13 Times the Scientific Consensus Was WRONG

[Wyatt earp]

Yet you call man made climate change a fact yet can't tell us how much is natural and how much is man made.


.

I'm not a scientist; my point of view is to believe the scientists at NOAA and not people on this message board or Trump&Co.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

What does that link have to do with my simple question?

Now tell us how much is it man made and how much is it natural.



.

Your simple question was answered, sad that you could not understand it. I'll repeat it, so you may find someone to explain it to you:

"I'm not a scientist; my point of view is to believe the scientists at NOAA and not people on this message board or Trump&Co."

What does a scientist have to do with my simple question?


You know how do use Google, please tell USMB how much is it man made and how much is it natural?










Oh yeah no one knows.


And there lies the problem to your fantasy of environmental social justice.


.

Here is what we know. We look at the rise in CO2 concentrations & we do know that the vast majority is due to man made emissions.

The only fantasy is your thinking you know more than the scientists.

And once again you and your so called " junk scientist" think 30 years or less worth of data is an accurate representation of an earth 4.5 billion years old?


.

 

[Wyatt earp]

I often ask, "precisely, what is the ideal temperature for the earth?" The earth has been considerably hotter and yes, New York City was under water, BUT it has also been much cooler and NYC was under ice.Which would you prefer? Should we take an average?. What if that average is 2 degrees warmer than the present? or should we decide that June 4th 1968 or today, or any random date is the ideal? How utterly presumptuous of us?

Well, Ernie, our society is built on a certain climate. If it changes, we would still survive but the following could change:
1) Increasing sea levels would be many coastal communities & infrastructure would either be lost or need rebuilt.
2) Places that now are food for growing crops may no longer grow these crops.
3) Precipitation patterns can change. Changing agriculture. Some areas could become scarce of watter
4) Increased temperatures could force buildings to have their HVAC rebuilt for the hotter temps.
5) This could mean improvements to our power grids
6) Changing food & water supplies could bring about mass migrations
7) These changes would bring about wars.

All because a bunch of uneducated assfuckls are too stupid to understand science.

Brilliant plan.

I understand science just fine. Apparently, you didn't understand my question.
Of course a large change in average temperature would disrupt our society. Maybe we couldn't grow corn is Iowa, but perhaps we could in Alaska. Maybe Manhattan would be under water, but would that necessarily be a bad thing for humanity?
Maybe the earth warms up even more and humanity dies off entirely. Other than the fact that we think humanity should thrive, maybe, in the grand scheme of things, dinosaurs are supposed to roam the earth.

So you agree man is a factor & that these changes could be dramatic but you don't give a rat;s ass nor want to do anything to prevent it.
t you think the earth was put here for
You assume that we just grow crops further north assuming the same soil conditions & precip amounts.

I never said any of that. What I asked was, who are we as humans to decide what the earth's average temperature should be?
Or are you so egotistical that you assume that the earth is here for your comfort?

So you are obviously for reducing emissions. Right?

Still can't tell us what the Earth's temperature should be?

 

[RealDave]

Well, Ernie, our society is built on a certain climate. If it changes, we would still survive but the following could change:
1) Increasing sea levels would be many coastal communities & infrastructure would either be lost or need rebuilt.
2) Places that now are food for growing crops may no longer grow these crops.
3) Precipitation patterns can change. Changing agriculture. Some areas could become scarce of watter
4) Increased temperatures could force buildings to have their HVAC rebuilt for the hotter temps.
5) This could mean improvements to our power grids
6) Changing food & water supplies could bring about mass migrations
7) These changes would bring about wars.

All because a bunch of uneducated assfuckls are too stupid to understand science.

Brilliant plan.

I understand science just fine. Apparently, you didn't understand my question.
Of course a large change in average temperature would disrupt our society. Maybe we couldn't grow corn is Iowa, but perhaps we could in Alaska. Maybe Manhattan would be under water, but would that necessarily be a bad thing for humanity?
Maybe the earth warms up even more and humanity dies off entirely. Other than the fact that we think humanity should thrive, maybe, in the grand scheme of things, dinosaurs are supposed to roam the earth.

So you agree man is a factor & that these changes could be dramatic but you don't give a rat;s ass nor want to do anything to prevent it.
t you think the earth was put here for
You assume that we just grow crops further north assuming the same soil conditions & precip amounts.

I never said any of that. What I asked was, who are we as humans to decide what the earth's average temperature should be?
Or are you so egotistical that you assume that the earth is here for your comfort?

