Resisting Climate Hysteria

[Knobby22]

The Sun and the angle of the Earth's axis...Read my previous post.

The post doesn't say that is happening now.

 

[noco]

The post doesn't say that is happening now.

Perhaps this may convince you a little better.


http://joannenova.com.au/2016/08/arctic-sea-ice-it-all-melted-before-and-it-didnt-matter/

Matt Ridley in The Australian explains how every man and his dog is forecasting the doom of the Arctic sea ice, and not only have they been wrong year after year, but they all assume that if the ice all melts it’ll be a global disaster. But Earth’s already been-there done-that, and for years, and it was no-biggie. Polar bears obviously got through it, as did seals. Humans without protective solar panels somehow spread far and wide, and generally flourished.

I suspect the main climate refugees from the Arctic would have names like Donner and Blitzen. This is the one thing Matt doesn’t explain — in 8,000BC when the ice melted, what the heck happened with Santa?

Ice scares aren’t all they’re cracked up to be

This was a period known as the “early Holocene insolation maximum” (EHIM). Because the Earth’s axis was tilted away from the vertical more than today (known as obliquity), and because we were then closer to the Sun in July than in January (known as precession), the amount of the Sun’s energy hitting the far north in summer was much greater than today. This “great summer” effect was the chief reason the Earth had emerged from an ice age, because hot northern summers had melted the great ice caps of North America and Eurasia, exposing darker land and sea to absorb more sunlight and warm the whole planet.

The effect was huge: about an extra 50 watts per square metre 80 degrees north in June. By contrast, the total effect of man-made global warming will reach 3.5 watts per square metre (but globally) only by the end of this century.

To put it in context, the EHIM was the period during which agriculture was invented in about seven different parts of the globe at once. Copper smelting began; cattle and sheep were domesticated; wine and cheese were developed; the first towns appeared. The seas being warmer, the climate was generally wet so the Sahara had rivers and forests, hippos and people.

Barring one especially cold snap 8200 years ago, the coldest spell of the past 10 millennia was the very recent “little ice age” of AD1300-1850, when glaciers advanced, tree lines descended and the Greenland Norse died out.

 

[cynic]

What do you think is causing it?

More likely than not, natural forces. Unlike climate "scientists" I do not claim to be infallibly omniscient and am open to examining alternative possibilities if the supportive evidence is sufficiently compelling.

The fact of some ice melting only proves that ice melts and precious little else. All possible causes need to be duly considered before arriving at any conclusion regarding the existence (or lack thereof) of any problems. At least that's what I would expect a real scientist to do!

 

[orr]

Are we looking at the same page yet? You seem to be totally missing the point I am contesting, namely the question of causation!

Do you have an understanding of why a number of different gaseous molecules distributed in the earths(and other planets) atmospheres are described as 'greenhouse gases'?

There is empirical, scientific, proven, incontestable,(by people open to reason) demonstrable evidence to the effect that these gases have on the temperature of the bodies they envelope?

Your arguments may get traction with the vast bulk of those toward the back end of the intellectual and educational bell curve, but not here... So give us all your debunk of Physics understood now for over one fifty years?

That's three questions, count them 1, two, 3. All with veracity with regard your causation canard, they relate to a thing understood as 'the Earths heat budget'... should keep you busy for the weekend. See you on Monday bring a bag of 'Smiths Crisps' to class.

 

[cynic]

Do you have an understanding of why a number of different gaseous molecules distributed in the earths(and other planets) atmospheres are described as 'greenhouse gases'?

There is empirical, scientific, proven, incontestable,(by people open to reason) demonstrable evidence to the effect that these gases have on the temperature of the bodies they envelope?

Your arguments may get traction with the vast bulk of those toward the back end of the intellectual and educational bell curve, but not here... So give us all your debunk of Physics understood now for over one fifty years?

That's three questions, count them 1, two, 3. All with veracity with regard your causation canard, they relate to a thing understood as 'the Earths heat budget'... should keep you busy for the weekend. See you on Monday bring a bag of 'Smiths Crisps' to class.

So exactly which earth-like planet did scientists use as a comparison in order to conclusively establish that the increased presence of these gases could indeed be expected to produce a warming effect?

 

[luutzu]

So exactly which earth-like planet did scientists use as a comparison in order to conclusively establish that the increased presence of these gases could indeed be expected to produce a warming effect?

A glass house ought to illustrate it well enough.

Failing to find a glass house, drop by any major intersection and enjoy the fresh air.



btw, didn't CFC [?] from spray cans and compressors put a couple holes in the Ozone layer after a few decades of common usage?

So human activity could damage the mighty earth

Then when actions were taken to stop pumping that gas into the atmostphere, the Ozone is slowly recovering. Tum tum tum

 

[cynic]

A glass house ought to illustrate it well enough.

