Oh yeah, there’s also that thing about Impossible Expectations - leading to self delusion.
Good night
Some questions are just to hard for some people to answer. The question you can’t seem to answer is – “Are you for a national Climate Change debate?” You seem to want to debate the Climate Change here. I would much rather listen to the experts debate on national TV.
mike - there is no debate in the climate science community. Its only plebs like you that want to argue and flog a dead horse.
There is a problem with a debate forum in the case of “experts” on the topic of climate change. A debate is typically one vs one or 2 vs 2 debaters.
The real experts in climate science are divided into the approx 99% who recognize AGW and the 1% of “experts” who deny it.
So a fair debate would be for a single denier expert to make a 5 minute point which was then parried by 5 minutes from each of 99 AGW recognizers. Then the 99 would each make their own 5 min. point, which would be countered by a single 5 min response by the expert denier. And so on.
The debate must be set up like this, because, otherwise, the public might erroneously assume that the denier expert represents an approximately equally valid fact based position as the actual climate scientists. But, by all means, if the debate is structured fairly as I suggest, then bring it on.
Fundamentally there are two kinds of debate. Mike believes in the one type, the Political/Lawyerly Debate where honesty means nothing and rhetorical fancy dancing and appealing to the crowd’s emotions in absolute disregard for the truth. Since winning is the only goal.
The other type of debate is the one’s scientists engage it. It is a debate where honesty is demanded. Where your own facts and your opponents facts and positions are honesty and truthfully described since a better understanding is the ultimate goal.
I’d be all for an honesty public debate, but as Mike repeatedly demonstrates honesty and truth doesn’t even exist in their universe. Where’s that leave us, as in humanity? We are screwed.
To claim scientists aren’t engaged in honest, forthright, informed debates is utter malicious bullshit. Jesus Christ you just need to put a contrarians video next to a real scientist explaining their aspect of climate science understanding to recognize the glaring and disgustingly huge gap between the two.
I’d actually love a debate, but with one condition, let’s put electric buzzers in each seat.
Then when someone says some demonstrably false, they get buzzed in proportion to the size of their lie.
Now that would be a debate worth watching and be sure to invite Happer and Lindzen and Singer and Curry and rest of the professional liar. I’d pay to get into that show.
Ooooh, can we put one of those buzzers on Trump? What fun it would be to watch his electrically elicited jerks and spasms. He might even learn to suppress some of his lies for a while. But lies are such an integral part of his speech, he might just have to stop speaking altogether.
I’m all in. Good idea!
CC, the science is one of the major problems I have with your type of science. You are using observatory science on climate that works in trends, lags and cycles that can take hundreds of years. If it is hot out, it’s climate change. If it is cold out, it’s climate change. Your postings are sometimes way outside of any parameters I use. As a matter of fact, I don’t think you are using any parameters. But your major problem is you don’t have any datum points or datum lines that you work from.
Where I use the Ice Cores as a datum point for climate change science. You are following Gore’s science. And Gore’s first charts were wrong. He removed the CO2 following the heat rise in the Ice Core charts. Then he took it out of his charts completely because he claimed the CO2 was the driving force of the heat. And if that was true then the CO2 would rise first, and the heat would follow. But, that is not the way it works.
As the CO2 kept rising due to the Industrial Age. Predictions were made of no more ice or snow on earth. Your science has the CO2 as the Climate Change driving force and the earth with no thermostat. All predictions have been wrong and the only predictions that we are getting from your side today is 50 to 100 years away.
The science I am backing has the cycles of the sun and earth causing the sun to be the driving force and the CO2 as a blanket that holds some of the heat. The clouds are the earth’s thermostat. Using the sun’s cycles as datum points the increase in Hurricane power and the cold winters was predicted a decade ago with the arrival of the sun’s Grand Solar Minimum.
What we have been told in simple terms is the sun’s magnetic field gets weaker, the sunspots are fewer and smaller. Which allows cosmic rays to enter the solar system and energize particles that penetrates the Earth’s atmosphere which gives us bigger auroras like we get from the big sun flares. And due to less energy from the sun the outer atmosphere will be cooling. Well guess what. That has happened. The CO2 was not even enough heat to keep the upper atmosphere from cooling.
