The Runaway Greenhouse Myth

[sounding]

Our current 7-year cooling trend is evidence of the runaway greenhouse myth. This myth, made popular by Carl Sagan, will be discussed June 2 at 4 PM at the Lake Miona Recreation Center for the Philosophy Club.

[Bill14564]

Our current 7-year cooling trend is evidence of the runaway greenhouse myth. This myth, made popular by Carl Sagan, will be discussed June 2 at 4 PM at the Lake Miona Recreation Center for the Philosophy Club.

Your 7-year cooling trend is a myth as has been explained several times on this forum. (Or just very poor data analysis leading to a false conclusion)

The runaway greenhouse claim *might* turn out to be false but we won't know until it doesn't happen. Since we are in a period of accelerating warming, it seems too early to rule it out.

[sounding]

Your 7-year cooling trend is a myth as has been explained several times on this forum. (Or just very poor data analysis leading to a false conclusion)

The runaway greenhouse claim *might* turn out to be false but we won't know until it doesn't happen. Since we are in a period of accelerating warming, it seems too early to rule it out.

Yep ... just like the accelerated cooling in the 70s. Climate alarmism is entertaining.

[Blueblaze]

Will they bring up the fact that Earth's greenhouse is caused by the enormous amount water vapor in our atmosphere, and not the trace amount of CO2 -- unlike Venus (Sagan's source for his "runaway greenhouse" theory) which has an atmosphere that is nearly 100% CO2? Will they point out that without our H2O-based greenhouse effect, Earth would be lifeless frozen rock -- exactly like our moon?

Do you think they'll also mention that Venus is 30 million miles closer to the sun than Earth? Could that have at least as much to do with its 900 degree surface temperature as its atmosphere? Mercury, another 30 million miles closer, with no atmosphere, has a 330 degree temperature.

I wonder if they'll also mention that the ice caps on Mars (50 million miles farther than Earth) have grown and receded at the same rate as our own, during the same timeframe that Sagan's "runaway greenhouse" theory has terrorized the science-ignorant dumb masses. Or that Mars ALSO has a CO2 atmosphere (that for some reason is not "running away")?

[sounding]

Will they bring up the fact that Earth's greenhouse is caused by the enormous amount water vapor in our atmosphere, and not the trace amount of CO2 -- unlike Venus (Sagan's source for his "runaway greenhouse" theory) which has an atmosphere that is nearly 100% CO2? Will they point out that without our H2O-based greenhouse effect, Earth would be lifeless frozen rock -- exactly like our moon?

Do you think they'll also mention that Venus is 30 million miles closer to the sun than Earth? Could that have at least as much to do with its 900 degree surface temperature as its atmosphere? Mercury, another 30 million miles closer, with no atmosphere, has a 330 degree temperature.

I wonder if they'll also mention that the ice caps on Mars (50 million miles farther than Earth) have grown and receded at the same rate as our own, during the same timeframe that Sagan's "runaway greenhouse" theory has terrorized the science-ignorant dumb masses. Or that Mars ALSO has a CO2 atmosphere (that for some reason is not "running away")?

Excellent post. This image should answer most of your questions ...

[Taltarzac725]

Carl Sagan. Now there is a myth maker.

[Normal]

We heard it all back in the early 70s. Dead sheep head fish on the shores of Lake Erie, the Cuyahoga river catching fire etc. We cleaned up our act to much higher standards than the era and all is good now. There always seems to be the Negative Nelly to claim things are just terrible so we can just keep upping it one more.

[Jim1mack]

Will they bring up the fact that Earth's greenhouse is caused by the enormous amount water vapor in our atmosphere, and not the trace amount of CO2 -- unlike Venus (Sagan's source for his "runaway greenhouse" theory) which has an atmosphere that is nearly 100% CO2? Will they point out that without our H2O-based greenhouse effect, Earth would be lifeless frozen rock -- exactly like our moon?

Do you think they'll also mention that Venus is 30 million miles closer to the sun than Earth? Could that have at least as much to do with its 900 degree surface temperature as its atmosphere? Mercury, another 30 million miles closer, with no atmosphere, has a 330 degree temperature.

I wonder if they'll also mention that the ice caps on Mars (50 million miles farther than Earth) have grown and receded at the same rate as our own, during the same timeframe that Sagan's "runaway greenhouse" theory has terrorized the science-ignorant dumb masses. Or that Mars ALSO has a CO2 atmosphere (that for some reason is not "running away")?

One thing that is never mentioned is Presession. Earth's wobble. It is not always inclined 23.5 degrees from the solar plain. It’s wobble is cyclical. See Milankovitch Cycles.

[Whitley]

In the seventies I was in grade school. I recall warnings we would get from the News, From magazines, and in school concerning global freezing. . Attached is one article in New Science
1975 - “The threat of a new ice age must now stand alongside nuclear war as a likely source of wholesale death and misery for mankind” Nigel Calder, editor, New Scientist magazine, in an article in International Wildlife Magazine
What a disaster it would be had we enacted laws meant to increase the global temperature back in the 1970's.

[sounding]

In the seventies I was in grade school. I recall warnings we would get from the News, From magazines, and in school concerning global freezing. . Attached is one article in New Science
1975 - “The threat of a new ice age must now stand alongside nuclear war as a likely source of wholesale death and misery for mankind” Nigel Calder, editor, New Scientist magazine, in an article in International Wildlife Magazine
What a disaster it would be had we enacted laws meant to increase the global temperature back in the 1970's.

Ditto. Carl Sagan, back then, contributed to the "ice age" hysteria by also pushing "nuclear winter" alarmism during the cold war. This will also be discussed at 4 PM at the Lake Miona talk.

[Two Bills]

Ditto. Carl Sagan, back then, contributed to the "ice age" hysteria by also pushing "nuclear winter" alarmism during the cold war.

Carl Sagan?
I thought Anna Wintour was Nuclear Winter

[sounding]

Carl Sagan?
I thought Anna Wintour was Nuclear Winter

For more information ... today (June 2), at 4 PM, at the Lake Miona Recreation Center.

