I googled “co2 levels follow temperature” and got a whole bunch of hits. Maybe you should try that.
Science, science, science. It is the word you hear regarding Climate Change. We have made a few steps in the last several years. But have been hindered by political influence. Today there is really, only one big question that is being debated. We know that CO2 is a major anthropogenic Climate Change player. But, “is CO2 the main driving force behind Global Warming?" That is the question. If it is not, then the sun is the main driving force. A completely different type of ball game. That is correct, you showed up with gloves and bats for a football game. The debate and the science itself has been tilted by the dollar. Not just a lot of dollars, and not just a bunch of dollars. But a mountain size pile of dollars. And where you find dollars you find political agendas providing the dollars. Behind the debate are two pathways. If CO2 is the main driving force. Then regulations, carbon credits, population control, alternative energy sources are needed. If the sun is the main driving force. Then infrastructures are needed. The CO2 pathway requires taking CO2 out of the atmosphere. Where the sun’s pathway may require adding CO2 to the atmosphere. Talk about right or left. Has there ever been a scientific debate like this before in your lifetime? Shouldn’t the science settle the debate? Normally yes. But the science in buried under that mountain of cash right now. And the political agendas don’t care about global warming. Their goals are taxes and regulations. Then along comes President Trump. He sees what’s going on and stops the flow of money to the mountain. Then backs off regulations and stops taxing laws from moving forward. It will take some time for the money to get used up. When it does hopefully the science will change to following the ideology instead of the money. When it does maybe President Trump will re-join the Paris Accords. The most important items to debate right now is the computer models. If President Trump can hold off the political forces until the computer models can get out from under the mountain of cash and start producing needed projections with creditability. We may have a chance to let science settle the debate. spam program holdupThe actual title of this thread is Denial, Denial, Denial brought to us by the chief climate change denier working here, this isn't debate for Yohe it's pure industry funded spin. John Tyndall demonstrated in the 1850s that carbon dioxide was the main persistent constituent of the atmospheric greenhouse effect turns the Earth from what would otherwise be a ball of ice to a world with water in all three phases and millions of species in a diverse biosphere. In the 1890s Svante Arrhenius did the highly laborious hand calculations to determine what would happen if we doubled the concentration of atmospheric CO2, something we are on pace to do quite soon and his results are still within the margin of error even with vast advances in theoretical and experimental science. Quantum mechanics didn't even exist when Tyndall Arrhenius and others did their actual science and it's addition has made what was very solid science over a century ago almost dead certain, as I've already posted in other places if the science that indicates that carbon dioxide wasn't the main factor in the moderation of climate through the radiative balance of the atmosphere then it wouldn't be possible to post here using transistor based electronics entirely dependent on those same quantum effects. Do I really need to point out how utterly pointless it is to ask a question that by it's very presence in this form presents the firm answer. Yes, carbon dioxide is the prime moderating factor in the Earth's surface heat balance, virtually all the peer-reviewed science indicates this. Like I said, the actual title of this thread is Denial, Denial, Denial... which makes the actual title of Mike Yohe Denier, Denier, Denier. He's not here asking genuine questions he wants facts based answers on or he would have stopped this industry funded idiocy long ago. Doug C is it possible for you to explain what a denier is and how I am a denier? Thanks for the 1850’s hypothesis on the snowball earth. John Tyndall was a guy of top science at his time, no doubt. As it became clear that the CO2 was not the major player in the unfreezing of snowball earth, the volcanic actions became highly favored. Fast forward to 2015, and the snowball earth science along with the computer models has moved from the CO2 and volcanic hypothesis to the sun cycles as the major factor for the unfreezing. http://sciencenordic.com/“snowball-earth"-mystery-solved
I googled "co2 levels follow temperature" and got a whole bunch of hits. Maybe you should try that.Thanks, It is known as the lag. And the scientists are all over the table on how the lag works. Once the CO2 is in the air it can take thousands of years to get out. Therefore, Jesus's campfires are warming the earth today. The charts show about 400 to 800 years before the CO2 catches up with the heat. And some say the heat from the Industrial Age really haven't even hit us yet. But, then other scientists ignore the core charts and say the CO2 starts heating the second it is in the air. Other say if the CO2 works the way many scientists claim then we are already to late to fix the atmosphere. The Lags and Jumps are items I have tried many times to get CC to talk about. She knows better than to go there. In a way that is maybe better. I can see a lot of data dumps it we go in that direction. Yea, the Lags don’t work well with the CO2 science. The sun cycles on the other hand heats the earth and as the earth heats there becomes more CO2 in the atmosphere. That is what the ice charts show. I will try and post the one of the sun cycle pictures. Remember the sun cycles include CO2 and other items as part of a whole system of how the global warming works. But the CO2 is not a major factor in that theory. //notrickszone.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/Solar-Influence-On-Climate-Pathways-Gray-2017.jpg]Solar Influence
The reality is that our understanding of the natural world through science is at a level that has no comparison in human society and history. We understand the physics that describes how particles interact with each other to a degree that allows us to create materials that have the incredible quality of allowing electrons to move easily in one direction but not another. This was used to create semi-conductors that were eventually developed into transistors, science and technology that is based entirely on the same science that tells us with a very high degree of certainty that carbon dioxide is in fact the prime agent in determining how warm the surface of the Earth is.
