@dale-cloudman's banner p

dale-cloudman


				

				

				

					1 follower  

					follows 0 users  

					

					
joined 2024 April 15 07:25:07 UTC
				

				

				

				

				

				

					
						
							Verified Email
						
					
				

				

				
				
				

				
User ID: 2989


				
				
				

			

		

	














	


		


			



	

		

			

			

				

					

						

							
						

						

							
							

								
dale-cloudman


								

								

								
								
								

								
							
					
 
				


				

				
				
				

				

					1 follower  

					follows 0 users  

					joined 2024 April 15 07:25:07 UTC
				


				
					

					
No bio...

				

				

				

				

				

					

					

					
					
					

					
User ID: 2989


					
					
					
				

			


					

						
							
								Verified Email
							
						
					



		

	

 











			
			

			
			

			




	


		

			
‎

			

				
				

					Hour
					Day
					Week
					Month
					Year
					
				

			


			
‎

			

	
	

	 Hot Bump Top Bottom New Old Controversial
	



		

	






	

		
		

		
		
	

	

  







		

			
			
				The Vacuity of Climate Science
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
Venus can be explained by a thicker atmosphere and thus a larger adiabatic lapse rate effect. Also see: https://www.themotte.org/post/960/the-vacuity-of-climate-science/203479?context=8#context . It's just not a good demonstration of GHE.


As to the thermodynamics, the arguments are plentiful. I'll just point out two physicists believed that it does violate the 2nd Law and published a peer-reviewed paper to that effect (Gerlich & Tscheuschner). Most others, of course, disagree. The point in the article is that rather than debate it, let's demonstrate it experimentally, in the real world - and this has not been done for the GHE.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				The Vacuity of Climate Science
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
The linked post is meant to show that using Venus to corroborate a model is foolish, as that same reasoning was used to predict it had the same temperature as Earth. It provides just as much support to any more modern theory, namely, none at all.


For an adiabatic lapse rate on Venus description see: https://youtube.com/watch?v=_4KG0-2ckac ,


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				The Vacuity of Climate Science
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
Hi, the author does address it :)


“Origins of the Theory


If the greenhouse effect has never been demonstrated, then why does anybody believe that CO2 causes warming in the first place? The answer is somewhat embarrassing. The first to propose the effect was Fourier in 1824, who (according to Arrhenius) believed that an actual greenhouse works “because it lets through the light rays of the sun but retains the dark rays [i.e. infrared radiation] from the ground”. Fourier proposed the atmosphere had a similar property. When Tyndall discovered in 1859 that CO2 does indeed absorb infrared radiation, early climate modelers took this fact and ran with it, with Arrhenius doing “the first calculation of the warming of Earth due to CO2 increase” in 1896. But actual greenhouses do not work this way. They work by physically blocking hot air from escaping and mixing with the outside air. This was shown by R W Wood as early as 1909. It is more than strange that despite this falsification, and a lack of any further proof, the theory has persisted to this day.”


The key is that Tyndall showed CO2 absorbs IR, but this in and of itself isn’t the greenhouse effect. The effect is the (extra) warming a surface undergoes as a result of said absorption.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				The Vacuity of Climate Science
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
For me, the way nuclear power is handled is a dead give-away that the climate alarmists aren't actually interested in the climate. If CO2 emissions really as as catastrophically dangerous as they are made out to be, then nuclear is the obvious, guaranteed-to-work, 100% solution that would completely have already solved this problem by now.


As in the article: "This is highly relevant because it means our current climate scare is based not on irrefutable scientific evidence but rather on hysteria and alarmist fear-mongering that fifty years of “failed apocalyptic predictions” have failed to abate. This is crucial to understand as it makes it clear that rather than debating how humans should mitigate this alleged impending disaster, the proper focus should be to question why those in power are employing psychological fear tactics to promote taxation, restriction, and degrowth, and why so many intelligent people have uncritically bought into the hysteria when these proposed policies are clearly to their own detriment."


