Let’s review the last three to twenty years. First we had “Global Warming". The problem was that global warming was never a true science, or better said, was never treated as a true science. And by that I mean there was never a baseline of the natural heating cycle so we could measure the man made heat. Those who tried to establish a base line were proven wrong. Then we got trends theories and hidden heat theories, which just proved that the data was never complete.
Ahh, don't you now that global warming science goes back a couple hundred years - are you sure you're not confusing media campaigns with the march of science?? If you want to get a sense of the real history of global warming science here: https://www.aip.org/history/climate/index.htm
Beyond that,
you lie like a rug,... or you're truly clueless.
Please show me some papers, about "… who tried to establish a base line"*
Please describe these "trends theories" you speak of?
Please describe these "hidden heat theories" you speak of?
Who ever claimed the data is or ever can be complete?
Do you understand the difference between the media sales driven story lines and the serious scientific story?
In science we need a datum point or datum line to build or relate to. The datum line needs to be the Milankovitch Cycles. So I will ask again for the hundredth time.
Where are we in the Milankovitch Cycles? In five years of asking there has only been one response. Until that is answered, there is no way to really know the true affects caused by CO2 from the natural cycles.
Have you tried googling it?
Could be you are ignored because the M Cycles are known to have nothing to do with current warming. In fact, according to historic M cycle data, we should be slipping into a cooling phase. And if I'm the first one that's ever told you that, it shows that you haven't been asking very seriously. 23,000-41,000-100,000 year cycles http://www.indiana.edu/~geol105/images/gaia_chapter_4/milankovitch.htm
Gore admitted that he failed badly in his claim to separate the heat effect of man-made from natural heat.
Gore is a politician who tried communicating the science. He has never done any research so it's hardly possible for him to have failed his claim.
But, for argument sake please explain what you believe he failed at? Since you don't give clue here.
Please define what "natural heat" is.
Does CO2 cause heating? Of course it does. Is CO2 the only thing that causes heating? Of course not. Can we believe the predictions of Global Warming? No, because there is no Global Warming anymore. We now have Climate Change. And we are going thru a period where the meaning of climate change goes from meaning “weather". To a new meaning of the old term of Global Warming. Now how dumb is that?
I'd say that's pretty spectacularly dumb and an excellent example of how you folks lie about what's actually been happening in the land of grown ups.
The points made review. If man was not on earth today. There would still be sea level rises, record setting heat levels and extinction taking place due to the Milankovitch Cycles. History has proven that time over time again. To take the earth’s natural cycle and blame it on mankind is wrong. {To ignore man's impacts is Criminal} Mankind is doing more than enough damage to the earth already in more ways than just increasing the earth’s heat.{No doubt but what's that got to do with facing the facts of climate science and adding massive amounts of insulation to our atmosphere ! ? 3gigatonnes per month per month} So why the con job on Climate Change?{What con job, other than the one you are currently peddling?} That will just cause delays in fixing the problems.{What's causing delays in fixing things, is people's short term fixation on their own needs, along with the coordinated right-wing's mass media's malicious criminal mischief and vandalism of serious scientistic work} Let the facts be driven by real science and not by a political agenda and then the people and governments will respond.
Right so start listening to real experts instead to this right-wing echo-chamber of obvious demonstrable bullshit.
Right so why are you bringing up Al Gore???
* It's like you don't even appreciate that the first interests in our planet's climate fluctuation grew out of the early 1800s realization that Earth has experienced cold periods and glaciers covered great swaths of landscape. (Big gaps that you seem to dismiss.)
psst. 9.7 Combining Evidence of Anthropogenic Climate Change: https://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch9s9-7.html
There you go, repeating denialist talking points as if they are facts. You are completely wrong on this subject, Mike. CC has provided numerous links in this thread, and we have many archived discussions on climate change here, yet you continue to spread lies. CC may not have said it, but I will: You are not a climate skeptic, you are a climate denier. Skeptics follow the evidence. You've taken a superficial look at some denialist sites and now refuse to open your mind to what the scientific research shows. That is denialism.