So you are obviously for reducing emissions. Right?

Still can't tell us what the Earth's temperature should be?

So why are you for man changing it.

It can't argue man should not decide & then say it is OK to change it through emissions.

We should work towards maintaining our current climate or as close to where it was before the AGW effects started to take effect.

Changes in our climate will change our current society & civilization based on that climate. Effects will be felt on our coastlines & even upstream. Rising levels will require either abandonment of structures & infrastructure or major construction done

Changes in temperature will not be uniform. Some areas might see a 6 degree rise & some maybe 2. Changes in precipitation could bring droughts or floods. All drastically affecting agriculture. We could lose our bread basket.

SThis is why we should fight climate change. To keep the climate on which this country & planet was built.

 

[sparky]

Scientists amazed as Canadian permafrost thaws 70 years early

~S~

 

[RealDave]

I'm not a scientist; my point of view is to believe the scientists at NOAA and not people on this message board or Trump&Co.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

What does that link have to do with my simple question?

Now tell us how much is it man made and how much is it natural.



.

Your simple question was answered, sad that you could not understand it. I'll repeat it, so you may find someone to explain it to you:

"I'm not a scientist; my point of view is to believe the scientists at NOAA and not people on this message board or Trump&Co."

What does a scientist have to do with my simple question?


You know how do use Google, please tell USMB how much is it man made and how much is it natural?










Oh yeah no one knows.


And there lies the problem to your fantasy of environmental social justice.


.

Here is what we know. We look at the rise in CO2 concentrations & we do know that the vast majority is due to man made emissions.

The only fantasy is your thinking you know more than the scientists.

And once again you and your so called " junk scientist" think 30 years or less worth of data is an accurate representation of an earth 4.5 billion years old?


.

As you ignore temperature measured records since the 1880s, historical records, geology, tree rings. ice cores, etc.

 

[RealDave]

Yeah, let's not build on fault lines.

Earthquakes dont just affect areas right on fault lines, and we discover new fault lines every day. Todderino, you're not a real deep thinker, are ya?.

Earthquakes dont just affect areas right on fault lines,

How many nuclear disasters have we had because of earthquakes in the US?

Yet.

 

[Sunsettommy]

Scientists amazed as Canadian permafrost thaws 70 years early

~S~

LONDON (Reuters) - Permafrost at outposts in the Canadian Arctic is thawing 70 years earlier than predicted, an expedition has discovered, in the latest sign that the global climate crisis is accelerating even faster than scientists had feared.

I am amazed that you fell for this bullcrap, since over 90% of permafrost had already melted out in the last 20,000 years. It used to be in Iowa at 40 Degrees North, now it is at 60 degrees North. Yet the world warmed up, life increased greatly, large areas were RE forested where it used to be barren because of then widespread permafrost. No ecological disaster is found......

Don't you ever think past your nose?

Unit 7, Glaciers, Ice, & Permafrost

From Wikipedia

At the Last Glacial Maximum, continuous permafrost covered a much greater area than it does today, covering all of ice-free Europe south to about Szeged (southeastern Hungary) and the Sea of Azov (then dry land)[43] and East Asia south to present-day Changchun and Abashiri.[44] In North America, only an extremely narrow belt of permafrost existed south of the ice sheet at about the latitude of New Jersey through southern Iowa and northern Missouri, but permafrost was more extensive in the drier western regions where it extended to the southern border of Idaho and Oregon.[45] In the southern hemisphere, there is some evidence for former permafrost from this period in central Otago and Argentine Patagonia, but was probably discontinuous, and is related to the tundra. Alpine permafrost also occurred in the Drakensberg during glacial maxima above about 3,000 metres (9,840 ft)

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I often ask, "precisely, what is the ideal temperature for the earth?" The earth has been considerably hotter and yes, New York City was under water, BUT it has also been much cooler and NYC was under ice.Which would you prefer? Should we take an average?. What if that average is 2 degrees warmer than the present? or should we decide that June 4th 1968 or today, or any random date is the ideal? How utterly presumptuous of us?

Well, Ernie, our society is built on a certain climate. If it changes, we would still survive but the following could change:
1) Increasing sea levels would be many coastal communities & infrastructure would either be lost or need rebuilt.
2) Places that now are food for growing crops may no longer grow these crops.
3) Precipitation patterns can change. Changing agriculture. Some areas could become scarce of watter
4) Increased temperatures could force buildings to have their HVAC rebuilt for the hotter temps.
5) This could mean improvements to our power grids
6) Changing food & water supplies could bring about mass migrations
7) These changes would bring about wars.

