Thanks CC. I was surprised how easy it was to find a real study, not an opinion piece. Not so surprised that Mike dismissed it and deflected to some story about someone who might have said something that might have been used politically.
CC, It is becoming clearer to who? I want to hear that from a good meteorologist. Let’s see who Kelly Levin is. Internet - Kelly Levin is a senior associate with WRI’s global climate program. She focuses her work on supporting countries in the design and tracking of climate commitments, as well as planning for long-term transitions associated with decarbonization.
CC you are giving me secondhand opinions. Let’s move on. “However, it’s becoming more and more clear that a warming climate leads to more devastating hurricanes.” With this I totally agree. It is called cycles. And weather and climate works in cycles. If the weather was not warming, then something would be wrong with the earth’s cycle. Warmer weather means more devastating hurricanes. I could not agree more. This would be going on if mankind was not on earth at all.
Now Kelly gets into the meat of the subject. She is referring to scientific studies. Aren’t scientific studies backing all the, what you called shit headlines in the past? Weren’t all the Climate Change doom dates backed by scientific studies. Wasn’t anyone who questioned your shit headlines call a “denier” on this very site?
Kelly says there has been more than 170 scientific studies. Isn’t that like consensual science that was used by the IPCC? Who gave us a red line that if the earth reached a red line temperature, we would be pasted the point of no return and the earth would be doomed? And no consensual scientists disagreed. Then we did nothing and went past the point of no return. And what happened. The IPCC just said. We will draw a new temperature dooms day number. They did and none of the consensual scientists complained. And the people started questioning where and who was getting all the billions being spent on Climate Change because this seem really shady.
Then Kelly talks about hurricane Harvey and the rain fall over Texas. And it is a well-known fact that Harvey was stalled over Texas and that amounted to record rainfall. Next, Kelly says that climate change-induced factors amounted to a 38 percent increase in rainfall. That is where she blew it. That is why we need the debate. The meteorologist are telling us that Climate Change numbers are so small it cannot be measured even in hurricane Harvey. The meteorologists are disagreeing with this statement. Again, where are all the billions being spent?
. . . (plenty more, but you’d have to do a little homework on your own to appreciate that reality.)
Given that our weather is a global heat and moisture distribution engine – and given that weather is the vehicle that circulates and distributes heat, energy and moisture around our globe. It’s simple logical and physical reality – there is no f’n weather system, or natural oscillation, that forms these days that is not influenced by our warming global!!!
Good job CC. And I agree. Now how much is the question at hand. I turn on a light blub and yes that contributes to global warming. I used to argue with you about the sun cycles affecting the weather patterns and you said it is not enough to deal with in Climate Change. Just like the turning on of the light bulb. So, how much heat is coming from the sun? Every second the sun produces the same energy as about a trillion 1 megaton bombs! In one second, our sun produces enough energy for almost 500,000 years of the current needs of our so-called civilization. That’s 400 trillion watts.
It seems to me that all the meteorologists understand the energy numbers and all the taxpayer paid scientists and experts are have trouble figuring these numbers out. Numbers of energy used up by Harvey are huge. Climate Change numbers are small in comparison. Meteorologists give the Climate Change a 3% pathway to stop the arguing. But they say it is really less than 1%.
This post is about the political debate. Are you in favor of a national Climate Change debate?
Tim, I agree with what you are saying.
Here is my problem. When you do the math of CO2 and the heat it retains and the thousand years it takes to be completely removed from the atmosphere. The earth is doomed. We should be in a run-a-way none stoppable heating of the earth right now. We are putting 2.4 million pounds per second of Carbon dioxide emissions. That is the reason we were to have no more snow on earth by now.
The question. If the science doesn’t work right, then something is missing. CC and the consensual scientists will never answer the question today. They tried to say the missing heat is in the ocean and after the ocean heats the land will heat.
What the meteorologists have been telling us from the start is that the earth has a thermostat. It is the clouds. And today there are 10% more cloud coverage than years ago. CC, answer to this is what the scientists have said. The clouds zero out and are not a factor. Enough time has gone by now that if the clouds were not a factor then there should be no more snow on earth. It is just that simple.
Your right about methane and it is 30 time more potent as a heat-trapping gas than CO2. If the methane is released. We will be OK if the clouds are the earth’s thermostat. If not, we got real problems.
Show that math!
Bet you can’t.
