The Runaway Greenhouse Myth
 

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.

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

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 ...

Carl Sagan. Now there is a myth maker.

Sky is Falling
 

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.

Presession
 

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.

New Ice Age
 

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.

Carl Sagan?
I thought Anna Wintour was Nuclear Winter

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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

Thomas Kuhn - Wikipedia

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.

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.

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.

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

Fixed it for you...

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.

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.

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.