Science, science, science.

Science and Technology
161

oiuyoiuy

9. CC consensual science is controlled by the Union of Concerned Scientists, and industrial organizations.
Sadly Mikie, yet again you demonstrate what a clueless parrot you are. :smirk: You talk about 'scientific consensus' but go straight for the most politicized crazy out there. Inhofe 2009, then Dr. Richard Lindzen, the god father of science by slander and innuendo thus you set the political stage for this none-sense. Here, yet another learning opportunity The consensus Cook considered was the standard definition: that Man had caused most post-1950 warming. Even on this weaker definition the true consensus among published scientific papers is now demonstrated to be not 97.1%, as Cook had claimed, but only 0.3%. Only 41 out of the 11,944 published climate papers Cook examined explicitly stated that Man caused most of the warming since 1950. Cook himself had flagged just 64 papers as explicitly supporting that consensus, but 23 of the 64 had not in fact supported it. Why never provide original sources? Also I don't give a damned about any survey, or how some can manipulate its results - IT'S THE PHYSICS that's important to appreciate. Yet, you dismiss the following crucial pieces of information without which understanding global warming is impossible. Mike just waves it off, and focuses on surveys and opinions. Then your response to this is such a classic display of no understanding it may well be my next blog project. Mike, for god sake, heat is not created! - heat transfer is slowed down!!! That's been explained to you, yet you refuse to allow that to sink in. Meaningless to you, yet one can't understand our global heat and moisture distribution engine without those simplest of fundamentals. Then have the audacity to still treat the whole CO2 science angle as though it was an interesting conjecture - rather than proven beyond a shadow of doubt, repeatedly, yet you won't allow that to soak in. If you were some expert speaking from a position of authority - that would be an excellent example of a crime, civil, misdemeanor, not hanging - yet worth calling out and exposing as a crime against people's right to honestly learn what's happening to our planet and why,
How long before Mike takes an interest in these climates models that tell us all we need to know about manmade global warming and to take it more seriously that kicking it down the road.
1959 - “Carbon Dioxide and Climate" https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/carbon-dioxide-and-climate/ An article from our July 1959 issue examined climate change: “A current theory postulates that carbon dioxide regulates the temperature of the earth. This raises an interesting question: How do Man’s activities influence the climate of the future?" … During the past century a new geological force has begun to exert its effect upon the carbon dioxide equilibrium of the earth [see graphs on page 43]. By burning fossil fuels man dumps approximately six billion tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere each year. His agricultural activities release two billion tons more. ... ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 1967 - “Thermal Equilibrium of the Atmosphere with a Given Distribution of Relative Humidity" The First Climate Model Turns 50, And Predicted Global Warming Almost Perfectly Ethan Siegel, March 15, 2017, Forbes.com https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2017/03/15/the-first-climate-model-turns-50-and-predicted-global-warming-almost-perfectly/#1001b776614d Modeling the Earth's climate is one of the most daunting, complicated tasks out there. If only we were more like the Moon, things would be easy. The Moon has no atmosphere, no oceans, no icecaps, no seasons, and no complicated flora and fauna to get in the way of simple radiative physics. No wonder it's so challenging to model! In fact, if you google "climate models wrong", eight of the first ten results showcase failure. But headlines are never as reliable as going to the scientific source itself, and the ultimate source, in this case, is the first accurate climate model ever: by Syukuro Manabe and Richard T. Wetherald. 50 years after their groundbreaking 1967 paper, the science can be robustly evaluated, and they got almost everything exactly right. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 1972 - “Man-made carbon dioxide and the “greenhouse" effect" A remarkably accurate global warming prediction, made in 1972 Dana Nuccitelli, March 19, 2014, UK Guardian https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2014/mar/19/global-warming-accurate-prediction-1972 A paper published in Nature in 1972 accurately predicted the next 30 years of global warming John Stanley (J.S.) Sawyer was a British meteorologist born in 1916. He was elected a Fellow of the Royal Society in 1962, and was also a Fellow of the Meteorological Society and the organization's president from 1963 to 1965. A paper authored by Sawyer and published in the journal Nature in 1972 reveals how much climate scientists knew about the fundamental workings of the global climate over 40 years ago. For example, Sawyer predicted how much average global surface temperatures would warm by the year 2000. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 1975 - “Climate Change: Are We on the Brink of a Pronounced Global Warming?" http://www.fas.harvard.edu/~eps5/writing_assignment/CLIMATE_BKGD/broecker_science_1975.pdf https://thinkprogress.org/wallace-broeckers-remarkable-1975-global-warming-prediction-1976337267b8/ Wallace Broecker was among the first climate scientists to use simple climate models to predict future global temperature changes. Broecker anticipated the actual increase in CO2 very closely, predicting 373 ppm in 2000 and 403 ppm in 2010 (actual values were 369 and 390 ppm, respectively). Broecker also used an equilibrium climate sensitivity of 3°C for doubled CO2; however, his model’s transient climate sensitivity worked out to be 2.4°C for doubled CO2. … ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 1981 - “Climate Impact of Increasing Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide" http://www.c02.gr/pdf/6.pdf https://phys.org/news/2012-04-climate-eerily-accurate.html A paper published in the journal Science in August 1981 made several projections regarding future climate change and anthropogenic global warming based on manmade CO2 emissions. As it turns out, the authors’ projections have proven to be rather accurate — and their future is now our present. … ( http://whatsupwiththatwatts.blogspot.com/2017/08/antti-lipponen-visualize-globalwarming.html )
______________________________________________________________ Investor's Business Daily POC#25 - "Yet, ever since Hurricane Katrina in 2004, climate-change advocates have warned that hurricanes and storms would be far worse as a result of global warming." {Yup! It's physics. } http://whatsupwiththatwatts.blogspot.com/2017/09/d-investorscom-fraud-libel-mann.html
OK, we got it. The more of a chemical placed in the atmosphere, the more of a blanket to hold the heat we have. We have understood that for years. This same chemical in my soda does not heat my soda nor does it heat the ice in the glaciers. For that we need a driving force to work with the chemical. The driving force for many of the chemicals in the atmosphere is the sun. The sun can heat the ice to a point and then it becomes water. That is a natural thermostat. The control knob for the sun would be the distance between the earth and the sun. Move the earth closer to the sun and we have more ice becoming water, away from the sun, less ice becoming water. Let’s agree that CO2 acts like a warming blanket and creates a small amount of sun related heat, OK. The question has always been for over a decade - The bottom line is that rising temperatures cause carbon levels to rise. Carbon may still influence temperatures, but these ice cores are neutral on that. If both factors caused each other to rise significantly, positive feedback would become exponential. We’d see a runaway greenhouse effect. It hasn’t happened. Some other factor is more important than carbon dioxide, or carbon’s role is minor. CO2’s driving force is most likely the atmospheric heat created by sun, and not the heat created by the sunlight reacting to the CO2. We also don’t know Co2’s natural thermostat and control knob. How many more decades and hundreds of billions to figure this out? Consensual science said was a closed case because all the science was figured out back in 2010. Unless your posting can answer those questions, we are not moving forward. ================================= MikeYohe, you are little more than a 'contrarian algorithm' learning means nothing, injecting endless pointless non sequitur doubts seems your only calling. So profoundly hopelessly sad. Thanks to the likes of you we got a hell of shit storm coming at us. (fixing typos)
162

