4 ms·

Raising the temperature in a pot on the oven will in time lead to the same state of boiling temperature. Especially if closing the lid. Greenhouse effect is als

by loopz 5y ago

Raising the temperature in a pot on the oven will in time lead to the same state of boiling temperature. Especially if closing the lid. Greenhouse effect is also settled science (please see demo on youtube). So exact predictions are not required, unless you want specific detailed mitigation and weather reports. There is scientific consensus, but it seems some people lack the bandwidth to process the information and the inherent uncertainty, objectively. Instead of emotional content, it's better to listen to experts on scientifically peer-reviewed basis: https://skepticalscience.com/argument.php https://skepticalscience.com/argument.php

rationalist2948 5y ago
> Greenhouse effect is also settled science (please see demo on youtube). Of course. True but trivial and essentially meaningless for the claims of the alarmists. If you regard that as evidence supporting the alarmists, then you have been taken in by trivia. I learned about the greenhouse effect, the role of Planck black body radiation, etc. relatively thoroughly in ugrad physics where the prof was big on such stuff and had measured atmospheric absorption spectra to help the US Navy with the design of radar, etc. Broadly, no doubt the people who did the predictions reported in http://www.energyadvocate.com/gc1.jpg http://www.energyadvocate.com/gc1.jpg knew about the greenhouse effect, but their predictions, and, thus, their science was wildly wrong. Now, let's look at some data, initially by far the favorite data of the alarmists and their early leader, Saint Laureate Al Guru and his famous movie where he put up, from ice core data, a big plot of temperature and CO2 concentrations over the last 800,000 years or so. Standing back, Al Guru claimed that the CO2 and temperature went up and down together and took that as proof that CO2 and its greenhouse effect caused the temperature changes. Nonsense. Total nonsense. Right there in his data, total nonsense. Flim-flam nonsense. Middle school level outrageous incompetence. If actually look at the data not from far back but close enough to see actual effects, then make three simple but totally devastating observations: (1) When temperature started to rise, CO2 was low, not high. So, something caused the warming, but it was not CO2. (2) About 800 years later, CO2 had increased. Presumably the cause was more biological activity from the higher temperatures. (3) Some thousands of years later, while CO2 was high, the temperatures fell again. There was a cause, but it was not low CO2. Indeed, the high CO2 did not keep temperatures from falling. Net, from that 800,000 years of data, there is no evidence that high CO2 caused warming. It would be more accurate (though of course still wrong) to say that the data supported that CO2 caused COOLING. For some more recent data, there was some significant warming during the time of the Roman Empire and during the Medieval Warm period, and there is no evidence that the cause was high CO2. There was some significant cooling during the Little Ice Age from roughly 1300 to 1900, but there is no evidence that the cause was low CO2. There was some cooling from 1940 to 1970 and concerns in the media about another ice age, and those years were when there was more CO2 from human activity from WWII and the post-war economic boom. So, in those years, with more CO2, we got some cooling instead of warming. Again it would be more accurate (though of course still wrong) to say that the data supported that CO2 caused COOLING. For some details, can start with "Global Cooling" at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling#1974_Time_magazine_article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling#1974_Time_magaz... which discusses the two famous magazine stories, the 1974 Time story and the 1975 Newsweek story, worrying about "global cooling" and asking if we were entering a new ice age. For more on these magazine stories, at https://longreads.com/2017/04/13/in-1975-newsweek-predicted-a-new-ice-age-were-still-living-with-the-consequences/ https://longreads.com/2017/04/13/in-1975-newsweek-predicted-... can see the April 28, 1975, Newsweek article “The Cooling World”. So, net, there is no data on temperature and CO2 from the past that says that CO2 will cause warming. Yes, CO2 is a greenhouse gas. This means that it absorbs some light in the infrared but not the visible. In the case of CO2, it absorbs light out in the infrared in three narrow bands. The absorption spectrum is given at https://webbook.nist.gov/cgi/cbook.cgi?Spec=C124389&Index=0&Type=IR&Large=on https://webbook.nist.gov/cgi/cbook.cgi?Spec=C124389&Index=0&... We have had some warming since the Little Ice Age. It may be that we are still pulling out of the Little Ice Age, e.g., it can take a long time for the oceans to warm up. But even with this warming, it's cooler than in the Medieval Warm period and the Roman times when the polar bears did fine, the ice in Greenland and the poles didn't melt, the oceans didn't rise and flood the coasts, and humans didn't suffer. Apparently the main effects were greater agricultural productivity, e.g., in England, grapes were grown for wine. Could the warming since the Little Ice Age be due to CO2? No: The warming is at the surface, and CO2 absorbs high in the troposphere with definition at Google: <blockquote>the lowest region of the atmosphere, extending from the earth's surface to a height of about 3.7–6.2 miles (6–10 km), which is the lower boundary of the stratosphere. </blockquote> which, from MIT climate scientist Richard Lindzen, Alfred P Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Sciences, Emeritus at Massachusetts Institute of Technology, has gotten cooler, not warmer. So, net, CO2 really is a greenhouse gas, but its warming effects are too small to be significant or detected in the data on temperature and CO2.

