Here’s an interesting read: Humans Are Disturbing Earth's Carbon Cycle More Than the Dinosaur-Killing Asteroid Did | Live Science
It’s been documented over and over again, that humans are causing Climate Change and if we don’t stop destroying the everglades, the rainforest, etc etc, as well as stop using oil, coal, etc, and move to renewable energy, thereby not pumping out so much carbon in the air then we’ll end up reaching that extra degree in temperature and there will be no polar ice caps.
6°C to F° = 42.8°Right and 0°C = 32°F
So how about starting from the top again.
Just what are you trying to say with that?
Yea, it makes me feel like I am not invited to your click because you all think the same and I think differently.No it has to do with your grip on physical reality. And your disrespect for honesty and truthfully reflecting what scientists are say.
But then it seem complete contempt for facts is the new power thing. And your the one accusing us of being Nazi. MAGA man!
mike, here’s a hint to your math challenge.
sometime I’ll have to share my trick of proving to kids that I have 11 fingers. (young kids)
We don’t “think differently”, we have considered as much data as we can, although each of us is different to some degree in that, and used our powers of reason, and yes, we were brought up in an environment that valued the modern knowledge and respected science, but we also know how to question authority and make sure they are not hiding anything. After all that, we came to a conclusion, which is contingent on future data that could come to light.
It’s not a clique. Anyone is invited. Like anything else, there are rules.
Lausten, that is not true. No, most posters do not respect science or modern knowledge on the issues that are political driven. I have tried to go down those pathways. And guess what. I never get a question answered because it steps away from the politically accepted viewpoint of the elite. If I don’t answer a question, then that settles the debate because it is assumed, I can’t answer the question. So, just data dump me with hours of questions to be answered. Which I would do, if there was ever any reciprocity.
Go get a fourth-grade math book and do the CO2 math. It does not work. The scientists are usually great at math. That is why we had all the predictions that all the ice on earth will be gone by 2002. The math is correct. Now, to save face the CO2 is going into the oceans. Computer are great. They do what they have been told to do. Forty years and no one has been able to get the computers to work. And why am I the only one here that can bring that up?
Are you going to set there and tell me that none of you are aware that the 97% consensus that is now 23 years old and had books written about the pervasive statement as being use as fraud. “Why Scientists Disagree About Climate Change”. Should be used to back REAL climate science? A class homework project by sixth graders in Australia that got put in the news and became a web headliner used as solid Climate Change data. Then tried to be saved and reworked by several groups and the IPCC to save face.
I guess it should not surprise me that you guys are upset because you want to bring this debate into a political driven website and I called you on that move. Get the political thinking out of Climate Change if you have any respect at all for science.
@MikeYohe said, “Are you going to set there and tell me”.
The grammar doesn’t work either.
Thanks CC. I miss that one and made a mistake. What happened was I opened a C to F converter on the web because I still live in the Fahrenheit world. I typed 6 in and got 42.8. I just went back and rechecked the and got 42.8 again. Upon further checking it turns out the converter adds 32 to the number so the real number should be 12.8. I did not want a temperature conversion. I only wanted a Celsius to Fahrenheit conversion. If it was converting money, would have caught the mistake.
I am not writing a book. In blogs, the use of informal styles is accepted. You will find that I do make a lot of grammar mistakes. The question is why did the CFI grammar checker not pick that up?
AAMOF SMHID that grammar SB BD must have been FAAK.
And your the one accusing us of being Nazi. MAGA man!
If I used a picture of a pack of dogs. Would I have been accusing you of being a dog? That is what your scientific mind tells you?
No, my human side tells me that.
Why would you feel the need to use either?
You’ve again shown that you have no comprehension and are utter unfamiliarly with basic fundamentals - that you don’t even have a seat of your pants sense of what you are reading or copying and pasting, it’s all political for you - and that doesn’t seem to bother you in the least.
Mriana, Here’s an interesting read:
“humans emit about 80 times more CO2 a year than every volcano on Earth combined.” Good point.
