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

[mamooth]

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

In order to pull off the condescending act, you have to actually be intelligent. That's why I can do it so well. You're a cult imbecile, so you just look butthurt when you try.

Let's go over your faceplants here.

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.

That's the "DERP! Climate changed naturally in the past, so humans can't change climate!" argument, a favorite of logically-deficient deniers.

It's logically equivalent to saying "Forest fires used to all happen naturally, so humans can't cause forest fires!", and thus it's every bit as stupid as saying that.

2) Is climate change caused by human activity, specifically industry? A laughable premise on its face,

Here we see a "BECAUSE I SAY SO!" argument. Having no evidence to back up their claims, it's the best deniers can ever do.

Well, they can believe it and make sure their grants keep coming,

Here we see a denier projecting their own corruption on to ethical people. He himself would lie for money, his side constantly lies for money, therefore he assumes everyone is as sleazy as his own side is.

Deniers, that is not the case. We are not like you.

Follow the money. All of the corrupting bribe money flows to the denier side, so all of the lies, sleaze and garbage science come from the denier side.

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.

Another fine "BECAUSE I SAY SO!" argument. And no one is surprised. This is a religion to deniers, and religious beliefs only require faith, not evidence.

 

[jc456]

So you have a faked story. Good for you.

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

They factually aren’t reality

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Here we see a denier projecting their own corruption on to ethical people. He himself would lie for money, his side constantly lies for money, therefore he assumes everyone is as sleazy as his own side is.

Exactly!
Nobel Prize winner Michael Mann is very ethical.

 

[HikerGuy83]

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.

Do you understand the difference between scientists and engineers. One works more on theory, the other gets paid for results.

What is the value in running that kind of simulation ? Please tell me.

We already are at record CO2 and it's not going away for a long time. Even if we stopped burning EVERYTHING tomorrow. So, what say we start prepping for the changes.

 

[mamooth]

Of course the sun is causing global warming.

This one actually is claiming that decreasing solar output is causing warming.

Seymour, can you explain the physics behind that?

Without the sun, Earth really would become an uninhabitable ice ball, as predicted by climate alarmists of yesteryear.

As is always the case, you have been deliberately misinformed by your conservative MSM masters. They pushed the ice age scam. Conservatives fell for it.

Back in reality, back in the 1970s, climate scientists were almost universally predicting global warming. Remember, we know the actual facts, so you can't gaslight us.

A few said that pollution aerosols blocking sunlight would cause some cooling, but they quickly changed their tune when aerosols declined.

Those predicting a new ice age were the ancestors of today's deniers. Even after the warming was undeniable, those few still clung to their failed ice-age theory.

Today, it's only deniers who give us their "Massive cooling is right around the corner!" theories. They've been completely wrong about that for 40 years now, but they still BELIEVE. Denialism is kind of an Ice Age Cult that has faith that an icy armageddon is inevitable.

 

[mamooth]

Exactly!
Nobel Prize winner Michael Mann is very ethical.

What is with your bizarre fantasies about Mann?

 

[HikerGuy83]

Back in reality, back in the 1970s, climate scientists were almost universally predicting global warming. Remember, we know the actual facts, so you can't gaslight us.

The data showed that was going to happen regardless of CO2.

Those pesky facts.

 

[mamooth]

The data showed that was going to happen regardless of CO2.

And what data was that?

That is, what did your masters tell you to say?

Those pesky facts.

Which you should have no trouble producing, right?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

What is with your bizarre fantasies about Mann?

Isn't he an excellent example of an ethical AGW researcher?

 

[Blaster]

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.

Haha

 

[HikerGuy83]

That's why I can do it so well.

 

[elektra]

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?

another MOOT point by maMOOT

deniers, they are everywhere you look, maMOOT, under the carpet, at the door, lurking about your neighborhood

must be tough

 

[Bob Blaylock]

In order to pull off the condescending act, you have to actually be intelligent. That's why I can do it so well.

How's that Dunning-Kruger working out for you?

 

[jc456]

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.


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.

Name one prediction that came to fruition

 

[jc456]

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.

Still oddly enough, reality doesn’t ever prove the models. Why is that?

 

[jc456]

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?

Or, in reality, the models always fail

 

[mamooth]

Name one prediction that came to fruition

The earth got warmer. By the amount predicted.

Polar Amplification.

Stratospheric cooling.

Stronger hurricanes

Increased backradiation

A tropospheric hotspot

Sea level rise

Glacier retreat

Antarctic sea ice levels growing at first, and then declining sharply

Decreased outgoing longwave in the GHG emission bands.

Basically, all of the predictions. That's why climate scientists have such credibility, because all their predictions happened just as predicted.

 

[mamooth]

You were asked to provide evidence to support your claim that "The data showed that was going to happen regardless of CO2.

Needless to say, you're running. Nobody is surprised. I gave you a chance, even though I knew this would happen. I expected you to put your intellectual cowardice on display, and you cooperated.

 

[jc456]

The earth got warmer. By the amount predicted.

Well duh, there once was a mile of ice over Chicago, who predicted it melting?

 

[Seymour Flops]

In order to pull off the condescending act, you have to actually be intelligent. That's why I can do it so well. You're a cult imbecile, so you just look butthurt when you try.

Let's go over your faceplants here.


That's the "DERP! Climate changed naturally in the past, so humans can't change climate!" argument, a favorite of logically-deficient deniers.

It's logically equivalent to saying "Forest fires used to all happen naturally, so humans can't cause forest fires!", and thus it's every bit as stupid as saying that.

No, it’s the “Climate change happened naturally, so any claim that humans are causing it now must be supported with evidence of causation, not merely evidence of change” argument.

Same goes for forest fires, btw, Smokey the Bear notwithstanding. Although at least there is evidence oh humans causing Forrest fires, often illegal sliens making campfires after crossing the border.

Here we see a "BECAUSE I SAY SO!" argument. Having no evidence to back up their claims, it's the best deniers can ever do.


Here we see a denier projecting their own corruption on to ethical people. He himself would lie for money, his side constantly lies for money, therefore he assumes everyone is as sleazy as his own side is.

Deniers, that is not the case. We are not like you.

Follow the money. All of the corrupting bribe money flows to the denier side, so all of the lies, sleaze and garbage science come from the denier side.

Another fine "BECAUSE I SAY SO!" argument. And no one is surprised. This is a religion to deniers, and religious beliefs only require faith, not evidence.

It’s not the “because I say so” argument. It’s the “show me the evidence” argument.

I’ll wait.

Also, I’ve never been paid a penny for questioning the pseudo-science of global warming. I must be missing out. Do you know where I’m supposed to go for my check? I know where the alarmist “researchers” get theirs.