Mike, granted that our Earth has built in mechanisms that work toward maintaining some climate stability. The build up of clouds or moisture in the air may be one of those, to some extent, that reduces heat. It also means heavier rains, i.e. more flooding in some areas. More intense hurricanes can have the effect of cooling off overheated sea waters. But the natural thermostat mechanisms that you elude to are also part of the very climate change effects that you so persistently deny. Then there are events like more intensive and larger wildfires caused by persistent dryness in some areas. Those don’t contribute to a balancing cool off. They contribute to more heat and more CO2 in the atmosphere. The reduction of ice on the Earth means there is less white ground or water cover to reflect heat from the sun as effectively. Thus there is still a spiraling down towards more heat buildup and more climate change, despite some aspects of climate change that may have cooling effects but also involve extreme weather events which are not so pleasant for us humans.
We can stop the buildup of CO2 largely by rapidly shifting over to a renewable energy economy. It is economically feasible now without even decreasing our lifestyle. We also have technologies NOW that could remove CO2 from the atmosphere. We COULD mass-scale-up those and reverse the buildup of CO2. It is possible that we could stop the complete melt off of the permafrost, and a mass extinction by methane.
Some say the world will end in fire / and others say in ice / from what I’ve tasted of desire / I hold with those who favor fire / but from what I know of hate / I’d say that for destruction, ice / is also great and would suffice / still Irony could come to pass / and we’ll all die from stinky gas
I did already with your sidekick doug boy. Go back and check it out. Doug was so upset about me showing him the math that he asked to have me blocked from this site for being a denier. It was, if my memory is correct about 17,000 nuclear bombs worth of energy a second hitting the earth from the sun. The CO2 is adding over 2.4 million pounds of carbon dioxide every second. That is equivalent to 4 Hiroshima Atomic bombs per second. The CO2 takes over a thousand years to get completely removed from the atmosphere. But for the math I used 300 years. In one day, there are 86,400 seconds. Without compounding that is 345,600 Hiroshima Atomic bombs per day worth of heat added to our atmosphere that get used every day. In a year it is heat of 126,144,000 bombs. Compounding the numbers and going back to the beginning of the industrial age and bringing it up to date on the hockey stick the carbon begins to heat the earth to extremely high temperatures. Time has showed that carbon is not holding the heat as it was explained to us. This subject is taboo to Gore followers. I am surprised you asked.
Tim, the clouds reflect a lot of heat back into space. There is a lot of research taking place right now on the droplets of the clouds and how clouds form. My self I have always been for geothermal energy. If we had went geothermal instead of nuclear back in the 70’s we would not have the problems at the levels, we have today. Do you have any good points about a warmer earth? The warmer the earth the more mankind has advanced. The more food is available. More usable land for animals and humans. Plants also do better with higher CO2 levels.
Tim, what I do understand is that the climate of the earth is an ICE AGE climate. Out of 100,000 years we have 12,000 years of stable warm weather. That 12,000 years is now ended. It takes the next 10,000 years to reach the coldest point of the ICE AGE and 78,000 years of slow warming to get back to intermediate stage that we just left. A hurricane is good weather compared to an ICE AGE blizzard. The higher CO2 levels may have extended the intermediate period by 1 to 3 thousand years. Some scientists are even saying that if we up our CO2 some more we may never have to go back into the ICE AGE cold cycle. More items for the a good national debate.
This “national debate” thing that Mike is talking about is an example of how people see the world now. Debates are what we do with political issues. Political issues must be informed by science. When the science is not providing an immediate answer to a pressing issue, then we have to use the political process to decide what to do. For Mike, and too many others, science doesn’t mean anything anymore. They don’t trust it. They want everything boiled down to two opposing positions and have two representatives of them yell at each for 5 minutes. Whoever yells the best, wins.
Mike, the stuff you understand is pure science-fiction, delusional words that don’t reflect Earth’s history or the grown-up scientific understanding. Worse from the way to describe things, you make plain how little of Earth’s history you understand. Which is probably why you are so delusional about how Earth’s climate system functions and what we know about what we have done to impinge on it (as NASA engineers would put it.).
Also the fact that what learning you do engage in, it’s all goal focused and driven by your grossly politically biased outlook.
One needs honest curiosity driven good faith learning to understand the Earth Sciences and what they have to tell us about this planet we depend.