Mike, if you need evidence of mankind’s contribution to atmospheric carbon, see this graph. The delta since the Industrial Revolution is unprecedented.
And here is an effect of mankind’s carbon emissions.
In the early Miocene Epoch, temperatures were 10 degrees warmer and ocean levels were 50 feet higher -- well above the ground level of modern-day New York, Tokyo and Berlin.
It was more than 16 million years ago, so times were different. But there was one important similarity with the world we live in today: The air contained about the same amount of carbon dioxide. That parallel raises serious concerns about the stability of ice sheets in Antarctica, according to a study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
Note the scientists have data going back 16 million years. How's that for a baseline?
I like to have fun too. Off subject. A week ago I had a Buda monk spend a couple of days at my farm. I have workers housing and was ask by the neighbors to use the housing for the monk and others. I had no problem. The monk had nothing but a simple robe and a cloth sack. But was the happiest man I have ever met in my life. I hope he doesn’t get Americanized while he is here.
As far a calling me a denialist, no I can’t remember you doing that. But I get the point from your posts that the denialists are the problem. And that the denialists are major corps, rich people or people who have been bought by the denialists to do their bidding. I don’t see that at all. What I have seen is a two-step dance at avoiding major talking points and bad science.
Let’s review the last three to twenty years. First we had “Global Warming". The problem was that global warming was never a true science, or better said, was never treated as a true science. And by that I mean there was never a baseline of the natural heating cycle so we could measure the man made heat. Those who tried to establish a base line were proven wrong. Then we got trends theories and hidden heat theories, which just proved that the data was never complete.
In science we need a datum point or datum line to build or relate to. The datum line needs to be the Milankovitch Cycles. So I will ask again for the hundredth time. Where are we in the Milankovitch Cycles? In five years of asking there has only been one response. Until that is answered, there is no way to really know the true affects caused by CO2 from the natural cycles. Gore admitted that he failed badly in his claim to separate the heat effect of man-made from natural heat.
Does CO2 cause heating? Of course it does. Is CO2 the only thing that causes heating? Of course not. Can we believe the predictions of Global Warming? No, because there is no Global Warming anymore. We now have Climate Change. And we are going thru a period where the meaning of climate change goes from meaning “weather". To a new meaning of the old term of Global Warming. Now how dumb is that?
The points made review. If man was not on earth today. There would still be sea level rises, record setting heat levels and extinction taking place due to the Milankovitch Cycles. History has proven that time over time again. To take the earth’s natural cycle and blame it on mankind is wrong. Mankind is doing more than enough damage to the earth already in more ways than just increasing the earth’s heat. So why the con job on Climate Change? That will just cause delays in fixing the problems. Let the facts be driven by real science and not by a political agenda and then the people and governments will respond.
So you believe that 7 billion people on earth, every one exhaling CO2 and also burning something, has no appreciable impact on the climate in a closed system? Interesting fantasy.
Did you read the post?
I've tried to seriously engage with you. I present my explanations and provide the sources that I've learned from and that have convinced me.
Convinced you of what? What are you seriously trying to engage me about? You seem to be battling with yourself. I stated my facts and you have done nothing and provided nothing of value to address those questions. Stop jumping to conclusions about what I think. Stop assuming what my views are. Stop telling me how I must answer questions in your direction.
You have yet to show me a chart or data of where the earth’s temperature would be without man’s effect on the earth. The baseline. The simplest questions seems to fly over your head and you fill pages up with junk that has nothing to do with answering the question.
Can you try and keep it simple and move one step at a time?
I think that you cannot provide the baseline because science has not yet been able to establish the baseline with the data they have yet. It will take the computer models to get the baseline. And we are a few years away from that happening yet.
Is it true that you believe that we are now in the cooling faze of the Milankovitch Cycle? I understand that there are scientists that say we are not at the top of the cycle yet, other’s say we are at the top, and yet others say we are over the top of the cycle and on the way down. Myself, I have no idea where we are in the cycle, but I have not done the research you have.