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				The Vacuity of Climate Science
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
Your curiosity can easily be satiated by... reading the article :)


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				The Vacuity of Climate Science
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
The greenhouse diversion is unfortunate due to the naming but also interesting. We can call it a hothouse instead and call the way it really works the “hothouse effect”, which is suppression of convection. HHE != GHE , of course, so it’s not relevant on that level.


What’s interesting to consider though is that a hothouse made of glass vs a hothouse made of a thin plastic, works essentially as effectively. But the glass absorbs and thus emits more IR, both into and out of the hothouse. This downward IR should, by the GHE, warm the interior much more than the plastic walls which don’t emit nearly as much IR. But, it doesn’t. This is peculiar and points to the GHE being weak rather than powerful as it’s said to be (causing the Earth to be +33°C warmer than it otherwise would be).


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				The Vacuity of Climate Science
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
It appears you started skimming earlier than that, as this is in the 3rd paragraph: "Worst of all, the alleged recent warming trend that is said to confirm earlier model predictions is based on data that appears to be adjusted to match the very models it is meant to be independently corroborating." It is elaborated in the article on the "Correlation is not causation" section.


As to the 2nd Law: "As to the thermodynamics, the arguments are plentiful. I'll just point out two physicists believed that it does violate the 2nd Law and published a peer-reviewed paper to that effect (Gerlich & Tscheuschner). Most others, of course, disagree. The point in the article is that rather than debate it, let's demonstrate it experimentally, in the real world - and this has not been done for the GHE."


As to thinking the Earth during summer is hotter than the Sun... genuinely not sure what you're addressing here.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				The Vacuity of Climate Science
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
Greenhouses are relevant because the GHE should be the mechanism by which they work. But, they don't. That they work due to the HHE and not the GHE is evidence against the GHE.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				The Vacuity of Climate Science
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
Sure. The grand canyon is a good starting point. The temperature at the bottom of the canyon is hotter than at the top. Why is that? It's not due to the greenhouse effect. It's due to earth's adiabatic lapse rate.


Essentially, gravity pulls air in the atmosphere downwards, doing work to compress it, which increases its pressure and temperature. The hotter air then starts expanding and rising (being displaced by the cooler air being brought down), which causes it to cool and decrease in pressure. This is an ongoing process. Notably, it has nothing to do with any radiative properties of the atmosphere (i.e. the greenhouse effect). It can be calculated from basic values of the mass of air and gravity: https://phys.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/Thermodynamics_and_Statistical_Mechanics/Heat_and_Thermodynamics_(Tatum)/08%3A_Heat_Capacity_and_the_Expansion_of_Gases/8.08%3A_Adiabatic_Lapse_Rate .


The lapse rate is essentially the same on Venus as on Earth, and as Venus's atmosphere is thicker than Earth, the lapse rate has a longer way to go, resulting in a higher temperature increase. It must be noted the pressure on Venus's surface is 90x that of Earth's.


The blackbody calculation presumes no atmosphere and thus no adiabatic lapse rate. The presence of an atmosphere and gravity introduces this mechanism by which work is done, heating the air as it compresses and gets close to the surface. It explains the tropospheric temperature gradient and, it must be re-iterated, has nothing to do with any radiative properties of the air. Any atmosphere, even one without any greenhouse gases whatsoever, would have this feature.


The question then is: as the adiabatic lapse rate explains the grand canyon temperature difference, why would it not also explain the temperature difference between the surface and the effective blackbody temperature? It must be noted the effective temperature of Earth (255K, -18C) is indicative of the average amount radiated by an entire column of surface plus atmosphere above. As we've established there must be a gradient due to the lapse rate, the average of this column must necessarily be somewhere in the middle. Below is hotter, above is cooler.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				The Vacuity of Climate Science
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
The reason to point out that two physicists published a peer-reviewed paper where they argue the GHE violates the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics is to show that it's not a layperson's mis-understanding that underlies this claim. Trained physicists with extensive experience precisely with thermodynamics, made the argument. So it's just not effective to say it's because of lack of "proper grounding".