[Whitley]

I brought this up at a local University (in Sarasota) and was told that the global freeze was only reported by four publications. You can see hundreds if you look. They try to rewrite history, knowing a segment of the population will simply accept what they say. Another "Climate Scientist" admitted they hype and sensationalize and overstate the threat of global warming, but that it is necessary in order to get action.

[golfing eagles]

I brought this up at a local University (in Sarasota) and was told that the global freeze was only reported by four publications. You can see hundreds if you look. They try to rewrite history, knowing a segment of the population will simply accept what they say. Another "Climate Scientist" admitted they hype and sensationalize and overstate the threat of global warming, but that it is necessary in order to get action.

And the "action" they want is to spend $100 TRILLION over the next 50 years to "combat" what is :
A) a myth and
B) beyond our capabilities to negate the effects of the sun, Earth's axis and orbit and
C) cycles of 60-100,000 years that have been going on for the last 4 million years, all without the contribution of fossil fuels.

[Blueblaze]

My son-in-law is an Ag scientist at Missouri U. He once merely expressed skepticism about man-made global warming during water-cooler talk. It effectively ended his career. He was not offered tenure when he became eligible, which is the same as being fired in our corrupt university system.

But he was such a beloved teacher that his students protested and started a letter writing campaign that saved his job. The University agreed to allow him to continue his research (worth millions in grant money), on the condition that he add a freshman biology class to his schedule. Five years later, he still doesn't have tenure, so he'll never be able to move to a different university (Texas A&M and Florida once pursued him relentlessly). But he has wised up since then. He dutifully drunk the koolaid and is now a fierce proponent of global warming and whatever else he's told to think. So is my daughter. They've become so afraid to expose their kids to the common sense they were raised on that we're lucky if they let us see our grandkids once a year.

[sounding]

My son-in-law is an Ag scientist at Missouri U. He once merely expressed skepticism about man-made global warming during water-cooler talk. It effectively ended his career. He was not offered tenure when he became eligible, which is the same as being fired in our corrupt university system.

But he was such a beloved teacher that his students protested and started a letter writing campaign that saved his job. The University agreed to allow him to continue his research (worth millions in grant money), on the condition that he add a freshman biology class to his schedule. Five years later, he still doesn't have tenure, so he'll never be able to move to a different university (Texas A&M and Florida once pursued him relentlessly). But he has wised up since then. He dutifully drunk the koolaid and is now a fierce proponent of global warming and whatever else he's told to think. So is my daughter. They've become so afraid to expose their kids to the common sense they were raised on that we're lucky if they let us see our grandkids once a year.

Yes. This is the evil that demands compliance and does not allow question. This is called tyranny. It started with the illegitimate demonization of CO2 ... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GYhfrgRAbH4

[golfing eagles]

My son-in-law is an Ag scientist at Missouri U. He once merely expressed skepticism about man-made global warming during water-cooler talk. It effectively ended his career. He was not offered tenure when he became eligible, which is the same as being fired in our corrupt university system.

But he was such a beloved teacher that his students protested and started a letter writing campaign that saved his job. The University agreed to allow him to continue his research (worth millions in grant money), on the condition that he add a freshman biology class to his schedule. Five years later, he still doesn't have tenure, so he'll never be able to move to a different university (Texas A&M and Florida once pursued him relentlessly). But he has wised up since then. He dutifully drunk the koolaid and is now a fierce proponent of global warming and whatever else he's told to think. So is my daughter. They've become so afraid to expose their kids to the common sense they were raised on that we're lucky if they let us see our grandkids once a year.

Exactly the point I've posted time and again when challenged with "90% of climate scientists believe global warming is man-made". It's a foregone conclusion.

[fdpaq0580]

My son-in-law is an Ag scientist at Missouri U. He once merely expressed skepticism about man-made global warming during water-cooler talk. It effectively ended his career. He was not offered tenure when he became eligible, which is the same as being fired

Very understandable. He was talking like a priest who is arguing that the whole God and Jesus thing is a hoax. It is a wonder they kept him on.

[golfing eagles]

Very understandable. He was talking like a priest who is arguing that the whole God and Jesus thing is a hoax. It is a wonder they kept him on.

Because he spoke the truth and deep down the climate change charlatans knew it.

[Blueblaze]

Very understandable. He was talking like a priest who is arguing that the whole God and Jesus thing is a hoax. It is a wonder they kept him on.

No, he mistakenly believed he was a scientist who was supposed to be searching for truth with a skeptic mind.

NOW he's a priest, and very careful to rub the blue mud into his navel in the correct counter-clockwise motion, as instructed by his gods in Administration.

[fdpaq0580]

No, he mistakenly believed he was a scientist who was supposed to be searching for truth with a skeptic mind.

NOW he's a priest, and very careful to rub the blue mud into his navel in the correct counter-clockwise motion, as instructed by his gods in Administration.

You missed my point. He had a decision to make. Stand up for his belief and find other work that he can feel good about, or worry about his precious job and tenure and sellout and live the life of a coward. He sold out. He kept his job, but still doesn't have his precious tenure and has probably missed a promotion or two.
Or ..... doing further study, he realized he had been wrong and with newer, more compete and more accurate information actually change his opinion.

[MorTech]

Earth climate is totally determined by cosmic ray activity...Atmospheric CO2 and H2O concentrations are a *RESULT*.

Amazing that the political terrorists can get their Dunning-Kreuger masses to believe that human activity can change the climate...It's like getting adults to believe in Santa Claus.

Carl Sagan was corrupt..Just like every "scientist" you see on the idiot box. You cannot get famous unless you are corrupt and push the political narrative.

[golfing eagles]

You missed my point. He had a decision to make. Stand up for his belief and find other work that he can feel good about, or worry about his precious job and tenure and sellout and live the life of a coward. He sold out. He kept his job, but still doesn't have his precious tenure and has probably missed a promotion or two.
Or ..... doing further study, he realized he had been wrong and with newer, more compete and more accurate information actually change his opinion.