All because a bunch of uneducated assfuckls are too stupid to understand science.

Brilliant plan.

I understand science just fine. Apparently, you didn't understand my question.
Of course a large change in average temperature would disrupt our society. Maybe we couldn't grow corn is Iowa, but perhaps we could in Alaska. Maybe Manhattan would be under water, but would that necessarily be a bad thing for humanity?
Maybe the earth warms up even more and humanity dies off entirely. Other than the fact that we think humanity should thrive, maybe, in the grand scheme of things, dinosaurs are supposed to roam the earth.

So you agree man is a factor & that these changes could be dramatic but you don't give a rat;s ass nor want to do anything to prevent it.
t you think the earth was put here for
You assume that we just grow crops further north assuming the same soil conditions & precip amounts.

I never said any of that. What I asked was, who are we as humans to decide what the earth's average temperature should be?
Or are you so egotistical that you assume that the earth is here for your comfort?

So you are obviously for reducing emissions. Right?

If you want to build more nuke plants to reduce emissions, you'll have my support.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Yeah, let's not build on fault lines.

Earthquakes dont just affect areas right on fault lines, and we discover new fault lines every day. Todderino, you're not a real deep thinker, are ya?.

Earthquakes dont just affect areas right on fault lines,

How many nuclear disasters have we had because of earthquakes in the US?

Yet.

Zero.

 

[progressive hunter]

Scientists amazed as Canadian permafrost thaws 70 years early

~S~

since when did permafrost have a defrost by date,,,,

 

[Wyatt earp]

I understand science just fine. Apparently, you didn't understand my question.
Of course a large change in average temperature would disrupt our society. Maybe we couldn't grow corn is Iowa, but perhaps we could in Alaska. Maybe Manhattan would be under water, but would that necessarily be a bad thing for humanity?
Maybe the earth warms up even more and humanity dies off entirely. Other than the fact that we think humanity should thrive, maybe, in the grand scheme of things, dinosaurs are supposed to roam the earth.

So you agree man is a factor & that these changes could be dramatic but you don't give a rat;s ass nor want to do anything to prevent it.
t you think the earth was put here for
You assume that we just grow crops further north assuming the same soil conditions & precip amounts.

I never said any of that. What I asked was, who are we as humans to decide what the earth's average temperature should be?
Or are you so egotistical that you assume that the earth is here for your comfort?

So you are obviously for reducing emissions. Right?

Still can't tell us what the Earth's temperature should be?

So why are you for man changing it.

It can't argue man should not decide & then say it is OK to change it through emissions.

We should work towards maintaining our current climate or as close to where it was before the AGW effects started to take effect.

Changes in our climate will change our current society & civilization based on that climate. Effects will be felt on our coastlines & even upstream. Rising levels will require either abandonment of structures & infrastructure or major construction done

Changes in temperature will not be uniform. Some areas might see a 6 degree rise & some maybe 2. Changes in precipitation could bring droughts or floods. All drastically affecting agriculture. We could lose our bread basket.

SThis is why we should fight climate change. To keep the climate on which this country & planet was built.

You are a narcissist, so you think if we didn't burn fossil fuels /deforest the climate wouldn't change?






.

.

 

[Wyatt earp]

Scientists amazed as Canadian permafrost thaws 70 years early

~S~

Did they ask the Indian scientist 2,000 years ago if they are correct?


.

 

[Wyatt earp]

Scientists amazed as Canadian permafrost thaws 70 years early

~S~

LONDON (Reuters) - Permafrost at outposts in the Canadian Arctic is thawing 70 years earlier than predicted, an expedition has discovered, in the latest sign that the global climate crisis is accelerating even faster than scientists had feared.

I am amazed that you fell for this bullcrap, since over 90% of permafrost had already melted out in the last 20,000 years. It used to be in Iowa at 40 Degrees North, now it is at 60 degrees North. Yet the world warmed up, life increased greatly, large areas were RE forested where it used to be barren because of then widespread permafrost. No ecological disaster is found......

Don't you ever think past your nose?

