... From what I see the human factor is still alive and well in the science world. Just look at Climate Change. Couldn’t fix the errors in Global Warming so change the name to Climate Change? What’s is in most people’s mind as the meaning of what climate change is? Weather. Then claim that people deny weather. I do not know one person on earth that will deny weather. Don’t even know how one would go about denying weather. That to me is poor science and the term “Climate Change" itself is a human and not a scientific factor...This point about the terms "Global Warming" "being changed" to "Climate Change" is an unfortunately common misinterpretation. THERE WAS NO CHANGE IN THESE TERMS. THEY REFER TO DIFFERENT PHENOMENA. "Global Warming" refers to the Earth warming. "Climate Change" occurs as a result of "Global Warming". (On the Earth surface there exist various local climates. If the average temperature of the entire planet changes significantly and persistently, then the local climates will be impacted.) Please understand this simple distinction. Please do not allow others to continue with this misunderstanding. Changing the term from Global Warming to Climate Change was a valid, commom-sense move. One of the problems with calling it Gobal Warming to uneducated people is that every time there was a drop in temperature anywhere in the world, or a snow or ice storm, some idiot denier was bound and determined to come up with, "See? That proves there is no Global Warming." Scientists and the media do have to be careful how they speak of science to uneducated people. It's like teaching a very small or intellectually challenged child. Lois
... From what I see the human factor is still alive and well in the science world. Just look at Climate Change. Couldn’t fix the errors in Global Warming so change the name to Climate Change? What’s is in most people’s mind as the meaning of what climate change is? Weather. Then claim that people deny weather. I do not know one person on earth that will deny weather. Don’t even know how one would go about denying weather. That to me is poor science and the term “Climate Change" itself is a human and not a scientific factor...This point about the terms "Global Warming" "being changed" to "Climate Change" is an unfortunately common misinterpretation. THERE WAS NO CHANGE IN THESE TERMS. THEY REFER TO DIFFERENT PHENOMENA. "Global Warming" refers to the Earth warming. "Climate Change" occurs as a result of "Global Warming". (On the Earth surface there exist various local climates. If the average temperature of the entire planet changes significantly and persistently, then the local climates will be impacted.) Please understand this simple distinction. Please do not allow others to continue with this misunderstanding. Changing the term from Global Warming to Climate Change was a valid, commom-sense move. One of the problems with calling it Gobal Warming to uneducated people is that every time there was a drop in temperature anywhere in the world, or a snow or ice storm, some idiot denier was bound and determined to come up with, "See? That proves there is no Global Warming." Scientists and the media do have to be careful how they speak of science to uneducated people. It's like teaching a very small or intellectually challenged child. Lois Lois, You, would agree that TimB is one very smart guy. But I am not sure TimB has gotten it right. Just look. {“Global Warming" refers to the Earth warming.} I don’t think that is correct today, it would have been correct in the past. “Global Warming" refers to only the “land surface" of the earth warming today. The surface could be warming, but the earth itself could be cooling in the new definition. Next, {“Climate Change" occurs as a result of “Global Warming".} We could very well have “Climate Change" and no “Global Warming". The land surface temperatures could stay the same for years, yet the overall global temperature could be changing as a result of atmosphere or water temperature changes. It is sort of nit picking but I brought this up because you stated it was a valid, common-sense move to redefine the terms this way to educate the idiot deniers. It was easier and made more common sense to me when Global Warming meant the globe was warming. And Climate Change meant weather. And Global Climate Change meant the weather of the globe was changing.
It is sort of nit pickingYa think?
You have lost the argument when you resort to arguing semantics. Click the links I provided earlier and being educating yourself, Mike. You are woefully ignorant of what is happening to our planet.
Where did I say that? You said that in your last post. “The rate of current climate change is unprecedented and our carbon emissions are causing it."Can you not see the mistake in your thinking? Just because you stop adding something does not mean you are subtracting it. Carbon hangs around in the atmosphere for hundreds of years, so even if we stopped using fossil fuels tomorrow we'd still be in for increased warming through the end of the century and perhaps longer.
Scientists have many methods of studying Earth’s past climate. Yes they do have many methods of studying the Earth’s past. But can you show any one of the methods that has been use more or referred to more about past climate in Global Warming than the ice cores?What is your point?