We now know why to a very detailed level carbon dioxide molecules are able to absorb electromagnetic radiation in the spectrum emitted by the Earth’s surface, but simpler molecules like O2 and N2 cannot. The longwave EM - heat - that CO2 absorbs is rapidly re-emitted, meaning that incredible amounts of heat that would have been lost to space are now sent back to the Earth’s surface as the emission of photons by atoms and molecules is a random process. Meaning about half is directed back to the Earth.
Molecules of carbon dioxide (CO2) can absorb energy from infrared (IR) radiation. This animation shows a molecule of CO2 absorbing an incoming infrared photon (yellow arrows). The energy from the photon causes the CO2 molecule to vibrate. Shortly thereafter, the molecule gives up this extra energy by emitting another infrared photon. Once the extra energy has been removed by the emitted photon, the carbon dioxide stops vibrating. This ability to absorb and re-emit infrared energy is what makes CO2 an effective heat-trapping greenhouse gas. Not all gas molecules are able to absorb IR radiation. For example, nitrogen (N2) and oxygen (O2), which make up more than 90% of Earth's atmosphere, do not absorb infrared photons. CO2 molecules can vibrate in ways that simpler nitrogen and oxygen molecules cannot, which allows CO2 molecules to capture the IR photons. Greenhouse gases and the greenhouse effect play an important role in Earth's climate. Without greenhouse gases, our planet would be a frozen ball of ice. In recent years, however, excess emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases from human activities (mostly burning fossil fuels) have begun to warm Earth's climate at a problematic rate. Other significant greenhouse gases include water vapor (H2O), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O) and ozone (O3).What real world evidence this is happening on Earth? The amount of EM radiation in the absorption spectrum of CO2 has increased on the Earth's surface as we've increased the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. What other examples of the incredible power of CO2 to trap heat do we have? We have our sister planet Venus, the hottest planetary surface in the Solar System. Venus receives more sunlight at the top of its atmosphere than Earth due to its proximity to the Sun, but it also has a much higher albedo than Earth which means 3/4s of that sunlight is reflected back into space. Earth only reflects 1/3 of the sunlight that reaches us and receives almost twice as much heat on its surface from the Sun than Venus. Earth has an average surface temperature of 15 C. Venus has an average surface temperature of 467 C. The difference is that Venus has an atmosphere that is 96% carbon dioxide, Earth has an atmosphere that is 0.04% CO2. That's science, science and science for anyone who doubts the power of CO2 to warm the surface of any planet.
As I’ve already posted many times, just using transistor based electronics clearly demonstrates the actual science(you don’t need to repeat it three times, it’s not an invocation) that also underlies the role that carbon dioxide plays in moderating the Earth’s heat budget. If CO2 wasn’t the main factor in the greenhouse effect then turning on your computer, pad, phone, etc… wouldn’t be possible.
The fact that someone even started this thread is a practical demonstration of the science that explains why CO2 redirects heat back to the Earth’s surface and why as we pump ever more carbon dioxide into the air the entire planet will warm.