by loopz 5y ago

rationalist2948 5y ago

> Greenhouse effect is also settled science (please see demo on youtube). Of course. True but trivial and essentially meaningless for the claims of the alarmists. If you regard that as evidence supporting the alarmists, then you have been taken in by trivia. I learned about the greenhouse effect, the role of Planck black body radiation, etc. relatively thoroughly in ugrad physics where the prof was big on such stuff and had measured atmospheric absorption spectra to help the US Navy with the design of radar, etc. Broadly, no doubt the people who did the predictions reported in http://www.energyadvocate.com/gc1.jpg http://www.energyadvocate.com/gc1.jpg knew about the greenhouse effect, but their predictions, and, thus, their science was wildly wrong. Now, let's look at some data, initially by far the favorite data of the alarmists and their early leader, Saint Laureate Al Guru and his famous movie where he put up, from ice core data, a big plot of temperature and CO2 concentrations over the last 800,000 years or so. Standing back, Al Guru claimed that the CO2 and temperature went up and down together and took that as proof that CO2 and its greenhouse effect caused the temperature changes. Nonsense. Total nonsense. Right there in his data, total nonsense. Flim-flam nonsense. Middle school level outrageous incompetence. If actually look at the data not from far back but close enough to see actual effects, then make three simple but totally devastating observations: (1) When temperature started to rise, CO2 was low, not high. So, something caused the warming, but it was not CO2. (2) About 800 years later, CO2 had increased. Presumably the cause was more biological activity from the higher temperatures. (3) Some thousands of years later, while CO2 was high, the temperatures fell again. There was a cause, but it was not low CO2. Indeed, the high CO2 did not keep temperatures from falling. Net, from that 800,000 years of data, there is no evidence that high CO2 caused warming. It would be more accurate (though of course still wrong) to say that the data supported that CO2 caused COOLING. For some more recent data, there was some significant warming during the time of the Roman Empire and during the Medieval Warm period, and there is no evidence that the cause was high CO2. There was some significant cooling during the Little Ice Age from roughly 1300 to 1900, but there is no evidence that the cause was low CO2. There was some cooling from 1940 to 1970 and concerns in the media about another ice age, and those years were when there was more CO2 from human activity from WWII and the post-war economic boom. So, in those years, with more CO2, we got some cooling instead of warming. Again it would be more accurate (though of course still wrong) to say that the data supported that CO2 caused COOLING. For some details, can start with "Global Cooling" at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling#1974_Time_magazine_article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling#1974_Time_magaz... which discusses the two famous magazine stories, the 1974 Time story and the 1975 Newsweek story, worrying about "global cooling" and asking if we were entering a new ice age. For more on these magazine stories, at https://longreads.com/2017/04/13/in-1975-newsweek-predicted-a-new-ice-age-were-still-living-with-the-consequences/ https://longreads.com/2017/04/13/in-1975-newsweek-predicted-... can see the April 28, 1975, Newsweek article “The Cooling World”. So, net, there is no data on temperature and CO2 from the past that says that CO2 will cause warming. Yes, CO2 is a greenhouse gas. This means that it absorbs some light in the infrared but not the visible. In the case of CO2, it absorbs light out in the infrared in three narrow bands. The absorption spectrum is given at https://webbook.nist.gov/cgi/cbook.cgi?Spec=C124389&Index=0&Type=IR&Large=on https://webbook.nist.gov/cgi/cbook.cgi?Spec=C124389&Index=0&... We have had some warming since the Little Ice Age. It may be that we are still pulling out of the Little Ice Age, e.g., it can take a long time for the oceans to warm up. But even with this warming, it's cooler than in the Medieval Warm period and the Roman times when the polar bears did fine, the ice in Greenland and the poles didn't melt, the oceans didn't rise and flood the coasts, and humans didn't suffer. Apparently the main effects were greater agricultural productivity, e.g., in England, grapes were grown for wine. Could the warming since the Little Ice Age be due to CO2? No: The warming is at the surface, and CO2 absorbs high in the troposphere with definition at Google: <blockquote>the lowest region of the atmosphere, extending from the earth's surface to a height of about 3.7–6.2 miles (6–10 km), which is the lower boundary of the stratosphere. </blockquote> which, from MIT climate scientist Richard Lindzen, Alfred P Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Sciences, Emeritus at Massachusetts Institute of Technology, has gotten cooler, not warmer. So, net, CO2 really is a greenhouse gas, but its warming effects are too small to be significant or detected in the data on temperature and CO2.