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

[Lionfish]

Declines in Air Pollution Have Made Hurricanes Stronger

Without the cooling effect of aerosols, warmer oceans have provided more fuel to storms

https://www.scientificamerican.com/a...anes-stronger/

[BartenderElite]

Declines in Air Pollution Have Made Hurricanes Stronger

Without the cooling effect of aerosols, warmer oceans have provided more fuel to storms

https://www.scientificamerican.com/a...anes-stronger/

Is that a post calling for more aerosol use?

[Lionfish]

Is that a post calling for more aerosol use?

Im not a biologist. What the people at Scientific American derived was, that the cleaner the air, the more violent the storms. Kind of ironic don't you think?

[PostmodernProphet]

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.

are you predicting that by 2070 all the predictions will come true?.....

[PostmodernProphet]

11. “By the year 2000, if present trends continue, we will be using up crude oil at such a rate… that there won’t be any more crude oil. You’ll drive up to the pump and say, ‘Fill ‘er up, buddy,’ and he’ll say, ‘I am very sorry, there isn’t any.’” — Ecologist Kenneth Watt

to be fair, this happened in Washington just last week.....

[PostmodernProphet]

Wow.

Yeah - it's much better to go w/ hunches & gut feelings & stuff like that.

it is not fair to accuse him of being a lib'rul.......

[BartenderElite]

Im not a biologist. What the people at Scientific American derived was, that the cleaner the air, the more violent the storms. Kind of ironic don't you think?

That wasn't the conclusion.

It's amazing how hard people will fight for their ability to pollute. Future historians will just shake their heads.

[BartenderElite]

are you predicting that by 2070 all the predictions will come true?.....

I'm actually saying that they weren't that far off in the '70's. Compare our environment now to how it was then.

What do you think...is our current course sustainable, given how significantly things have degraded in just a few decades?

We're a short-sighted species. But we can recognize that and try to compensate for it.

[PostmodernProphet]

I'm actually saying that they weren't that far off in the '70's.

I know......I'm not sure why since they haven't happened in the last fifty years........so if you still think they are going to happen, when?.....2030?......2050?......2070?......2090?.. ..

[Lionfish]

I know......I'm not sure why since they haven't happened in the last fifty years........so if you still think they are going to happen, when?.....2030?......2050?......2070?......2090?.. ..

I have a calendar that gives the highs and lows, snowfall, and rainfall records that go back as far as recorded history. Inevitability they will dip from the late 1800's to the present day. The tree hugging public seems to think they can outsmart and control mother nature by throwing dollars at her. Idiots all.
Meanwhile, the rich and powerful continue to build and buy on the beaches all across the country as they fly their private jets. John Kerry and al Gore are perfect examples.

[BartenderElite]

I know......I'm not sure why since they haven't happened in the last fifty years........so if you still think they are going to happen, when?.....2030?......2050?......2070?......2090?.. ..

What "hasn't happened?" Our water is more polluted, our air quality is way down from where it was, the reefs are being destroyed at an alarming rate, we're in the middle of a mass extinction.

Yeah - those people warning us about all of that stuff sure were crazies.

[PostmodernProphet]

What "hasn't happened?" Our water is more polluted, our air quality is way down from where it was, the reefs are being destroyed at an alarming rate, we're in the middle of a mass extinction.

dude....air and water quality are up......we don't have 100M people a year starving to death.....which prediction came true?.....

[Into the Night]

[QUOTE=Primavera;5106720]

It's not possible. No gas or vapor has the capability to warm the Earth. You can't make energy out of nothing.


You've said the same fucking thing umpteen times, I've also said you need to do a thermodynamics 101 course and some basic physics and chemistry.

The 1st law of thermodynamics:
E(t+1) = E(t) - U where 'E' is energy, 't' is time, and 'U' is work. There is no work being performed, so E(t+1) = E(t). You can't change that, no matter how you want to insult someone. You can't create energy out of nothing. No gas or vapor has the capability to warm the Earth.

The 2nd law of thermodynamics:
e(t+1) >= e(t) where 'e' is entropy and 't' is time. You cannot decrease entropy for any reason at any time. You cannot heat a warmer surface using a colder gas, no matter how you insult people. No gas or vapor has the capability to reduce entropy. You cannot trap heat no matter how you insult people.

The Stefan-Boltzmann law:
r = C * e * t^4 where 'r' is radiated light per square area in watts, 'C' is a natural constant, 'e' is a measured constant known as 'emissivity' or how well a surface radiates (or absorbs) light, and 't' is temperature in deg K. You cannot trap light no matter you insult people. You cannot trap thermal energy. There is always heat.

