balance with actual thermodynamics.

Ok... then explain radiative forcing. Earth ONLY cools via radiation. Not convection. Convection might help move heat into the upper atmosphere but it's radiation that removes it. Earth radiates ~260w/m^2. The higher CO2 gets the lower that number goes. What happens to temperature when outgoing energy is reduced? Conservation of energy.

 

[SummerlinChiro]

This is why this thread has great amusement value. It gives a venue for tired old dis-proven theories to be trotted out again and we can all laugh at the ignorance.

What exactly are you disputing about CO2 greening the planet and increasing drought resistance? That is scientific fact, but you don't know the science, do you?

 

[SummerlinChiro]

Goalposts, goalpost, goalposts.

First, you deny there is a correlation. Then you are shown there is a correlation. Then you start claiming there is no causation. You are wasting everyones time, since nothing you have said in this entire thread forms any coherent scientific argument. The evidence is against you, so out with the evidence! The theory is against you, so make up pseudo-science theories of your own!

But, at the end of the day, you are committing the basic sin of denialists everywhere .. you have decided what you want the outcome to be, and will use any biased, dubious or fallacious argument to cling to your wish (because that's all it is .. a wish).

Many posters here, myself included, have presented cogent, reasoned positions, backed by clear hard facts and theories. Go read them again (including the ones you reflexively marked "disagree") .. think about them. Try asking yourself these hard questions: "What if I am wrong? Are they right? Is there really global warming?" What would the outcome be if your answer to any of these was "yes"?

I see you doing the exact same thing, but yours is the popular opinion. Looking back at history, do you think that popular opinions are more likely to be right or wrong?

You seem to forget that I started where you are, as a true believer. I studied the science to become a better advocate to fight climate change.

The deeper I dug, the less the science stood up.

Do you grok this? I STARTED WHERE YOU ARE!

Reading climate science is what made me a skeptic. I spent 10 years asking myself the hard questions, have you?

 

[nwdiver]

I see you doing the exact same thing, but yours is the popular opinion.

Opinion isn't testable. Either CO2 absorbs radiation in the same band as Earth radiates it or it doesn't. CO2 does. Fact. Not opinion. Either CO2 is 40% higher since our addiction to fools fuel began or it's not. It is. Fact. Not opinion.

 

[nwdiver]

I have already addressed radiative forcing. Convection overwhelms radiative. Climatologists confuse radiative balance with actual thermodynamics.

.... I would love to hear your explanation on how you think an object 'floating' in a near perfect vacuum cools using convection....

 

[SummerlinChiro]

That's it? That's all you can say? Zero response to any of the factual arguments, issues raised, or rebuttals? And you expect us to take anything you say seriously?

Has it occurred to you that you are taking a position shared by a group of people, none of whom (including you) can provide any valid rationale for that position. And that this is the very definition of "Groupthink"?

Don't you realize that the minority position isn't generally where the Groupthink is occurring?

I have all kinds of valid rationales for my position which I have expounded on extensively here.

One really basic point, Greenland was Green when the Vikings settled there with CO2 levels lower than today when it is covered by an icesheet?

If CO2 was ruling the climate, how can that be?

 

[SummerlinChiro]

Opinion isn't testable. Either CO2 absorbs radiation in the same band as Earth radiates it or it doesn't. CO2 does. Fact. Not opinion. Either CO2 is 40% higher since our addiction to fools fuel began or it's not. It is. Fact. Not opinion.


View attachment 649015

 

[SummerlinChiro]

Opinion isn't testable. Either CO2 absorbs radiation in the same band as Earth radiates it or it doesn't. CO2 does. Fact. Not opinion. Either CO2 is 40% higher since our addiction to fools fuel began or it's not. It is. Fact. Not opinion.


View attachment 649015

Look at the graph above. The CO2 wavelengths are already saturated! More CO2 makes no difference!


Nice!

 

[nwdiver]

One really basic point, Greenland was Green when the Vikings settled there with CO2 levels lower than today when it is covered by an icesheet?

You realize that Greenland has glaciers that are nearly 10,000' thick and date back ~1M years.... right?

 

[nwdiver]

Look at the graph above. The CO2 wavelengths are already saturated! More CO2 makes no difference!


Nice!

Look again. It's clearly not saturated and the primary molecule it shares the window with is H2O..... you think air is never dry? Also... that water vapor is there because the air is warm. Warm air can hold more moisture. The air is warmer because of CO2.

 

[drtimhill]

I see you doing the exact same thing, but yours is the popular opinion. Looking back at history, do you think that popular opinions are more likely to be right or wrong?

You seem to forget that I started where you are, as a true believer. I studied the science to become a better advocate to fight climate change.

I'm not a "true believer" in anything .. I follow the science and the research, critically. Popularity, as I have already discussed elsewhere in this thread, simple doesnt arise. To be sure, you dont suddenly assume the opposite either, that any unpopular or new discovery is automatically true (even Einstein had trouble with General Relativity until several observations confirmed the predictions).

The problem is, your very arguments have undermined your credibility. You cherry-pick replies, ignore arguments that you have no answer to, and quote pseudo-science nonsense that is meaningless. "Adiabatic heating of the atmosphere"? Peculiar arguments that confuse radiative heat and conduction that make no sense regardless of any disagreement about climate change.

 

[Brando]

-simple- google search

Northwest Passage - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[nwdiver]

Et tu Prunus Serrulata?

 

[SummerlinChiro]

"Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you’re being had."

- Michael Crichton

"Science is the belief in the ignorance of the experts"

- Richard Feynman

"Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled."

- Michael Crichton

“If you thought that science was certain – well, that is just an error on your part.”

- Richard Feynman

Consensus Science | Real Climate Science

realclimatescience.com

 

[iPlug]

Who needs data when one can just google uninformed quotes to fit uninformed beliefs.