Changes in both the sun and clouds you have said are so small that they have no meaningful affect on the Climate Change. We are beginning to see that is not true. I am following the same science and people who have not changed from the time of Gore. The computer models have yet to work. That is your garbage in equals garbage out. Today they are trying to program clouds and sun cycles for the computer models.
The “Red Team/Blue Team” public debate still hasn’t happened, and maybe never will. But the agency had intended to use it to “critique” a federal report on US climate impacts, according to EPA emails released in response to a Freedom of Information Act request by the Natural Resources Defense Council. The idea for a “Red Team/Blue Team” debate was first floated in April of 2017 by a New York University physicist and former energy official under the Obama administration.
A robust, transparent public peer review evaluation of climate change is something everyone should support.
The debate was dead by 2018.
March 2019 - Myron Ebell, director of the Center for Energy and Environment at the Competitive Enterprise Institute and the former head of President Trump’s EPA transition team. It was suggested a continued debate of climate science mirroring the proposed “red-team, blue-team” debate.
mike Yohe - you say its cooling?
Guess Mike still refused to acknowledge the part about the fundamental physics of greenhouse gas behavior in our atmosphere.
Ice cores won’t do you much good considering - you demonstrate zero appreciate for Earth’s evolution and think that one data point from ancient times somehow describes todays situation - though you’re completely obvious to what was happen on Earth back when to produce that data point.
Oh you also don’t seem to be aware of the physics of the sun either, which started out much cooler and took billions of years to develop into today’s furnace.
The cosmic ray bombardment you speak of these days is minuscule, the CO2 greenhouse gas we pack on by the gigatonne - if you want to see cosmos rays make a grand impact on clouds you gotta go way back. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SqITfOGvfZk&list=PLFTU8O5DtQYYV6protI0g_d-W7LicadVj&index=6
Player what Mike is saying is basically: lets figure out how the car drives down the highway by focusing on the wind forces, while ignoring the engine and gasoline.
mike Yohe – you say its cooling?
Player, what I am saying is that Mother Nature cycle is entering the Lag part of the peak of the earth’s warm cycle and the earth is supposed to be warmer. The CO2 is a blanket that keeps some of this heat from leaving the earth. Like the numbers show CO2 is ¼ of 1/10 of 1%. Not the major driving force that the political movement is claiming. The CO2 math was correct and has been correct for 50 years now. If the math is correct and all the predictions are wrong. Then maybe the hypothesis is most likely wrong. The CO2 has increased in the upper atmosphere and the hypothesis say it is supposed to be warming up in the upper atmosphere. But the sun entered the Grand Solar Minimum which did not remove any of the CO2 from the upper atmosphere. And the upper atmosphere cooled down, not just a little bit, but grossly cooled down and the size of the upper atmosphere has shrunken in size. This would not have happened this way if the CO2 was the driving heat force. The CO2 hypothesis claims to be using observational studies and consensual science. But they seem to be blind when it doesn’t fit their hypothesis.
CC - Ice cores won’t do you much good considering – you demonstrate zero appreciate for Earth’s evolution and think that one data point from ancient times somehow describes todays situation – though you’re completely obvious to what was happen on Earth back when to produce that data point.
CC- when the earth was a snowball the earth had extremally high CO2 levels. All this smoke screen is not really about the earth and what’s good for the earth. It is a political movement. Countries like Canada and the UK both had people involved in the implementation of Climate Change regulations admit that the Climate Change is a program to distribute wealth by globalization? It is understood that the IPCC was set up as a tool for globalization. If Trump had not stopped the US from moving forward with the carbon taxes, right now each American would be paying $2,500 per year in extra Carbon taxes that would be dispersed to other countries.
Point being there seems to be a real political connection between Climate Change and globalization. And globalization is inescapably intertwined with open borders and free movement of people to any country they wish.
If the Climate Change promoters get their way America will could very well have five million people moving here each month and be caught up in a civil war that would cause the breakup of America. The America military would shut down and the downfall of the dollar as a safe-haven currency would change the world. Countries would be engaged in full time war.
And all of this for what? So you can call people phobic this and phobic that to make yourself feel like you belong as part of the upper caste system and not one of the deplorables?