So here’s first base for anyone’s instruction into our planet’s climate system - Namely, an over-view of how it got here in the first place. A wonderful pretty dang up to date, under appreciated series - the whole 11 episodes equal perhaps an hour (episodes <8 min.). This probably comes from an original documentary that I haven’t had the time to track down yet.
Hadean Biosciencehttps://www.youtube.com/channel/UCCToEEPlF7ur1m0efQTHG4g
The Whole History of the Earth and Life Part 1:The Origin of the Earth
The Whole History of the Earth and Life Part 2:Initiation of Plate Tectonics
The Whole History of the Earth and Life Part 3:Birth of Proto-life
The Whole History of the Earth and Life Part 4:The Initial Stage of Life
The Whole History of the Earth and Life Part 5:Second Stage of Evolution of Life
The Whole History of the Earth and Life Part 6:Third Stage of the Evolution of Life
The Whole History of the Earth and Life Part 7: The Dawn of the Cambrian Explosion
The Whole History of the Earth and Life Part 8: The Cambrian Explosion
The Whole History of the Earth and Life Part 9: The Paleozoic Era
The Whole History of the Earth and Life Part 10: From the Mesozoic to the birth of human beings
The Whole History of the Earth and Life Part 11: The Humanozoic eon
The Whole History of the Earth and Life Part 12: Future of the Earth
Presented by: Hadean Bioscience
lkugljhg
This “national debate” thing that Mike is talking about is an example of how people see the world now.Lausten, my exposure is limited, can you give me some specifics about "This National Debate?"
I want to get in on it. Where do I go?
I ask because all the big mouthed agitators for Public Debate and questioning the fundamentals of well understood climate science, with their ‘science by rhetoric’ run like cockroaches from the light, when I want to have an Honest Constructive Debate with them.
Citizenschallenge's Hall of Shamehttps://confrontingsciencecontrarians.blogspot.com/p/hall-of-shame.html
My “speciality” has been confronting climate science “skeptics” with fact based constructive debates and it usually follows the same trajectory. I call out false claims, statements and question their reasoning with explanations, arguments and an assortment of relevant links to further authoritative information so people can learn about these issues for themselves.
If they return it’s with a round of bluster and distractions that morph into ad hominem attacks on people, either me, reporters or scientists.
Never any indication that new information was read and assessed, let alone absorbed.
I respond with more facts and reasoned arguments, they respond with final insults and slammed doors not to be heard from again.
Leaving me with Virtual Debates where I strive to document the dishonesty that too many others seem to pardon.
These are the same talking heads who are astro-turfing media outlets demanding public debate, but who steadfastly run from our debates. Tragically for our country and future these self interested folks only seek theatrical lawyerly debates dedicated to confusing and obscuring.
When it comes to Serious Constructive Debates - that is, dialogues that respect the confines of truth and honestly representing others and the evidence - these showmen are nowhere to be found.
I’m talking about intellectual cowards such as: Anthony Watts; Dr. Dick Lindzen; Dr. Roy Spencer; Pascal Bruckner; “Lord”Christopher Monckton; Stephen McIntyre; Jim Steeleand his Landscapes and Cycles fraud; Heartland’s JamesTaylor; Marc Morano; Dan Pangburn; Martin Hertzberg; David Rose; Cornwall Alliance’s Beisner; Nasif Nahle; PeteRidley; John O’Sullivan; Piers Corbyn; Willie Soon; H. Sterling Burnett; Howard Hayden; 1000frolly; Poptech; Scottish Sceptic; Judith Curry; Donna Laframboise; Henrik Svensmark; Dave(NC20) Burton; Investors Business Daily; Mike Hulme.
Me thinks, the honest and constructive is exactly what terrifies them. All they know is lawyerly advocacy for their agenda in total disregard for honesty, truth and constructive learning.
I was only referring to the debate Mike is calling for. I don’t think he knows what a scientific debate is. He has a point counter point view of debating.
True enough. It’s really easy if Fidelity To The Facts means absolutely nothing to ya. Helps to be totally devoid of scruples and over-full with oneself.