The terminology can be tricky. For a detailed explanation I refer readers to the paper in question, https://arxiv.org/pdf/0707.1161.pdf, p75-79 in particular.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				The Vacuity of Climate Science
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
The ignorance is coming from this reply not from the author of the article. It is salient that you didn’t actually provide a link, source, or explanation of how the GHE can thus be verified. It also doesn’t address why the referenced 2021 peer reviewed paper said a lab verification was lacking — because the typical demonstrations (involving gas in glass jars or plastic bags) don’t demonstrate the GHE. Their results are an effect of gas densities affecting convective heat loss, not radiative effects. They work equally well with Argon.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				The Vacuity of Climate Science
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
I've collected these links as well, albeit they are more technical than the video. Will I next be asked to provide a simpler one? :)


    

  1. "Venus: No Greenhouse Effect" https://theendofthemystery.blogspot.com/2010/11/venus-no-greenhouse-effect.html
    2. 

  2. "Why does this simple equation predict the Venus surface temperature so accurately?" https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/508573/why-does-this-simple-equation-predict-the-venus-surface-temperature-so-accuratel
    3. 



				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				The Vacuity of Climate Science
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
It also won't change the point here. I'll try it again with newly coined terms in bold.


The florb effect is a radiative phenomenon. Any object above 0K absorbs & emits infrared radiation. Certain gases, like CO2, also absorb & emit infrared radiation, while others don't. If you increase the concentration of CO2 in the air, the air now will be emitting more infrared radiation, both upwards and downwards back toward the surface. This downward emission of infrared causes the surface to become warmer. This warming is called the florb effect.


A hothouse, by contrast, works by the hothouse effect, a totally different phenomenon. The sun heats the inside of the hothouse, which causes the air inside to become warmer. This air rises, but is physically prevented from escaping by the hothouse walls. This allows the air inside the hothouse to get warmer than the outside air. It is an effect of suppressing convective loss rather than a radiative phenomenon.


The peculiar thing: A hothouse remains equally hot whether its walls are transparent to infrared, or absorbing of infrared! This is despite the IR-absorbing walls emitting infrared into the hothouse, while the IR-transparent walls don't. According to the depicted mechanism of the florb effect, the IR-emitting walls should result in a much hotter hothouse interior. Yet, it doesn't.


Thus, the fact that a hothouse works due to the hothouse effect, and not due to the florb effect, is evidence against the florb effect.




You see now?


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				The Vacuity of Climate Science
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
It’s a bit subtle although not really.


The GHE is actually that the surface gets warmer, not the atmosphere. Actually the lower atmosphere (the troposphere) is warmed far more by conduction and convection than radiative effects. The 0.04% quantity of CO2 actually is very relevant here, even if that amount it absorbed doubled, it’s still far outclassed by convection which 100% of the air participated in.


But that’s a furphy as far as GHE is considered, because GHE is really about the extra downward emission of IR, not the atmosphere itself warming due to absorption. This extra downward IR is said to warm the surface more, given same energy input.


This latter piece is what hasn’t been demonstrated and what some physicists argue is thermodynamically impossible. I don’t want to debate the theory of that (most say it’s possible, a vocal few say impossible; not much we can add to it ourselves here), I’d rather defer to experimental evidence, and it being lacking doesn’t look good for the “it’s possible” side.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				The Vacuity of Climate Science
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


No, sorry, a rhetorical question is not an argument. For the second time, you are still doing the thing you accuse your opponents of: positing that some effect is explained fully by your own pet model without providing any independent evidence that it does so.