If science itself is such an odious thing - why describe out of pique - to someone then stop using all those things that are entirely reliant on science. Which would include all means to participate here which is a format totally reliant on exactly the same science that tells us just why CO2 is such the serious issue it is.
The Lags and Jumps are items I have tried many times to get CC to talk about. She knows better than to go there. In a way that is maybe better. I can see a lot of data dumps it we go in that direction.You sack of lies, it's been gone over and over with you - you simply refuse to hear or think. Links to supporting educational sources have been provided, and remain available - it's your choice to ignore them and embrace ignorance. No Trick Zone is another alter-reality zone.
lug
It is known as the lag. And the scientists are all over the table on how the lag works. Once the CO2 is in the air it can take thousands of years to get out. Therefore, Jesus's campfires are warming the earth today(a hole) You're also breathing O2 atoms that dinosaurs breathed, yeah for real.If anyone wants to understand how utterly outlandish Yohe's bs is, here's a good start:
https://www.yaleclimateconnections.org/2010/12/common-climate-misconceptions-atmospheric-carbon-dioxide/ Common Climate Misconceptions: Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide By Zeke Hausfather on Dec 12, 2010 Understanding the carbon cycle is a key part of understanding the broader climate change issue. But a number of misconceptions floating around the blogosphere confuse basic concepts to argue that climate change is irrelevant because of the short residence time of carbon molecules in the atmosphere and the large overall carbon stock in the environment. https://www.yaleclimateconnections.org/2010/12/common-climate-misconceptions-atmospheric-carbon-dioxide/ ~~~~~~~ How long do greenhouse gases stay in the air? The lifetime in the air of CO2, the most significant man-made greenhouse gas, is probably the most difficult to determine, because there are several processes that remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. Between 65% and 80% of CO2 released into the air dissolves into the ocean over a period of 20–200 years. The rest is removed by slower processes that take up to several hundreds of thousands of years, including chemical weathering and rock formation. This means that once in the atmosphere, carbon dioxide can continue to affect climate for thousands of years. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2012/jan/16/greenhouse-gases-remain-air
The charts show about 400 to 800 years before the CO2 catches up with the heat.What the f does that even mean? - you're spouting gibberish.
Pumphandle 2016 - CarbonTracker https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gH6fQh9eAQE
"MikeYohe" - And some say the heat from the Industrial Age really haven't even hit us yet.Don't think so look at this:
Global Warming - temperature anomalies by country 1900-2016 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hLSZ6U_VyGk https://www.skepticalscience.com/Climate-Change-The-40-Year-Delay-Between-Cause-and-Effect.html The time lag between a carbon dioxide emission and maximum warming increases with the size of the emission http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/10/3/031001
"MikeYohe" ]But, then other scientists ignore the core charts and say the CO2 starts heating the second it is in the air.Bull Poop. Again this is utter nonsense, ice cores tell us about the composition of the atmosphere, from which all sorts of information can be extracted. CO2 radiative properties are CO2 radiative properties - yes they damned well do their thing the moment they enter the air column, it's called physics!
https://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/far/wg_I/ipcc_far_wg_I_chapter_02.pdf
Other say if the CO2 works the way many scientists claim then we are already to late to fix the atmosphere.Yes we have fucked ourselves. That's no excuse to lie about reality.