Do you believe that if we are in the cooling faze of the Milankovitch Cycle that the earth’s temperature can still warm up in the lag time behind the Milankovitch Cycle before the earth starts cooling?
I've tried to seriously engage with you. I present my explanations and provide the sources that I've learned from and that have convinced me.
Convinced you of what? What are you seriously trying to engage me about? You seem to be battling with yourself. I stated my facts and you have done nothing and provided nothing of value to address those questions. Stop jumping to conclusions about what I think. Stop assuming what my views are. Stop telling me how I must answer questions in your direction.
That the science is clear cut and understandable.
The scientific understanding of man made global warming, which leads to radical climate change.
Battling myself??? Struggling with comprehending your mindset perhaps.
Where have you stated any "facts"?
How does my quote imply a conclusion about what you think?
I don't assume what you think, I'm going by you're decidedly con man's fast-talk, misdirection and moving targets, sorry for tagging you on it.
Oh so straight forward constructive discussion is off the books for you?
You have yet to show me a chart or data of where the earth’s temperature would be without man’s effect on the earth. The baseline. The simplest questions seems to fly over your head and you fill pages up with junk that has nothing to do with answering the question.
You keep moving the target. Keep reaching for impossible expectations and you'll never learn anything.
Then I guess you aren't doing a good job of asking questions - You keep saying I fill the pages with junk, yet this junk has linked to genuinely authoritative sources, that genuinely explain various aspects of climate science. If it's all just a confusing bunch of junk, perhaps you aren't prepared to seriously discuss this subject. You need to learn about it to do that, but you resent every learning opportunity I offer.
Though, I've been told it's a awful thing to question someone's faith. So I'm a shit head.
Can you try and keep it simple and move one step at a time?
Well review my endless junk link, you'll notice is pretty step by step.
Then you come back with discombobulated whining about distractions. That's not a step by step dialogue.
Is it true that you believe that we are now in the cooling faze of the Milankovitch Cycle? I understand that there are scientists that say we are not at the top of the cycle yet, other’s say we are at the top, and yet others say we are over the top of the cycle and on the way down. Myself, I have no idea where we are in the cycle, but I have not done the research you have.
Well you ought to at least be able to cite sources that support your extreme claim that scientists are all over the map on this MC stuff. I've never heard that. It seems pretty straightforward astronomical math going on here. But, then I trust the community of experts who study this. You may have difference sources. What are they?
Do you believe that if we are in the cooling faze of the Milankovitch Cycle that the earth’s temperature can still warm up in the lag time behind the Milankovitch Cycle before the earth starts cooling?
That's what the pro's say.
NO!
400 ppm and rising is the reason. The Milankovitch cycles are subtle forcings. We have injected a radical change to a fundamental component of our global heat and moisture distribution engine.
IT'S THE ATMOSPHERIC INSULATION STUPID !
You have yet to show me a chart or data of where the earth’s temperature would be without man’s effect on the earth. The baseline. The simplest questions seems to fly over your head and you fill pages up with junk that has nothing to do with answering the question.
This is the first time you have specified what kind of baseline you want, Mike. Does it really matter than CC and I have not provided a chart you did not ask for? The reality is that the models match observations, including predictions James Hansen made before Congress 30 years ago. I'm not going to waste my time chasing down every ridiculous demand you make as you could easily look this up for yourself instead of repeating denialist talking points. However, it only took me about 30 seconds to find the graph at the bottom of this post so I added it on edit. Now let's see where Mike moves the goalposts next.
For those reading this who are interested in learning about climate models, I suggest starting here:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/01/is-climate-modelling-science/
Real Climate is an excellent site run by actual climate scientists.
Here is a site dedicated to climate modeling:
http://nas-sites.org/climate-change/climatemodeling/
And here is a graph comparing natural forcing with man's forcing.
You have yet to show me a chart or data of where the earth’s temperature would be without man’s effect on the earth. The baseline. The simplest questions seems to fly over your head and you fill pages up with junk that has nothing to do with answering the question.