Back to the lessons. Anyone watching those videos will have noticed that CO2 is unique and had an interesting history. To better appreciate that a video by Robert Rohde, Fundamentals - Earth’s Carbon Cycle By The Numbers - R.Rohde https://confrontingsciencecontrarians.blogspot.com/2019/05/fundamentals-carbon-cycle-numbers.html
“Earth’s Carbon Cycle” Robert Rohde – Published on May 22, 2019 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dwVsD9CiokY
https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/carbontracker/
Global CO2 budget
From 2000 through 2016, CO2 emissions to the atmosphere from burning of fossil fuels rose from 6.7 PgC yr-1 to 9.9 PgC yr-1 (1 petagram of carbon is 1015 gC, or 1 billion metric tons C, or 3.67 billion metric tons CO2). Global fossil fuel emissions have increased steadily year upon year, with the exception of 2008 and 2009 when emissions held nearly constant following the global economic recession (Figure 1). Fossil fuel emissions are concentrated in areas with high population density and economic activity, and emissions inventory information used in CT2017 indicates that 82% of fossil fuel emissions come from the industrialized northern extratropics.
Here’s more info, but you’d have to be serious about learning for any of this to do you any good.
https://www.globalcarbonproject.org/global/pdf/pep/Canadell%20et%20al_2004.Quantifying%20Understanding%20&%20Managing%20the%20Carbon%20Cycle.CC.pdfOr ...
Second State of the Carbon Cycle ReportWhat Is SOCCR2?
https://carbon2018.globalchange.gov/downloads/SOCCR2_RIB.pdf
Authored by more than 200 scientists from the United States, Canada, and Mexico, the Second State of the Carbon Cycle Report (SOCCR2) provides an up-to-date assessment of scientific knowledge of the North American carbon cycle. This comprehensive report addresses North American carbon fluxes, sources, and sinks across atmospheric, aquatic, and terrestrial systems,
as well as relevant perspectives from scientific observations and modeling, decision support, carbon management, and social sciences. The report presents Key Findings and actionable information on the observed status and trends within the North American carbon cycle, as influ- enced by natural and human-induced factors.
These findings are based on multidisciplinary research that includes experimental, observa- tional, and modeling studies from the last decade. Intended for a diverse audience that includes scientists, decision makers in the public and pri- vate sectors, and communities across the United States, North America, and the world, SOCCR2 provides information to inform mitigation and adaptation policies and management decisions related to the carbon cycle and climate change. It also will help support improved coordination for pertinent research, monitoring, and management activities necessary to respond to global change. SOCCR2 informs policies but does not prescribe or recommend them.Why Is the Carbon Cycle Important?
The carbon cycle encompasses the flow, stor- age, and transformation of carbon compounds that are central to life and to the production
of food, fiber, and energy. Carbon also helps regulate Earth’s climate, including tempera- ture, weather events, and more. This report assesses the complex, interconnected ecolog- ical and societal aspects of the carbon cycle, illustrating the importance of the carbon cycle to ecosystems, regions, and communitiesand projecting possible future changes to the carbon cycle and impacts on humans and eco- systems, while also presenting relevant issues for decision makers. …
CC - why are you wasting your time with a knuckle dragger
Lausten - Whoever yells the best, wins.
You got that right. The question to be answered is – people say they care about the earth. If they really cared about the earth, then they would want the debate. If they are just a self-centered mushroom, then they will just scream, yell and refuse to debate.
The same people say they worry about foreign interference. Imran Awan just proved that was nothing more than a lie.
What’s so bad here is they are using the young children and feeding them the BS and using them. That is immoral.
This debate having Mann and Curry would be a debate of the science. AOC will run and hide. In a way Mann and Curry have been leading the debate in the science community for over a decade now. If the Dems are going to run on the AGW, then it would be a mistake for the good of our nation not to have the leading scientists debate.
CC, the “humanozoic eon” seems to be a new item or term presented by the Hadean Bioscience. That really good to see a move in that direction. Hell, we might even get to the point of putting the Age of Domestication back into the history books.
CC, you post the carbon numbers again. Numbers don’t lie. If 17,000 nuclear bombs a second worth of heat is coming from the sun. And the CO2 is causing 4 bombs worth of heat. Then 10% of the sun’s heat would be 1,700 bombs. 1% would be 170 bombs. One-tenth of a percent would be 17 bombs a second. The carbon would be 1/4th of 1/10th of a percent of heating of the earth. How do you even measure that in a hurricane? Of course someone will claim they can. In a couple of months it will be proven false.
Like they say, the quality of one’s answer is directly proportional to the quality of one’s question.
Garbage in Garbage out. From your questions it’s obvious haven’t the most basic clues about climate processes - though you’ve been given plenty of opportunities to learn.
Cute gotcha questions that answer nothing are worthless.
Why not learn about our climate engine first.
Then formulate questions that make sense.
Good night.