Let’s be honest, this article is meant to scare people into thinking that CO2 will kill like the Asteroid did by putting large amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere. Is that not correct?
All this CO2 in the air cause the earth’s greenhouse to get out of balance. I agree.
What you claim is that CO2 increases the temperature of the earth. Is that not correct?
So, what happened here, did the earth get to hot for the dinosaurs?
What was left out the article is that the Asteroid nor the CO2 did not do extinction killing. The blocking of the sunlight caused decades of freezing weather which caused the extinctions of 75% of life on earth to die. Is that not correct?
And all that extra CO2 in the air could not warm the earth enough to stop the earth from freezing. Is that not correct?
It’s been documented over and over again, that humans are causing Climate Change …
If Climate Change is viewed as anthropogenic emissions. Then no documentation is needed. That has been agreed upon for decades. What you bring up is a very important point. That the world and especially the scientists have not set the standard meanings of words being used to describe the science. Therefore, a scientific article can be interpreted and viewed differently by the public.
That has been a true statement for over twenty years now. The questions that is being asked and never answered in twenty years is. So, what if there is Climate Change. Is that good or bad? What percentage of Climate Change is there in our Climate and weather?
No, my human side tells me that.
I read that and though you should have said “my political human side”. Then I read further, and you say, “it’s all political for you”.
You know it is hard being one of the few progressives on this site. The far-left political movement has hijack the term progressive and turned it into a bad word.
I don’t care what you call yourself. I do know you pass yourself off as some authority on global warming - your main message is that the scientists and their work is politicized and can’t be trusted so we should listen to the ruminations of biased science hostile amateurs -
yet you repeatedly demonstrate your profound ignorance - and it doesn’t even seem to make you blush. 40° hotter, you haven’t a clue, but your too self-certain to appreciate that.
Then you make the conceit ‘I did the math of CO2 and it doesn’t work.’
How dare you? Who the heck are to you to trust your own math to that of a community full of seasoned experts!?
How much of this have you ever studied???
Global Warming: Understanding the Forecastis a comprehensive introduction to all aspects of global warming. Written in an accessible way, and assuming no specialist prior knowledge, this book examines the processes that control climate change and climate stability, from the distant past to the distant future.
http://forecast.uchicago.edu/index.html -
Classroom format (~45 minutes)
Topical Coursera format (2-12 minutes)
Chapter 1
Intro
Welcome (6:01)
Using Units (3:44)
Units of Energy (5:12)
Units of Light (3:16)Chapter 2
Heat and Light
Blackbody Radiation and Quantum Mechanics
Heat (4:15)
Light (5:48)
Blackbody Radiation (6:07)
Chapter 3
Our First Climate Model
The Greenhouse Effect
Naked Planet Climate Model (8:13)
The Greenhouse Effect (9:41)
Chapter 4
What Makes a Greenhouse Gas
Greenhouse Gases in the Atmosphere
Greenhouse Gas Physics (7:42)
The Band Saturation Effect (12:41)
Chapter 5
What Holds the Atmosphere Up
Why It’s Colder Aloft
Atmospheric Temperature Structure (8:38)
Pressure in a Standing Fluid (10:58)
Water Vapor and Latent Heat (8:30)
Moist Convection (2:01)
Chapter 6
Wind, Currents, and Heat