Wrong. How human beings almost vanish from Earth in 70,000 B.C. The human extinction was caused by the eruption of Mt. Toba 74,000 to 71,000 BC., not the earth's weather cycle.I know that. I was responding to your claim that man has survived other climate change events with no problem. Can you guess why humans almost went extinct after that volcanic eruption? Hint: volcanic ash blocks sunlight. As I've said before and will repeat again, you need to study the science Mike. What you've shown in this thread is a complete misunderstanding of science and an appealing willingness to accept denialist lies over scientific concensus.
... From what I see the human factor is still alive and well in the science world. Just look at Climate Change. Couldn’t fix the errors in Global Warming so change the name to Climate Change? What’s is in most people’s mind as the meaning of what climate change is? Weather. Then claim that people deny weather. I do not know one person on earth that will deny weather. Don’t even know how one would go about denying weather. That to me is poor science and the term “Climate Change" itself is a human and not a scientific factor...This point about the terms "Global Warming" "being changed" to "Climate Change" is an unfortunately common misinterpretation. THERE WAS NO CHANGE IN THESE TERMS. THEY REFER TO DIFFERENT PHENOMENA. "Global Warming" refers to the Earth warming. "Climate Change" occurs as a result of "Global Warming". (On the Earth surface there exist various local climates. If the average temperature of the entire planet changes significantly and persistently, then the local climates will be impacted.) Please understand this simple distinction. Please do not allow others to continue with this misunderstanding. Changing the term from Global Warming to Climate Change was a valid, commom-sense move. One of the problems with calling it Gobal Warming to uneducated people is that every time there was a drop in temperature anywhere in the world, or a snow or ice storm, some idiot denier was bound and determined to come up with, "See? That proves there is no Global Warming." Scientists and the media do have to be careful how they speak of science to uneducated people. It's like teaching a very small or intellectually challenged child. Lois Lois, You, would agree that TimB is one very smart guy. But I am not sure TimB has gotten it right. Just look. {“Global Warming" refers to the Earth warming.} I don’t think that is correct today, it would have been correct in the past. “Global Warming" refers to only the “land surface" of the earth warming today. The surface could be warming, but the earth itself could be cooling in the new definition. Next, {“Climate Change" occurs as a result of “Global Warming".} We could very well have “Climate Change" and no “Global Warming". The land surface temperatures could stay the same for years, yet the overall global temperature could be changing as a result of atmosphere or water temperature changes. It is sort of nit picking but I brought this up because you stated it was a valid, common-sense move to redefine the terms this way to educate the idiot deniers. It was easier and made more common sense to me when Global Warming meant the globe was warming. And Climate Change meant weather. And Global Climate Change meant the weather of the globe was changing. Are you implying that the oceans are not part of the globe and that the warming of the earth and the atmosphere has no effect on the oceans? That's news to me. LL
... From what I see the human factor is still alive and well in the science world. Just look at Climate Change. Couldn’t fix the errors in Global Warming so change the name to Climate Change? What’s is in most people’s mind as the meaning of what climate change is? Weather. Then claim that people deny weather. I do not know one person on earth that will deny weather. Don’t even know how one would go about denying weather. That to me is poor science and the term “Climate Change" itself is a human and not a scientific factor...This point about the terms "Global Warming" "being changed" to "Climate Change" is an unfortunately common misinterpretation. THERE WAS NO CHANGE IN THESE TERMS. THEY REFER TO DIFFERENT PHENOMENA. "Global Warming" refers to the Earth warming. "Climate Change" occurs as a result of "Global Warming". (On the Earth surface there exist various local climates. If the average temperature of the entire planet changes significantly and persistently, then the local climates will be impacted.) Please understand this simple distinction. Please do not allow others to continue with this misunderstanding. Changing the term from Global Warming to Climate Change was a valid, commom-sense move. One of the problems with calling it Gobal Warming to uneducated people is that every time there was a drop in temperature anywhere in the world, or a snow or ice storm, some idiot denier was bound and determined to come up with, "See? That proves there is no Global Warming." Scientists and the media do have to be careful how they speak of science to uneducated people. It's like teaching a very small or intellectually challenged child. Lois Lois, You, would agree that TimB is one very smart guy. But I am not sure TimB has gotten it right. Just look. {“Global Warming" refers to the Earth warming.} I don’t think that is correct today, it would have been correct in the past. “Global Warming" refers to only the “land surface" of the earth warming today. The surface could be warming, but the earth itself could be cooling in the new definition. Next, {“Climate Change" occurs as a result of “Global Warming".