Climate deniers don't deny climate change any more

Really? We have resorted to this?

Well, how about we start with a coastal map during the last interglacial? That is always a good place to start, as people are loosing their minds about what sea level rise we have now.



Notice that most of Southern Florida is gone, along with the Keys, and many other islands in the area also. They simply will not be there anymore. Now that almost all will come from Antarctica and Greenland, of course. As for obvious reasons the melting of the Polar Ice Cap makes no difference at all in sea levels.

https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/...uhs_QSR_2001_Vegetation_and_palaeoclimate.pdf

Now the above is rather dry reading, but it goes over a hell of a lot of the evidence which is clear. Most of Alaska and Canada in the last interglacial were more like Nebraska or Western Washington today than Alaska. Some tundra, likely no permafrost at all. With much of the interior composed of grasslands. In much the same way that prior to the start of the ice ages, Alaska actually had a tropical climate.

But much of the evidence of the actual climate in the Arctic region itself simply does not exist. Much of that has actually come from studying marine fossils in Florida and other areas that were under water during the interglacials. Where they have to extrapolate the coastal areas at that time, and figure out what conditions would have to exist to allow the ocean levels to be so high. Because the actual evidence in those areas is not there. Just as almost all of the evidence of past climates less than about 5 million year ago in the Northern reaches of the Northern Hemisphere simply do not exist anymore.

Oh, we are nowhere near the actual "interglacial" yet, but we are getting there.

 

All absorption is “relevant”.

No, moving heated matter from one place to another doesn’t show how that matter is heated or retains “heat”.

 

Didn’t make any assumptions. You said clear/transparent plastic. Polycarbonate is an exactly that and one of the most common materials used in greenhouse construction. You could have been specific but you weren’t.

Yes. Of course it’s more transparent to IR radiation than glass or polycarbonate. That’s why it’s intentionally treated to absorb IR when serious folks intend to use it for a greenhouse. If it didn’t matter nobody would bother treating the polycarbonate to absorb IR. Folks didn’t spend years doing R&D figuring out how to make polyethylene absorb IR for kicks and giggles.

Sorry. This has NOTHING to do with UV. Both regular IR transparent and IRAC polycarbonate are treated to resist UV breakdown. Ultraviolet is completely irrelevant.

Well your opinion is interesting but it isn’t supported by evidence. The included study explains it all if you care to learn. Or you can just cling to your opinions on the subject like the IPCC….

Makes no difference to me. I can supply evidence to counter opinions but I can’t make you consider or accept evidence.

 

Three peer-reviewed research results. I present science; you attack people.

 

Sorry, but the cherry-picking is in your attack link. NTZ links the original papers in their entirety so readers can judge for themselves.

 

Real science cannot be suppressed forever.
The Honest Story of Climate Change: Part I: Weighed down by fear and intimidation.

By Guus Berkhout & Kees de Lange

There is no climate crisis, even if politicians, climate institutes, and the media would have you believe there is. Climate change is a…

Illustration 1: Over the centuries we have seen that people with new ideas, even if they were based on reliable observations, have been silenced. It is sad that this phenomenon is still flourishing in the 21st century.

There is no climate crisis, even if politicians, climate institutes, and the media would have you believe there is. Climate change is a fact, but it is a change as in everything changes, both inside and outside our atmosphere. No surprise! We will show that we should not turn climate change into a drama. On the contrary, we should take advantage of it. An encouraging message by emeritus professors Guus Berkhout and Kees de Lange.

In Part I, we urge politicians, climate researchers and journalists to stop fearmongering and stop citing results of flawed climate models. Our leaders must tell citizens the honest story.

By climate, we do not mean the fickle daily weather, but the average weather over a few decades (more than thirty years is the common definition). The climate represents an extraordinarily complex physical system and responds to all kinds of external influences from inside and outside our atmosphere. This has been happening for 4.5 billion years. We call these external influences the causes of climate change. The great scientific challenge is to know and understand the principal causes of past and present climate change. This scientific knowledge forms the basis of effective climate policy. . . .

 

Hmmm links which it relies on the fact that people will not click on and that those people will not have the training or inclination to see how the data has been misrepresented. Mind you the shell game here is pretty bloody obvious and it relies on cherry picking again. The only people NTZ appeals to are those with the implicit cognitive bias to accept the rubbish without question

 

Awwwww! Now it is a pretty little strawman from that well known conspiracy theory site - Whatsupmybutt

 

At least this exchange has exposed your denial.

 

Another attack on a source which posts links to scientific papers most likely peer reviewed (if you think that is meaningful) instead of critiquing the papers themselves. You should be sorry for denying science and the integrity of the scientific method.

 

So what? Temperature is measured at weather stations.

 

BWAHAHHHAAAAHAA!!

I guess you don't know what "Quaternary Science Reviews" is -- or Elsevier, for that matter. Inevitably.

Don't you ever get tired of humiliating yourself that way?

 

Yeah, Antarctica is really cold, so there is very little moisture in the air and consequently very little precipitation. But... where does your "citation" provide credible temperature data showing Antarctica has warmed in the last 200y -- you know, refuting the statement of fact that you purported to be taking issue with?

