Climate change is a cause—of volatile weather patterns. Everything causes or at least affects something else.Okay, if you want to put it that way. :) Lois, I'll save our quibbles for juicer topics. ;-P
Climate change is a cause—of volatile weather patterns. Everything causes or at least affects something else.Okay, if you want to put it that way. :) Lois, I'll save our quibbles for juicer topics. ;-P Ok, I’m just happy they Mike Yohe thinks we’ll have stable weather for another 1000 years. i was beginning to ge5 worried
. :lol:
To understand your thinking. If it was possible for mankind not to contribute to the weather. Then you are saying that the earth would have better and more stable weather? Therefore, history should show that the earth was always stable with better weather before the Industrial Age. History does not show that. And some scientists are claiming that we will most likely have better weather for the next three-hundred and possibly a thousand years because of the actions of mankind’s climate change. And better food production. The thinking is, that mankind has always done better in warmer weather. Lived longer and healthier. Hope they are correct! :-)That is so profoundly stupid and tangled. Thats what happens when people get lost within their own mindscapes. Mikie, there's a real physical world out here. Better "food" production, if we don't over acidify our ocean and kick into motion something altogether more ominous. But good food for what? Good for who? We are humans who have built an incredibly complex society dependent on constant upkeep, and connections you seem incapable of fathoming. This wilder warming world will with time create hugely productive jungles separated by massive desserts. And you MikeYohe are treating that reality as a so-so, who gives fuk.
How Much More Will Earth Warm? https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/GlobalWarming/page5.php Living Warmer: How 2 Degrees Will Change Earth By Wynne Parry | December 8, 2010 https://www.livescience.com/10325-living-warmer-2-degrees-change-earth.html What the World Will Look Like 4°C Warmer May 22, 2017 by Frank Jacobs http://bigthink.com/strange-maps/what-the-world-will-look-like-4degc-warmer Here are 24 effects of global warming on the environment. https://www.conserve-energy-future.com/globalwarmingeffects.php:down:
To understand your thinking. If it was possible for mankind not to contribute to the weather. Then you are saying that the earth would have better and more stable weather? Therefore, history should show that the earth was always stable with better weather before the Industrial Age. History does not show that. And some scientists are claiming that we will most likely have better weather for the next three-hundred and possibly a thousand years because of the actions of mankind’s climate change. And better food production. The thinking is, that mankind has always done better in warmer weather. Lived longer and healthier. Hope they are correct! :-)That is so profoundly stupid and tangled. Thats what happens when people get lost within their own mindscapes. Mikie, there's a real physical world out here. Better "food" production, if we don't over acidify our ocean and kick into motion something altogether more ominous. But good food for what? Good for who? We are humans who have built an incredibly complex society dependent on constant upkeep, and connections you seem incapable of fathoming. This wilder warming world will with time create hugely productive jungles separated by massive desserts. And you MikeYohe are treating that reality as a so-so, who gives fuk.
How Much More Will Earth Warm? https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/GlobalWarming/page5.php Living Warmer: How 2 Degrees Will Change Earth By Wynne Parry | December 8, 2010 https://www.livescience.com/10325-living-warmer-2-degrees-change-earth.html What the World Will Look Like 4°C Warmer May 22, 2017 by Frank Jacobs http://bigthink.com/strange-maps/what-the-world-will-look-like-4degc-warmer Here are 24 effects of global warming on the environment. https://www.conserve-energy-future.com/globalwarmingeffects.php:down: Are these more alarmist predictions? Every prediction so far has been wrong. And the NASA prediction should have a disclaimer that they have not yet figured out the numbers and the clouds when it comes to how the earth thermostat works.
Every prediction so far has been wrong.Please offer some examples of serious science projections, published in serious peer reviewed literature as opposed to any wacko writer who's writing nonsense on the topic. Remember honestly represent the science that supports what you claim. Mikie what you are saying is ludicrous inaccuracy. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hLSZ6U_VyGk Our biosphere is degrading at a breathtaking speed. and the MikeYohes are so disconnected they actually believed their own bullshit. Oh and why do you ignore this?