} We could very well have “Climate Change" and no “Global Warming". The land surface temperatures could stay the same for years, yet the overall global temperature could be changing as a result of atmosphere or water temperature changes. It is sort of nit picking but I brought this up because you stated it was a valid, common-sense move to redefine the terms this way to educate the idiot deniers. It was easier and made more common sense to me when Global Warming meant the globe was warming. And Climate Change meant weather. And Global Climate Change meant the weather of the globe was changing. Are you implying that the oceans are not part of the globe and that the warming of the earth and the atmosphere has no effect on the oceans? That's news to me. LL I’m not implying that the atmosphere and oceans are not part of the earth. You’re new definition of Global Warming used by the EPA states that, Global warming refers to the recent and ongoing rise in global average temperature near Earth's surface. Al Gore use the whole earth for Global warming. Here is what Wikipedia is saying. Within scientific journals, global warming refers to surface temperature increases while climate change includes global warming and everything else that increasing greenhouse gas levels will affect. Took this off my phone. The most used tool today. Other lines of thinking is that global warming and climate change are the same, but climate change is a term use for data over decades or longer. The fact is that TimB is right and you are right and I am right. There is just too many directions this definition is going based upon what agency’s data you are reading. I learned a long time ago that when it comes to government agencies that you cannot use Black’s Law Dictionary even for the simple terms, like “worker", “employee", “employer". That’s because each government department has its own legal definition of these words. The scientist are still using the old term, Global Climate Change. But the media and political people want something different. Make it simple and keep it simple and work together.
Where did I say that? You said that in your last post. “The rate of current climate change is unprecedented and our carbon emissions are causing it."Can you not see the mistake in your thinking? Just because you stop adding something does not mean you are subtracting it. Carbon hangs around in the atmosphere for hundreds of years, so even if we stopped using fossil fuels tomorrow we'd still be in for increased warming through the end of the century and perhaps longer.
Scientists have many methods of studying Earth’s past climate. Yes they do have many methods of studying the Earth’s past. But can you show any one of the methods that has been use more or referred to more about past climate in Global Warming than the ice cores?What is your point?
Wrong. How human beings almost vanish from Earth in 70,000 B.C. The human extinction was caused by the eruption of Mt. Toba 74,000 to 71,000 BC., not the earth's weather cycle.I know that. I was responding to your claim that man has survived other climate change events with no problem. Can you guess why humans almost went extinct after that volcanic eruption? Hint: volcanic ash blocks sunlight. As I've said before and will repeat again, you need to study the science Mike. What you've shown in this thread is a complete misunderstanding of science and an appealing willingness to accept denialist lies over scientific concensus. On the subject you brought up on carbon. Can you tell me what the highest level of carbon the scientist think the earth has had and what the temperatures were and how that compares to today's carbon levels and temperatures? The point I am trying to make is that there are still a lot of unknown facts on how the earth deals with energy and how much the earth releases heat into space when it heats up. I still feel that the scientist will have the answers in about five years time, and that's not bad.
On the subject you brought up on carbon. Can you tell me what the highest level of carbon the scientist think the earth has had and what the temperatures were and how that compares to today's carbon levels and temperatures? The point I am trying to make is that there are still a lot of unknown facts on how the earth deals with energy and how much the earth releases heat into space when it heats up. I still feel that the scientist will have the answers in about five years time, and that's not bad.Mike, you should accept the authority of science here. The greenhouse effect is known for ages, and for everybody who knows a little about astronomy the fact is obvious. Mars and Venus both have atmospheres with very high concentrations of CO2, Mars a very thin one, Venus a thick one. On Mars 'tropical temperatures' can reach 35C, which is pretty warm for a planet that is so far from the sun. Venus has temperatures to 462C, which is hotter than Mercury (420C) which is much closer to the sun. With DarronS, I would strongly suggest that you read the science. The evidence that we are heating up the earth (that includes atmosphere, oceans and surface) is overwhelming. The biological and geopolitical consequences will be immense.
On the subject you brought up on carbon. Can you tell me what the highest level of carbon the scientist think the earth has had and what the temperatures were and how that compares to today's carbon levels and temperatures? The point I am trying to make is that there are still a lot of unknown facts on how the earth deals with energy and how much the earth releases heat into space when it heats up. I still feel that the scientist will have the answers in about five years time, and that's not bad.I've given you the links to find the answers but apparently you are not curious enough to educate yourself. We've also been over this territory in the archives. Stop being lazy and take advantage of the vast resources available to you.