Heat Transport (3:29)
Coriolis Acceleration (5:25)
Geostrophic Motion (5:21)
The Turbulent Cascade (3:27)Chapter 7
Ice and Water Vapor Feedbacks
Clouds
Positive and Negative Feedbacks (4:36)
Ice Albedo Feedback (2:17)
Water Vapor Feedback (7:01)
Clouds (9:15)
Aerosols (5:48)
Climate Sensitivity (4:38)
Chapter 8
The Weathering CO2 Thermostat
Lungs of the Carbon Cycle
The Weathering CO₂ Thermostat (8:44)
The Goldilocks Planets (3:41)
The Oceans in the Carbon Cycle (5:15)
The Land Surface in the Carbon Cycle (5:28)Chapter 9
The Battery of the Biosphere
Coal and Oil
Oil and Methane
The Battery of the Biosphere (5:16)
Oxidation and Reduction of Carbon (6:11)
Coal (4:20)
Oil (6:59)
Natural Gas (2:30)
Forecasting Future Emissions (3:38)
Chapter 10
The Carbon Cycle Today
The Long Thaw
Human Impact on the Carbon Cycle (3:12)
Ocean Buffer Chemistry (6:14)
The Perturbed Carbon Cycle (2:42)
Methane as a Greenhouse Gas (8:49)
The Long CO₂ Tail (5:37)
Why the CO₂ Tail Matters (6:35)Chapter 11
The Smoking Gun
The Present in the Bosom of the Past
Land Surface Temperature Records (4:15)
Sea Surface Temperature Records (3:20)
Satellite Temperature Records (2:26)
The Smoking Gun: Warming Since the 1970s (6:54)
Paleoclimate and Proxy Measurements (3:46)
Tree Rings (4:25)
Borehole Temperatures (2:48)
Oxygen Isotopes (4:45)
Solar Intensity and the Hockey Stick (6:19)
Glacial - Interglacial Cycles (6:24)Chapter 12
Six Degrees
Global Weirding (3:48)
Monsoons (2:09)
Vegetation (2:57)
Impacts of Sea Level (2:01)
Antarctic Ice Sheet (2:52)
Greenland Ice Sheet (3:55)
Paleo Sea Level Changes (2:11)
Water Vapor and Storminess (1:02)
Hurricanes (3:14)
Extreme Weather (1:40)
Ecosystem Impacts (2:31)
Human Impacts (1:41)Chapter 13
Hot, Flat, and Crowded
Stabilization Scenarios (2:27)
Temperature Targets (1:52)
Slug Theory (5:42)
Geoengineering: CO₂ Capture and Sequestration (6:47)
Geoengineering: Solar Radiation Management (3:57)
Economics of Climate Change (8:50)
Mitigation: Short-Term (4:18)
Mitigation: Long-Term (3:55)Professor David Archer PhD. - Biography
I have been a professor in the Department of The Geophysical Sciences at the University of Chicago since 1993. I have worked on a wide range of topics pertaining to the global carbon cycle and its relation to global climate, with special focus on ocean sedimentary processes such as CaCO3dissolution and methane hydrate formation, and their impact on the evolution of atmospheric CO2. I teach classes on global warming, environmental chemistry, and global geochemical cycles.
You refuse to acknowledge that global observations are so complex, varied and overlapping that any attempt to start fudging numbers would quick reduce the whole effort into chaotic noise like when you put a mic next to an amp. Only through striving for excellence and accuracy is there any hope of making sense of the data. But, you don’t know enough to even appreciate such realities. Worse you don’t care.
But you want to parade yourself as something other than ignorant political operative you behave like. How dare you? Yeah, yeah, amorality opens the horizons of behavior, doesn’t it.
Doesn’t even make you blush that you tried telling us it was 40+°F some 10, 15 thousands years ago. Not for a moment do you seem to appreciate what that would mean)
MikeYohe writes: "If Climate Change is viewed as anthropogenic emissions. Then no documentation is needed."Of course in his politicized way he is trying to get his audience to make the leap: ergo there is no documentation, ergo it is a diabolical plot by long haired scientists.
Of course a sciencie sort of person would instead immediate ask the question: “So is there any documentation?”