Failing to find a glass house, drop by any major intersection and enjoy the fresh air.

...

There is a mighty big difference between a glass house on a planet and the planet itself!!

 

[luutzu]

There is a mighty big difference between a glass house on a planet and the planet itself!!

What if the entire planet is slowing becoming like a glass house?

What if, say, the melting ice not only raises the sea level, but also releases long-trapped CO2, also reduce the white ice sheet that reflects some of the Sun's heat... further accelerating what might, in small doses, could be absorbed by the earth and buried deep beneath it all these millennia.

Riddle me that

 

[basilio]

So exactly which earth-like planet did scientists use as a comparison in order to conclusively establish that the increased presence of these gases could indeed be expected to produce a warming effect?

Venus.
http://www.universetoday.com/22577/venus-greenhouse-effect/

 

[cynic]

What if the entire planet is slowing becoming like a glass house?

What if, say, the melting ice not only raises the sea level, but also releases long-trapped CO2, also reduce the white ice sheet that reflects some of the Sun's heat... further accelerating what might, in small doses, could be absorbed by the earth and buried deep beneath it all these millennia.

Riddle me that

Let's leave the fantasizing to the hollywood scriptwriters and keep this debate grounded in reality.

http://www.google.com.au/search?q=glass+house+picture&prmd=imsvn&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&fir=5yyDA267kTaaoM%253A%252CoTLT2GE7tyWl9M%252C_%253BzzX4hBzImJyy5M%253A%252CQtaIxPE3wTv7HM%252C_%253BE1YfuqkO7hRK9M%253A%252C8ETDmOaHIa719M%252C_%253Bw-VDqodGC1UNXM%253A%252CV0eEWNBA2F3aAM%252C_%253BXwDwJ15lwYgxyM%253A%252CsPyheGq-95SNrM%252C_%253BRi1lYryYpQo73M%253A%252CilS2iOcuNA_u_M%252C_%253B2Lw99b0XemgjNM%253A%252CvyTjh3uXnUK7dM%252C_%253BsSjDmhQ_BuVhaM%253A%252CLCr0ZDTMcAmdiM%252C_%253BGM5Nlfpd74BBhM%253A%252C1dZF1GBbP4zO1M%252C_%253BCAV0e-fkaDTyrM%253A%252C1dZF1GBbP4zO1M%252C_%253BE_tJv2ZGxFT5VM%253A%252CW8Go8XtuIoOr3M%252C_%253B8IrSjeYwqCBtFM%253A%252CysW9FDInih_O6M%252C_%253BMOPF96aYdwMljM%253A%252CQLZe6ev1Blry8M%252C_&usg=___O7I-5lN6sHsLf-R9yc50CBldz4%3D&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi295HpnLLQAhXEG5QKHUATBsAQ7AkINw&biw=768&bih=1024#tbm=isch&q=green+house+picture&imgrc=XOxpeTJTUnpUvM%3A

http://www.google.com.au/search?q=glass+house+picture&prmd=imsvn&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&fir=5yyDA267kTaaoM%253A%252CoTLT2GE7tyWl9M%252C_%253BzzX4hBzImJyy5M%253A%252CQtaIxPE3wTv7HM%252C_%253BE1YfuqkO7hRK9M%253A%252C8ETDmOaHIa719M%252C_%253Bw-VDqodGC1UNXM%253A%252CV0eEWNBA2F3aAM%252C_%253BXwDwJ15lwYgxyM%253A%252CsPyheGq-95SNrM%252C_%253BRi1lYryYpQo73M%253A%252CilS2iOcuNA_u_M%252C_%253B2Lw99b0XemgjNM%253A%252CvyTjh3uXnUK7dM%252C_%253BsSjDmhQ_BuVhaM%253A%252CLCr0ZDTMcAmdiM%252C_%253BGM5Nlfpd74BBhM%253A%252C1dZF1GBbP4zO1M%252C_%253BCAV0e-fkaDTyrM%253A%252C1dZF1GBbP4zO1M%252C_%253BE_tJv2ZGxFT5VM%253A%252CW8Go8XtuIoOr3M%252C_%253B8IrSjeYwqCBtFM%253A%252CysW9FDInih_O6M%252C_%253BMOPF96aYdwMljM%253A%252CQLZe6ev1Blry8M%252C_&usg=___O7I-5lN6sHsLf-R9yc50CBldz4%3D&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi295HpnLLQAhXEG5QKHUATBsAQ7AkINw&biw=768&bih=1024#tbm=isch&q=earth+picture&imgrc=YgY4l5SdNTT6OM%3A


Note the difference!