As much as I enjoy debate and looking stuff up, there is a point where you need to know who you’re debating. If you are researching an answer, with the intention of responding to someone else’s question, sometimes you learn things for yourself. That’s kinda the whole point of scientific debate. But when you’re looking something up just because you don’t remember a specific detail, like specific carbon ppm and its historical relationship to temperature, just as an example, you need a reason to do that. A reason like the person you are looking it up for is willing to learn, willing to hear the evidence. With some people, you can tell that no matter what evidence you present, they’ll just come back with an unrelated question, another challenge to look something else up. The best you can do is wear them down until they say, “well, it’s inconclusive”. I don’t do that.
As much as I enjoy debate and looking stuff up, there is a point where you need to know who you're debating. If you are researching an answer, with the intention of responding to someone else's question, sometimes you learn things for yourself. That's kinda the whole point of scientific debate. But when you're looking something up just because you don't remember a specific detail, like specific carbon ppm and its historical relationship to temperature, just as an example, you need a reason to do that. A reason like the person you are looking it up for is willing to learn, willing to hear the evidence. With some people, you can tell that no matter what evidence you present, they'll just come back with an unrelated question, another challenge to look something else up. The best you can do is wear them down until they say, "well, it's inconclusive". I don't do that.That's why I haven't been spending the time to look up specific responses to Mike's questions. It is obvious he is taking the lazy way out and regurgitating FUD he has heard from climate change deniers. If Mike would take the time to read the scientists' work instead of what energy company funded think tanks publish then a) he'd be gone for a few months catching up on 30 years of research and b) he wouldn't post silly things such as arguing semantics.
On the subject you brought up on carbon. Can you tell me what the highest level of carbon the scientist think the earth has had and what the temperatures were and how that compares to today's carbon levels and temperatures? The point I am trying to make is that there are still a lot of unknown facts on how the earth deals with energy and how much the earth releases heat into space when it heats up. I still feel that the scientist will have the answers in about five years time, and that's not bad.Mike, you should accept the authority of science here. The greenhouse effect is known for ages, and for everybody who knows a little about astronomy the fact is obvious. Mars and Venus both have atmospheres with very high concentrations of CO2, Mars a very thin one, Venus a thick one. On Mars 'tropical temperatures' can reach 35C, which is pretty warm for a planet that is so far from the sun. Venus has temperatures to 462C, which is hotter than Mercury (420C) which is much closer to the sun. With DarronS, I would strongly suggest that you read the science. The evidence that we are heating up the earth (that includes atmosphere, oceans and surface) is overwhelming. The biological and geopolitical consequences will be immense. GdB, the earth also had what, 300 time the concentration of CO2 than it has today. And that had the earth in an Ice Age. So maybe we are acting on the answers we do not yet have. DarronS talks like he has all the answers, and that is great. Because most the scientist don’t even claim that. The sky is falling people should wait until the scientists have the total answers. Not just, that they all agree on certain facts. What happens then is you end up with bad science management making bad decisions. Here is an example of that in today’s news http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/02/10/us-climatechange-latam-carbon-idUSKBN0LE1YM20150210. Are those the types of actions that take place when you are working with good science and good knowledge? And I agree with you 100% that people are adding heat to the earth. That’s a given. But I would not go as far to agree that the biological and geopolitical consequences will be immense just because of the heating by us humans. It might be. I have no way of knowing so I will rely on the scientist after they have more data. What the scientist are telling us is, in the last peaks of heating of the last nine global climate cycles that species did go extinct. And none of that had to do with camp fires of the humans. So the two big questions that needs to be answered are. First, where are we in the Milankovitch cycle? Some scientist say we are at the peak, other past the peak and in the cooling trend, and still others say we have a long way to go before we get to the peak. And the second is, what is the natural datum line we are to use for the natural earth warming so we can measure how much us people are adding to the cycle? That basic point of math and science has not been agreed upon yet. Most scientist are good and smart people. And they say when the computer models are working and agreeing with each other they will have the answers. On the political side, the polls say most of the people do not want to pay for Global Climate Change. So there seems to be a movement to scare the hell out of the people and pass taxes to fix the earth. I love the earth, I am an outdoors guy. And I have grandkids to worry about. The government says the biggest threat to the people today is climate change. I feel they got it wrong. The biggest threat to the people today is the government. Let’s get our ducks in a row and fix the government first, otherwise this climate change will not mean a dam thing other than a tool used by the government. And I do hear the scientists that say we need to act today, because if we wait any longer, then it will be too late to fix the problem. I figure the other scientists have to be hearing the same thing and they have the ability to understand the data, but their actions are not as one would expect if they believed the same. You seem to be up on the planets, I wish I knew more. Just have never had the time. I had always wondered if they placed a mirror close to the sun and reflected more light to Mars that they could warm it up for human occupation. But today they said the idea of reflecting some of the sunlight away from the earth would not help fix the warming problem. So file that idea in the round file.