Key studies that have withstood the test of time: 1959 - “Carbon Dioxide and Climate" https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/carbon-dioxide-and-climate/ An article from our July 1959 issue examined climate change: “A current theory postulates that carbon dioxide regulates the temperature of the earth. This raises an interesting question: How do Man’s activities influence the climate of the future?" … During the past century a new geological force has begun to exert its effect upon the carbon dioxide equilibrium of the earth [see graphs on page 43]. By burning fossil fuels man dumps approximately six billion tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere each year. His agricultural activities release two billion tons more. ... ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 1967 - “Thermal Equilibrium of the Atmosphere with a Given Distribution of Relative Humidity" The First Climate Model Turns 50, And Predicted Global Warming Almost Perfectly Ethan Siegel, March 15, 2017, Forbes.com https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2017/03/15/the-first-climate-model-turns-50-and-predicted-global-warming-almost-perfectly/#1001b776614d Modeling the Earth's climate is one of the most daunting, complicated tasks out there. If only we were more like the Moon, things would be easy. The Moon has no atmosphere, no oceans, no icecaps, no seasons, and no complicated flora and fauna to get in the way of simple radiative physics. No wonder it's so challenging to model! In fact, if you google "climate models wrong", eight of the first ten results showcase failure. But headlines are never as reliable as going to the scientific source itself, and the ultimate source, in this case, is the first accurate climate model ever: by Syukuro Manabe and Richard T. Wetherald. 50 years after their groundbreaking 1967 paper, the science can be robustly evaluated, and they got almost everything exactly right. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 1972 - “Man-made carbon dioxide and the “greenhouse" effect" A remarkably accurate global warming prediction, made in 1972 Dana Nuccitelli, March 19, 2014, UK Guardian https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2014/mar/19/global-warming-accurate-prediction-1972 A paper published in Nature in 1972 accurately predicted the next 30 years of global warming John Stanley (J.S.) Sawyer was a British meteorologist born in 1916. He was elected a Fellow of the Royal Society in 1962, and was also a Fellow of the Meteorological Society and the organization's president from 1963 to 1965. A paper authored by Sawyer and published in the journal Nature in 1972 reveals how much climate scientists knew about the fundamental workings of the global climate over 40 years ago. For example, Sawyer predicted how much average global surface temperatures would warm by the year 2000. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 1975 - “Climate Change: Are We on the Brink of a Pronounced Global Warming?" http://www.fas.harvard.edu/~eps5/writing_assignment/CLIMATE_BKGD/broecker_science_1975.pdf https://thinkprogress.org/wallace-broeckers-remarkable-1975-global-warming-prediction-1976337267b8/ Wallace Broecker was among the first climate scientists to use simple climate models to predict future global temperature changes. Broecker anticipated the actual increase in CO2 very closely, predicting 373 ppm in 2000 and 403 ppm in 2010 (actual values were 369 and 390 ppm, respectively). Broecker also used an equilibrium climate sensitivity of 3°C for doubled CO2; however, his model’s transient climate sensitivity worked out to be 2.4°C for doubled CO2. … ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 1981 - “Climate Impact of Increasing Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide" http://www.c02.gr/pdf/6.pdf https://phys.org/news/2012-04-climate-eerily-accurate.html A paper published in the journal Science in August 1981 made several projections regarding future climate change and anthropogenic global warming based on manmade CO2 emissions. As it turns out, the authors’ projections have proven to be rather accurate — and their future is now our present. … ( http://whatsupwiththatwatts.blogspot.com/2017/08/antti-lipponen-visualize-globalwarming.html ) ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 2015 - First direct observation of carbon dioxide's increasing greenhouse effect February 25, 2015 https://phys.org/news/2015-02-carbon-dioxide-greenhouse-effect.html http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v519/n7543/full/nature14240.html The influence of atmospheric CO2 on the balance between incoming energy from the Sun and outgoing heat from the Earth (also called the planet's energy balance) is well established. But this effect has not been experimentally confirmed outside the laboratory until now. The research is reported Wednesday, Feb. 25, in the advance online publication of the journal Nature. The results agree with theoretical predictions of the greenhouse effect due to human activity. The research also provides further confirmation that the calculations used in today's climate models are on track when it comes to representing the impact of CO2.
Define the Debate, A to Z A Constructive Argument is based on real facts, with the ultimate goal being a collective better understanding of the issue at hand. Such as a Scientific Debate where honestly representing your opponent’s position is required. Striving to understand your opponent’s position well enough to reject or modify it on the merits of your own facts. If we fail, it means something. It may hurt, but it’s a learning experience for the intellectually honest. Mistakes have always been necessary learning opportunities for the stout. Z Lawyerly Debate, well represented by MikeYohe, winning is all that matters, facts are irrelevant obstacles to hurdle. Being skilled in rhetorical trickery is a prerequisite. Objective learning is not the object. Amorality, misdirection and theatre are its hallmarks.
A look at trumps assault on the norms governing how our leaders engage with us and in turn how that effects the way we engage with one another. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ZAPwfrtAFYAnd this is your man??? :smirk:Published on Nov 12, 2017 One year after the presidential election, John Oliver discusses what we've learned so far. 3:30 - actual quote from trump speaking. Incoherent as a tweaker. 5:20 - delegitimizing the Media (in mike's case science) 6:20 - Whataboutism - moral equivalency 8:50 - Trolling - 10:08 President bragging on being "most superior troll" 12:20 - How low can trump go - The "figure it out yourself" president. "I didn't stand by anything" - lordie and that was elected president !? 14:50 - the moral, intellectual coward Congressman Paul Gosar