Scientists Simulate "Runaway Greenhouse Effect" That Turns Earth Into Uninhabitable Hell

[Foxfyre]

The reason they need "models" because THEY HAVE NOTHING REAL....

That is becoming more and more apparent with each passing year

Models are useful if used for science. But they are easy to manipulate to obtain a desired result (which they have a vested interest in obtaining so they can get their grants).

One of our assignments in chemistry class was to use a hyper sensitive scale to weigh a tiny piece of metal and convert that to its atomic weight. The scale was so sensitive that even dust particles could throw it off. After several unsuccessful attempts to get that metal to fit the math, I finally just sort of adjusted the weight so the math would work. Was that cheating? Yes. I hate cheating but in that case I was just tired of what felt like an exercise in futility.

Do I believe scientific types whose grants depend on AGW being an 'existential threat' to humankind are capable of manipulating the data to achieve a particular outcome? Yes I do. In fact there have been reported incidents of a few who got caught.

 

[jc456]

The link is to a semi-tabloid. Rational people don't bother with such sources.

It has quoted elements in the piece, from the two participants. You're just skating away cause it doesn't fit your narative.

 

[Seymour Flops]

It has always been a good argument if the authority is actually an authority. Scientists are the authority on science. You morons don't actually understand how debate and logical fallacies work.

Scientists are the authorities on science? Circular reason much? Astrologers are the authority on astrology, but that doesn't mean I have to believe in astrology and should not question those authorities.

Riddle me this: if the climate scientists are always because they are the climate scientists, why have their predictions about climate related Global disasters turned out to be so consistently wrong? If your next question would be "when did that happen?" You need to do research on your own.

 

[Oddball]

Scientists are the authorities on science? Circular reason much? Riddle me this: if the climate scientists are always because they are the climate scientists, why have their predictions about climate related Global disasters turned out to be so consistently wrong? If your next question would be "when did that happen?" You need to do research on your own.

He can't do research on his own, because he's not a "climate scientist"...The circular reasoning never ends.

 

[BackAgain]

Hey. This presents a solution.

Let’s “model” the “data” (fictional or otherwise since it apparently doesn’t matter) to show that we are in and still entering a climactic period of utopia!

 

[Captain Caveman]

Well I'm glad I have all of these real scientists on USMB to let me know how these fake scientists are lying to me.

Temperatures and sea levels have been much greater in the past than the figures in the link, especially when dinosaurs flourished. So that doomsday prediction is as much use as tits on a fish.

 

[petro]

It doesn't matter if they are right or wrong, nothing will be done about it anyway. Scientists are good at sounding alarms but are short on solutions.

Well, the solution according to the politicians, is for us to do with less, while they justify why they shouldn't.

 

[Dekster]

The amount of water on the planet is nearly constant and has been for as long as we can tell and water vapor only stays in the atmosphere a few weeks on average. I am not concerned enough to buy a bigger umbrella.

 

[ding]

appeal to authority​

You said that because an authority thinks something, it must therefore be true.​

It's important to note that this fallacy should Not be used to dismiss the claims of Experts, or Scientific Consensus. Appeals to authority are not valid arguments, but nor is it reasonable to disregard the claims of experts who have a demonstrated depth of knowledge unless one has a similar level of understanding and/or access to empirical evidence. However, it is entirely possible that the opinion of a person or institution of authority is wrong; therefore the authority that such a person or institution holds does not have any intrinsic bearing upon whether their claims are true or not.

Your logical fallacy is appeal to authority

You said that because an authority thinks something, it must therefore be true.

yourlogicalfallacyis.com

`

I believe Oddball 's point was that in and of itself accepting knowledge on the authority of others is not a sufficient reason to accept it. It must make sense. AGW does not make sense.

 

[TroglocratsRdumb]

Comment: Our Scientist have been wrong a lot of times.

The great failure of the climate models - Washington Examiner

Computer models of the climate are at the heart of calls to ban the cheap, reliable energy that powers our thriving economy and promotes healthier, longer lives. For decades, these models have projected dramatic warming from small, fossil-fueled increases in atmospheric concentrations of carbon...

www.washingtonexaminer.com

Computer models of the climate are at the heart of calls to ban the cheap, reliable energy that powers our thriving economy and promotes healthier, longer lives. For decades, these models have projected dramatic warming from small, fossil-fueled increases in atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide, with catastrophic consequences.