I doubt he would have changed from being 100% correct to totally wrong based on "further study". On the other hand, his survival instincts forced him, and most other scientists to spout out the party line of lies.

[Taltarzac725]

I doubt he would have changed from being 100% correct to totally wrong based on "further study". On the other hand, his survival instincts forced him, and most other scientists to spout out the party line of lies.
More like facts as far as the current science on the subject can tell.

The global warming deniers are poor scientists for the most part just pushing junk science based on poor supposition and conjectures.

[CoachKandSportsguy]

One thing that is never mentioned is Presession. Earth's wobble. It is not always inclined 23.5 degrees from the solar plain. It’s wobble is cyclical. See Milankovitch Cycles.

This is the best estimate of long term, invisible reasons for the earth to change slowly over long periods of time, . .

There are a bunch of different wobbles, just like a lot of angles in a golf swing with ball contact. . .

good luck to us

[Blueblaze]

You missed my point. He had a decision to make. Stand up for his belief and find other work that he can feel good about, or worry about his precious job and tenure and sellout and live the life of a coward. He sold out. He kept his job, but still doesn't have his precious tenure and has probably missed a promotion or two.
Or ..... doing further study, he realized he had been wrong and with newer, more compete and more accurate information actually change his opinion.

Your point was crystal clear. Yes he did sell out. Just like so many of us did, over and over, during a 40 year fortune-500 career. We keep our mouths shut and learn to rub the blue mud as instructed by HR, because we have the mouths of future mud rubbers at home to feed. And the universal stifling of free speech has resulted in the nation of blue mud rubbers you see circling the drain today.

I'm surprised this conversation hasn't already attracted the eye of TOV's own blue mud enforcers.

[golfing eagles]

More like facts as far as the current science on the subject can tell.

The global warming deniers are poor scientists for the most part just pushing junk science based on poor supposition and conjectures.

Love you Tal for these many years, but you’re on the wrong side of this one. We’ve been going through 60-100,000 year warming and cooling cycles for the last 4 million years. Your SUV has nothing to do with it

[Bill14564]

Love you Tal for these many years, but you’re on the wrong side of this one. We’ve been going through 60-100,000 year warming and cooling cycles for the last 4 million years. Your SUV has nothing to do with it

So say you and the other deniers. The science seems to say otherwise though you have a conspiracy for that as well.

At the very least, the question of whether man has influenced the climate is undecided. There is a very strong correlation between burning of fossil fuels and an increased rate of warming. Correlation does not prove causation but it is foolish to ignore the correlation and ignorant to deny it.

[Taltarzac725]

Love you Tal for these many years, but you’re on the wrong side of this one. We’ve been going through 60-100,000 year warming and cooling cycles for the last 4 million years. Your SUV has nothing to do with it

Maybe. But pollution put out by people probably skewed the cycle a great deal. Ever been to Denver, Reno, Los Angeles on a smoggy day? Smog Day - smogday (https://www.smogday.org/smog-day/)

[fdpaq0580]

More like facts as far as the current science on the subject can tell.

The global warming deniers are poor scientists for the most part just pushing junk science based on poor supposition and conjectures.

Don't forget that the deniers are the ones that are spouting (or bleating) the party line.

[Taltarzac725]

Don't forget that the deniers are the ones that are spouting (or bleating) the party line.

Well that is true. This book came up a lot in my History and Science of Philosophy courses. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions - Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Structure_of_Scientific_Revolutions)

Thomas Kuhn - Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Kuhn)

Kuhn would probably think that the Global Warming deniers are looking for a new paradigm except I think it is more FOX wanting their advertisers to reach more product buyers.

[fdpaq0580]

I doubt he would have changed from being 100% correct to totally wrong based on "further study". On the other hand, his survival instincts forced him, and most other scientists to spout out the party line of lies.

Could be the other way round once he had real science and got past the fantasy that everything's "just peachy".
And, survival instincts would more likely move one to repair what is damaged, rather than turn a blind eye and wait for total disaster.

[Blueblaze]

Don't forget that the deniers are the ones that are spouting (or bleating) the party line.

Maybe you could try disproving the science posted on the first page of this thread instead of simply labeling anyone who acknowledges it (such as my son-in law, the scientist), a "denier".

It's not our "party" who so readily reverts to arguing with nasty names instead of facts. And yet somehow, it's never your "party" whose opinions are labeled "misinformation" and banned from speaking, even though those opinions so often turn out to be facts in hindsight. Anybody remember when Al Gore said that Florida would be underwater by 2016 because the polar icecaps would have melted?

Since we're supposedly banned from discussing politics (or at least some of us are), why not, in the interest of fairness, allow your neighbors their own opinions when it comes to unproven scientific theories and try to refute those opinions, instead of simply calling them names? Its only fair, since, if we tried that trick, we'd be kicked off the site.

[Taltarzac725]

Maybe you could try disproving the science posted on the first page of this thread instead of simply labeling anyone who acknowledges it (such as my son-in law, the scientist), a "denier".

It's not our "party" who so readily reverts to arguing with nasty names instead of facts. And yet somehow, it's never your "party" whose opinions are labeled "misinformation" and banned from speaking, even though those opinions so often turn out to be facts in hindsight. Anybody remember when Al Gore said that Florida would be underwater by 2016 because the polar icecaps would have melted?

Since we're supposedly banned from discussing politics (or at least some of us are), why not, in the interest of fairness, allow your neighbors their own opinions when it comes to unproven scientific theories and try to refute those opinions, instead of simply calling them names? Its only fair, since, if we tried that trick, we'd be kicked off the site.


The "science" put out by Sounding has been disproven time and again on Talk of the Villages. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y1MZ8U8C9c8

"Neil deGrasse Tyson scolds cherry picking climate science".

A lot of Soundings graphs are well known among Climate Deniers and have a lot of evidence against them being leveled against them by people actually looking for the facts rather than skewing them.

