All doomsday predictions of the first Earth Day in 1970 have turned out to be wrong

[Cypress]

The advanced nations of the world took action after 1970 to ensure those predictions didn't come true.

Almost all of the landmark environmental legislation in the USA was passed after 1970, and collectively they either averted disaster, or they made substantial improvements to environmental conditions.

[Into the Night]

I mean - are you paying attention to what's going on w/ the planet right now?

Cripes. Disappearing habitat, poisoned water & air, oceanic foodchain completely endangered, mass exctinction.

How are you missing all of this?

Some of the timeframes they had were off, but otherwise they were spot on.

The air isn't poisoned. The water isn't poisoned. There is still plankton and fish in the ocean. Extinction of species is normal.

[BartenderElite]

Oh dear Barfly Effete has run away now.

Not at all. I just do other stuff once in awhile. You know - living an actual life stuff.

Population is definitely a huge issue, as are our unsustainable practices w/ energy & development.

We need to start thinking in terms of sustainability. We're so far from that now.

[cancel2 2022]

The link between cloud formation and cosmic rays is well established but the magnitude of the forcing has been poorly understood. Indeed the IPCC and CMIP6 climate models choose to ignore the effect completely.

Dr. Jasper Kirkby has been doing groundbreaking work as well at CERN to understand the mechanisms at work.

There have been a flurry of recently published studies on radiative forcing and its variation due to cloud changes.

The latest is a new study published in the journal Nature. Climate scientists Dr. Henrik Svensmark and colleagues have found that cosmic rays, or variations in ionization, are closely related to the formation of aerosols and clouds, and that “low-liquid clouds are mainly responsible for the change in net radiative forcing.”

The results are groundbreaking: The connection between cosmic rays, clouds and radiation budget is reaffirmed.

The paper’s abstract:

Atmospheric ionization produced by cosmic rays has been suspected to influence aerosols and clouds, but its actual importance has been questioned. If changes in atmospheric ionization have a substantial impact on clouds, one would expect to observe significant responses in Earth’s energy budget. Here it is shown that the average of the five strongest week-long decreases in atmospheric ionization coincides with changes in the average net radiative balance of 1.7 W/m2 (median value: 1.2 W/m2) using CERES satellite observations. Simultaneous satellite observations of clouds show that these variations are mainly caused by changes in the short-wave radiation of low liquid clouds along with small changes in the long-wave radiation, and are almost exclusively located over the pristine areas of the oceans. These observed radiation and cloud changes are consistent with a link in which atmospheric ionization modulates aerosol’s formation and growth, which survive to cloud condensation nuclei and ultimately affect cloud formation and thereby temporarily the radiative balance of Earth.”

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-021-99033-1

[archives]

While we are on the "doomsday" predictions, lets look at what Republicans Sean would never show that Republicans predicted would happen if Obama was ever elected:

Republican presidential hopeful Michelle Bachman said that Obama would be responsible for “punishing tax rates, redistribution of wealth, socialized medicine, inputting censorship in the form of the un-Fairness Doctrine and taking away the secret ballot from the worker.”

Republican candidate John McCain, in this video, claimed that Obama would change both the American flag and the national anthem.

Fox News speculated that Obama would forfeit the Gulf War and start a new one, and that race relations would transform “from a thorny issue to an explosive one.”

Right-wing think tank American Enterprise Institute was sure that “the Defense Department will be gutted, with cuts so deep that America will no longer be a superpower,”

Rick Santorum warned that freedom of religion would be under attack

Chuck Norris claimed America would face “1,000 years of darkness.”

And if you really want to ping pong, we could fill this forum with Trump's predictions that were either stupid or flat out lies from the jump

[Hawkeye10]

People who completely flunked managing a relatively mild pandemic (to date, Geert is very afraid of what might be coming because of their failure) are going to manage the planets weather?

Riiiight.....

[cancel2 2022]

While we are on the "doomsday" predictions, lets look at what Republicans Sean would never show that Republicans predicted would happen if Obama was ever elected:

Republican presidential hopeful Michelle Bachman said that Obama would be responsible for “punishing tax rates, redistribution of wealth, socialized medicine, inputting censorship in the form of the un-Fairness Doctrine and taking away the secret ballot from the worker.”