Doug C is it possible for you to explain what a denier is and how I am a denier? Thanks for the 1850’s hypothesis on the snowball earth. John Tyndall was a guy of top science at his time, no doubt. As it became clear that the CO2 was not the major player in the unfreezing of snowball earth, the volcanic actions became highly favored. Fast forward to 2015, and the snowball earth science along with the computer models has moved from the CO2 and volcanic hypothesis to the sun cycles as the major factor for the unfreezing. http://sciencenordic.com/“snowball-earth"-mystery-solvedClimate change deniers follow a pattern of; 1. Climate change is not occurring, in fact the Earth may be cooling. 2. Climate is changing but it's a natural process that has nothing to do with human activity like emitting billions of tons of carbon dioxide a year through fossil fuel use. 3. Climate change is caused by us but it's not serious. 4. Climate change is serious but there's nothing we can do about it so let's not change anything - which means let's not stop burning billions of tons of fossil fuel a year because that will negatively impact the wealth of billionaires. You engage in all these activities and have since I joined here several years ago, you're doing it in the above post. John Tyndall wasn't referring to the snowball Earth, John Tyndall identified those gases in the Earth's atmosphere that warmed the surface to the degree identified by Joseph Fourier a quarter of a century before. Without something to redirect heat back to the Earth's surface based on thermodynamics the average global temperature would have been -18 C(0 F) not the relatively warm 15 C we had before we filled the sky with CO2. Which means that based on very basic science the Earth would be a ball of ice without something to warm it. John Tyndall demonstrated clearly what gas and what vapour were mainly responsible for this warming effect in the 1850s. It was water vapour and carbon dioxide gas. Without the CO2 the water vapour would soon precipitate out of the atmosphere - go outside when it rains and snows and you will see the exact effect - which means if you removed all the CO2 from the atmosphere almost all the water vapour would be gone in a matter of decades and the Earth would fall to an average temperature of 0 F. It would become a massive ball of ice. This has been explained to you over and over, either you have no short term memory or the only function you have here is to deny the valid science. Seeing as you remember what people are posting and what you have posted as well then the chances of you have short term memory deficit is next to nothing. Which means you are in fact an intentional denier and one of the most cynical I have ever encounter as you will listen to nothing and think only of your own interests. I say that as someone who is daily dealing with the impacts of catastrophic climate change and have been all summer. Millions of people are in the Caribbean and US south right now and places across the planet. And you still play the same sick games you have for years. When I started here you were making the same claims about how carbon dioxide did not play a role in bringing the Earth out of the snowball Earth period which was between 700-600 million years ago. If CO2 wasn't a very powerful moderator in the Earth's climate then there would have been no mechanism to melt ice that covered the planet possibly to the Equator. That CO2 was emitted from volcanic activity and took millions of years to build up to the point where it overwhelmed the forcing of ice/albedo effect. This is something that has also been explained to you at length. The fact that you clearly remember your own convoluted and highly inaccurate version of events but not the valid science is just one more indication that you are in fact a climate change denier. The fact that so many have been harmed so badly by decades of denial and so much more indicates what kind of person would engage in this kind of behavior. Personally I think you and all like you belong in prison for life because what you are enabling is murder on a global scale. It's already started and will get worse and this is what it looks like for many of us. http://www.centerforinquiry.net/forums/viewthread/19503/ And it will get much worse as we add billions of more tons of CO2 a year to the atmosphere till it brings down human civilization and quite likely our species, scientific research is already placing what we are doing on the same scale as some of the worst extinction level events in history. https://skepticalscience.com/Lee-commentary-on-Burgess-et-al-PNAS-Permian-Dating.html You are a denier because you show almost no doubt in the fact that fossil fuels play no role in forcing climate change and in fact have celebrated the policies of trump who is so far off basis on this issue he's not even on the same planet. I find what you're doing to be disgusting but also know you will never stop because you clearly lack a conscience which likely means the only real sense of accomplishment you get from life is the damage you do to others. Ultimately climate change denial is the ultimate sociopathic cause because it is already on course to end society and quite likely any possibility of there ever being a human society again so destructive are the causes championed by people like you and the "leaders" you so obviously admire like trump. Who almost certainly is a psychopath incapable of caring in the slightest if his actions kill millions or possibly billions. Both climate change and the insane game of dare he's playing with Kim Jong Un give stark evidence of the accuracy of the diagnosis of an Oxford psychologist on trump's abnormal psychology. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/2016/08/22/donald-trump-outscores-hitler-on-psychopathic-traits-test-claims/ That fact that you solidly back someone like trump and his position on things like climate change - which is total denial, trump wants to increase the burning of the most polluting forms of fossil fuel like coal- is just one more piece of evidence of how dishonest and ultimately lacking of any empathy or compassion for others you almost certainly have as part of your psychology. Otherwise you wouldn't keep playing these same psychopathic games denying the fact the planet is dying due directly to our actions. Right now primarily the burning of billions of tons of fossil fuels a year. And now based on your extensively established pattern of behavior here you'll come back with some totally irrelevant reply that is entirely intended to confuse any readers of this and not illuminate them on an issue that is already deadly. Go ahead and prove my point, any reply by you that doesn't reflect the overwhelming science on human forced climate change how catastrophic it is already is denial.