Unit 7, Glaciers, Ice, & Permafrost

From Wikipedia

At the Last Glacial Maximum, continuous permafrost covered a much greater area than it does today, covering all of ice-free Europe south to about Szeged (southeastern Hungary) and the Sea of Azov (then dry land)[43] and East Asia south to present-day Changchun and Abashiri.[44] In North America, only an extremely narrow belt of permafrost existed south of the ice sheet at about the latitude of New Jersey through southern Iowa and northern Missouri, but permafrost was more extensive in the drier western regions where it extended to the southern border of Idaho and Oregon.[45] In the southern hemisphere, there is some evidence for former permafrost from this period in central Otago and Argentine Patagonia, but was probably discontinuous, and is related to the tundra. Alpine permafrost also occurred in the Drakensberg during glacial maxima above about 3,000 metres (9,840 ft)

These guys are worse then the 5,000 year old earth Bible thumpers. For some reason they think the earth is only a hundred years old.


.

 

[RealDave]

So you agree man is a factor & that these changes could be dramatic but you don't give a rat;s ass nor want to do anything to prevent it.
t you think the earth was put here for
You assume that we just grow crops further north assuming the same soil conditions & precip amounts.

I never said any of that. What I asked was, who are we as humans to decide what the earth's average temperature should be?
Or are you so egotistical that you assume that the earth is here for your comfort?

So you are obviously for reducing emissions. Right?

Still can't tell us what the Earth's temperature should be?

So why are you for man changing it.

It can't argue man should not decide & then say it is OK to change it through emissions.

We should work towards maintaining our current climate or as close to where it was before the AGW effects started to take effect.

Changes in our climate will change our current society & civilization based on that climate. Effects will be felt on our coastlines & even upstream. Rising levels will require either abandonment of structures & infrastructure or major construction done

Changes in temperature will not be uniform. Some areas might see a 6 degree rise & some maybe 2. Changes in precipitation could bring droughts or floods. All drastically affecting agriculture. We could lose our bread basket.

SThis is why we should fight climate change. To keep the climate on which this country & planet was built.

You are a narcissist, so you think if we didn't burn fossil fuels /deforest the climate wouldn't change?






.

.

if "we" was everyone, yes.

As an individual, you would be part of a larger movement and yes.

 

[RealDave]

Scientists amazed as Canadian permafrost thaws 70 years early

~S~

Did they ask the Indian scientist 2,000 years ago if they are correct?


.

So we know nothing that happenmed over 35 years ago? How fucking stupid can you be?

 

[Wyatt earp]

I never said any of that. What I asked was, who are we as humans to decide what the earth's average temperature should be?
Or are you so egotistical that you assume that the earth is here for your comfort?

So you are obviously for reducing emissions. Right?

Still can't tell us what the Earth's temperature should be?

So why are you for man changing it.

It can't argue man should not decide & then say it is OK to change it through emissions.

We should work towards maintaining our current climate or as close to where it was before the AGW effects started to take effect.

Changes in our climate will change our current society & civilization based on that climate. Effects will be felt on our coastlines & even upstream. Rising levels will require either abandonment of structures & infrastructure or major construction done

Changes in temperature will not be uniform. Some areas might see a 6 degree rise & some maybe 2. Changes in precipitation could bring droughts or floods. All drastically affecting agriculture. We could lose our bread basket.

SThis is why we should fight climate change. To keep the climate on which this country & planet was built.

You are a narcissist, so you think if we didn't burn fossil fuels /deforest the climate wouldn't change?






.

.

if "we" was everyone, yes.

As an individual, you would be part of a larger movement and yes.

I don't ignore history,...



The climate will change if we are here or not and not a damn thing we can do to stop it narcissist.


.

 

[Wry Catcher]

I'm not a scientist; my point of view is to believe the scientists at NOAA and not people on this message board or Trump&Co.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

What does that link have to do with my simple question?

Now tell us how much is it man made and how much is it natural.



.

Your simple question was answered, sad that you could not understand it. I'll repeat it, so you may find someone to explain it to you:

"I'm not a scientist; my point of view is to believe the scientists at NOAA and not people on this message board or Trump&Co."

What does a scientist have to do with my simple question?


You know how do use Google, please tell USMB how much is it man made and how much is it natural?










Oh yeah no one knows.


And there lies the problem to your fantasy of environmental social justice.


.

Here is what we know. We look at the rise in CO2 concentrations & we do know that the vast majority is due to man made emissions.

The only fantasy is your thinking you know more than the scientists.

Well you don't know much If you think it is just coming from emissions

He didn't write that, if you can't understand that from his comment maybe you need to take a remedial course in reading and comprehension.

 

[Stormy Daniels]

I got this from a Delingpole article, and I found this list to be pretty interesting.