Exactly, as I keep pointing out if the same quantum mechanical effects that make emitting billions of tons of CO2 a year so dangerous weren’t at work then no climate change denier could even use the internet let alone any electronic device.
We’ve known for over 150 years that carbon dioxide traps infrared photons, what we commonly refer to as heat. When we keep adding more and more carbon dioxide to the atmosphere the science from 150 years ago tells us that the planet is going to warm up.
But we’re not relying on the science from 150 years ago, we have much more powerful theoretical and technical tools to observe what is happening.
150 years ago the atmospheric concentration of CO2 was less than 300 ppm. Now it is over 400 ppm because of the hundreds of billions of tons of CO2 that have been emitted by humans since then. We can directly measure how much electromagnetic energy in the spectrum affect by CO2 is being re-directed to the Earth because of all this additional CO2.
There’s no scientific doubt on this, it’s equal to the heat from 4 Hiroshima sized atom bombs a second and will remain that way until the atmosphere returns to a radiative balance where as much energy is being re-emitted into space as the Earth receives from the Sun. The more carbon dioxide we emit into the the atmosphere, the more outgoing infrared heat will be blocked and the longer the Earth will warm.
We are seeing this year exactly what this warming means in catastrophic impacts, from massive wildfires that can cover much of a continent to record breaking hurricanes slamming into islands and the US south killing many and doing incredible damage.
Something that deniers still deny before fleeing for their lives.
This is an indication of just how totally dishonest climate change denial is, Rush Limbaugh telling people to ignore a coming hurricane before saving his own ass… that is what climate change denial is, some asshole telling everyone to ignore looming catastrophe while doing what they need to save themselves.
What Mike Yohe is doing here is exactly the same as Rush Limbaugh calling both hurricane Harvey and Irma “fake” news.
There’s nothing fake about catastrophic climate change or it’s cause… the emission of billions of tons of CO2 a year from burning coal, oil and gas.