Anyone who wants to learn the valid science on human forced catastrophic climate change can go here and get all their questions answered by reading the huge archive of material or asking questions of the highly informed professionals that present extensive information that is peer-reviewed and based on the soundest knowledge we have yet of how the natural world actually operates.
Mike Yohe could go there and either read all the information he needs to have any rational question on human forced climate change answered. Or if he still needed help in understanding the subject he could ask the members of the community.
But he wouldn’t last more than a day there if he engaged in a fraction of the unrelenting denial he engages in here.
Science, science, science. It is the word you hear regarding Climate Change. We have made a few steps in the last several years. But have been hindered by political influence. Today there is really, only one big question that is being debated. We know that CO2 is a major anthropogenic Climate Change player. But, “is CO2 the main driving force behind Global Warming?" That is the question. If it is not, then the sun is the main driving force. A completely different type of ball game. That is correct, you showed up with gloves and bats for a football game.That right there is climate change denial. We know with a very high degree of certainty that the Sun is not the main current forcing of human created climate change. At a time of record low solar output the Earth experienced record high temperatures. This and more is what is constantly being presented by a denier who wouldn't even be able to post here if the science wasn't conclusive on the kind of quantum effects that explain fully why the Earth is warming as we add incredible amounts of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere. All this poster had to do was basic research to see why it isn't the Sun driving global warming. https://www.skepticalscience.com/solar-activity-sunspots-global-warming-advanced.htm The only game being played here is by global warming deniers like this one and by "people" like Rush Limbaugh who just told his listeners many of whom are in Florida that hurricane Irma was a left wing hoax meaning they didn't have to take action to protect themselves, then at the last moment fled the danger in his private jet. That is the mentality of global warming deniers, they will do anything to protect their interests even if it means placing everybody else in harms way.
I will try and post the one of the sun cycle pictures. Remember the sun cycles include CO2 and other items as part of a whole system of how the global warming works. But the CO2 is not a major factor in that theory. //notrickszone.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/Solar-Influence-On-Climate-Pathways-Gray-2017.jpg]Solar InfluenceNo that's not how it works at all.
The Lags and Jumps are items I have tried many times to get CC to talk about. She knows better than to go there. In a way that is maybe better. I can see a lot of data dumps it we go in that direction.You sack of lies, it's been gone over and over with you - you simply refuse to hear or think. Links to supporting educational sources have been provided, and remain available - it's your choice to ignore them and embrace ignorance. No Trick Zone is another alter-reality zone. More chatter to throw into the trash.
I will try and post the one of the sun cycle pictures. Remember the sun cycles include CO2 and other items as part of a whole system of how the global warming works. But the CO2 is not a major factor in that theory. //notrickszone.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/Solar-Influence-On-Climate-Pathways-Gray-2017.jpg]Solar InfluenceNo that's not how it works at all. No it's not, the data shows Earth's surface temperature and solar output going in different directions. As solar output has decreased, Earth's temperatures have soared. https://www.skepticalscience.com/solar-activity-sunspots-global-warming.htm 2010 saw one of the lowest solar minimums on record but almost all the warmest years recorded have been in this century which is less than two decades old. The theoretical science tells us why increasing atmospheric CO2 will warm the Earth's surface, carbon dioxide absorbs photons in the spectrum emitted by the Earth's surface but not incoming solar radiation which creates an energy imbalance that will continue to warm the Earth until a balance is restored. The more CO2 we add to the atmosphere the warmer the Earth will get. Measurements show a significant increase in atmospheric CO2 which can be connected directly to the massive burning of billions of tons of fossil fuels anually. Measurements of a whole host of factors including average yearly temperature, atmospheric temperature profile, timing of seasons, thermal expansion of the oceans, the loss of cryosphere, etc... are all indicating a global warming trend that is in complete agreement with carbon dioxide being the prime forcing in the current and rapid warming of the Earth. For some of us now caught directly in this unfolding catastrophe the evidence now is in the form of massive wildfires, even though it has finally rained here the skies are still full of smoke from the fires all around this entire region. In the Caribbean and US south they are receiving multiple hammer blows from record breaking hurricane after hurricane. Harvey in Texas, Irma in the eastern Caribbean heading into Florida followed by Jose and Katia which hit already devastated Mexico. What does it take to keep lying about this issue when so many are dying and having their lives torn apart. We've just seen what a psychopath Rush Limbaugh another climate change denier has proven himself to be. Telling anyone stupid enough to listen to him to not heed warning of the grave danger that Irma represents to anyone caught in its path - it is in fact the strongest storm ever produced in the Atlantic. Then jumping in his jet to fly to safety with no thought at all for the lives of those he's left behind quite possibly in ignorance of what's coming if they took him at all seriously. Mike Yohe, Rush Limbaugh or anyone engaging in climate change denial make no sense at all because as we are all seeing playing out in the real world, what they are presenting is an intentional denial of reality itself. It makes no sense because it is intentionally insane.
