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

[Toddsterpatriot]

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.

Exactly!
Nobel Prize winner Michael Mann would never cheat!

 

[mamooth]

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

Climate scientists have been pretty stellar with predictinos for 40 years running now. That's why they have so much credibility. Remember, we know the actual facts and science, so you can't gaslight us with political propaganda.

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

That propaganda avalanche always shows up eventually. It fools the brainwashed. It doesn't fool the normal people.

Most of those aren't from climate scientists.

The 1970s ice age stuff was predicted by deniers, and most of them are still predicting imminent cooling real soon now. Deniers have been totally wrong about climate for over 40 years now. That's the biggest reason why deniers are classified as cult clowns, because they've failed so hard at the science for so long.

Of the rest, some are examples of climate scientists being proven correct, as with acid rain or ozone depletion.

Some are examples of one guy saying something. It's wildly dishonest of deniers to claim that was the scientific consensus, hence all deniers do that.

And some are just made up. For example, Nobody said NYC would be underwater by now. That's a big stinking denier lie. When deniers repeat those lies, they annihilate their own credibility. You don't see the rational side lying like that.

Here's a challenge. Instead of a sleazy Gish Gallop of crap, post your best single point against AGW theory. If you had one good point, you wouldn't need a long list of garbage.

 

[Lord Long Rod]

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

Agree 100%

 

[Bob Blaylock]

So why are all deniers so gullible?

Apparently, it has something to do with the linear mass of textile fibers.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Reminds me of a story about the origin of the term “butterfly effect”. I'm not going to Google it or otherwise look anything up about it until after I've finished my post, so this is all from memory.

So you have a faked story. Good for you.
No, the climate models don't give wildly different outcomes for slightly different inputs.

As I said, I wasn't going to look it up until after I finished that post. The story turns out to be true.

Butterfly effect - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The scientist in the story is none other than mathematician and meteorologist Edward Norton Lorenz, and the “Butterfly effect” is indeed based on a climate simulation that he ran, where a very tiny change in an input value, produced a profoundly different result.

 

[Seymour Flops]

I've often thought that worshipping the Sun was the only religion that made sense from a worldly perspective. It is the giver of life, the originator of Earth, and the more of it's life-supporting rays we get the better. At least as far as men are able to change that amount.

Sure, the powerfull Sun God could visit wrath on Earth and all the planets, merely by heating up several degrees. But nothing that relatively puny man does by puttering around with fossil fuel engines will change the temparature as much as a single degree. Not in a million years.

 

[mamooth]

Apparently, it has something to do with the linear mass of textile fibers.

Just what are you babbling about?

If you've got some secret cult joke that only cult members know about, spill the secret. We won't tell the cult.

 

[mamooth]

Sure, the powerfull Sun God could visit wrath on Earth and all the planets, merely by heating up several degrees. But nothing that relatively puny man does by puttering around with fossil fuel engines will change the temparature as much as a single degree. Not in a million years.

A fine arguemnt by "I don't understand it, so it must all be wrong!".

The normal people do understand it. We measure solar output closely, it's been going down. Therefore, only the most profoundly stupid say that the sun is causing global warming.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Just what are you babbling about?
If you've got some secret cult joke that only cult members know about, spill the secret. We won't tell the cult.

 

[elektra]

Here's a challenge. Instead of a sleazy Gish Gallop of crap, post your best single point against AGW theory. If you had one good point, you wouldn't need a long list of garbage.

maMOOT, that is one tough challenge.

How do we know that man made global warming does not exist.

Maybe because the solution, to increase manufacturing by heavy industry building millions of solar panels covering the earth by the square mile not only destroys Earth but increases that CO2 you claim we must eliminate

 

[Seymour Flops]

A fine arguemnt by "I don't understand it, so it must all be wrong!".

Not even close.

The normal people do understand it. We measure solar output closely, it's been going down. Therefore, only the most profoundly stupid say that the sun is causing global warming.

Of course the sun is causing global warming. Without the sun, Earth really would become an uninhabitable ice ball, as predicted by climate alarmists of yesteryear.

You understand nothing except that you are told by your media that all or the overwhelming majority of "scientists" "believe" in global warming, and you tell others that the scientists are the experts so no one else is allowed to question it.

Astrologers believe in astrology, and they are the experts in astrology. Therefore, you believe in astrology without question.

 

[Blues Man]

What is lacking in this simulation is that way before the earth turns into a Venusian hellscape people will be gone and nature will reassert its dominance.

Venus, as far as we know, never had plant life that was capable of removing CO2 from the atmosphere

 

[Seymour Flops]

maMOOT, that is one tough challenge.

How do we know that man made global warming does not exist.

Maybe because the solution, to increase manufacturing by heavy industry building millions of solar panels covering the earth by the square mile not only destroys Earth but increases that CO2 you claim we must eliminate

A good point, that mamooth may not understand very well.

See Mamooth, there are really three questions that one should ask when discussing "global warming," or "climate change," or whatever name the profiteers come up with when that goes out of favor because the climate doesn't change any more than would be expected from nature. "Climate stagnation?" Whatever. There are three questions, and the third leads to a fourth, to wit:

1) Is the Earth's climate changing? The answer is yes, of course. It always has and always will. Ice Ages, Little Ice Ages, etc.