 

Wait, what? So now, when a long-standing and respected peer-reviewed journal like Quaternary Science Reviews publishes peer-reviewed research that refutes the CO2 climate narrative, it somehow becomes a "misleading blog with a history of publishing pseudoscience"?

Run that one by me again.

A risibly uninformed one, at that...

At least you admit you have no interest in the science.

Just to the CO2 climate narrative....

 

Yes. I have found that getting definitions right is half the battle.

No. How about we start with you providing a link to a credible source that states interglacials are defined by at least one ice-free pole?

A better place to start would be with a credible source that supports your claim that interglacials are defined by at least one ice-free pole.

Try to keep your eye on the ball.

So you in fact cannot provide a link to a credible source for your definition.

Thought not.

 

No it isn't.

But it can show how it isn't heated or retains heat. Which is precisely the point.

 

Yes you did. That was what your big song and dance about polycarbonate was based on, and your subsequent song and dance about IR-absorptive PE film.

Which does not absorb significant IR. Like ordinary PE film from Home Depot.

So you assumed. Right.

But the UV resistance is far more important to its utility as a greenhouse roof.

You don't know very much about marketing, do you?

They did it to make a more marketable product, and they didn't care that it would make almost no difference to the film's greenhouse heating properties.

Wrong. UV resistance is what makes that film economically feasible for greenhouses.

Yes it is. You can verify that my opinion is objectively correct yourself, by going to any working greenhouse, removing one of the panes near the peak of the roof, and noting how the interior temperature plummets within minutes.

I read enough of the "study" to have already proved to you that it is laughable.

At least my opinion is a reasoned and informed one.

You tried to provide evidence. I proved it was laughable. Simple.

 

Yes it is. Without absorption there is no heating of any matter. Basic physics.

Nope. Only shows that heated matter is lighter than cooler matter and thus rises. That’s it. Again, basic physics.

 

The overwhelming majority of greenhouses are constructed of glass, polycarbonate, and IRAC treated polyethylene. Why? Because polyethylene untreated to absorb IR is very poor in performance compared to the others in heating and heat retention (heat retention being vital both day and night). Your argument is equivalent to claiming 1980’s computer is equivalent to a new desktop today. If it were, few would buy new computers, no matter how good marketing was.

Some clear/transparent polyethylene does absorb IR. In fact, if one is serious about having a good greenhouse and wants polyethylene they purchase IRAC treated product. It’s clear/transparent. Just like untreated.

No. You are assuming untreated polyethylene performs similar to glass, polycarbonate, and IRAC treated polyethylene. All evidence is contradictory to your opinion.

Irrelevant. UV resistance is important no matter if you use IRAC or non IRAC polyethylene. Totally different subject. The only thing UV protection affects is longevity. Well, it does lead to more pathogens and poorer plant health under UV blocking material but again, a different subject.

Enough. But it’s a performance issue based on hard science, not a marketing issue. Unless you want to say UV treated polyethylene is just slick marketing….

Your unsubstantiated opinion is noted.

I’m going with science and applied science (people who make a living with greenhouses) on this one.

UV resistance is what makes any material (glass, polycarbonate or polyethylenes) economically viable for greenhouse construction. Irrelevant to IRAC polyethylene serious greenhouse constructors use. Two different issues.

Nope. That just demonstrates that hot air rises.

Again, you can’t prove anything in the context of natural sciences. The part of the study you referenced provided evidence when convection was removed from the equation, IR absorbing materials created significantly more heating than non IR absorbing materials.

That’s just part of the study. It also explained the error of the 1909 experiment and why it can’t be replicated.

No. It’s just an unsubstantiated one that conflicts with verifiable evidence.

Again, use of the term “proved” is evidence you are not informed on what science is or what evidence is.

Your above statement is simply appeal to the stone fallacy.

Your opinions are not evidence.

 

Nor does the Great Barrier Reef which is bleaching now and will disappear because of global ocean warming. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-australia-68508423
Nor the Antarctic Peninsula which is rapidly greening. https://www.abc.net.au/news/science...ic-peninsula-drive--by-climate-change/8534368

 

Imagine how much healthier the reef could be if ya’ll were aware of and pushed for action on the most controllable metrics of coral health. Alas, the only one you are made aware of is the one that’s virtually impossible to correct—especially short term.

Sigh.

 

The Antarctic is greening?? That's ridiculous.

How much has the ocean warmed in the vicinity of the Great Barrier Reef? How much has the pH of the sea water changed around the Great Barrier Reef?

 

Do you have any evidence that the Antarctic Peninsular isn't greening because of global warming? Have you been there?

If you're actually interested in coral bleaching from increasing global ocean temperatures, why don't you do your homework.

 

Measuring moss on islands close to the Antarctic continent or on a peninsula surrounded by water is meaningless. Where is the moss in July?

I have. The coral bleaching hypothesis has been discredited.

 

IOW we should be trying to reduce the rate of temperature rise of the global oceans to avoid it's disappearance.