Science, science, science. It is the word you hear regarding Climate Change. We have made a few steps in the last several years. But have been hindered by political influence. Today there is really, only one big question that is being debated. We know that CO2 is a major anthropogenic Climate Change player. But, “is CO2 the main driving force behind Global Warming?" That is the question. If it is not, then the sun is the main driving force. A completely different type of ball game. That is correct, you showed up with gloves and bats for a football game.That right there is climate change denial. We know with a very high degree of certainty that the Sun is not the main current forcing of human created climate change. At a time of record low solar output the Earth experienced record high temperatures. This and more is what is constantly being presented by a denier who wouldn't even be able to post here if the science wasn't conclusive on the kind of quantum effects that explain fully why the Earth is warming as we add incredible amounts of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere. All this poster had to do was basic research to see why it isn't the Sun driving global warming. https://www.skepticalscience.com/solar-activity-sunspots-global-warming-advanced.htm The only game being played here is by global warming deniers like this one and by "people" like Rush Limbaugh who just told his listeners many of whom are in Florida that hurricane Irma was a left wing hoax meaning they didn't have to take action to protect themselves, then at the last moment fled the danger in his private jet. That is the mentality of global warming deniers, they will do anything to protect their interests even if it means placing everybody else in harms way. I see the problem. What you are insinuating is that CO2 is 100% of climate change. Ok, I don’t care one way or the other. My understanding is that human activity is why we have created the sub-global warming field of climate change. And the real issue is, what is the main driving force of global warming, not climate change. It has always been, the sun. Now, by scientific consensus it is agreed by most to be the climate change? The issue being talked about is the “main driving force". And the main driving force only needs to be 51% when only two items are at issue. With the sun, that percentage has not yet been figured out. But it is the sun that is the main contributor in the sun theory. The sun as the main driving force also includes other driving forces as stated before, that include anthropogenic conditions as factors. It is impossible to have denial when anthropogenic is included. Is that not correct? There for backing the sun theory is not denial in any form. The sun theory is understood that it is not the sun by itself. It is the sun used in combination with earth’s orbit, the moon, the water cycles, carbon based lifeforms, natural disasters, land changes, water vapor, greenhouse gasses and carbon dioxide just to name a few. Magnetic forces of all the item in the solar system are being worked on to be included because of how the sun reacts to those magnetic forces. The sun theory is anything affected by rays or magnetic forces of the sun. When you say, “We know", should I list all the “We know" items of the past that have turned out to be false? That said, you have a really good chance of being correct with the CO2 being the main driving force in this debate. Without the debates, the “We know" items never get questioned and we end up finding out after two or three decades if they are correct. That’s not good. Dr. Soon brought up the claim that the sun was the main driving force of global warming. Then Dr. Curry expanded the role of the sun to include other items after the money scientist basically crushed Dr. Soon. Dr. Curry explained that the temperature numbers for the CO2 were incorrect because of the missing sun items. Since they were basically talking math. It was easily proven that Dr. Curry was correct. Now that Dr. Soon and Dr. Curry have opened a new pathway for global warming effects to be included in the computer models. There is only one question left that needs answered. How much effects are all these other items having on the global warming, is it enough to keep the sun as the main driving force? Dr. Soon started with the 11.4 years Schwabe solar cycle. We now have the 87-yr, the 208-yr, the 1,000-yr, the 2,400-yr and the 9,600-yr cycles being looked at and connected to past climate events on earth. How do we solve the debate of the main driving force? We tried the consensus, but that was flawed and the sun theory was not included. By the sun theory we should have two to three hundred years of continuous warm weather and around 1 to 2 feet of ocean rise per century. With the CO2, we should have deathly warm weather and 2 to 6 feet of ocean rise per century. In 2000 the CO2 predicted a sea level rise of 20 feet by 2020. Thank god, they were wrong on that. We had 2.3 inches and it has leveled off and even went down a little in the last couple years. The CO2 will not project ice levels anymore. There seems to be no consensus that can be reach by the CO2 group other than they are correct and everyone else is wrong. The sun theory leaves ice but as the sun theory is still evolving there are no projection on ice mass yet that I can find.