By saying so you are endorsing the point of the article, which is that this isn't sufficient evidence. I agree. I would certainly never advocate spending trillions of dollars on global projects on this basis without doing further research. Yet that's precisely what the climate alarmists want us to do with their "pet model"s.


And trillions is not an exaggeration! "Without creating the conditions for the massive engagement of the private sector, it will be impossible to move from the billions to trillions that are needed to achieve the SDGs.", said by the Secretary General of the UN in 2023: https://www.un.org/sg/en/content/sg/statement/2023-01-18/secretary-generals-remarks-the-world-economic-forum .


Until then, I can just point out that we have two mutually exclusive explanations, that can't both be right, and insufficient experimental evidence to say which is the correct one. Further on the GHE side of it we have a supposedly powerful physical effect with no experimental (and thus causal) proof that it exists (despite all other physical effects being able to be demonstrated experimentally, even gravity with the Cavendish experiment). And on the adiabatic lapse rate side of it we have rock-solid proof that this is how Earth's atmosphere actually does operate (it does have a lapse rate, the dry rate and moist rates essentially perfectly line up with the rates computed from first principles, etc) and thus it must necessarily also operate in Venus's atmosphere (as physics is universal and works the same everywhere).






It must be noted the effective temperature of Earth (255K, -18C) is indicative of the average amount radiated by an entire column of surface plus atmosphere above.








Are you or are you not trying to rule out that radiative heat transport is a significant factor in atmospheric temperature?




Hmm... so obviously the only way the Earth as a system loses energy is to space via radiation. The "effective temperature" isn't actually a physically real temperature but rather the temperature corresponding to a hypothetical blackbody that would have the same emission as the average radiative emission of Earth to space. And obviously an entire column of surface plus air above it, is what will as a whole be radiating to space.


The question of whether the radiative heat transport warms the surface past the blackbody temperature is separate from the above considerations.




If you neglect radiative heat transport then atmosphere temperature can only ever be less than surface temperature, which is blackbody.




You're leaving out the entire rest of the atmosphere: conduction, convection, water, moisture, latent heat, phase changes, winds, adiabatic lapse rate, etc. etc.


The moon's effective blackbody temperature is the same as Earth's, -18C. Yet it gets to +120C during the day and -120C at night. It's both much hotter and much colder than Earth and than the effective blackbody temperature.


The entire atmosphere participates in the redistribution of this heat, to be cooler during the day and warmer at night. Not just the tiny percent that absorbs and emits infrared radiation.


By neglecting all that and leaving only one option, radiation, of course your thoughts will naturally be directed towards assuming and thus believing that it must account for everything. But you leave out all the rest.


Not to mention that by considering the effective blackbody temperature, you're considering an average and also neglecting the fact that there's day and night, that the Sun warms the planet more on its day side than night side, etc.




On the other hand, if you include radiative heat transport, then you must acknowledge that different gasses have different absorption/emission spectra and so their behavior cannot necessarily be compared on 1-1 ( or equal density) basis.




Their non-radiative effects can be. All that is needed for adiabatic lapse rate is to have mass, heat capacity, and gravity. CO2 accomplishes this as well as any other gas.


As to what effect the differing radiative properties have (which differing properties they do have), that is indeed what's under discussion here.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				The Vacuity of Climate Science
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
I'd rather have a system set-up where we don't have to trust the people in charge with not ending the world :). They should not have the power to unilaterally do so.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				The Vacuity of Climate Science
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
It may be worth reviewing the links I just provided as to why Argon is a valuable control for these experiments (https://www.themotte.org/post/960/the-vacuity-of-climate-science/203988?context=8#context).


In short: carbon dioxide is more dense than air. CO2 and Argon are about the same density as each other. A typical experiment involves adding CO2 to a beaker and observing the surface temperature get hotter. But the reason is that the convective loss of the bottom is suppressed because the air is prevented from rising due to the heavier CO2 above it. This works equally well with Argon. In closed containers, the differing gas density still affects the rate of convective loss, as #2 points out.