163
Let’s agree that CO2 acts like a warming blanket and creates a small amount of sun related heat, OK. The question has always been for over a decade - The bottom line is that rising temperatures cause carbon levels to rise. Carbon may still influence temperatures, but these ice cores are neutral on that. If both factors caused each other to rise significantly, positive feedback would become exponential. We’d see a runaway greenhouse effect. It hasn’t happened. Some other factor is more important than carbon dioxide, or carbon’s role is minor. CO2’s driving force is most likely the atmospheric heat created by sun, and not the heat created by the sunlight reacting to the CO2. We also don’t know Co2’s natural thermostat and control knob. How many more decades and hundreds of billions to figure this out? Consensual science said was a closed case because all the science was figured out back in 2010. Unless your posting can answer those questions, we are not moving forward.
Did you read any of the articles above? If human beings had increased the thickness of the blanket by 14% by the time Keeling started measuring it, and we are now up to plus 43% then what does the "natural thermostat matter? We are now dealing with, or failing to deal with, the effects of the UNNATURAL! psik
164

Of course, it is unnatural. But is it just accelerating the natural climate or changing the natural climate is the question in debate by scientists. I agree we are in uncharted water with climate change.

165

Time has come to overcome the fundamental flaws of human gene driven desires of what makes us human long enough to have an unprejudiced understanding of the Global Warming storyline. It is what it is and nothing more. Or course the story will never be told in truth. As the want to rewrite history on the winners’ favor has always prevailed. Just once, let’s not fool ourselves and do something for mother earth if not for humanity.
It is time for the progressives to step up and take the time to dump their sociological desires of belonging to anachronistic thinking and open the door to a contemporary look at science. And a little more Buddha and lot less stigmatization in their hearts wouldn’t hurt either.
Greed for power, money and being renowned by those with opportunities adumbrated the science of Global Warming and placed it above the good of life on earth.
Under international laws, nations cannot take other nations to court. In the push for a “polluter-pays" scheme for countries. Mainly pushed by the Christmas Island radioactive fallout damage in Kiribati by Norway’s fear of Britain’s Sellafield nuclear power plant. In 1988 a door was opening when the United Nations Environment Program and the World Meteorological Office jointly set up the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The principle idea today is accepting Kiribati right to sue for damages opens the door for the world to sue American for greenhouse gas emissions. And this makes us one world in a way we have never seen before.
The IPCC in 1990 said climate change was real and by 1992 the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development had 81 countries sign the base treaty. Al Gore’s input got the world seeing the possibilities of US dollars in the trillions being given away to fight Global Warming. Obama’s 2009 800-billion-dollar stimulus plan did not work as it should have because of his backing of climate change causing the precautionary principle to go into effect with industry and Wall Street. This was proven when Trump shut the door on the possibly of Climate Change trillions upon taking office. Wall Street became bullish and employment went up.
It has been estimated that by paying the Climate Change costs it would reduce the average US household income by more than $4,000 each year. And increase the individual taxes by $1,610 each year.
Dwight Eisenhower
The prospect of domination of the nation’s scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present – and is gravely to be regarded. Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite.

What if the scales have not been balanced for science and carbon is not the driving force behind Global Warming. Yes, is holds heat and creates a little heat itself. But what do the scientists say that are not after the money and political agenda?
While polls of scientists actively working in the field of climate science indicate strong general agreement that Earth is warming and human activity is a significant factor, 31,000 scientists say there is “no convincing evidence” that humans can or will cause “catastrophic” heating of the atmosphere. //ossfoundation.us/projects/environment/global-warming/myths/31000-scientists-say-no-convincing-evidence