• We would be living through a new Ice Age by the year 2000.
  • In 1974, the National Science Board announced: "During the last 20 to 30 years, world temperature has fallen, irregularly at first but more sharply over the last decade. Judging from the record of the past interglacial ages, the present time of high temperatures should be drawing to an end…leading into the next ice age."
• 
  
• We would all die when the ozone layer disappeared.
• Rumors of blind sheep—the increased radiation was thought to cause cataracts—and increased skin cancer stoked public fears. “It’s like AIDS from the sky,” a terrified environmentalist told Newsweek’s staff. Fueled in part by fears of the ozone hole worsening, 24 nations signed the Montreal Protocol limiting the use of CFCs in 1987.
  
  These days, scientists understand a lot more about the ozone hole. They know that it’s a seasonal phenomenon that forms during Antarctica’s spring, when weather heats up and reactions between CFCs and ozone increase. As weather cools during Antarctic winter, the hole gradually recovers until next year.​

• The oceans would be dead.
• Global Cooling would destroy the world.
• The year 1972 remains infamous in the annals of meteorology for extreme weather events all around the globe. Towards the end of that year, in a letter dated 3 December 1972, two geologists George Kukla and Robert Matthews warned President Nixon that…
  
  

  …a global deterioration of climate, by order of magnitude larger than any hitherto experienced by civilized mankind is a very real possibility and indeed may be due very soon.​
• 
  
• Acid rain would destroy our forests.
• a generation ago, acid rain was one of the highest-profile green issues, of concern to all the main campaigning environmental groups and to the general public, who were presented with apocalyptic visions of forests dying and lifeless rivers.
  
  It was also the subject of angry argument between nations – not least between the Scandinavian countries, and Britain. In the mid 1980s, when the row was at its height, Norway and Sweden took very strong objection to the fact the acid rain they were suffering from, which was causing serious problems for their forests and lakes, was largely British in origin.​
• 
  
• Overpopulation would result in worldwide famine.

Paul Ehrlich was an entomologist at Stanford University, known to his peers for his groundbreaking studies of the co-evolution of flowering plants and butterflies but almost unknown to the average person. That was about to change. In May, Ehrlich released a quickly written, cheaply bound paperback, The Population Bomb. Initially it was ignored. But over time Ehrlich’s tract would sell millions of copies and turn its author into a celebrity. It would become one of the most influential books of the 20th century—and one of the most heatedly attacked.


The first sentence set the tone: “The battle to feed all of humanity is over.” And humanity had lost. In the 1970s, the book promised, “hundreds of millions of people are going to starve to death.” No matter what people do, “nothing can prevent a substantial increase in the world death rate.”

Published at a time of tremendous conflict and social upheaval, Ehrlich’s book argued that many of the day’s most alarming events had a single, underlying cause: Too many people, packed into too-tight spaces, taking too much from the earth. Unless humanity cut down its numbers—soon—all of us would face “mass starvation” on “a dying planet.”​

• 
  
• We would deplete our natural resources.
• In the 1970s, the Club of Rome predicted massive shortages of natural resources due to overconsumption and overpopulation, with disastrous effects on human health and material well-being.
  
  In 1980, the Global 2000 Report to the President, wrote: "If present trends continue, the world in 2000 will be more crowded, more polluted, less stable ecologically, and more vulnerable to disruption than the world we live in now. . . . Despite greater material output, the world's people will be poorer in many ways than they are today."​
  
  
• 
  
• We would run out of oil.

1909: 25 or 30 years longer
"Petroleum has been used for less than 50 years, and it is estimated that the supply will last about 25 or 30 years longer. If production is curtailed and waste stopped it may last till the end of the century. The most important effects of its disappearance will be in the lack of illuminants. Animal and vegetable oils will not begin to supply its place. This being the case, the reckless exploitation of oil fields and the consumption of oil for fuel should be checked."

— July 19, 1909 Titusville Herald (Titusville, PA)​

• 1937: Gone in 15 years
  Capt. H. A. Stuart, director of the naval petroleum reserves, told the Senate Naval Affairs Committee today the oil supply of this country will last only about 15 years.
  
  "We have been making estimates for the last 15 years,' Stuart said. 'We always underestimate because of the possibility of discovering new oil fields. The best information is that the present supply will last only 15 years. That is a conservative estimate.'"
  
  — March 9, 1937 Brooklyn Daily Eagle​
• 
  1956: Ten to fifteen years until peak oil
  "M. King Hubbert of the Shell Development Co. predicted [one year ago] that peak oil production would be reached in the next 10 to 15 years and after that would gradually decline."​

• 
  
• The polar ice caps would melt.