Republican candidate John McCain, in this video, claimed that Obama would change both the American flag and the national anthem.

Fox News speculated that Obama would forfeit the Gulf War and start a new one, and that race relations would transform “from a thorny issue to an explosive one.”

Right-wing think tank American Enterprise Institute was sure that “the Defense Department will be gutted, with cuts so deep that America will no longer be a superpower,”

Rick Santorum warned that freedom of religion would be under attack

Chuck Norris claimed America would face “1,000 years of darkness.”

And if you really want to ping pong, we could fill this forum with Trump's predictions that were either stupid or flat out lies from the jump

Arsecheese, you're an arsehole!

[archives]

Arsecheese, you're an arsehole!

I am just pointing out the absurdity of highlighting predictions from the past from anyone, largely they are taking out of context, and if politicalized, as is done here, easily ping ponged

[cancel2 2022]

I am just pointing out the absurdity of highlighting predictions from the past from anyone, largely they are taking out of context, and if politicalized, as is done here, easily ping ponged

You're just being a monumental prick which is your default status.

[archives]

You're just being a monumental prick which is your default status.

Just pointing out the realities, not my fault they blow your thread

[cancel2 2022]

The link between cloud formation and cosmic rays is well established but the magnitude of the forcing has been poorly understood. Indeed the IPCC and CMIP6 climate models choose to ignore the effect completely.

Dr. Jasper Kirkby has been doing groundbreaking work as well at CERN to understand the mechanisms at work.

There have been a flurry of recently published studies on radiative forcing and its variation due to cloud changes.

The latest is a new study published in the journal Nature. Climate scientists Dr. Henrik Svensmark and colleagues have found that cosmic rays, or variations in ionization, are closely related to the formation of aerosols and clouds, and that “low-liquid clouds are mainly responsible for the change in net radiative forcing.”

The results are groundbreaking: The connection between cosmic rays, clouds and radiation budget is reaffirmed.

The paper’s abstract:

Atmospheric ionization produced by cosmic rays has been suspected to influence aerosols and clouds, but its actual importance has been questioned. If changes in atmospheric ionization have a substantial impact on clouds, one would expect to observe significant responses in Earth’s energy budget. Here it is shown that the average of the five strongest week-long decreases in atmospheric ionization coincides with changes in the average net radiative balance of 1.7 W/m2 (median value: 1.2 W/m2) using CERES satellite observations. Simultaneous satellite observations of clouds show that these variations are mainly caused by changes in the short-wave radiation of low liquid clouds along with small changes in the long-wave radiation, and are almost exclusively located over the pristine areas of the oceans. These observed radiation and cloud changes are consistent with a link in which atmospheric ionization modulates aerosol’s formation and growth, which survive to cloud condensation nuclei and ultimately affect cloud formation and thereby temporarily the radiative balance of Earth.”

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-021-99033-1

Latest paper from Jasper Kirkby, lead scientist for the CLOUD study at CERN.

In a paper published on 5 February 2021 in the journal Science, the CLOUD collaboration at CERN shows that aerosol particles made of iodic acid can form extremely rapidly in the marine boundary layer – the portion of the atmosphere that is in direct contact with the ocean. Aerosol particles in the atmosphere affect the climate, both directly and indirectly, but how new aerosol particles form and influence clouds and climate remains relatively poorly understood. This is particularly true of particles that form over the vast ocean.

“Iodic acid particles have been observed previously in certain coastal regions, but we did not know until now how important they may be globally,” says CLOUD spokesperson Jasper Kirkby. “Although most atmospheric particles form from sulfuric acid, our study shows that iodic acid may be the main driver in pristine marine regions.”

CLOUD is a one-of-a-kind experiment. It’s the world’s first laboratory experiment to achieve the technical performance required to measure the formation and growth of aerosol particles from a mixture of vapours under precisely controlled atmospheric conditions. In addition, the experiment is able to study how ions produced by high-energy particles called cosmic rays affect aerosol particle formation, using either the steady flux of natural cosmic rays that rains down on the CLOUD chamber or – to simulate higher altitudes – a beam of particles from the CERN Proton Synchrotron.

