Spooked by fear and subject to panic
Those who want a reason to stop people wasting fossil fuel resources (a fair concern) will have to find a new driver for their misplaced concreteness because correlation is not causation in the 3 cases , with the science for the above simplicities " still missing" . (Professor Ian Plimers own words )
The dark stuff is water condensation, as it does naturally in clouds. What we see here is not smoke but a natural product of combustion.
The public know that burning produces heat in their car and turbine engines .
What they don't know and can't see (the bigger picture) is that the external effect of combustion and higher humidity near the outlet is more water condensation and more clouds to reduce the heating effect on the air.
No need to fear or worry.
Let me add a summary that comes from decades of effective study and practice of earth science - which you can follow here OR, if you prefer some other professor who is also qualified to be listened to,
Summary
"Thinking people apply Ockhams razor to old arguments that don't hold water in the long term:
In the order which they have been put and then put down
1. Post industrial rises in CO2 impact on air temperature.
2. Post industrial rises in CO2 impact on ocean temperature. (because 1 is NOT demonstrated ) (see the latest New Scientist )
3. Post industrial rises in CO2 impact on climate in an adverse way
Yes its very very very complex dynamic, which explains why the dilatants, screen students and wannabes can keep the public running around in circles for decades on mere correlations. .
The huge complexity involves fluid dynamics . boundary, physiology and radiation effects interacting on a daily basis.
Those of us who make real world earth science management decisions have never been convinced. @Real World Risk Managers. Facebook If Ian Plimer can't convince the world with a 500 page tome, majoring on citations , i will not try.
Those who want a reason to stop people wasting fossil fuel resources will have to find a new driver for their misplaced concreteness because correlation is not causation in the 3 cases , with the science for the above simplicities " still missing" . (Plimers own words ) http://misplacedconcreteness.blogspot.com
The argumemts against Net Zero will not win on the basis of logic and reason in the public mind. The science is far too complex ; the impressions cloudy ( a pun intended)
ReplyDeleteWe might have to wait for it , like all failed arguments to fall over , Its such a long stretch between fossil fuel burning and the death of the planet that even the dumbest of the dumb would recognise it if it wasn' t for the guilt Greenlabor pour over the people to try to slow the use down . I am the last person who wants more profligate use of FF but those who misstate the threat have to go .The truth must be set free that [CO2] is not an issue.
For those who still have to nit pit here is a more recent bit of research .
link https://docs.google.com/document/d/1o00-DSTf_5EaFwRSf1I3GL_KLGst_BqJpjUr3sRKJbo/edit?usp=sharing
DeleteHapper and Lindzen as physicists have, in June 2025, repeated the assertions made by other qualified scientists, but in a way more focused on the unsustainable idea that [CO2 ] is a threat. link https://docs.google.com/document/d/1o00-DSTf_5EaFwRSf1I3GL_KLGst_BqJpjUr3sRKJbo/edit?usp=sharing
ReplyDelete