The same year that former Vice President Al Gore predicted that the Arctic sea ice could be completely gone, Arctic ice reached its highest level in two years, according to a report by the Danish Meteorological Institute.


According to that report, which was cited by the Daily Mail (UK) on Aug. 30, “[t]he Arctic ice cap has expanded for the second year in a row.” The U.S. National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC) confirmed this trend, but didn’t go into as much detail as the Danish Meteorological Institute.


But an examination of ABC, CBS and NBC news programs since the Daily Mail story was published found that all three networks ignored news that Arctic sea ice was at a two-year high.

Yet, the broadcast networks have spent years promoting Gore’s environmental agenda. On Jan. 29, 2013, on NBC “Today,” host Matt Lauer asked Gore, “After years of calling people’s attention to this issue, and now we’ve seen Superstorm Sandy and tornadoes and drought and extreme temperatures, do you feel vindicated?”


In his Dec. 10, 2007 Nobel Prize speech, Gore said “Last September 21, as the Northern Hemisphere tilted away from the sun, scientists reported with unprecedented distress that the North Polar ice cap is "falling off a cliff." One study estimated that it could be completely gone during summer in less than 22 years. Another new study, to be presented by U.S. Navy researchers later this week, warns it could happen in as little as 7 years.”


Meanwhile, the Antarctic Ice cap has been steadily increasing.​

• Manhattan would be underwater.

New York City underwater? Gas over $9 a gallon? A carton of milk costs almost $13? Welcome to June 12, 2015. Or at least that was the wildly-inaccurate version of 2015 predicted by ABC News exactly seven years ago. Appearing on Good Morning America in 2008, Bob Woodruff hyped Earth 2100, a special that pushed apocalyptic predictions of the then-futuristic 2015.

The segment included supposedly prophetic videos, such as a teenager declaring, "It's June 8th, 2015. One carton of milk is $12.99." (On the actual June 8, 2015, a gallon of milk cost, on average, $3.39.) Another clip featured this prediction for the current year: "Gas reached over $9 a gallon." (In reality, gas costs an average of $2.75.)​

• 
  
• People who live in cities will have to wear gas masks.

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….”​

Paul Ehrlich chimed in, predicting in 1970 that “air pollution…is certainly going to take hundreds of thousands of lives in the next few years alone.” Ehrlich sketched a scenario in which 200,000 Americans would die in 1973 during “smog disasters” in New York and Los Angeles.​

• 
  
• Nitrogen buildup will make the land unusable.

Ecologist Kenneth Watt told Time that, “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.”​

• 
  
• “Decaying organic pollutants would use up all of the oxygen in America’s rivers, causing freshwater fish to suffocate.”

Just thought I would throw this one in for fun.

18 spectacularly wrong predictions made around the time of first Earth Day in 1970, expect more this year - AEI

Ehrlich sketched out his most alarmist scenario for the 1970 Earth Day issue of The Progressive, assuring readers that between 1980 and 1989, some 4 billion people, including 65 million Americans, would perish in the “Great Die-Off.”​

This is stupid, and terribly disappointing. I was hoping for real examples of consensus that were later disproven. Instead, all you've really done is pointed out things that haven't happened yet, things that have been averted (or at least mitigated) by changes in behaviors, or things that are being delayed because of technological developments.

Actually, there's another category. There are a handful of things that were never a consensus. You're relying on sensationalist claims by one person--which were only ever held by a small fringe of people--to claim a consensus, like the gas mask thing.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Scientists amazed as Canadian permafrost thaws 70 years early

~S~

Mathew is an idiot and his article is a fabrication of voo doo science. The arctic was ice free five times already this interglacial already. They do not recognize this as they are science of socialist doom sooth sayer's. Give us your wealth and become our slaves because we made up a crisis that isn't a crisis..

The anti-science crowd is growing restless as their power hungry lust is being ripped from them as we dont believe this bull shit anymore...

 

[SSDD]

Here is what we know. We look at the rise in CO2 concentrations & we do know that the vast majority is due to man made emissions.

The only fantasy is your thinking you know more than the scientists.

Actually, we know no such thing. The fact is that our effect on the total CO2 in the atmosphere is very hard to detect. You guys like to say what you believe as if it were actual science, but unlike you warmers....we skeptics can actually provide real science to support our positions. I am a skeptic because the actual evidence, the real science simply doesn't add up to impending catastrophe...I don't hold my position based on politics....I hold my position because I take time to look at the science and what science says, and what the media and politicians report are two very different things.