This is the first time you have specified what kind of baseline you want, Mike. Does it really matter than CC and I have not provided a chart you did not ask for? The reality is that the models match observations, including predictions James Hansen made before Congress 30 years ago. I'm not going to waste my time chasing down every ridiculous demand you make as you could easily look this up for yourself instead of repeating denialist talking points. However, it only took me about 30 seconds to find the graph at the bottom of this post so I added it on edit. Now let's see where Mike moves the goalposts next.
For those reading this who are interested in learning about climate models, I suggest starting here:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/01/is-climate-modelling-science/
Real Climate is an excellent site run by actual climate scientists.
Here is a site dedicated to climate modeling:
http://nas-sites.org/climate-change/climatemodeling/
And here is a graph comparing natural forcing with man's forcing.
DarronS, thank you for staying on the subject matter. And as you can see by the chart you found that is eleven years old that the scientists have been trying to create a baseline. And that chart shows that the models have a consensus regarding the effects of anthropogenic forcing. As of today several baseline have been established by charts like you found. But none that are agreed upon by everyone. What we are dealing with is the natural temperature of the earth being measured so that we can establish how much the man-made warming is rising the temperature of the earth. Without the baseline, we don’t know if the actions we will do to deal with the warming is really working.
My understanding by following the models is that any of the old data, like what is used in the chart you posted is not reliable. Using the old data will never allow the models to agree. That why new data collection methods have been put in place and some models today will only use the new data. With using the new data the computers can predict what the past weather should have been. And in this manner the models can be checked. We are only a few years away from have good working models. Once that happens a baseline that everyone agrees on will be established.
Do you believe that if we are in the cooling faze of the Milankovitch Cycle that the earth’s temperature can still warm up in the lag time behind the Milankovitch Cycle before the earth starts cooling?
That's what the pro's say.
NO!
400 ppm and rising is the reason. The Milankovitch cycles are subtle forcings. We have injected a radical change to a fundamental component of our global heat and moisture distribution engine.
IT'S THE ATMOSPHERIC INSULATION STUPID !
As far as where the earth is in the Milankovitch Cycle. You provide no answer.
As far as if the earth is in the cooling part of the Milankovitch Cycle with the warming being caused by a trailing effect, you say no. Myself, I don’t know if there is a trailing effect or not. It has been used quite a bit in theories with the heating effect, so one might think it would also be in the cooling effect.
I am not setting a trap or playing games. What we are talking about here is base items. And I would like to get this post moving in the right direction. Therefore let’s get this path you want to go down done so we can get back to the items I brought up that you refuse to address. Since there is no baseline to establish the true effect of the man-made warming, we should at least establish where we are in the Milankovitch Cycle. Otherwise we just go in circles. Example, you say things like 400 PPM, total misdirection. When have I ever said that there is not man-made warming? Never. But it seems to be the only direction you are able to go. You call people deniers, which I have pointed out is not scientific at all. And all this none scientific direction is doing nothing but hurting the task of people working together of solve the problems.
As far as the Milankovitch cycles being “subtle forcing". That may not be the case. In a subtle action we would have 50,000 years of warming and then 50,000 years of cooling. Would you not agree? The Ice Cores show that we have 90,000 years of warming and just 10,000 years of cooling. Mammoths have been found frozen with green grass in their mouths. We cannot rule out the cooling actions going into an Ice Age happening in some quick jumps of time. And what bothers me is that with the research you have been doing I know you have read theories that are warning us of this action.
DarronS, thank you for staying on the subject matter. And as you can see by the chart you found that is eleven years old that the scientists have been trying to create a baseline. And that chart shows that the models have a consensus regarding the effects of anthropogenic forcing. As of today several baseline have been established by charts like you found. But none that are agreed upon by everyone. What we are dealing with is the natural temperature of the earth being measured so that we can establish how much the man-made warming is rising the temperature of the earth. Without the baseline, we don’t know if the actions we will do to deal with the warming is really working.
There you go moving the goalposts again. First you asked for a baseline chart, but rejected one going back 16 million years and asked for a specific chart. Now you reject that because it is 11 years old and you say there is not 100 percent agreement. Scientists now how much mankind's carbon emissions are warming the planet, yet you keep repeating the same nonsense.