The experiment you linked must therefore also be performed with 100% Argon (as it was with 100% CO2) as a control.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				The Vacuity of Climate Science
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
That would be not due to the GHE (which is radiative) but something else, like say convection loss being less because of warmer atmosphere. If this were the case it would mean all the climate models are wrong, because they all rely on the GHE (downwards IR causing higher surface temps). I'm happy to accept this and then we could talk about what that might look like.


Two points though:


    

  1. 

    In the troposphere the CO2 absorption is already saturated, as Knut Angstrom's assistant found in 1900. So the effect on the lower atmosphere would essentially be nil
    

    2. 

  2. 

    The alarmists' rebuttal to #1 is that higher up in the atmosphere, at colder and lower-pressure layers, the effect is not yet saturated. Perhaps those, then would become warmer? Yet consider that if the air absorbs more IR, so, too, does it emit more IR. Added CO2 provides the air a way to cool that it wouldn't otherwise have. In fact, the standard understanding of the climate consensus is the stratosphere ought to cool with more CO2 rather than warm up.
    

    So if the troposphere doesn't warm due to more CO2 as its absorption is already saturated, and the stratosphere cools, and the downwards IR doesn't have a warming effect... where does that leave the warming theory then?
    

    3. 



				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				The Vacuity of Climate Science
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
The flat earth documentary was fascinating because the guy actually proved the Earth was round in his experiment. Then they had to explain away their results and pretend it didn't happen.


Re: climate science, I think the situation is the same as with medicine. The default assumption on medicine is a new thing doesn't work. So you have to positively prove it. Only then can your intervention be recommended. For climate policy, it should be the same. You want to impose new taxes, de-industrialize (which industrialization has massively benefited humanity), ban synthetic fertilizer (which synthetic fertilizers are responsible for vast amounts of our food production), degrow the economy, etc? Then you have to actually prove, definitively, there is an issue, and that your policy would work.


This is not the state of affairs today. Today it's just presumed that the climate alarmists are right. If you question it they say "the science is settled" and smear you as a "denier" (which grew out of the "Holocaust denier" term). They've flipped the burden of proof in the public and policy sphere. But that's not how science is done. The person proposing the theory is the one that needs to prove it. It's not up to others to falsify it.


That being said I'm working on an experiment that could actually definitively falsify the GHE. Will see how it goes!


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				The Vacuity of Climate Science
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
The key here is “experimentally demonstrate”. Pointing to Venus isn’t an experiment! I thought the following demonstrated why rather effectively:


“The problem this poses is best exemplified by going back to Pekeris 1932. (It must be noted that Hansen et al 1983 cites Wang 1976 which cites Goody 1964 who then cites Pekeris 1932). In Pekeris, the models of the time led the scientist to believe that “it becomes plausible the temperatures on […] Venus, Earth, and Mars are about the same”. As Venus’s temperature is 464ºC while that of Mars is -63ºC, his egregious error reveals the fundamental problem of not having experimental means by which to validate models. This leads to a situation where models are susceptible to overfitting available data, with no ability to check their operations by proving that the actual effect matches the model’s prediction.”


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				The Vacuity of Climate Science
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
The day & night is relevant here. The sunlight has the potential to heat the ground to over 100ºC (212ºF). The reason it doesn't get that hot is because the ground conducts heat to the air, which then convects upwards. So the sunlight, during the day, has the power to heat the surface far above the blackbody average.


Then, you just need to compare temperatures at differing elevations to see that the adiabatic lapse rate has a real effect on the temperatures you find there. Compare bottom of grand canyon to top of grand canyon to high up on a mountain-top. The air pressure at all of these levels is, of course, higher than the air pressure would be without an atmosphere, which is zero.