 

[cynic]

Venus.
http://www.universetoday.com/22577/venus-greenhouse-effect/

Therein lies the problem. Venus is ssooo much closer to the sun it cannot be used to make a valid comparison!

It is interesting how that article totally neglects to mention the most pertinent factor contributing to the elevated temperature of that planet. Namely its proximity to the sun!

Either the authors are totally misinformed about some very basic scientific facts or they are being intentionally dishonest!!

At this point I could readily believe either scenario. Either way, the article can only serve to misinform the scientifically unwary.

 

[Ves]

Therein lies the problem. Venus is ssooo much closer to the sun it cannot be used to make a valid comparison!

Mars and Titan aren't though...

 

[basilio]

Just a peek at what Donald Trump has in store for the EPA and the rest of us. Make sure you read this story to end. It's bracing.

Trump begins filling environmental posts with clowns
John Abraham

Trump’s plans to roll back environmental protections seem worse than many feared

Thursday 17 November 2016 22.00 AEDT
Last modified on Thursday 17 November 2016 23.27 AEDT

Shares
1195

Come on, you can admit it. I admit it. I admit that after Trump’s election victory, I secretly hoped and even though that his rhetoric was worse than its bite. He only said those crazy things during the campaign to get elected. He wouldn’t really follow through on his plans to completely gut the US commitment to keeping the Earth habitable. Oh how naive we were. Trump’s plan to fill positions in his administration shows things are worse than we could have ever feared.

According to recent reports, Trump has picked long-time climate denier and spokesperson for the fossil fuel industry Myron Ebell to head the Environmental Protection Agency transition. This basically means the EPA will either cease to function or cease to exist. It also appears that the US will pull out of any agreements to limit greenhouse emissions.

It means we have missed our last off-ramp on the road to catastrophic climate change. That may sound hyperbolic, but I study the rate that climate change is happening – the amount of heat accumulating in the Earth’s system. We didn’t have any time to waste in implementing Obama’s aggressive plans, and Trump will result in a decade of time lost.

So who is Myron Ebell? He is a director at the Competitive Enterprise Institute and chair of the Cooler Heads Coalition. Where did he get his PhD in science? Nowhere. In fact, he isn’t a scientist at all, but he does have a degree in economics. Yeah!

Is there any conflict that Ebell’s Competitive Enterprise Institute is funded by companies such as ExxonMobil and groups such as the Charles Koch Charitable Foundation? Surely not.

Myron Ebell is not new to obstructing action on climate change. Years ago, it was reported that he favored editing Bush-era scientists’ reports on climate change.

https://www.theguardian.com/environ...egins-filling-environmental-posts-with-clowns

 

[cynic]

Mars and Titan aren't though...

True.

Correct me if mistaken, but Titan is a moon, is it not?

 

[Ves]

Correct me if mistaken, but Titan is a moon, is it not?

Does it matter?

 

[cynic]

Does it matter?

Orbitting a star or orbitting a planet that orbits a star.

The overall proximity to the star would be similar, so perhaps not.

Still, there are some notable differences between Earth and those planetary bodies.

Do you believe that mankind's observations of Mars and Titan somehow validate the greenhouse gases hypotheses?

 

[Ves]

Do you believe that mankind's observations of Mars and Titan somehow validate the greenhouse gases hypotheses?

They definitely add to the evidence. But, as always, science is an evolving process, there is still further to go, and we learn more with each "mission" to those areas. I'm really not sure the whole hypothesis relies on the Mars/Titan observations though, the observations of those areas just adds to it.

 

[Tisme]

There is a mighty big difference between a glass house on a planet and the planet itself!!

Is there? You say that, but are there proofs that a fish bowl experiment in a fish bowl is invalid?

Did looking at earth from out of space change the coastlines, change the weather, etc? Did the prediction modelling of the successful mission to the moon rely on some other planet's space program?

 

[Knobby22]

So exactly which earth-like planet did scientists use as a comparison in order to conclusively establish that the increased presence of these gases could indeed be expected to produce a warming effect?

According to cynic we have to ignore the small scale experiments, ignore the proven knowledge established many decades ago and ignore physics which explains how CO2 scatters infra red radiation, ignore the laser experiment showing the effect working in the atmosphere, ignore the actual warming occurring and ignore the fact that no alternative explanation has been found.
We just need to treat it as a big experiment.

I worry how science is being taught.

 

[wayneL]

According to cynic we have to ignore the small scale experiments, ignore the proven knowledge established many decades ago and ignore physics which explains how CO2 scatters infra red radiation, ignore the laser experiment showing the effect working in the atmosphere, ignore the actual warming occurring and ignore the fact that no alternative explanation has been found.
We just need to treat it as a big experiment.

I worry how science is being taught.

You're worried?

I'm outright alarmed, for all the reasons I've previously stated.