Science, science, science. It is the word you hear regarding Climate Change. We have made a few steps in the last several years. But have been hindered by political influence. Today there is really, only one big question that is being debated. We know that CO2 is a major anthropogenic Climate Change player. But, “is CO2 the main driving force behind Global Warming?" That is the question. If it is not, then the sun is the main driving force. A completely different type of ball game. That is correct, you showed up with gloves and bats for a football game.That right there is climate change denial. We know with a very high degree of certainty that the Sun is not the main current forcing of human created climate change. At a time of record low solar output the Earth experienced record high temperatures. This and more is what is constantly being presented by a denier who wouldn't even be able to post here if the science wasn't conclusive on the kind of quantum effects that explain fully why the Earth is warming as we add incredible amounts of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere. All this poster had to do was basic research to see why it isn't the Sun driving global warming. https://www.skepticalscience.com/solar-activity-sunspots-global-warming-advanced.htm The only game being played here is by global warming deniers like this one and by "people" like Rush Limbaugh who just told his listeners many of whom are in Florida that hurricane Irma was a left wing hoax meaning they didn't have to take action to protect themselves, then at the last moment fled the danger in his private jet. That is the mentality of global warming deniers, they will do anything to protect their interests even if it means placing everybody else in harms way. I see the problem. What you are insinuating is that CO2 is 100% of climate change. Ok, I don’t care one way or the other. My understanding is that human activity is why we have created the sub-global warming field of climate change. And the real issue is, what is the main driving force of global warming, not climate change. It has always been, the sun. Now, by scientific consensus it is agreed by most to be the climate change? The issue being talked about is the “main driving force". And the main driving force only needs to be 51% when only two items are at issue. With the sun, that percentage has not yet been figured out. But it is the sun that is the main contributor in the sun theory. The sun as the main driving force also includes other driving forces as stated before, that include anthropogenic conditions as factors. It is impossible to have denial when anthropogenic is included. Is that not correct? There for backing the sun theory is not denial in any form. The sun theory is understood that it is not the sun by itself. It is the sun used in combination with earth’s orbit, the moon, the water cycles, carbon based lifeforms, natural disasters, land changes, water vapor, greenhouse gasses and carbon dioxide just to name a few. Magnetic forces of all the item in the solar system are being worked on to be included because of how the sun reacts to those magnetic forces. The sun theory is anything affected by rays or magnetic forces of the sun. When you say, “We know", should I list all the “We know" items of the past that have turned out to be false? That said, you have a really good chance of being correct with the CO2 being the main driving force in this debate. Without the debates, the “We know" items never get questioned and we end up finding out after two or three decades if they are correct. That’s not good. Dr. Soon brought up the claim that the sun was the main driving force of global warming. Then Dr. Curry expanded the role of the sun to include other items after the money scientist basically crushed Dr. Soon. Dr. Curry explained that the temperature numbers for the CO2 were incorrect because of the missing sun items. Since they were basically talking math. It was easily proven that Dr. Curry was correct. Now that Dr. Soon and Dr. Curry have opened a new pathway for global warming effects to be included in the computer models. There is only one question left that needs answered. How much effects are all these other items having on the global warming, is it enough to keep the sun as the main driving force? Dr. Soon started with the 11.4 years Schwabe solar cycle. We now have the 87-yr, the 208-yr, the 1,000-yr, the 2,400-yr and the 9,600-yr cycles being looked at and connected to past climate events on earth. How do we solve the debate of the main driving force? We tried the consensus, but that was flawed and the sun theory was not included. By the sun theory we should have two to three hundred years of continuous warm weather and around 1 to 2 feet of ocean rise per century. With the CO2, we should have deathly warm weather and 2 to 6 feet of ocean rise per century. In 2000 the CO2 predicted a sea level rise of 20 feet by 2020. Thank god, they were wrong on that. We had 2.3 inches and it has leveled off and even went down a little in the last couple years. The CO2 will not project ice levels anymore. There seems to be no consensus that can be reach by the CO2 group other than they are correct and everyone else is wrong. The sun theory leaves ice but as the sun theory is still evolving there are no projection on ice mass yet that I can find. Not even touching this denial crivel. Like I said above, no matter how well this is presented to this denier he will always come back with more denial.