[JMintzer]

You missed my point. He had a decision to make. Stand up for his belief and find other work that he can feel good about, or worry about his precious job and tenure and sellout and live the life of a coward. He sold out. He kept his job, but still doesn't have his precious tenure and has probably missed a promotion or two.
Or ..... doing further study, he realized he had been wrong and with newer, more compete and more accurate information actually change his opinion.

Pretty rude to say about someone's son-in-law...

[JMintzer]

More like facts as far as the current science on the subject can tell.

The global warming alarmists are poor scientists for the most part just pushing junk science based on poor supposition and conjectures.

Fixed it for you...

[fdpaq0580]

Maybe you could try disproving the science posted on the first page of this thread instead of simply labeling anyone who acknowledges it (such as my son-in law, the scientist), a "denier".

It's not our "party" who so readily reverts to arguing with nasty names instead of facts. And yet somehow, it's never your "party" whose opinions are labeled "misinformation" and banned from speaking, even though those opinions so often turn out to be facts in hindsight. Anybody remember when Al Gore said that Florida would be underwater by 2016 because the polar icecaps would have melted?

Since we're supposedly banned from discussing politics (or at least some of us are), why not, in the interest of fairness, allow your neighbors their own opinions when it comes to unproven scientific theories and try to refute those opinions, instead of simply calling them names? Its only fair, since, if we tried that trick, we'd be kicked off the site.

The science has been done and ( as science should do) is continuing to go on, by minds and experts greater than any on TOTV, I believe. The nation's of the world formally believe what has been demonstrated, and I believe it.
But, there are always those who challenge the mainstream. To challenge is good, if one uses proper methods. But, like flat earth, they start with a flawed hypothesis and create what ever they need to fit their crazy model. That isn't science, it is science fiction, and not even good science fiction.
In the end the truth, the whole truth, to this and many other questions will become clear. Humanity may wish their forefathers had been better stewards of lifeboat Earth.

[golfing eagles]

Maybe you could try disproving the science posted on the first page of this thread instead of simply labeling anyone who acknowledges it (such as my son-in law, the scientist), a "denier".

It's not our "party" who so readily reverts to arguing with nasty names instead of facts. And yet somehow, it's never your "party" whose opinions are labeled "misinformation" and banned from speaking, even though those opinions so often turn out to be facts in hindsight. Anybody remember when Al Gore said that Florida would be underwater by 2016 because the polar icecaps would have melted?

Since we're supposedly banned from discussing politics (or at least some of us are), why not, in the interest of fairness, allow your neighbors their own opinions when it comes to unproven scientific theories and try to refute those opinions, instead of simply calling them names? Its only fair, since, if we tried that trick, we'd be kicked off the site.

The most amazing part of all this is that those of us that understand the science, understand that we are currently in an ice age, by definition, that started 4 1/2 million years ago, understand that during this time there have been over a dozen cycles of glaciation and interglacial thaws that last 60-100,000 years, understand that CO2 is NOT the most important greenhouse gas, that water vapor is, understand that we are 10-12 degrees cooler than 65 million years ago because of the rise of the Himalayan and Rocky mountains which serve as a heat sink by removing water from the atmosphere and understand that all this was, is and will be driven by the power of the sun, Earth's orbital variations and variations in Earth's axis are the ones labelled "deniers". WHAT A JOKE!!! But I will give these climate change charlatans who have bamboozled a large percentage of the public with their dire warnings (like the ice caps will disappear by 2010 :1rotfl:) credit for 2 things:
First, taking the long range view to accumulated massive wealth and even more power by wasting $100 TRILLION to combat something that is way beyond our technology and,
Second, by changing the narrative by intimidating the true scientists like the above poster's son, denying grants, denying tenure and denying publication to those that only want to speak the truth by calling THEM "deniers". Just who are the true "deniers"? I can only assume they gleaned that strategy from the 10th edition of "The Newspeak Dictionary" published by the "Ministry of Truth", circa 1984.

[Taltarzac725]

The most amazing part of all this is that those of us that understand the science, understand that we are currently in an ice age, by definition, that started 4 1/2 million years ago, understand that during this time there have been over a dozen cycles of glaciation and interglacial thaws that last 60-100,000 years, understand that CO2 is NOT the most important greenhouse gas, that water vapor is, understand that we are 10-12 degrees cooler than 65 million years ago because of the rise of the Himalayan and Rocky mountains which serve as a heat sink by removing water from the atmosphere and understand that all this was, is and will be driven by the power of the sun, Earth's orbital variations and variations in Earth's axis are the ones labelled "deniers". WHAT A JOKE!!! But I will give these climate change charlatans who have bamboozled a large percentage of the public with their dire warnings (like the ice caps will disappear by 2010 :1rotfl:) credit for 2 things:
First, taking the long range view to accumulated massive wealth and even more power by wasting $100 TRILLION to combat something that is way beyond our technology and,
Second, by changing the narrative by intimidating the true scientists like the above poster's son, denying grants, denying tenure and denying publication to those that only want to speak the truth by calling THEM "deniers". Just who are the true "deniers"? I can only assume they gleaned that strategy from the 10th edition of "The Newspeak Dictionary" published by the "Ministry of Truth", circa 1984.

60-100,000 years? We humans will probably be either dead or on another planet long before then from changes due to Global Warming. Our written history only goes back about 13,000 years , if that. There was a huge library that was destroyed in Alexandria. Julius Caesar's war contributed to part of it burning down.

[Normal]

If we ever did get as warm as the Cenozoic or Jurassic Periods, we may be in it for the long hall. Those periods lasted millions of years. The bright side, everywhere will be like Florida, and the Earth will be very green again.

[golfing eagles]

60-100,000 years? We humans will probably be either dead or on another planet long before then from changes due to Global Warming. Our written history only goes back about 13,000 years , if that. There was a huge library that was destroyed in Alexandria. Julius Caesar's war contributed to part of it burning down.