So we know for a fact that gravity causing increased air pressure results in higher temperatures than those found at lower air pressures. This is observable, empirical, and irrefutable. I wrote some more detail about the lapse rate here: https://www.themotte.org/post/960/the-vacuity-of-climate-science/205320?context=8#context .


The atmosphere, thus-warmed during the day, then prevents the night-time temperatures from getting as cold as they do without an atmosphere (-100ºC on the moon), much like how a blanket works.


The net effect of the above is evidently that it is cooler during the day than without an atmosphere, warmer at night than without an atmosphere, and the 'average' temperature is overall higher than without.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				The Vacuity of Climate Science
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
Climate-related deaths have dramatically plunged since the 1900s. It's because of advance in human technology. The way forward is to promote as vibrant and powerful a growth of economy, health, wealth, and technology as is possible, which will allow humans to adapt even better.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				The Vacuity of Climate Science
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
How can it not have an effect, indeed?


Well, the starting point would be to demonstrate that it can have an effect, in isolated, carefully-controlled lab conditions.


That CO2 absorbs IR has been definitively shown for over a century. That this absorption and re-emission of radiation back towards a heat source causes that heat source to heat up further? Never has been, as detailed in the article.


Thus there is no experimental basis for the claim.




As to the atmosphere itself warming up due to absorbing CO2 -- firstly this is not the greenhouse effect (which is that the surface warms, not the air). Secondly, the lower atmosphere is warmed far more by conduction&convection, which 100% of the atmospheric gases participate in, than radiation, which only the IR-absorbent constituents do. Thirdly, that increased CO2 level will cause net air warming after all effects taken into account, is nowhere near certain (see: https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2023/10/carbion_dioxide_does_not_cause_warming.html). Fourthly, the CO2 absorption is already saturated in the troposphere; any effects of additional CO2 are said to only affect higher, cooler layers of the atmosphere. Thus any effect on the surface would not be a direct effect but rather a complex, indirect effect. One might say that this means the boundary condition of the higher-up air is warmer (see earlier points if that is true), yet this comes to fifthly: the consensus is increased CO2 levels will cause the stratosphere to cool, not to warm. Thus the boundary condition at the TOA will be a cooler TOA not a warmer one.




As to differing rates of CO2 levels somehow themselves being an evidence for warming, I refer you to the article: "Looking at longer time scales calls the general theory into question: Barral 2017 shows that CO2 levels sometimes show “inverse trends” with temperature, and Easterbrook 2016 found evidence that “global warming causes increased atmospheric CO2”, and not vice-versa."




To sum: it is nowhere near as simple or certain as you claim.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				The Vacuity of Climate Science
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
Well it appears my strategy worked. The critique went from "reasonably-easy misunderstanding to make" for someone "without the proper grounding" to: scientists can still be wrong. Mission accomplished.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				The Vacuity of Climate Science
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
Some of the alarmists are explicit about their ideological tendencies, see: https://twitter.com/ClimateBen/status/1766859556313841773


"Does capitalism mean fully entering rapid mass extinction in either the 21st or 22nd century?


Yes.


Will humans and the majority of species face mass death or annihilation by 2050- 2150?


Yes.


Are mass media journalists telling us scientists urge economic system change?


No."


And later in the thread: "Abrupt climate change is just one compounding factor in extinction catastrophe. Change this Extinction Economy now while it's still too late to protect species and everyone."


I suspect there's a large overlap between climate alarmism and anti-capitalism.


This is highly dangerous. As the image shows (source: https://ourworldindata.org/extreme-history-methods), the global poverty rate was over 80% in 1800. Today it's less than 20%. Capitalism and the industrial revolution it helped to fuel is the obvious cause of that. Note that modern-day class warriors rail against the inequality of capitalism -- but they leave out the fact that the vast majority of people on the planet are far better off today than 250 years ago.


The dangerous aspect is if they have their way, the systems that enabled this to happen will be reversed and thus we'll head back in the direction of extreme poverty for all.


/images/17133444819677088.webp