Comments by "Lepi Doptera" (@lepidoptera9337) on "Did scientists get climate change wrong?" video.

On average some 150,000 people were migrating to Australia and I am pretty sure a lot more would have, if immigration to Australia would be easier.
1
These local heat effects are not completely trivial, but they are not responsible for the majority of the warming. Local evaporation does not remove heating from the atmosphere. It actually makes things worse because water vapor is a strong greenhouse gas. That's easily experienced by comparing humid and dry environments of equal temperature. In a strongly humid atmosphere infrared radiation is coming from all directions and not just the direction of the sun because humidity in the infrared acts like a thick fog. That is one of the reasons why dry heat is easier to bear than humid conditions.
1
@jpp9876 That's a common misconception coming from biology. From a physical perspective a completely dry body will still receive more infrared radiation from the surrounding water vapor in a humid atmosphere than in a dry atmosphere. The role of the atmosphere for radiation transport is poorly understood by most people. We are not teaching this correctly (if at all) in school.
1
@jpp9876 What does radiation transport have to do with statistics? It's basic physics. I would suggest you look for papers about "radiative sky cooling", which is an engineering topic completely unrelated to climate science. That should take the political bias out of the equation. Here is one: "Radiative cooling resource maps for the contiguous United States" J. Renewable Sustainable Energy 11, 036501 (2019). You can find plenty of other resources like that with diagrams and formulae for the dependence of radiative cooling on atmospheric humidity.
1
Boring. This argument has been made half a century ago and it wasn't true back then, either. Not even a simple ice cube melts immediately when heated. It takes a while for the ice to get close to the melting temperature. Only then does the melting start. Thermodynamics necessarily causes delays and non-linearities in the response to added heat.
1
@seditt5146 I was talking about you being full of it. Sorry you didn't get the message.
1
Yes, CO2 increased before and there were always large die-off events correlated with that. Of course, correlation is not causation... it kills you anyway. :-)
1
I have never seen that article, but it seems to be the only evidence that "skeptics" have in their favor. Compare that to decades of field work resulting in tens of thousands of peer reviewed publications by actual climate scientists. :-)
1