Our written history MAY go back that far, especially if we consider carvings at Gobekli Tepe "written". However, our geologic history goes back billions. But think of it this way: in about 25,000 years most of Florida will be underwater, but 30,000 years after that we won't need air conditioners here :1rotfl::1rotfl::1rotfl:

[golfing eagles]

If we ever did get as warm as the Cenozoic or Jurassic Periods, we may be in it for the long hall. Those periods lasted millions of years. The bright side, everywhere will be like Florida, and the Earth will be very green again.

and there will be a lot more oceanfront property available in Nevada, Arizona, and Idaho :1rotfl::1rotfl::1rotfl:

[Taltarzac725]

Our written history MAY go back that far, especially if we consider carvings at Gobekli Tepe "written". However, our geologic history goes back billions. But think of it this way: in about 25,000 years most of Florida will be underwater, but 30,000 years after that we won't need air conditioners here :1rotfl::1rotfl::1rotfl:

Carvings could mean many different things.

Archaeologists Have Discovered One of the World’s Oldest Pieces of Narrative Art, and It’s Rather NSFW (https://news.artnet.com/art-world/archaeologists-have-discovered-one-of-the-worlds-oldest-pieces-of-narrative-art-and-its-nsfw-2225995)

Timeline of ancient history - Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_ancient_history)

NSFW Definition & Meaning - Merriam-Webster (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/NSFW)

Where did the books from the Great Library of Alexandria come from? (https://www.labrujulaverde.com/en/2019/09/where-did-the-books-from-the-great-library-of-alexandria-come-from/)

[Normal]

Our written history MAY go back that far, especially if we consider carvings at Gobekli Tepe "written". However, our geologic history goes back billions. But think of it this way: in about 25,000 years most of Florida will be underwater, but 30,000 years after that we won't need air conditioners here :1rotfl::1rotfl::1rotfl:

It isn’t a matter of if but when all the ice melts. This could happen in as little as 1000 years, or it may take more than 10,000 years for all the ice to melt. When all the ice melts, most of Florida would be water covered along with the Eastern seaboard including Boston, New York City and Washington DC. On the West Coast LA and SanFrancisco would be gone along with Seattle and Vancouver. It will signal the ending of the last ice age we were in. We may not get that ice back for another 60,000 years. People will need to move and adapt just as wildlife always has.


Maps of What the Earth Would Look Like If All Ice Melted (https://mymodernmet.com/national-geographic-rising-seas/)

[golfing eagles]

It isn’t a matter of if but when all the ice melts. This could happen in as little as 1000 years, or it may take more than 10,000 years for all the ice to melt. When all the ice melts, most of Florida would be water covered along with the Eastern seaboard including Boston, New York City and Washington DC. On the West Coast LA and SanFrancisco would be gone along with Seattle and Vancouver. It will signal the ending of the last ice age we were in. We may not get that ice back for another 60,000 years. People will need to move and adapt just as wildlife always has.


Maps of What the Earth Would Look Like If All Ice Melted (https://mymodernmet.com/national-geographic-rising-seas/)

I agree, all that is true and is very likely to happen, probably more like 20-25,000 years from now. And then we’ll cool again and in 55-70,000 years NYC will once again be under 2 miles of ice. But none of it has anything to do with human activity

[MorTech]

0.04% atmospheric CO2 is barely adequate for BioLife...Below 0.02% there will be mass BioLife extinction. Optimal CO2 level is 0.08%-0.15% which is where the Sahara Desert becomes the Sahara Forest again...Like is was 90% of the time on Earth. At 0.15%, the Earth could easily support maybe 100B people.

In physical reality, a Boeing jet is "Green" (CO2 and H20 makes plants green) and a Tesla is Brown...The Dunning-Kruger TeeVee watchers (who can barely do basic math) can't even figure that one out.

[mickey100]

TOTV - A bunch of retired old people who are now all environmental experts. It reminds me of the pandemic when the same people were medical experts.

[dougjb]

These speakers at Villages forums who cast doubt on "global warming" seem to be living on a different planet. They offer their "opinion" that the whole global warming issue is fraught with fraud, poor science and innuendo. Some claim that there is NO climate warming. Yet, when asked, these "global warming deniers" have yet to provide even one single peer review science article supporting their viewpoint. In the meantime there are literally scores of thousands of peer review articles (the gold standard in science) that support the impact of human activities as one cause of global warming. The response of these deniers is that the peer review system is full of fraud.

If you go to one of these seminars, please ask the presenter (politely) for a list of peer review articles that support their incessant neigh saying. They can't produce even one. It kind of leads me to believe that these presenters are also charter members of the flat earth society! Then ask them what their expert qualifications are. I do not believe any of them can claim to be climatologists. One is a metiorologist (i.e. weather forecaster...and we know how wrong most of them are on a regular basis) and another has a doctorate in an unrelated field.

While many of the presenters at Villages seminars are from highly educated and informed professionals, these "global warming deniers" are basically charlatans!

[golfing eagles]

These speakers at Villages forums who cast doubt on "global warming" seem to be living on a different planet. They offer their "opinion" that the whole global warming issue is fraught with fraud, poor science and innuendo. Some claim that there is NO climate warming. Yet, when asked, these "global warming deniers" have yet to provide even one single peer review science article supporting their viewpoint. In the meantime there are literally scores of thousands of peer review articles (the gold standard in science) that support the impact of human activities as one cause of global warming. The response of these deniers is that the peer review system is full of fraud.

If you go to one of these seminars, please ask the presenter (politely) for a list of peer review articles that support their incessant neigh saying. They can't produce even one. It kind of leads me to believe that these presenters are also charter members of the flat earth society! Then ask them what their expert qualifications are. I do not believe any of them can claim to be climatologists. One is a metiorologist (i.e. weather forecaster...and we know how wrong most of them are on a regular basis) and another has a doctorate in an unrelated field.

While many of the presenters at Villages seminars are from highly educated and informed professionals, these "global warming deniers" are basically charlatans!

I guess you didn't read post #15, which explains why.