Here are numerous peer reviewed, published studies which show very clearly that our effect on the total atmospheric CO2 is largely unmeasurable.. human beings, with all our CO2 producing capacity don't even make enough CO2 to overcome the year to year variation in the earth's own CO2 making machinery...

The fact is that the amount of CO2 we produce from year to year does not track with the amount of increase in atmospheric CO2.

https://www.researchgate.net/public...SPHERIC_CO2_TO_ANTHROPOGENIC_EMISSIONS_A_NOTE

CLIP: “A necessary condition for the theory of anthropogenic global warming is that there should be a close correlation between annual fluctuations of atmospheric CO2 and the annual rate of anthropogenic CO2 emissions. Data on atmospheric CO2 and anthropogenic emissions provided by the Mauna Loa measuring station and the CDIAC in the period 1959-2011 were studied using detrended correlation analysis to determine whether, net of their common long term upward trends, the rate of change in atmospheric CO2 is responsive to the rate of anthropogenic emissions in a shorter time scale from year to year. … [R]esults do not indicate a measurable year to year effect of annual anthropogenic emissions on the annual rate of CO2 accumulation in the atmosphere.”

If you look at the graph...assuming that you can read a graph...you will see for example, that there was a rise in our emissions between 2007 and 2008 but a significant decline in the atmospheric CO2 concentration. Do you believe that human CO2 went somewhere to hide and waited around for some years before it decided to have an effect on the total atmospheric CO2 concentration? Then between 2008 and 2009, there was a decline in the amount of CO2 that humans emitted into the atmosphere, but a significant rise in the atmospheric CO2 concentration. Then from 2010 to 2014 there was a large rise in man made CO2 emissions but an overall flat to declining trend in the atmospheric CO2 concentration. Between 2014 to 2016 there was a slight decline in man made CO2 emissions, but a pronounced rise in the atmospheric CO2 concentrations. Like I said, we produce just a fraction of the natural variation in the earth's own CO2 making machinery from year to year and we are learning that we really don't even have a handle on how much CO2 the earth is producing...the undersea volcanoes are a prime example of how much we don't know.


https://www2.meteo.uni-bonn.de/bibliothek/Flohn_Publikationen/K287-K320_1981-1985/K299.pdf

CLIP: “The recent increase of the CO2-content of air varies distinctly from year to year, rather independent from the irregular annual increase of global CO2-production from fossil fuel and cement, which has since 1973 decreased from about 4.5 percent to 2.25 percent per year (Rotty 1981).”

“Comparative investigations (Keeling and Bacastow 1977, Newll et al. 1978, Angell 1981) found a positive correlation between the rate of increase of atmospheric CO2 and the fluctuations of sea surface temperature (SST) in the equatorial Pacific, which are caused by rather abrupt changes between upwelling cool water and downwelling warm water (“El Niño”) in the eastern equatorial Pacific. Indeed the cool upwelling water is not only rich in (anorganic) CO2 but also in nutrients and organisms. (algae) which consume much atmospheric CO2 in organic form, thus reducing the increase in atmospehreic CO2. Conversely the warm water of tropical oceans, with SST near 27°C, is barren, thus leading to a reduction of CO2 uptake by the ocean and greater increase of the CO2. … A crude estimate of these differences is demonstrated by the fact that during the period 1958-1974, the average CO2-increase within five selective years with prevailing cool water only 0.57 ppm/a [per year], while during five years with prevailing warm water it was 1.11 ppm/a. Thus in a a warm water year, more than one Gt (1015 g) carbon is additionally injected into the atmosphere, in comparison to a cold water year.”


Practically every actual study ever done tells us that increases in CO2 follow increases in temperature...that means that increased CO2 is the result of increased temperature, not the cause of increased temperature...which makes sense since warm oceans hold less CO2 and as they warm, they outages CO2.

https://www.researchgate.net/public...spheric_carbon_dioxide_and_global_temperature

CLIP"
“There exist a clear phase relationship between changes of atmospheric CO2 and the different global temperature records, whether representing sea surface temperature, surface air temperature, or lower troposphere temperature, with changes in the amount of atmospheric CO2 always lagging behind corresponding changes in temperature.”

(1) The overall global temperature change sequence of events appears to be from 1) the ocean surface to 2) the land surface to 3) the lower troposphere.

(2) Changes in global atmospheric CO2 are lagging about 11–12 months behind changes in global sea surface temperature.

