Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
1. Biologist Paul Ehrlich predicted in the 1970s that: “Population will inevitably and completely outstrip whatever small increases in food supplies we make,” and that “The death rate will increase until at least 100-200 million people per year will be starving to death during the next ten years.”
2. In January 1970, Life reported, “Scientists have solid experimental and theoretical evidence to support…the following predictions: In a decade, urban dwellers will have to wear gas masks to survive air pollution…by 1985 air pollution will have reduced the amount of sunlight reaching earth by one half….”
3. In January 2006 Al Gore predicted that we had ten years left before the planet turned into a “total frying pan.” We made it.
4. In 2008, a segment aired on ABC News predicted that NYC would be under water by June 2015.
5. In 1970, ecologist Kenneth E.F. Watt predicted that “If present trends continue, the world will be about four degrees colder for the global mean temperature in 1990, but 11 degrees colder by the year 2000, This is about twice what it would take to put us in an ice age.”
6. In 2008, Al Gore predicted that there is a 75% chance that the entire north polar ice cap would be completely melted within 5-7 years. He at least hedged that prediction by giving himself “75%” certainty.
7. On May 13th 2014 France’s foreign minister said that we only have 500 days to stop “climate chaos.” The recent Paris climate summit met 565 days after his remark.
8. In 2009, National Aeronautics and Space Administration Goddard Space Flight Center head James Wassen warned that Obama only had four years left to save the earth.
9. On the first Earth Day its sponsor warned that “in 25 years, somewhere between 75 and 80 percent of all the species of living animals will be extinct.”
10. And another Earth Day prediction from Kenneth Watt: “At the present rate of nitrogen buildup, it’s only a matter of time before light will be filtered out of the atmosphere and none of our land will be usable.”
It's only in the USA where there is any debate over climate change being (at least partially) man driven. You go anywhere else, Russia, China, Brazil, Nigeria - you name it, people talk about the effects of climate change openly and candidly. It's so strange that a bunch of fossil fuel companies could hoodwink a portion of the electorate to make themselves twist into pretzels to avoid seeing the obvious.
Climate is changing. And it's almost definitely partially man driven.
It's only in the USA where there is any debate over climate change being (at least partially) man driven. You go anywhere else, Russia, China, Brazil, Nigeria - you name it, people talk about the effects of climate change openly and candidly. It's so strange that a bunch of fossil fuel companies could hoodwink a portion of the electorate to make themselves twist into pretzels to avoid seeing the obvious.
Climate is changing. And it's almost definitely partially man driven.
Perhaps Americans aren't cowed by "authority" and blind obedience?
Carbon dioxide, we are told, traps heat that has been irradiated by the oceans, and this warms the oceans and melts the polar ice caps. While this seems a plausible proposition at first glance, when one actually examines it closely a major flaw emerges.
In a nutshell, water takes a lot of energy to heat up, and air doesn’t contain much. In fact, on a volume/volume basis, the ratio of heat capacities is about 3300 to 1. This means that to heat 1 litre of water by 1°C it would take 3300 litres of air that was 2°C hotter, or 1 litre of air that was about 3300°C hotter!
Let’s put this amount of energy in perspective. If we all turned off all our appliances and went and lived in caves, and then devoted every coal, nuclear, gas, hydro, wind and solar power plant to just heating the ocean, it would take a breathtaking 32,000 years to heat the ocean by just this 1°C!
In short, our influence on our climate, even if we really tried, is minuscule!
“We see a cooling trend,” says Martin Mlynczak of NASA’s Langley Research Center. “High above Earth’s surface, near the edge of space, our atmosphere is losing heat energy. If current trends continue, it could soon set a Space Age record for cold.”
- - - TEMPERATURE DATA - - -
● Earth max : (134.33 F)
● Space station max : (250 F)
● Lunar surface max : (242.33 F)
Zero atmosphere = higher maximum temperature How does a “heat trapping”atmosphere stay colder?
And if heat was being 'trapped,' why hasn't the maximum temperature gone up to a new record level?
Is the “Greenhouse effect” like a refrigerator “trapping heat”?
There is no "heating up" or trapping of heat by the atmosphere when it is COOLING the planet. And since there is no conduction nor convection of heat in a vacuum, that leaves RADIATION. The atmosphere is radiating / reflecting back energy, that COOLS the planet.
More Facts in support - - -
Earth Albedo : 0.3
Moon Albedo : 0.11
Coincidentally, the greenhouse gases have a higher emissivity that means they COOL the planet even more. And the #1 greenhouse gas is water vapor, which has a far greater effect than trace gases like CO2 or methane.. . .
[Is that a NEKKID EMPEROR over there?]
