At
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21934288
from user voldacar is:
> Could you repost your original post (now
flagged) so I and others can see your
argument?
From
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21933963
here is the original post:
For
"1/ The looming climate crisis will be to
this century what the two world wars were
to the previous one. It will require
countries and institutions to re-allocate
capital from other endeavors to fight
against a warming planet. This is the
decade we will begin to see this
re-allocation of capital. We will see
carbon taxed like the vice that it is in
most countries around the world this
decade, including in the US. We will see
real estate values collapse in some of the
most affected regions and we will see real
estate values increase in regions that
benefit from the warming climate. We will
see massive capital investments made in
protecting critical regions and
infrastructure. We will see nuclear power
make a resurgence around the world,
particularly smaller reactors that are
easier to build and safer to operate. We
will see installed solar power worldwide
go from ~650GW currently to over 20,000GW
by the end of this decade. All of these
things and many more will cause the
capital markets to focus on and fund the
climate issue to the detriment of many
other sectors."
there is an accurate one word summary --
nonsense. With two or more words, even
worse than nonsense.
It's time to drive a stake through the
heart of this climate change alarmism. We
can do a good job just in this little
post.
In simple terms, there is no serious
evidence that CO2 from human activities at
anything like probable concentrations will
have any significant effect on the
temperature or climate of the earth.
Yes, CO2 is a greenhouse gas, but it is
a long logical path from there to any
claims of a significant effect.
We need just two steps:
(1) History.
There is NOTHING in the climate history
from the present back to about 1 million
years ago that supports the idea that
anything like realistic concentrations of
CO2 from human activities will have any
significant effect on temperatures.
(i) For the ice core records going back ~1
million years, yes, both temperatures and
CO2 concentrations went both up and down.
BUT, if we just look carefully at the big
graph in Al Gore's movie, with high irony,
that graph totally destroys his claims
from that graph: He misread the graph.
The main point is that there is an 800
year delay; CO2 concentrations changed 800
years AFTER the temperature changes, from
whatever cause.
Specifically: (a) When temperatures
started increasing, from whatever cause,
CO2 concentrations were LOW, not high.
(b) About 800 years later CO2
concentrations were HIGH, from increased
biological activity from the higher
temperatures. (c) When temperatures
started to fall, from whatever cause, CO2
concentrations were still HIGH, not low.
(d) The high CO2 concentrations did not
keep the temperatures from falling. (e)
Once the temperatures fell, about 800
years later so did CO2 concentrations.
Net, CO2 did not cause the higher
temperatures or keep the higher
temperatures from falling.
(ii) In the last 2000 years we had the
Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice
Age, and there is no suggestion that CO2
concentration changes caused either.
(iii) Starting in the 1940s and through
about 1970, we actually had some
significant cooling, but in those years
CO2 from human activities -- WWII, pulling
of the Great Depression, and the economic
boom after WWII -- increased. So, we got
COOLING, not warming, with the additional
CO2 from human activities.
Net, there is NO data from the historical
record that supports the claim that higher
CO2 will cause higher temperatures.
(2) Yes, CO2 is a greenhouse gas.
The absorption spectrum is at
https://webbook.nist.gov/cgi/cbook.cgi?Spec=C124389&Index=0&...
So, CO2 absorbs in three narrow bands, one
for each of bending, stretching, and
twisting of the molecule, out in the
infrared.
No, Tom Friedman of the NYT: CO2 does not
absorb sunlight, and anyone can confirm
this by looking at a source of CO2, e.g.,
exhaling or the bubbles from soda pop, and
simply observing that the CO2 is not
visible and does not cast a shadow.
So, the theory has been that the CO2 warms
the planet. Then there has been
ALARMIST CLAIM: Extra CO2 from current
human activities will soon cause
significant extra warming and, thus,
"climate change", a "climate crisis", etc.
Since the historical record can't support
the ALARMIST CLAIM, we have to rely on the
theory based on the absorption spectrum of
CO2 and computation.
Well the computations were done by dozens
of teams, and the results are summarized
in
http://www.energyadvocate.com/gc1.jpg
Net, as in this graph, nearly all the
computations predicted rapid, significant
increases in temperatures soon. Well the
time of predicted increases came and went
with no sign of anything like the
predicted increases.
In science, when predictions are made and
found to be false, we junk the science.
No doubt, the failures in that graph are
some of the worst in all the history of
science. GOOD science, e.g., the hunt for
and finding the Higgs boson at the LHC
(Large Hadron Collider), the observations
that confirmed the predictions of black
holes, many other confirmed predictions of
special and general relativity, the
A-bomb, the H-bomb, the design of the
Hubble telescope, to the quantum mechanics
in semi-conductors that are the core of
current digital electronics, the science
was just rock solid.
We are just awash in super solid science,
and the global warming computations in
that graph are just a humiliation of
anything scientific and just sick.
So, for the ALARMIST CLAIM, there is no
scientific support.
For more there is the video documentary
The Great Global Warming Swindle at
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=52Mx0_8YEtg
there see (A) the remarks of MIT Professor
R. Lindzen on (i) why any warming we might
be getting now cannot be from CO2 and (ii)
the huge pile of money that didn't just
buy off the climate scientists but HIRED
the climate alarmists pretending to be
climate scientists, maybe 10 times more
alarmists than real scientists.
Also that documentary argues that the
Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice
Age were caused by variations in the rates
of sun spots. More sun spots increase the
solar wind which, from more links in a
causal chain, in the end slows cloud
formation and has a net warming effect.
So, since both (1) history from ~1 million
years ago to the present and (2) the
computations based on CO2 being a
greenhouse gas fail to support the
ALARMIST CLAIM, we have no scientific
support or even meaningful evidence for
the ALARMIST CLAIM or the proposed very
expensive reductions in carbon, etc.
In this case and quite generally, if we
are willing to go forward with big,
expensive changes without good evidence,
then we leave ourselves open to some of
the worst mistakes in all of civilization.
One current example of such mistakes is
killing off the rhinoceroses to get their
horns for use in Chinese medicine.
For another such mistake, there is from
page 76 of
Susan Milbrath, Star Gods of the Maya:
Astronomy in Art, Folklore, and Calendars
(The Linda Schele Series in Maya and
Pre-Columbian Studies), ISBN-13
978-0292752269, University of Texas Press,
2000.
with
"Indeed, blood sacrifice is required for
the sun to move, according to Aztec
cosmology (Durian 1971:179; Sahaguin 1950
- 1982, 7:8)."
That is the Mayan charlatans killed people
to pour their blood on a rock to keep the
sun moving across the sky. No doubt the
sun actually did keep moving across the
sky.
If we go forward with the Green New Deal,
the Paris Accords, carbon taxes, etc. we
are making a mistake as irrational as in
the Chinese medicine and the Mayans.
Warning: It appears that now the sun is
entering the part of the 11 year or so
sunspot cycle with fewer sun spots. So,
we are in line for a few years of cooling.
So, don't believe a claim of the global
warming alarmists that their efforts
caused the cooling.
At this point, continuing with
entertaining the ALARMIST CLAIM is just
nonsense, expensive nonsense.