Back at the page I’ve copied this off of, you’ll find that everyone of the following points contain a link to evidence supporting the summary statement:
So what's the evidence? The research falls into nine independently studied, but physically related, lines of evidence:Simple chemistry – when we burn carbon-based materials, carbon dioxide (CO2) is emitted (research beginning in 1900s)
Basic accounting of what we burn, and therefore how much CO2 we emit (data collection beginning in 1970s)
Measuring CO2 in the atmosphere and trapped in ice to find that it’s increasing, with levels higher than anything we’ve seen in hundreds of thousands of years (measurements beginning in 1950s)
Chemical analysis of the atmospheric CO2 that reveals the increase is coming from burning fossil fuels (research beginning in 1950s)
Basic physics that shows us that CO2 absorbs heat (research beginning in 1820s)
Monitoring climate conditions to find that recent warming of the Earth is correlated to and follows rising CO2 emissions (research beginning in 1930s)
Ruling out natural factors that can influence climate like the sun and ocean cycles (research beginning in 1830s)
Employing computer models to run experiments of natural versus human-influenced simulations of Earth (research beginning in 1960s)
Consensus among scientists who consider all previous lines of evidence and make their own conclusions (polling beginning in 1990s)
Learn more at https://www.edf.org/climate/9-ways-we-know-humans-triggered-climate-change
Mike Yohe: That has been a true statement for over twenty years now. The questions that is being asked and never answered in twenty years is. So, what if there is Climate Change. Is that good or bad?Guess you've never googled "Impact of global warming on our biosphere" - you'll find plenty and none of it is good.
Mike Yohe: What percentage of Climate Change is there in our Climate and weather?Besides being as confused as a head up one's ass, it's a totally rhetorical game - that's politics mikie, not science!
The quality of one’s answers depends on the quality of one’s questions -
of course in politics, the game is asking manipulative gotcha questions that assume an answer, that drives your narrative.
Nowhere in there is a standard or expectation of constructive learning - it’s all about winning agenda driven outcomes.
Mike, I’ll give you one thing you are true political artist.
Mike, You must be the only “progressive” who thinks we should be pumping more CO2 into the atmosphere.
Putin called Greta a “poorly informed girl”. Trump called AOC a “wack job”. The old fogeys can’t handle little girls.
CC, I already know what you think of me and the science. What I don’t know is what you think of the questions I ask. You never answer. You would rather attack me than deal with the science.
– your main message is that the scientists and their work is politicized and can’t be trust so we should listen to the rumination of total amateurs –
You got that wrong. The scientists that have been correct all along are our top scientists from the 1980’s. We are coming full circle and back to their viewpoints. Guess who the industry and some major government departments who are affected by weather are using? Yes, top scientists like Dr. Judith Curry.
You know Dr. Curry. You blasted her as being wrong all the time. And you backed Dr. Mann.
Dr. Mann just claimed he won by having a lawsuit thrown out. That was a lawsuit that he filed against someone questioning his science. He did that a lot. After eight years, he got it thrown out. His views of law are like his views of science. How do you get a lawsuit that you filed thrown out? How do you win a lawsuit that you file by getting it thrown out? You don’t. Mann dropped the lawsuit and did not show up. Mann lost. But he is claiming he won. And all you Mann followers are eating it up.
For anyone following this. Let me explain what has been going on.
The young scientists have made million and spent billions of taxpayer dollars by having followers like CC buying into the CO2 concept.
Everyone agrees that CO2 is a warming gas. Including me. And there are also a lot of other warming gasses.
Science needs to agree on the Driver of the heating. Is CO2 the Driver? CC says yes. I say no.
I agree that the Driver is the sun.
I agree the earth has a Thermostat. CC says it does not.
The Thermostat is the clouds. The hotter the earth the more clouds. The more clouds, the more reflective sunlight back into space and the less sunlight hitting the earth causes cooling.
CC says clouds have zero affect.
What is the Driver and does the earth have a Thermostat is the scientific questions that need to be answered. We are slowly getting there. Who here has researched or talked about the Driver and the Thermostat?
The sun has many cycles and four of those cycles are affecting the sunlight from the sun right now. We were told over a decade ago that GSM would affect the hurricanes and cause early snowfall to happen now. And they are correct. You know it is good to have predictions come true. It sort of helps create faith in our scientists.
The cutting-edge science research being done right now is on clouds.
Most of the temperature-related mortality today is attributable to cold, not heat.
We now have people like Bill Gates talking about ways to adopt to a warmer climate.
There is ample evidence that the average person thinks he or she is more skillful, more beautiful and kinder than others and that such overconfidence may result in substantial social costs. And this self-deception is hurting the climate science.