Remember, even the experts admit that we can do nothing to STOP change, but merely slow it down. Which begs the question, how does sequestering CO2 prevent the alleged disasters that have yet to manifest, when water vapor is the major factor?
Better not think about that. Move along, nothing to see here, do not look behind the curtain, little girl. We are the great and powerful ... Church of the Warming Planet.
ONLY TRUE BELIEVERS MAY ATTEND
Carbon dioxide, we are told, traps heat that has been irradiated by the oceans, and this warms the oceans and melts the polar ice caps. While this seems a plausible proposition at first glance, when one actually examines it closely a major flaw emerges.
In a nutshell, water takes a lot of energy to heat up, and air doesn’t contain much. In fact, on a volume/volume basis, the ratio of heat capacities is about 3300 to 1. This means that to heat 1 litre of water by 1°C it would take 3300 litres of air that was 2°C hotter, or 1 litre of air that was about 3300°C hotter!
Let’s put this amount of energy in perspective. If we all turned off all our appliances and went and lived in caves, and then devoted every coal, nuclear, gas, hydro, wind and solar power plant to just heating the ocean, it would take a breathtaking 32,000 years to heat the ocean by just this 1°C!
In short, our influence on our climate, even if we really tried, is minuscule!
- - -
Is this what passes for a scientific article for you? Do you think this is an intelligent article?
It's man-made changes (among others) that release C02 into the air that trap heat from the Sun. Without this amount of C02, much more energy from the sun would radiate into outer space, instead it's trapped and heats the earth. This is how greenhouses work. You can build a warm greenhouse in a cold place like Iceland, that just from trapping heat from the sun, can maintain temperatures 10-20 C warmer than its surroundings.
But of course, you show me an article that creates and tears down a strawman. Lack of intelligence, dishonesty, ignorance? Which of the 3 describes the reason you dared to quote that missive to me?
The Lack Of Greenhouse Gases
...
Is the Earth really in danger of HEATING UP from "Greenhouse gases"?
Let us look at our neighbor, which does not have an atmosphere.
...
The lunar surface (equator) -
minimum : 100° K (-279.67° F)
maximum : 390° K ( 242.33° F)
By observation, one may note that despite almost equal energy input from the Sun, the Earth enjoys a substantial COOLING effect (-60° K) from the presence of its atmosphere.
... “A tiny amount of CO2 and other greenhouse gases, like methane and water vapour, keep the Earth’s surface 30° Celsius (54°F) warmer than it would be without them. We have added 42% more CO2 but that doesn't mean the temperature will go up by 42% too.”
WAIT - the Earth with atmosphere is 60° K cooler than the Moon without an atmosphere.
But they’re saying the greenhouse gases are keeping us 30° K warmer (K and C are the same interval), so we should be 90° K cooler without the “greenhouse” gases.
Is this what passes for a scientific article for you? Do you think this is an intelligent article?
It's man-made changes (among others) that release C02 into the air that trap heat from the Sun. Without this amount of C02, much more energy from the sun would radiate into outer space, instead it's trapped and heats the earth. This is how greenhouses work. You can build a warm greenhouse in a cold place like Iceland, that just from trapping heat from the sun, can maintain temperatures 10-20 C warmer than its surroundings.
But of course, you show me an article that creates and tears down a strawman. Lack of intelligence, dishonesty, ignorance? Which of the 3 describes the reason you dared to quote that missive to me?
The data shows that the atmosphere is not "warming" the planet.
- - - TEMPERATURE DATA - - -
● Earth max : (134.33 F)
● Space station max : (250 F)
● Lunar surface max : (242.33 F)
Zero atmosphere = higher maximum temperature
How does a “heat trapping”atmosphere stay colder?
And if heat was being 'trapped,' why hasn't the maximum temperature gone up to a new record level?
. . .
If you wish to argue that human activity is affecting how much that cool down is occurring -=- well, that makes more sense that ALARMISM over global warming.
If you don't think that money can buy researchers to tout a lie, just consider this- https://www.usnews.com/news/articles...-you-after-all
[R]esearchers wrote in JAMA Internal Medicine, that the sugar industry paid scientists in the 1960s to downplay links between sugar and heart disease, and instead play up the emerging science about saturated fat as a more likely contributor to heart disease problems than sugar.
It still amazes me how many people are so scientifically ignorant on this subject. I don't "believe" in it since belief and science really don't go together. The current consensus of the scientific community that actually understands and studies anthropomorphic climate change says it is happening, therefore it is.
AS NDGT says: - "The good thing about science is that it is true whether you believe it or not"
The term "settled science" is at odds with the very essence of what science really is.
Skepticism and debate are not contrary to science. In fact they are the central essence of science.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