DAVID KAROLY
I AM a climate scientist, and Alan Jones is wrong. And the reason he’s wrong is that, we know that, yes, the greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere – essentially the carbon dioxide concentration now – is 400 parts per million. And this was the one thing he was reasonably accurate on – that that corresponds to…about 0.04% of the whole of the atmosphere is made up of carbon dioxide. All his other numbers were wrong. Because we know that that carbon dioxide concentration, 100 years ago, was about 280 parts per million, or 0.028%. But it’s gone from 280 parts per million to 400 parts per million. It’s grown 120 parts per million, or about 40%, and that 40% increase is due to human activity. We know that for absolute certain. So, he’s wrong about only 3% due to human activity. It’s 40%. And of that 40%, he’s right – Australians have contributed about 1.5%. Now, that sounds like a small amount, but, actually, Australia only makes up 0.3% of the global population, and we’re contributing 1.5%, roughly, of the increase in greenhouse gases. So, is it fair that 0.3% of the global population has contributed 1.5%? We’ve contributed much more than our fair share, if it was equally distributed around the world, emissions of greenhouse gases, contributing to this global warming increase in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.
MikeYohe, just shut up and learn about it first. Christ start with learning there’s a difference between your fertile imagination and what’s unfolding up on our Earth. Politics may be in charge of how rapidly we are fuking thing up, but the geophysics work independent of politics. Though that’s been the genius of this DENIAL INDUSTRY - say nasty bullshit long enough, no matter how removed it is from reality, people start to buy it. Specially people already plugged into the Boob Tube.
‘The term climate change has become such a political hot button that, I think, I keeps us from having a real dialogue’. From the head of FEMA. FEMA has now dropped ‘Climate Change’ from its strategic plan.
Political science is goal driven. The goal is globalization. In 2017 the Union of Concerned Scientists put reports out that “the number of hurricanes that reach Categories 4 and 5 in strength has roughly doubled” since the 1970s due to climate change.
What they failed to include was that was also the prediction of sun driven climate given by skeptic scientists to congress back in 2006. But it was driven by the sun and not the carbon. They did this by using the sun cycles which drives the hurricane cycles and not the levels of C02.
What you focus on is the influence of global warming deniers, consisting of a small group of scientists plus others that are motivated to deny global warming owing to the implications associated with any policy to control greenhouse gas emissions.
It reminds me of postings about neo-Nazi groups having all this power in America. The far left kept saying, neo-Nazi this and neo-Nazi that. Made me interested in who and what was this neo-Nazi movement they were talking about was. Remember I posted a story by CNN back in March about a black guy who got voted in as the head guy of one of the largest neo-Nazi groups in America. And he closed the group down. There were 35 members. The only power of the neo-Nazis was what was being given to them by the far Left.
I think the same thing is going on here. Who are these deniers? Who is Alan Jones? Is he a meteorologist?
Denying anthropogenic affects is egregiously just as wrong as calling mother natures affects anthropogenic for political goals.
Mike I understand the current atmospheric concern of CO2 is around 410ppm. Is that also your understanding?
Sure, if you say. I don’t have any problem with the CO2 levels. CO2 is a heavy gas so i would not be surprised if there is more closer to the land. Mankind has always done better and advanced more during the warmer periods on earth. I can’t remember the last good crop we grew in a snowbank. There is a web site that will give you a daily or week number on CO2 levels. I bet CC knows that site.
Happy to help,
415 ppm and rising.
http://scrippsco2.ucsd.edu/data/atmospheric_co2/primary_mlo_co2_record
https://www.co2.earth/daily-co2
Crazy-makers can call it what they want doesn’t change the geophysical reality unfolding.
… Increasing CO2 increases our atmospheric insulation,
… Increasing atmospheric insulation warms the biosphere and global heat and moisture distribution engine,
… Heat drives our planet’s weather regime, which in turn dictates the type of biosphere happening on Earth,
… We are rapidly shifting our planet’s climate regime, which will cause
… cascading consequences with profound impacts for the biosphere the old regime enabled.
… That would be the biosphere that supplies our life support system.
Anthropogenic Global Warming is Driving Climate Change - no fancy dancing required.