And the real issue is, what is the main driving force of global warming, not climate change. It has always been, the sun. Now, by scientific consensus it is agreed by most to be the climate change?He not replying to me or anyone else who is genuinely discussing this most serious of subjects. He's dog whistling to his flock who he wants to keep as ignorant as possible as long as possible because he's likely being paid to do just that. Just like Limbaugh is being paid by right wing "think tanks" funded by the fossil fuel industry and went to the extraordinary length of telling his audience to disregard the danger of the strongest storm ever recorded in the Atlantic before fleeing for his life.
Climate change deniers follow a pattern of; 1. Climate change is not occurring, in fact the Earth may be cooling.Two items here. Item one. Climate change is human effects on weather. I agree that the humans have been effecting the weather. Item two. The Earth may be cooling. According to the earth’s warming and cooling cycles, the earth has just left the intermediate Holocene stage and we are now in the cooling cycle. As the earth cools the weather can continual to warm do to the lags that can last from two hundred and up to eight hundred years. We are to expect warm weather for the next two to three hundred years due to this lag. This has nothing or does not take in climate change. This is just the standard natural cycle as seen in the ice cores.
2. Climate is changing but it's a natural process that has nothing to do with human activity like emitting billions of tons of carbon dioxide a year through fossil fuel use.Of course, the human activity has effects the climate. But there is a difference between being a realist and an alarmist. There are alarmist in science just like there are alarmist in religion. The common factor is - the world is ending. I am not an alarmist.
3. Climate change is caused by us but it's not serious.As a realist, before I scream the world is ending, I would like to have the science to back it up. And I am now understanding your viewpoint. Just like the religious doomsayer that claiming with world will end next year. Anyone who does not believe the same as him is a nonconformist in his thinking. In your case as an alarmist they are a denier. Because the ambiguity of the word “serious". Your statement is very cryptic.
4. Climate change is serious but there's nothing we can do about it so let's not change anything - which means let's not stop burning billions of tons of fossil fuel a year because that will negatively impact the wealth of billionaires.Yes, I am a realist. I will not throw the baby out with the bathwater, just to get rid of the bathwater. Do you think that I am a member of a secret organization to help the billionaires stay rich? Maybe the Republican Party? Surprise, Forbes claims the Democrats have more billionaire backers than the Republicans.
Quick question for Doug or anyone. I do not remember you ever talking about clouds. Yet it is a subject that is being re-thought and re-worked today. The earth’s coverage has been moved from 60 to 70%. Another none-item that now has been agreed that needs to be in the computer models. Where are you at with clouds?
This ad brought to you by the fossil fuel industry, that is all this poster has to offer on this subject.
Devin Henry - The Hill - Saturday, September 9, 2017
“Administrator Scott Pruitt has questioned carbon dioxide’s role as a “primary contributor” to a warming climate, something accepted by most researchers. He’s also called for a public debate over climate change science, a proposal that has caused scientists, environmentalists and former regulators to bristle."
Verb
- bristle
(of hair or fur) stand upright away from the skin, especially in anger or fear.
“the hair on the back of his neck bristled”
A TV debate. Reputations on the line. Sounds great, don’t you think? Let’s do it. I will take the time to watch. Let’s get these questions settled.
I understand that it’s a productive practice in argument to re-state your opponent’s position and making sure everyone agrees on what was said before offering rebuttal. I see none of that here. May be worth a shot.