No Magick gas or vapor has the capability to ignore or set aside these theories of science. It is YOU that is making the same mistake every time. Inversion fallacy. It is YOU that is ignoring science.
You cannot change these theories of science. They are what they are. They operate all the time. There is no time that you can suspend any of them. All of these are falsifiable theories. You haven't falsified them. You only deny and discard them.

[Into the Night]

Ignorant twat, if you haven't heard of the CLOUD experiment at CERN then that's your fault not mine!

Not an experiment. A random number generator or type randU.

CERN’s colossal complex of accelerators is in the midst of a two-year shutdown for upgrade work. But that doesn’t mean all experiments at the Laboratory have ceased to operate. The CLOUD experiment, for example, has just started a data run that will last until the end of November.
The CLOUD experiment studies how ions produced by high-energy particles called cosmic rays affect aerosol particles, clouds and the climate.

Clouds do not need particles to form. Cosmic rays are not ions.

It uses a special cloud chamber and a beam of particles from the Proton Synchrotron to provide an artificial source of cosmic rays.

No such thing as artificial cosmic rays.

For this run, however, the cosmic rays are instead natural high-energy particles from cosmic objects such as exploding stars.

“Cosmic rays, whether natural or artificial, leave a trail of ions in the chamber,” explains CLOUD spokesperson Jasper Kirkby, “but the Proton Synchrotron provides cosmic rays that can be adjusted over the full range of ionisation rates occurring in the troposphere, which comprises the lowest ten kilometres of the atmosphere. That said, we can also make progress with the steady flux of natural cosmic rays that make it into our chamber, and this is what we’re doing now.”

In its 10 years of operation, CLOUD has made several important discoveries on the vapours that form aerosol particles in the atmosphere and can seed clouds.

Although most aerosol particle formation requires sulphuric acid,

Clouds do not need sulfuric acid to form. Sulfur is spelled with an 'f', not a 'ph'; unless you're in the UK.

CLOUD has shown that aerosols can form purely from biogenic vapours emitted by trees,

Buzzword fallacy. There is no such thing as 'biogenic vapors'. 'Vapor' doesn't have a 'u' in it, unless you're in the UK.

and that their formation rate is enhanced by cosmic rays by up to a factor 100.

Clouds do not need cosmic rays to form. All you need is a moisture source and convection. You are obviously not a meteorologist.

Most of CLOUD’s data runs are aerosol runs,

Random numbers are not data. Argument from randU fallacy.

in which aerosols form and grow inside the chamber under simulated conditions of sunlight and cosmic-ray ionisation.

Random numbers.

The run that has just started is of the “CLOUDy” type, which studies the ice- and liquid-cloud-seeding properties of various aerosol species grown in the chamber, and direct effects of cosmic-ray ionisation on clouds.

The present run uses the most comprehensive array of instruments ever assembled for CLOUDy experiments, including several instruments dedicated to measuring the ice- and liquid-cloud-seeding properties of aerosols over the full range of tropospheric temperatures. In addition, the CERN CLOUD team has built a novel generator of electrically charged cloud seeds to investigate the effects of charged aerosols on cloud formation and dynamics.

“Direct effects of cosmic-ray ionisation on the formation of fair-weather clouds are highly speculative and almost completely unexplored experimentally,” says Kirkby. “So this run could be the most boring we’ve ever done – or the most exciting! We won’t know until we try, but by the end of the CLOUD experiment, we want to be able to answer definitively whether cosmic rays affect clouds and the climate, and not leave any stone unturned.”

https://home.cern/news/news/experime...ic-rays-clouds

Sorry, dude. Using random numbers of type randU as data creates the argument from randU fallacy.

Clouds form from convective heat and a source of moisture. No radiation is needed. No particles are needed. Any time humidity is at 100%, a cloud will form. As temperature drops due to increasing altitude, humidity tends to increase. That's why clouds tend to have flat bottoms. It all happens at the same altitude. Even if there were no cosmic rays at all, clouds would still form the same way. Even if there were no particulates in the air at all, clouds will still form the same way.

[Into the Night]

.
CP Snow was talking about people like ITN.



https://co2coalition.org/news/the-im...e-the-message/

Pivot fallacy. Name dropping. Word stuffing. False authority fallacy. The CO2 coalition does not speak for C.P. Snow or anybody but themselves. Cut and pasting. Contextomy fallacy. Cutting and pasting is mindless. Form your own arguments and present them.