My understanding by following the models is that any of the old data, like what is used in the chart you posted is not reliable. Using the old data will never allow the models to agree. That why new data collection methods have been put in place and some models today will only use the new data. With using the new data the computers can predict what the past weather should have been. And in this manner the models can be checked. We are only a few years away from have good working models. Once that happens a baseline that everyone agrees on will be established.
What a minute. you've been following the models? Since when? Now you're using the denier tactic of waiting for more data. How long should we wait when climate scientists have been telling us we needed to start reducing our emissions 30 years ago?
More stuff to not trust:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2015/10/15/the-biggest-question-about-climate-change-isnt-if-or-when-its-how-abrupt/
psik
What then should we trust in, if not science?
Psikeyhakr, apparently.
I like to have fun too. Off subject. A week ago I had a Buda monk spend a couple of days at my farm. I have workers housing and was ask by the neighbors to use the housing for the monk and others. I had no problem. The monk had nothing but a simple robe and a cloth sack. But was the happiest man I have ever met in my life. I hope he doesn’t get Americanized while he is here.
As far a calling me a denialist, no I can’t remember you doing that. But I get the point from your posts that the denialists are the problem. And that the denialists are major corps, rich people or people who have been bought by the denialists to do their bidding. I don’t see that at all. What I have seen is a two-step dance at avoiding major talking points and bad science.
Let’s review the last three to twenty years. First we had “Global Warming". The problem was that global warming was never a true science, or better said, was never treated as a true science. And by that I mean there was never a baseline of the natural heating cycle so we could measure the man made heat. Those who tried to establish a base line were proven wrong. Then we got trends theories and hidden heat theories, which just proved that the data was never complete.
In science we need a datum point or datum line to build or relate to. The datum line needs to be the Milankovitch Cycles. So I will ask again for the hundredth time. Where are we in the Milankovitch Cycles? In five years of asking there has only been one response. Until that is answered, there is no way to really know the true affects caused by CO2 from the natural cycles. Gore admitted that he failed badly in his claim to separate the heat effect of man-made from natural heat.
Does CO2 cause heating? Of course it does. Is CO2 the only thing that causes heating? Of course not. Can we believe the predictions of Global Warming? No, because there is no Global Warming anymore. We now have Climate Change. And we are going thru a period where the meaning of climate change goes from meaning “weather". To a new meaning of the old term of Global Warming. Now how dumb is that?
The points made review. If man was not on earth today. There would still be sea level rises, record setting heat levels and extinction taking place due to the Milankovitch Cycles. History has proven that time over time again. To take the earth’s natural cycle and blame it on mankind is wrong. Mankind is doing more than enough damage to the earth already in more ways than just increasing the earth’s heat. So why the con job on Climate Change? That will just cause delays in fixing the problems. Let the facts be driven by real science and not by a political agenda and then the people and governments will respond.
So you believe that 7 billion people on earth, every one exhaling CO2 and also burning something, has no appreciable impact on the climate in a closed system? Interesting fantasy.
Did you read the post?
Yes, I did. What's your point?
Lois
As far as where the earth is in the Milankovitch Cycle. You provide no answer.
But that graph does. Now if you don't have the tools to understand it, and if you don't want to believe the expert opinion, then go to college and acquire the tools so you can comprehend this stuff.
It has been used quite a bit in theories with the heating effect, so one might think it would also be in the cooling effect.
Why do you never link to these studies you're always alluding too?
Example, you say things like 400 PPM, total misdirection. When have I ever said that there is not man-made warming? Never.
Well then why are you second guessing the experts?
You call people deniers,
Who know little about the science, but think they have some intellectual right to second guess thousands of experts and a couple centuries of focused research. Actually those that rely on misrepresenting the science to make their points, they deserve the label "science deniers" because that is exactly what that behavior is.
As far as the Milankovitch cycles being “subtle forcing". That may not be the case. In a subtle action we would have 50,000 years of warming and then 50,000 years of cooling. Would you not agree?