[Blueblaze]

The most obvious point of this entire discussion is that there is one side that knows the facts and another side that merely seems to know that the "consensus" exists. Everyone here will draw their own conclusions -- the same ones they came to the discussion with.

And we will all ignore the real issue -- if human progress beyond our normal state of existence (dire poverty under the heel of some tyrant) causes "climate change", then the only solution is return to the dark ages, and thereby dial down the population by about 7 billion human beings. And that is exactly the prescription ordered by what passes for "science" when politics becomes involved. Windmills and solar cells. If you do the math, you will discover that simply replacing the current US energy demands with "green energy" would require bulldozing the entire states of Texas, Oklahoma, and New Mexico to turn them into energy farms. Which is absurd.

Therefore, unless we're willing to sacrifice billions of lives to dial back our energy use, we're just going to have to deal with it. A warmer, greener planet is obviously better for 8 billion humans than the colder, undeveloped planet we had before.

But it sure would be nice if we could talk about how best to deal with whatever changes may be coming (if they actually are), without trying to using it for political gain.

[golfing eagles]

The most obvious point of this entire discussion is that there is one side that knows the facts and another side that merely seems to know that the "consensus" exists. Everyone here will draw their own conclusions -- the same ones they came to the discussion with.

And we will all ignore the real issue -- if human progress beyond our normal state of existence (dire poverty under the heel of some tyrant) causes "climate change", then the only solution is return to the dark ages, and thereby dial down the population by about 7 billion human beings. And that is exactly the prescription ordered by what passes for "science" when politics becomes involved. Windmills and solar cells. If you do the math, you will discover that simply replacing the current US energy demands with "green energy" would require bulldozing the entire states of Texas, Oklahoma, and New Mexico to turn them into energy farms. Which is absurd.

Therefore, unless we're willing to sacrifice billions of lives to dial back our energy use, we're just going to have to deal with it. A warmer, greener planet is obviously better for 8 billion humans than the colder, undeveloped planet we had before.

But it sure would be nice if we could talk about how best to deal with whatever changes may be coming (if they actually are), without trying to using it for political gain.

Unfortunately, not going to happen. Not with $100 TRILLION at stake and not while the dark side appears to be winning. Although it is a misquote, perhaps their ignorance IS bliss :1rotfl::1rotfl::1rotfl:

[Taltarzac725]

These speakers at Villages forums who cast doubt on "global warming" seem to be living on a different planet. They offer their "opinion" that the whole global warming issue is fraught with fraud, poor science and innuendo. Some claim that there is NO climate warming. Yet, when asked, these "global warming deniers" have yet to provide even one single peer review science article supporting their viewpoint. In the meantime there are literally scores of thousands of peer review articles (the gold standard in science) that support the impact of human activities as one cause of global warming. The response of these deniers is that the peer review system is full of fraud.

If you go to one of these seminars, please ask the presenter (politely) for a list of peer review articles that support their incessant neigh saying. They can't produce even one. It kind of leads me to believe that these presenters are also charter members of the flat earth society! Then ask them what their expert qualifications are. I do not believe any of them can claim to be climatologists. One is a metiorologist (i.e. weather forecaster...and we know how wrong most of them are on a regular basis) and another has a doctorate in an unrelated field.

While many of the presenters at Villages seminars are from highly educated and informed professionals, these "global warming deniers" are basically charlatans!

You have that right. And they, mainly he, pushes the same cherry picked charts.

[Whitley]

TOTV - A bunch of retired old people who are now all environmental experts. It reminds me of the pandemic when the same people were medical experts.

You are so right. Unless you hold a phd in a subject, shut your mouth and do what you are told.

[Blueblaze]

I just find it a little weird to discover so many climate alarmists retired in Florida in 2023, since Al Gore told us almost 20 years ago that it would be underwater for the past 7 years. It's almost like they didn't really believe the "consensus" or something! What a gutsy move, betting your life savings that Al Gore was wrong (while still believing he was right)!

[MrChip72]

I guess you didn't read post #15, which explains why.

That explains nothing. You're stuck on confirmation bias as many of the conspiracy style posts on this subject have been on TOTV.

Post #15 claimed that someone's career ended because they had particular findings about climate change. First of all, you shouldn't base any argument on an anecdote. Maybe they were just bad at their job? Maybe they were a nutjob that values cultist politics over science.

Why were they unable to find a job at one of the many other fine universities in the world that do climate research? It's a field where there's plenty of demand for jobs and government funding by many countries has been higher than ever.

[Bill14564]

I just find it a little weird to discover so many climate alarmists retired in Florida in 2023, since Al Gore told us almost 20 years ago that it would be underwater for the past 7 years. It's almost like they didn't really believe the "consensus" or something! What a gutsy move, betting your life savings that Al Gore was wrong (while still believing he was right)!

I now know of two users who somehow believed the vice president was also a climate scientist. There are many others to choose from who actually have degrees in the field.

[golfing eagles]

That explains nothing. You're stuck on confirmation bias as many of the conspiracy style posts on this subject have been on TOTV.

Post #15 claimed that someone's career ended because they had particular findings about climate change. First of all, you shouldn't base any argument on an anecdote. Maybe they were just bad at their job? Maybe they were a nutjob that values cultist politics over science.

Why were they unable to find a job at one of the many other fine universities in the world that do climate research? It's a field where there's plenty of demand for jobs and government funding by many countries has been higher than ever.

You really believe that?????

Who's the "denier" now??????

[Whitley]

I now know of two users who somehow believed the vice president was also a climate scientist. There are many others to choose from who actually have degrees in the field.

Please, VP Gore could not be a climate scientist. Where would he have found the time, with everything he had to do to invent the internet. SuperSerious.

[fdpaq0580]

You are so right. Unless you hold a phd in a subject, shut your mouth and do what you are told.

Yavol, mien herr!

[Normal]

Please, VP Gore could not be a climate scientist. Where would he have found the time, with everything he had to do to invent the internet. SuperSerious.