Some examples include:

• 770 million years ago - Snowball Earth. ...
• 305 million years ago - Carboniferous Rainforest Collapse. ...
• 66 million years ago - Cretaceous-Paleogene extinction event. ...
• 55 million years ago – Permian-Eocene Thermal Maximum. ...
• 18,000 years ago – Glaciers begin to retreat and our modern landscape is revealed.

18,000 years? That's a mere moment in the history of Earth. But still well before the Industrial Revolution, the left's bogeyman said to be responsible for the planet's impending condition of uninhabitability.

2) Is climate change caused by human activity, specifically industry? A laughable premise on its face, yet so may scientists believe it. Well, they can believe it and make sure their grants keep coming, but they have yet to provide any evidence that humanity can change the climate and is changing the climate more than nature would anyway.

3) Could humans somehow change the process of climate change, regardless of its cause? Very doubtful, and there is no evidence that I know of that they ever have. The proposals to change it amount to switching to renewable energy to avoid burning fossil fuels. Unless some as yet unknown source of fossil fuel is discovered, its finite nature ensures that the free market will impel that switch eventually. Any speeding up of that switch, any forcing the free market to abandon fossil fuel while it is still in plentiful supply will lead to human suffering, great and small. That is what always comes when the free market is interfered with.

3a) How much suffering are we willing to allow the government to subject us to in the name of "stopping the climate from changing?"

If I'm wrong in my statements about lack of evidence, please present the evidence. The actual evidence, not your further assurance that "all the cool people agree," or whatever.

 

[elektra]

Not even close.

Of course the sun is causing global warming. Without the sun, Earth really would become an uninhabitable ice ball, as predicted by climate alarmists of yesteryear.

You understand nothing except that you are told by your media that all or the overwhelming majority of "scientists" "believe" in global warming, and you tell others that the scientists are the experts so no one else is allowed to question it.

Astrologers believe in astrology, and they are the experts in astrology. Therefore, you believe in astrology without question.

If I may take the liberty of answering for maMOOT

You are in denial
You are a cultists
You are a denialist

 

[elektra]

The proposals to change it amount to switching to renewable energy to avoid burning fossil fuels.

Renewable Energy is the misuse of words. The control of words by the Democrat party is an interesting thing.

Renewable Energy? Yet the resources to capture Renewable Energy are finite, inefficient, and rely on the increased consumption of Fossil Fuels, Coal, Wood, etc..

To capture the sun and wind, we are manufacturing solar panels to cover the earth by the square mile. Is there any industry that requires more energy and resources than solar.

They argue that the energy is paid back? But the manufacturing never stops and we are left still hungering for electricity.

They argue solar is new technology that as it matures there will be no problems. Solar cells were invented in 1883.

Solar tech is 140 years old

Solar is mature yet does not produce enough electricity to supply the very same industry used to make Solar cells

There will never ever be a technologically sound reason to switch to renewable energy.

 

[Seymour Flops]

Renewable Energy is the misuse of words. The control of words by the Democrat party is an interesting thing.

Renewable Energy? Yet the resources to capture Renewable Energy are finite, inefficient, and rely on the increased consumption of Fossil Fuels, Coal, Wood, etc..

To capture the sun and wind, we are manufacturing solar panels to cover the earth by the square mile. Is there any industry that requires more energy and resources than solar.

They argue that the energy is paid back? But the manufacturing never stops and we are left still hungering for electricity.

They argue solar is new technology that as it matures there will be no problems. Solar cells were invented in 1883.

Solar tech is 140 years old

Solar is mature yet does not produce enough electricity to supply the very same industry used to make Solar cells

There will never ever be a technologically sound reason to switch to renewable energy.

Yes, good point. Especially since they STILL oppose nuclear power, a hangover from the days that they were hippies and literall could not understand that a nuclear power plant and a nuclear bomb are two different things.

Maybe it should be referred to by those avoiding that control of words that Democrats love as "non-fossil/nuclear power." That's what they oppose, they aren't in favor of anything in particular. They truly believe that we could eliminate all sources of power that hurts their feelings, and they will be fine microwaving their Ramen and watching transporn on their cell phones.

 

[Seymour Flops]

If I may take the liberty of answering for maMOOT

You are in denial
You are a cultists
You are a denialist

You capture his rhetorical style perfectly!

 

[EMH]

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.

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?

"Your" "answer" is pathetic. You were busted lying on that earlier too. Alaska gets plenty of rain and snow, why it has trees and grass...

 

[Crick]

"Your" "answer" is pathetic. You were busted lying on that earlier too. Alaska gets plenty of rain and snow, why it has trees and grass...

I don't think anyone on this forum has lied as much as you have. Every single one of your posts is falsehoods from top to bottom. Of course the vast buik of that is simply due to your ignorance and your severe psychological issues, but your nonstop beligerence makes it difficult to feel sorry for you as we should.

 

[mamooth]

If I may take the liberty of answering for maMOOT

Now that you've had a good cry, I bet you feel better, so care to address the thread topic?

The big one is that every single denier here of fell hard for a stupid tabloid story. Not oone of them even considered looking at the actual scientific paper. Why should they? They don't need any stupid facts .Their masters told them what to say.

Why are deniers always so gullible?