In its new study, the CLOUD team has investigated how aerosol particles form from vapours originating from molecular iodine under marine-boundary-layer conditions. They found that the particle formation and growth is driven by iodic acid (HIO3), and that iodous acid (HIO2) plays a key role in the initial steps of the formation of neutral particles – those with no electrical charge.

In addition, the researchers found that the iodic acid particles form extremely rapidly – even more rapidly than sulfuric acid-ammonia particles at similar acid concentrations. They also found that ions from cosmic rays originating from our galaxy accelerate the particle formation rate to the maximum possible, which is limited only by how frequently molecules collide.

“Iodic acid particle formation is likely to be particularly important in pristine marine regions where sulfuric acid and ammonia concentrations are extremely low,” says Kirkby. “Indeed, frequent new-particle formation over the pack ice in the High Arctic has recently been reported, driven by iodic acid with little contribution from sulfuric acid.”

Read more:

https://home.cern/news/news/experime...osol-formation

[Sailor]

Not at all. I just do other stuff once in awhile. You know - living an actual life stuff.

Population is definitely a huge issue, as are our unsustainable practices w/ energy & development.

We need to start thinking in terms of sustainability. We're so far from that now.

I agree. The problem is though....the people that talk about it the most practice it the least.

[cancel2 2022]

.
Wrong Again: 2020’s Failed Climate Doomsaying

2020 has been the wildest and most unpredictable year in the memory of most people. But did the climate doom that was predicted to occur in or by 2020 materialize? What follows are 10 predictions made for 2020 and what really happened. As it turns out, climate doomsayers weren’t seeing so 20-20 when it came to 2020.

https://junkscience.com/2020/12/wron...g/#more-103862

[Into the Night]

Think of all the scare stories in the past; ozone layer, acid rain, mass starvation, new ice age etc. At least one environmentalist has seen the light.

On Behalf Of Environmentalists, I Apologize For The Climate Scare
On behalf of environmentalists everywhere, I would like to formally apologize for the climate scare we created over the last 30 years. Climate change is happening. It’s just not the end of the world. It’s not even our most serious environmental problem.

It's not possible. No gas or vapor has the capability to warm the Earth. You can't make energy out of nothing.
[QUOTE=Primavera;5105504]
I may seem like a strange person to be saying all of this. I have been a climate activist for 20 years and an environmentalist for 30.
But as an energy expert asked by Congress to provide objective expert testimony, and invited by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) to serve as Expert Reviewer of its next Assessment Report, I feel an obligation to apologize for how badly we environmentalists have misled the public.
Here are some facts few people know:

Humans are not causing a “sixth mass extinction”
The Amazon is not “the lungs of the world”
Climate change is not making natural disasters worse
Fires have declined 25% around the world since 2003
The amount of land we use for meat — humankind’s biggest use of land — has declined by an area nearly as large as Alaska

The build-up of wood fuel and more houses near forests, not climate change, explain why there are more, and more dangerous, fires in Australia and California
Brush mostly. These are brush fires. The other reasons include:
* more arsonists
* more careless people around ignition sources
* failure to clear away brush

Carbon emissions are declining in most rich nations and have been declining in Britain, Germany, and France since the mid-1970s

I assume you mean carbon dioxide? Carbon is not carbon dioxide. Otherwise True.

Netherlands became rich not poor while adapting to life below sea level

We produce 25% more food than we need and food surpluses will continue to rise as the world gets hotter

It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth. The Netherlands drained lands to farm that were always underwater before. They are not famous just for their windmills, but also for their dike system.

Habitat loss and the direct killing of wild animals are bigger threats to species than climate change
Wood fuel is far worse for people and wildlife than fossil fuels

Fossils aren't used as fuel. Fossils don't burn. Wood is certainly less efficient than gasoline or natural gas though. It is often burned in a sooty manner, leaving particulates in the air.

Preventing future pandemics requires more not less “industrial” agriculture

What pandemic?

I know that the above facts will sound like “climate denialism” to many people. But that just shows the power of climate alarmism.

It is still a belief in the Church of Global Warming. It is still ignoring the laws of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann law.

In reality, the above facts come from the best-available scientific studies,

Science isn't a study or a research.

including those conducted by or accepted by the IPCC, the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) and other leading scientific bodies.