Global warming kooks need to introduce true science into the subject, not Al Gore wanna bees who only do google searches and look for campaign dollars. There are two plausible causes mentioned in most articles. The orbital path of the Earth and carbon emissions. Neither has been proven, although there can’t be much argument against Earth’s history and orbital concerns. Then you have spinning with the conflation of terms like “warming”, “climate change” and “weather” interchanged with “climate”. Fortunately most are aware of the ploys.

[fdpaq0580]

Global warming kooks need to introduce true science into the subject, not Al Gore wanna bees who only do google searches and look for campaign dollars. There are two plausible causes mentioned in most articles. The orbital path of the Earth and carbon emissions. Neither has been proven, although there can’t be much argument against Earth’s history and orbital concerns. Then you have spinning with the conflation of terms like “warming”, “climate change” and “weather” interchanged with “climate”. Fortunately most are aware of the ploys.

There are none so blind as those who will not see. The science is there, but you may find it doesn't match your preconceptions.

And, a broken clock is Only correct twice a day. And, only for a moment. Also, without a working clock you will never know when those fleeting moments occur seems that with a broken clock even when it is correct, it is still worthless.

[golfing eagles]

There are none so blind as those who will not see. The science is there, but you may find it doesn't match your preconceptions.

And, a broken clock is Only correct twice a day. And, only for a moment. Also, without a working clock you will never know when those fleeting moments occur seems that with a broken clock even when it is correct, it is still worthless.

Right back at ya :1rotfl::1rotfl::1rotfl:

[MrChip72]

You really believe that?????

Who's the "denier" now??????

Your argument against climate change is that a guy that got fired from teaching at a third rate college for saying things that you believe to be true? So you're saying the several thousands of other scientists around the world that haven't been fired are just making crap up for fun and that one guy who is now unemployable is correct in his findings?

[golfing eagles]

Your argument against climate change is that a guy that got fired from teaching at a third rate college for saying things that you believe to be true? So you're saying the several thousands of other scientists around the world that haven't been fired are just making crap up for fun and that one guy who is now unemployable is correct in his findings?

No, my argument is not against "climate change", the climate has been changing for millions of years. My argument is against anthropomorphic climate change, and particularly that the powers that be have somehow managed to convince the ignorant and weak minded public that this is a "fact" and that we should spend a hundred TRILLION dollars to "combat" it, which you can be sure will only benefit them'.

One way to accomplish this is by bribing and threatening the experts that could educate the public as to the truth by creating the culture that Blue's son, a climate scientist experienced----loss of tenure for not signing on to the party line, as well as losing government grants and publications. I realize that the truly indoctrinated into this manmade climate myth will disagree, but consider this: Try to apply for a government grant for your research that intends to prove that climate change has nothing to do with fossil fuels----rotsa ruck---be honest, we all know the outcome of that. And since these are the professors that teach our young people, they get to indoctrinate a new generation.

Next, since the media are already in bed with their misguided philosophy, use them to mislead the public. Then, the corporations, reading the mood of their customers, start in with "electric vehicles", "reduced carbon footprints", "alternative fuels" and "renewable energy". And all along, those in power promoting this garbage are laughing all the way to the bank.

Now, if you want to talk science, here it is: We are currently in an ice age that began about 4.5 million years ago. During this time there have been over a dozen periods of glaciation and interglacial thaws in cycles of 60-100,000 years (and humans/hominids have survived all of them). Twenty thousand years ago, New York was under 2 miles of ice, since then we have had "global warming" and the city is ice free----so what kind of SUV did Fred Flintstone drive and did Bedrock have a coal burning power plant???? Obviously, at least to anyone with a functioning cerebral cortex, this warming has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH HUMAN ACTIVITY.

Now, to throw the true believers a bone: Is it possible that human activity since the industrial revolution is altering the climate trajectory of the last 4 million years??? Sure, it's possible, but we don't have enough data to draw any conclusions. A century of weather records on one side and a chart showing 7 years of cooling on the other prove nothing about cycles that last 100,000 years. Nobody knows. But to spend $ 100 TRILLION????? We don't have the technology to fight the driving forces of the sun, Earth's orbit, and Earth's axis variations. All we can do for $100 trillion is change from burning fossil fuel in our cars to EV's that use electricity from burning fossil fuels at power plants. That and line the pockets of the powers that are benefiting from this myth and perhaps enrich warlords in the countries that supply 95% of the world's lithium.

[Kelevision]

No, my argument is not against "climate change", the climate has been changing for millions of years. My argument is against anthropomorphic climate change, and particularly that the powers that be have somehow managed to convince the ignorant and weak minded public that this is a "fact" and that we should spend a hundred TRILLION dollars to "combat" it, which you can be sure will only benefit them'.

One way to accomplish this is by bribing and threatening the experts that could educate the public as to the truth by creating the culture that Blue's son, a climate scientist experienced----loss of tenure for not signing on to the party line, as well as losing government grants and publications. I realize that the truly indoctrinated into this manmade climate myth will disagree, but consider this: Try to apply for a government grant for your research that intends to prove that climate change has nothing to do with fossil fuels----rotsa ruck---be honest, we all know the outcome of that. And since these are the professors that teach our young people, they get to indoctrinate a new generation.

Next, since the media are already in bed with their misguided philosophy, use them to mislead the public. Then, the corporations, reading the mood of their customers, start in with "electric vehicles", "reduced carbon footprints", "alternative fuels" and "renewable energy". And all along, those in power promoting this garbage are laughing all the way to the bank.

Now, if you want to talk science, here it is: We are currently in an ice age that began about 4.5 million years ago. During this time there have been over a dozen periods of glaciation and interglacial thaws in cycles of 60-100,000 years (and humans/hominids have survived all of them). Twenty thousand years ago, New York was under 2 miles of ice, since then we have had "global warming" and the city is ice free----so what kind of SUV did Fred Flintstone drive and did Bedrock have a coal burning power plant???? Obviously, at least to anyone with a functioning cerebral cortex, this warming has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH HUMAN ACTIVITY.