Why would you expect that? It's not like the Milankovitch cycle is all that's going on! It's trigger warming, CO2 kick in then various other phenomena get in to the act. You know those cascading consequences things I mention.
Mammoths have been found frozen with green grass in their mouths. We cannot rule out the cooling actions going into an Ice Age happening in some quick jumps of time..
Ah, I think you can safely rule out rapid global warming as the fiend that did in that unfortunately Mammoth. But, I'm no expert.
Mike,
the bigger issue you have going on here is that you seem to expect a perfect projection of what the future will look like,
or we should do nothing despite all we do know. If I misrepresent your attitude please explain. When have we ever had a perfect future projection of the changes our actions will cause? Can you explain where you’re coming from? How accurate is accurate enough?
More stuff to not trust:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2015/10/15/the-biggest-question-about-climate-change-isnt-if-or-when-its-how-abrupt/
psik
What then should we trust in, if not science?
Psikeyhakr, apparently.
Duh!
psik, you've highlighted one of the most hideous aspects of our public Anthropogenic Global Warming dialogue.
Trying to deal with the contrarian PR campaign is like shadow boxing - they toss out nothing but vapor,
then disappear back into their self-reinforcing echo-chamber.
Nothing gets established, nothing is learned, while the sand races through the hourglass.
What then should we trust in, if not science?
What? People cannot recognize sarcasm here?
I don't think the issue is trust anyway. It is probability.
psik
I dealt with that in November.
psik
Mike,
the bigger issue you have going on here is that you seem to expect a perfect projection of what the future will look like,
or we should do nothing despite all we do know.If I misrepresent your attitude please explain.When have we ever had a perfect future projection of the changes our actions will cause?Can you explain where you're coming from?How accurate is accurate enough?
Will be glad to respond. Don't have time right now. Will be back tonight.
Mike,
the bigger issue you have going on here is that you seem to expect a perfect projection of what the future will look like,
or we should do nothing despite all we do know.If I misrepresent your attitude please explain.When have we ever had a perfect future projection of the changes our actions will cause?Can you explain where you're coming from?How accurate is accurate enough?
Will be glad to respond. Don't have time right now. Will be back tonight.
Where am I coming from you ask?
There are two roads for climate changing taking place. The IPCC and the publics. You want to take action by creating more laws and taxing the hell out of people right now. The IPCC wants to complete the science and make sure it has the correct answers so the right steps can be taken.
I am backing the IPCC. I think that they are taking the correct steps. For example, if ten computer models all give the same results, then the IPCC will state that they have a 99% result. Not a 100% result. The reason being is they are allowing for the human factor. They are also staying away from the name calling as I have already pointed out.
The reason the human factor is so very important is what history can tell us. I tried using geothermal because of the saving on carbon as an example, but the point never sank in. But there are a lot of examples of the human factor overriding science. Nuclear is a good example. The metric system is another example. Or how about the phonic alphabet. Science showed that we could not have spelling bees with a phonic alphabet, because it would be impossible. There is only one way to spell any word and you could spell and read any word. Reading would be much more enjoyable because the alphabet included speed and volume. Science articles were written in the phonic alphabet and even the White House was using the phonic alphabet. But the science backers figured that it was needed and that it benefited mankind and saved a bunch of money in the cost of schooling. But the phonic alphabet lost out because it mishandled the human factor. So today educating costs more and is not effective as if we were using the phonic alphabet.
Point being, it is good that you want to educate people on climate change, but if you follow the denial thinking, you may end up doing more harm than good. Why don’t you try following the IPCC’s path, you might have better results.
There are two roads for climate changing taking place.
NOPE. There's one reality going down - how you wish to process it is another issue.
Show me one place where I've preached about laws or regulation or mitigation.
If you can't find one. Then please stop claiming shit you believe I'm thinking.
Better to stick to talking about the actual science, but you always seen to steer away from that.
And now the phonetic language - oh brother. Talk about meaningless distractions.
Next the horrors of QWERTY I suppose. :smirk:
{oops typos}