Science is not a government agency.

Some people will, when they read this imagine that I’m some right-wing anti-environmentalist. I’m not. At 17, I lived in Nicaragua to show solidarity with the Sandinista socialist revolution. At 23 I raised money for Guatemalan women’s cooperatives. In my early 20s I lived in the semi-Amazon doing research with small farmers fighting land invasions. At 26 I helped expose poor conditions at Nike factories in Asia.

I became an environmentalist at 16 when I threw a fundraiser for Rainforest Action Network. At 27 I helped save the last unprotected ancient redwoods in California. In my 30s I advocated renewables and successfully helped persuade the Obama administration to invest $90 billion into them. Over the last few years I helped save enough nuclear plants from being replaced by fossil fuels to prevent a sharp increase in emissions

Fossils aren't used as fuel.

But until last year, I mostly avoided speaking out against the climate scare. Partly that’s because I was embarrassed. After all, I am as guilty of alarmism as any other environmentalist. For years, I referred to climate change as an “existential” threat to human civilization, and called it a “crisis.”

At least you are becoming more mellow in your religion.

But mostly I was scared. I remained quiet about the climate disinformation campaign because I was afraid of losing friends and funding.

Ain't censorship grand?

The few times I summoned the courage to defend climate science from those who misrepresent it I suffered harsh consequences. And so I mostly stood by and did next to nothing as my fellow environmentalists terrified the public.

Ain't censorship grand?

I even stood by as people in the White House and many in the news media tried to destroy the reputation and career of an outstanding scientist, good man, and friend of mine, Roger Pielke, Jr., a lifelong progressive Democrat and environmentalist who testified in favor of carbon regulations. Why did they do that? Because his research proves natural disasters aren’t getting worse.

Personally, I think censorship stinks, particularly when it's done by the government.

But then, last year, things spiraled out of control.

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez said “The world is going to end in twelve years if we don’t address climate change.” Britain’s most high-profile environmental group claimed “Climate Change Kills Children.”
The world’s most influential green journalist, Bill McKibben, called climate change the “greatest challenge humans have ever faced” and said it would “wipe out civilizations.”

Mainstream journalists reported, repeatedly, that the Amazon was “the lungs of the world,” and that deforestation was like a nuclear bomb going off.

As a result, half of the people surveyed around the world last year said they thought climate change would make humanity extinct. And in January, one out of five British children told pollsters they were having nightmares about climate change.

Whether or not you have children you must see how wrong this is. I admit I may be sensitive because I have a teenage daughter. After we talked about the science she was reassured. But her friends are deeply misinformed and thus, understandably, frightened.

I thus decided I had to speak out. I knew that writing a few articles wouldn’t be enough. I needed a book to properly lay out all of the evidence.

You seem to be experiencing the same kind of regret the founder of Greenpeace did, when he saw the institution he created get taken over by radicals.

Scientific institutions including WHO and IPCC have undermined their credibility through the repeated politicization of science. Their future existence and relevance depends on new leadership and serious reform.
Facts still matter, and social media is allowing for a wider range of new and independent voices to outcompete alarmist environmental journalists at legacy publications.

Science is not a government agency or any institution. It is not a magazine, journal, paper, website, or book.

Nations are reverting openly to self-interest and away from Malthusianism and neoliberalism, which is good for nuclear and bad for renewables.
The evidence is overwhelming that our high-energy civilization is better for people and nature than the low-energy civilization that climate alarmists would return us to.

This is the desire of such tyrants...to keep the populace poor and too illiterate to revolt.

The invitations from IPCC and Congress are signs of a growing openness to new thinking about climate change and the environment.
Read more: https://environmentalprogress.org/bi...-climate-scare

Not really new thinking. The belief that the Earth is somehow warming is still there, despite that it's not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth. The belief that a Magick Holy Gas can somehow create energy out of nothing is still there as well. The Church of Global Warming's ties to the Church of Karl Marx are still there as well.

The only thing that's different at all is that some are realizing people are rejecting The Message and a new way of presenting the scam is going to have to be thought up.

[Into the Night]

maggot;


Did anybody predict that capitalism would turn most of the western world into self-serving morons ?


Haw, haw.........................................haw.

It doesn't.