Now, to throw the true believers a bone: Is it possible that human activity since the industrial revolution is altering the climate trajectory of the last 4 million years??? Sure, it's possible, but we don't have enough data to draw any conclusions. A century of weather records on one side and a chart showing 7 years of cooling on the other prove nothing about cycles that last 100,000 years. Nobody knows. But to spend $ 100 TRILLION????? We don't have the technology to fight the driving forces of the sun, Earth's orbit, and Earth's axis variations. All we can do for $100 trillion is change from burning fossil fuel in our cars to EV's that use electricity from burning fossil fuels at power plants. That and line the pockets of the powers that are benefiting from this myth and perhaps enrich warlords in the countries that supply 95% of the world's lithium.

To think that pollution hasn’t directly affected the atmosphere is naive and ignorant.

[ChicagoNative]

Interesting article related to this subject.

Divesting from Big Oil Is an Empty Gesture (https://www.thefp.com/p/california-fossil-fuel-pension-divestment-sham?utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email)

[golfing eagles]

To think that pollution hasn’t directly affected the atmosphere is naive and ignorant.

Naive and ignorant???? Your basis for this assertion?????

"Pollution" may be affecting "the atmosphere", but then again, our planet is quite resilient. Think about the amount of "pollution" put out by a single volcano, yet the planet is still here. Who's naive and ignorant now??????

[Normal]

All this controversy is over with the single eruption of a large volcano. What a waste of scientific resources to line politicians pockets. Move on…

[Bill14564]

Naive and ignorant???? Your basis for this assertion?????

"Pollution" may be affecting "the atmosphere", but then again, our planet is quite resilient. Think about the amount of "pollution" put out by a single volcano, yet the planet is still here. Who's naive and ignorant now??????

From USGS courtesy of Scientific American (https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/earthtalks-volcanoes-or-humans/):

According to the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), the world’s volcanoes, both on land and undersea, generate about 200 million tons of carbon dioxide (CO2) annually, while our automotive and industrial activities cause some 24 billion tons of CO2 emissions every year worldwide. Despite the arguments to the contrary, the facts speak for themselves: Greenhouse gas emissions from volcanoes comprise less than one percent of those generated by today’s human endeavors.

But of course, those are simply two more sources that are manipulating data in support of the Global Warming Alarmists.

[fdpaq0580]

Naive and ignorant???? Your basis for this assertion?????

"Pollution" may be affecting "the atmosphere", but then again, our planet is quite resilient. Think about the amount of "pollution" put out by a single volcano, yet the planet is still here. Who's naive and ignorant now??????

"Resilient". That means that if (big "if") we stopped destroying and polluting and gave the planet a chance, it might have a chance to recover. Like a person that is buried in an ant hole and has been overwhelmed by ants, that normally resilient human can only exhibit their resilience if the onslaught ceases. Otherwise, they will slowly be consumed.
Science gives us the details of how the planet or human is being damaged and consumed and can try to calculate survival to the point of no return. But the sight of the destruction caused by the ants on the human or of humans covering the earth should be obvious that, if something doesn't change, the human and the planet will both meet a sad end.

[Taltarzac725]

"Resilient". That means that if (big "if") we stopped destroying and polluting and gave the planet a chance, it might have a chance to recover. Like a person that is buried in an ant hole and has been overwhelmed by ants, that normally resilient human can only exhibit their resilience if the onslaught ceases. Otherwise, they will slowly be consumed.
Science gives us the details of how the planet or human is being damaged and consumed and can try to calculate survival to the point of no return. But the sight of the destruction caused by the ants on the human or of humans covering the earth should be obvious that, if something doesn't change, the human and the planet will both meet a sad end.

The warnings about AI going Terminator on us humans is very real IMHO. I know these are just many movies that kind of have that plot. But AI but want to save the planet instead of putting up with us humans. Some James Bond villains had the same idea.

[golfing eagles]

The warnings about AI going Terminator on us humans is very real IMHO. I know these are just many movies that kind of have that plot. But AI but want to save the planet instead of putting up with us humans. Some James Bond villains had the same idea.

Maybe Drax was right :1rotfl::1rotfl::1rotfl:

[golfing eagles]

From USGS courtesy of Scientific American (https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/earthtalks-volcanoes-or-humans/):

According to the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), the world’s volcanoes, both on land and undersea, generate about 200 million tons of carbon dioxide (CO2) annually, while our automotive and industrial activities cause some 24 billion tons of CO2 emissions every year worldwide. Despite the arguments to the contrary, the facts speak for themselves: Greenhouse gas emissions from volcanoes comprise less than one percent of those generated by today’s human endeavors.

But of course, those are simply two more sources that are manipulating data in support of the Global Warming Alarmists.

Except, volcanic eruptions are infrequent and usually small scale. On the other hand, let's take Krakatoa-----the years following it's eruption we're among the coolest of the last 200 years, including the blizzard of '88. We were talking pollution, NOT CO2. Then there was Vesuvius and Santorini

[Bill14564]

Except, volcanic eruptions are infrequent and usually small scale. On the other hand, let's take Krakatoa-----the years following it's eruption we're among the coolest of the last 200 years, including the blizzard of '88. We were talking pollution, NOT CO2. Then there was Vesuvius and Santorini

Paragraphs four and five of the article.

[Bay Kid]

To think that pollution hasn’t directly affected the atmosphere is naive and ignorant.

Yet they allow "controlled burning" that the smoke will effect 100,000 people.

[Normal]

Except, volcanic eruptions are infrequent and usually small scale. On the other hand, let's take Krakatoa-----the years following it's eruption we're among the coolest of the last 200 years, including the blizzard of '88. We were talking pollution, NOT CO2. Then there was Vesuvius and Santorini

Then there is the eruption of a super volcano. Of course this isn’t an if, it’s a when. Enjoy the fact that all super volcanoes “hot spots” are active. Yellowstone, Aera and Topa are all possibilities. They of course would make Krakatoa look like a small burp, but certainly would change our atmosphere for generations.