Mike Yohe said:
DarronS talks like he has all the answers, and that is great. Because most the scientist don’t even claim that. The sky is falling people should wait until the scientists have the total answers.
Now you are resorting to innuendo and sloppy thinking. Read those last two sentences and think about them then let me know when you figure out where your logic failed.
Mike Yohe said:DarronS, the logic is the same in ways as what went on in Yellowstone Park. All the government charts and scientist agreed that fire prevention was the best system and the best for Yellowstone Park. The debate went on for years until the scientist were able to win with overwhelming logic and mountains of undebatable data. The scientist were able to get political and public backing, and were the heroes that were going to save Yellowstone. The scientist just did not see any reason to address a couple issues that did not seem important to them. One being the past history and two that the fires actually was part of the environmental system. Guess what, after the new system of management destroyed what had been growing in Yellowstone for hundreds of years. The scientist dump the new management system, had to, there was very little left to manage. They had to ignore all their career advancing wining data and facts and endorse the very system they had been crusading against. And the replacement system relied heavily on the two issues that they did not really address before. It wasn’t that the scientist were unable to understand the two issues, it was that they needed the past historical data and that would have taken years of time to gather, and for the sake of saving Yellowstone they felt they did not have the time to collect that data. Now DarronS, I can’t even guess how many times I have brought to the table the two issues that need addressing on Global Climate Change. And guess what, you dance around and have never ever tried to answer them. Thank god that the scientist with Global Climate Change are going after the answers. And like I have said many times before, they think they will have the answers in about five years, and that is the real scientific way this program should be handled.DarronS talks like he has all the answers, and that is great. Because most the scientist don’t even claim that. The sky is falling people should wait until the scientists have the total answers.Now you are resorting to innuendo and sloppy thinking. Read those last two sentences and think about them then let me know when you figure out where your logic failed.
Start your own thread Mike. Then notice how people ignore you.
Start your own thread Mike. Then notice how people ignore you.Your right, Lausten. Sorry about that. I got sucked in the trap. But I was thinking it did show how science and “authority" was affected, but it was into another subject. It is your post and I will leave.
I didn’t think you’d acknowledge your flawed logic, Mike. First you said scientists never claim to have all the answers (true), then you said we should wait until scientists have the “total answers.” Science is always provisional. You are advocating one of the denialist positions that we should wait for certainty and ignoring the decades of science that has been proven correct. Compounding your failed logic you cited energy companies ignoring science and depleting old-growth rain forests for carbon as an example proving your point of scientists being wrong.
Further conversations on this subject will be fruitless until you take the time to study the science.
Where did I say that? You said that in your last post. “The rate of current climate change is unprecedented and our carbon emissions are causing it."Can you not see the mistake in your thinking? Just because you stop adding something does not mean you are subtracting it. Carbon hangs around in the atmosphere for hundreds of years, so even if we stopped using fossil fuels tomorrow we'd still be in for increased warming through the end of the century and perhaps longer. So let's not do anything!
Scientists have many methods of studying Earth’s past climate. Yes they do have many methods of studying the Earth’s past. But can you show any one of the methods that has been use more or referred to more about past climate in Global Warming than the ice cores?What is your point?
Wrong. How human beings almost vanish from Earth in 70,000 B.C. The human extinction was caused by the eruption of Mt. Toba 74,000 to 71,000 BC., not the earth's weather cycle.I know that. I was responding to your claim that man has survived other climate change events with no problem. Can you guess why humans almost went extinct after that volcanic eruption? Hint: volcanic ash blocks sunlight. As I've said before and will repeat again, you need to study the science Mike. What you've shown in this thread is a complete misunderstanding of science and an appealing willingness to accept denialist lies over scientific concensus. On the subject you brought up on carbon. Can you tell me what the highest level of carbon the scientist think the earth has had and what the temperatures were and how that compares to today's carbon levels and temperatures? The point I am trying to make is that there are still a lot of unknown facts on how the earth deals with energy and how much the earth releases heat into space when it heats up. I still feel that the scientist will have the answers in about five years time, and that's not bad.