(3) Changes in global atmospheric CO2 are lagging 9.5–10 months behind changes in global air surface temperature.

(4) Changes in global atmospheric CO2 are lagging about 9 months behind changes in global lower troposphere temperature.

(5) Changes in ocean temperatures appear to explain a substantial part of the observed changes in atmospheric CO2 since January 1980.

(6) CO2 released from anthropogenic sources apparently has little influence on the observed changes in atmospheric CO2, and changes in atmospheric CO2 are not tracking changes in human emissions.

(7) On the time scale investigated, the overriding effect of large volcanic eruptions appears to be a reduction of atmospheric CO2, presumably due to the dominance of associated cooling effects from clouds associated with volcanic gases/aerosols and volcanic debris.

(8) Since at least 1980 changes in global temperature, and presumably especially southern ocean temperature, appear to represent a major control on changes in atmospheric CO2.

SAGE Journals: Your gateway to world-class research journals

CLIP: “[T]he warming and cooling of the ocean waters control how much CO2 is exchanged with atmosphere and thereby controlling the concentration of atmospheric CO2. It is obvious that when the oceans are cooled, in this case due to volcanic eruptions or La Niña events, they release less CO2 and when it was an extremely warm year, due to an El Niño, the oceans release more CO2. [D]uring the measured time 1979 to 2006 there has been a continued natural increase in temperature causing a continued increase of CO2 released into the atmosphere. This implies that temperature variations caused by El Niños, La Niñas, volcanic eruptions, varying cloud formations and ultimately the varying solar irradiation control the amount of CO2 which is leaving or being absorbed by the oceans.”


https://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/ef800581r

CLIP: “[With the short (5−15 year) RT [residence time] results shown to be in quasi-equilibrium, this then supports the (independently based) conclusion that the long-term (∼100 year) rising atmospheric CO2 concentration is not from anthropogenic sources but, in accordance with conclusions from other studies, is most likely the outcome of the rising atmospheric temperature, which is due to other natural factors. This further supports the conclusion that global warming is not anthropogenically driven as an outcome of combustion.”


Error - Cookies Turned Off

“[T]he trend in the airborne fraction [ratio of CO2 accumulating in the atmosphere to the CO2 flux into the atmosphere due to human activity] since 1850 has been 0.7 ± 1.4% per decade, i.e. close to and not significantly different from zero. The analysis further shows that the statistical model of a constant airborne fraction agrees best with the available data if emissions from land use change are scaled down to 82% or less of their original estimates. Despite the predictions of coupled climate-carbon cycle models, no trend in the airborne fraction can be found.”

Like it or not, that last sentence means that there simply is not a discernible trend in the percentage of atmospheric CO2 that can be linked to our emissions...that is because in the grand scheme of things, the amount of CO2 that we produce is very small...not even enough to have any measurable effect on the year to year variation of the earth's own CO2 making processes...

Here is a paper from James Hansen himself...the father of global warming and the high priest of anthropogenic climate change...

Climate forcing growth rates: doubling down on our Faustian bargain - IOPscience

CLIP: “However, it is the dependence of the airborne fraction on fossil fuel emission rate that makes the post-2000 downturn of the airborne fraction particularly striking. The change of emission rate in 2000 from 1.5% yr-1 [1960-2000] to 3.1% yr-1 [2000-2011], other things being equal, would [should] have caused a sharp increase of the airborne fraction”

Even someone who can't read a graph should be able to look at that one produced by hansen and see that the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere simply does not track with the amount of CO2 that we produce.

You can go on endlessly about what you believe...and what you have been told but when you look at the actual science, it is clear that what you believe and what you have been told simply is not true. That is the problem with letting someone else provide you with an opinion...if they don't want you to know the problems inherent in your opinion, they don't give you information like the published, peer reviewed papers above...they simply let you believe that we are the cause of rising CO2 in the atmosphere and tell you that it is true without having any data at all to support the claim.

You continue to believe what you like...it is clear by now that is precisely what you will do...but the information above is peer reviewed and published by climate scientists...and supports my claim that we are no the ones driving the amount of CO2 present in the atmosphere. I am pretty sure that you will disregard all the data above in favor of what you want to believe...which makes you the denier...not me. I can provide actual published science to support my claim...published science which you will deny in favor of your belief and political leaning.

I always enjoy pointing out who the real deniers are. Now if you can produce some actual peer reviewed, published science that supports your claim that we are the ones who are to blame for CO2 levels increasing, I would like to see it.