Yet, the real-world data aren’t cooperating. They show only slight warming, mostly at night and in winter. According to the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, there has been no systematic increase in the frequency of extreme weather events, and the ongoing rise in sea level that began with the end of the ice age continues with no great increase in magnitude. The constancy of land-based records is obvious in data from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

50 Years of Failed Doomsday, Eco-pocalyptic Predictions; the So-called 'experts' Are 0-50

This week Myron Ebell (director of the Center for Energy and Environment at the Competitive Enterprise Institute) and Steven J. Milloy published a post on the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) blog titled “Wrong Again: 50 Years of Failed Eco-pocalyptic Predictions:” Modern doomsayers have...

www.aei.org

Below are the 41 failed doomsday, eco-pocalyptic predictions (with links):

1. 1967: Dire Famine Forecast By 1975
2. 1969: Everyone Will Disappear In a Cloud Of Blue Steam By 1989 (1969)
3. 1970: Ice Age By 2000
4. 1970: America Subject to Water Rationing By 1974 and Food Rationing By 1980
5. 1971: New Ice Age Coming By 2020 or 2030
6. 1972: New Ice Age By 2070
7. 1974: Space Satellites Show New Ice Age Coming Fast
8. 1974: Another Ice Age?
9. 1974: Ozone Depletion a ‘Great Peril to Life (data and graph)
10. 1976: Scientific Consensus Planet Cooling, Famines imminent
11. 1980: Acid Rain Kills Life In Lakes (additional link)
12. 1978: No End in Sight to 30-Year Cooling Trend (additional link)
13. 1988: Regional Droughts (that never happened) in 1990s
14. 1988: Temperatures in DC Will Hit Record Highs
15. 1988: Maldive Islands will Be Underwater by 2018 (they’re not)
16. 1989: Rising Sea Levels will Obliterate Nations if Nothing Done by 2000
17. 1989: New York City’s West Side Highway Underwater by 2019 (it’s not)
18. 2000: Children Won’t Know what Snow Is
19. 2002: Famine In 10 Years If We Don’t Give Up Eating Fish, Meat, and Dairy
20. 2004: Britain will Be Siberia by 2024
21. 2008: Arctic will Be Ice Free by 2018
22. 2008: Climate Genius Al Gore Predicts Ice-Free Arctic by 2013
23. 2009: Climate Genius Prince Charles Says we Have 96 Months to Save World
24. 2009: UK Prime Minister Says 50 Days to ‘Save The Planet From Catastrophe’
25. 2009: Climate Genius Al Gore Moves 2013 Prediction of Ice-Free Arctic to 2014
26. 2013: Arctic Ice-Free by 2015 (additional link)
27. 2014: Only 500 Days Before ‘Climate Chaos’
28. 1968: Overpopulation Will Spread Worldwide
29. 1970: World Will Use Up All its Natural Resources
30. 1966: Oil Gone in Ten Years
31. 1972: Oil Depleted in 20 Years
32. 1977: Department of Energy Says Oil will Peak in 1990s
33. 1980: Peak Oil In 2000
34. 1996: Peak Oil in 2020
35. 2002: Peak Oil in 2010
36. 2006: Super Hurricanes!
37. 2005 : Manhattan Underwater by 2015
38. 1970: Urban Citizens Will Require Gas Masks by 1985
39. 1970: Nitrogen buildup Will Make All Land Unusable
40. 1970: Decaying Pollution Will Kill all the Fish
41. 1970s: Killer Bees!

Update: I’ve added 9 additional failed predictions (via Real Climate Science) below to make it an even 50 for the number of failed eco-pocalyptic doomsday predictions over the last 50 years.

42. 1975: The Cooling World and a Drastic Decline in Food Production
43. 1969: Worldwide Plague, Overwhelming Pollution, Ecological Catastrophe, Virtual Collapse of UK by End of 20th Century
44. 1972: Pending Depletion and Shortages of Gold, Tin, Oil, Natural Gas, Copper, Aluminum
45. 1970: Oceans Dead in a Decade, US Water Rationing by 1974, Food Rationing by 1980
46. 1988: World’s Leading Climate Expert Predicts Lower Manhattan Underwater by 2018
47. 2005: Fifty Million Climate Refugees by the Year 2020
48. 2000: Snowfalls Are Now a Thing of the Past
49.1989: UN Warns That Entire Nations Wiped Off the Face of the Earth by 2000 From Global Warming
50. 2011: Washington Post Predicted Cherry Blossoms Blooming in Winter

 

[Woodznutz]

Well, the solution according to the politicians, is for us to do with less, while they justify why they shouldn't.

In a way they are right, especially when it comes to food.

 

[gfm7175]

Well I'm glad I have all of these real scientists on USMB to let me know how these fake scientists are lying to me.

I sense sarcasm... you don't seem to be very thankful for their free lessons in science.

 

[gfm7175]

Appeal to authority still isn't an argument.

In fact, it's an appeal to FALSE authority. "Scientists" are not the laws of science themselves.

 

[gfm7175]

It has always been a good argument if the authority is actually an authority. Scientists are the authority on science. You morons don't actually understand how debate and logical fallacies work.

WRONG. Nothing has ever been correct simply because an authority figure said that it was correct.

 

[mamooth]

The story has it

So you have a faked story. Good for you.

No, the climate models don't give wildly different outcomes for slightly different inputs.

 

[mamooth]

Apparently, mamooth thinks that there is something wrong with you that is somehow related to the linear mass of a fiber.

Instead of whimpering at me, care to address the thread topic?

The issue here is that every denier here fell for a loony tabloid story. It didn't occur to even one of them to actually look at the paper being discussed.

So why are all deniers so gullible?

 

[mamooth]

Why is there ice age glacier south of Arctic Circle on Greenland, but no such ice age glacier north of Arctic Circle on Alaska?

Many times, we've answered this. It's the precipitiation, stupid. If more snow falls in winter that can melt over the summer, glaciers build up. Northern Alaska is colder, but the precipation there is smaller compared to Greenland or the mountains in southern Alaska, so no glaciers or ice sheets build up there.

Please proceed to run again now. It's kind of what defines you, after all.

If you and your Co2 FRAUD side cannot answer that question, you do not deserve one fucking dime....

You also won't tell us why you think that question is related to the topic of global warming, as it would be true whether or not global warming was happening. Why do you think it has something to do with CO2?

 

[mamooth]

I'm looking forward to the dragonflies with the six foot wing spans.

That would require 30% oxygen levels.

Bugs don't have an enclosed circulatory system like vertebrates do. Their heart sort of sloshes the hemolymph around their body cavity, and oxygen has to diffuse into the various organs. Bigger bugs have bigger organs that require oxygen to penetrate deeper. That requires higher oxygen levels, so maximum bug size is limited by atmospheric oxygen levels.

 

[mamooth]

Do I believe scientific types whose grants depend on AGW being an 'existential threat' to humankind are capable of manipulating the data to achieve a particular outcome? Yes I do. In fact there have been reported incidents of a few who got caught.

So, since you cheat yourself, you feel others must cheat too. You can't even imagine that others don't cheat.

That is not the case. We are not like you.

 

[Seymour Flops]

Earth could become an uninhabitable HELL, study shows

Earth could look like Venus due to the 'runaway greenhouse effect' - a dramatic escalation in temperatures, report scientists at the University of Geneva.

www.dailymail.co.uk

The linked story talks about this simulation. The reason I am posting about it here is to point out what is going on here. These "climate scientists" have been pulling stunts like this for years now. They run these concocted computer models that are dependent upon multiple variables, many combinations of which either do not occur in nature or are highly unlikely to occur. Some of their modeling runs mathematical equations that work going forward, but do not work in reverse. For example, 10 plus 10 equals 20. 20 minus 10 equals 10. But in the climate scientology world, where ongoing life-and-death crisis is necessary to keep the funding flowing, 10 plus 10 equals 20, but 20 minus 10 may equal 3. This is the sort of end-result focused, corrupt modeling that the "climate scientists" are dealing with. They seemingly attempt to justify such an unscientific approach with the rather base ethic of "Yeah, but what if it IS true?!? Then we are all going to die!!"

This "simulation" is dependent upon the equations and variables these "climate scientists" programmed. I mean, they could just as easily create a simulation of another ice age. It depends on who is writing the code in the modeling software. Why aren't people asking for independent evaluations of these models? I could create a modeling system on paper that determines for every cigar I smoke I get a sloppy hummer from Erin Burnett. That may be what I want to happen, but I can tell you with a very high degree of certainty that it ain't gonna happen.

The purpose of this end of the world simulation is to keep people upset in order to (1) keep the money flowing to these half-assed scientists, because this is how they are getting paid; and (2) to further the neo-Marxist narratives that keep people on edge and falsely believing that every day they wake up on the precipice of death due to one of many non-existent crises.

These simulations are quasi-experiments in search of an outcome, not an actual experiment in search of the truth.

These reports of simulations never tell how many times they ran the simulation, changed it, and ran it again before the produced the desired prediction.

That can be a valid method to determine whether an outcome is even possible but not for an outcome being likely. To get that you would have to input the most likely circumstance to get the likely outcome. Even then, there will always be an unlimited number of factors not taken into account by the model and therefore an unlimited number of outcomes not predicted.

The victims of eco anxiety would sound a little smarter if they would acknowledge that.

A little.

Eco-anxiety: Symptoms, Causes, and How to Cope

Eco-anxiety is just one way that climate change is starting to affect our mental health.

www.healthline.com