166
Of course, it is unnatural. But is it just accelerating the natural climate or changing the natural climate is the question in debate by scientists. I agree we are in uncharted water with climate change.
No it isn't, almost every scientist working in the field of climate change is finding results in agreement with human activity being the main forcing in the current and well documented warming of the Earth with catastrophic impacts like we're seeing right now. https://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus-intermediate.htm
That humans are causing global warming is the position of the Academies of Science from 80 countries plus many scientific organizations that study climate science. More specifically, around 95% of active climate researchers actively publishing climate papers endorse the consensus position.
All you are is the result of those few "scientists" who aren't doing any work but are being paid by the fossil fuel sector to keep claiming there's doubt. As I keep posting, if the science behind climate change through the absorption of infrared radiation by CO2 in the atmosphere wasn't highly accurate then neither would the science that allows the transistors in your electronic devices to work. You wouldn't even be posting here if there was any real doubt with this basic understanding of how nature works on the smallest scale. And as I've already posted, we've been able to measure the increase in photons in the spectrum absorbed by CO2 all along, we can say with a high degree of certainty just how much heat that is adding to the Earth and it's huge. https://www.skepticalscience.com/4-Hiroshima-bombs-worth-of-heat-per-second.html
The slope of the global heat accumulation graph tells us how rapidly the Earth's climate is building up heat. Over the past decade, the rate is 8 x 1021 Joules per year, or 2.5 x 1014 Joules per second. The yield of the Hiroshima atomic bomb was 6.3 x 1013 Joules, hence the rate of global heat accumulation is equivalent to about 4 Hiroshima bomb detonations per second. That's nearly 2 billion atomic bomb detonations worth of heat accumulating in the Earth's climate system since 1998, when we're told global warming supposedly 'paused'. That has to be the worst pause ever.
None of this is in "doubt" and hasn't been for decades. Which means you aren't talking science at all...
167
Exactly, as I keep pointing out if the same quantum mechanical effects that make emitting billions of tons of CO2 a year so dangerous weren't at work then no climate change denier could even use the internet let alone any electronic device. We've known for over 150 years that carbon dioxide traps infrared photons, what we commonly refer to as heat. When we keep adding more and more carbon dioxide to the atmosphere the science from 150 years ago tells us that the planet is going to warm up. But we're not relying on the science from 150 years ago, we have much more powerful theoretical and technical tools to observe what is happening. 150 years ago the atmospheric concentration of CO2 was less than 300 ppm. Now it is over 400 ppm because of the hundreds of billions of tons of CO2 that have been emitted by humans since then. We can directly measure how much electromagnetic energy in the spectrum affect by CO2 is being re-directed to the Earth because of all this additional CO2. There's no scientific doubt on this, it's equal to the heat from 4 Hiroshima sized atom bombs a second and will remain that way until the atmosphere returns to a radiative balance where as much energy is being re-emitted into space as the Earth receives from the Sun. The more carbon dioxide we emit into the the atmosphere, the more outgoing infrared heat will be blocked and the longer the Earth will warm. We are seeing this year exactly what this warming means in catastrophic impacts, from massive wildfires that can cover much of a continent to record breaking hurricanes slamming into islands and the US south killing many and doing incredible damage. Something that deniers still deny before fleeing for their lives. This is an indication of just how totally dishonest climate change denial is, Rush Limbaugh telling people to ignore a coming hurricane before saving his own ass... that is what climate change denial is, some asshole telling everyone to ignore looming catastrophe while doing what they need to save themselves. What Mike Yohe is doing here is exactly the same as Rush Limbaugh calling both hurricane Harvey and Irma "fake" news. There's nothing fake about catastrophic climate change or it's cause... the emission of billions of tons of CO2 a year from burning coal, oil and gas.
Doug, I understand what you are saying. I need you to answer a few questions to be able to bring this into a debate. On the earth’s cycles around the sun, do you believe we are now in the cooling cycle? “and more carbon dioxide to the atmosphere the science from 150 years ago tells us that the planet is going to warm up." And they were right. I think we all agree with that. Can you tell me what the temperature is going to be at when we hit 600ppm’s? No, you can’t. Didn’t the scientists just ratchet down the carbon warming figures this week? You are dealing with science that basely has no established base lines or datum points for measurements. Science also says that the earth cools in the cooling cycle as the carbons still increases on the ice core charts. How big is the human-caused CO2 fingerprint compared to other uncertainties in our climate model? For tracking energy flows in our model, we use watts per square meter (Wm–2). The sun’s energy that reaches the Earth’s atmosphere provides 342 Wm–2—an average of day and night, poles and equator—keeping it warm enough for us to thrive. The estimated extra energy from excess CO2—the annual anthropogenic greenhouse gas contribution—is far smaller, according to Frank, at 0.036 Wm–2, or 0.01 percent of the sun’s energy. If our estimate of the sun’s energy were off by more than 0.01 percent, that error would swamp the estimated extra energy from excess CO2. Unfortunately, the sun isn’t the only uncertainty we need to consider. http://www.hoover.org/research/flawed-climate-models
168
Of course, it is unnatural. But is it just accelerating the natural climate or changing the natural climate is the question in debate by scientists. I agree we are in uncharted water with climate change.
No it isn't, almost every scientist working in the field of climate change is finding results in agreement with human activity being the main forcing in the current and well documented warming of the Earth with catastrophic impacts like we're seeing right now. https://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus-intermediate.htm
That humans are causing global warming is the position of the Academies of Science from 80 countries plus many scientific organizations that study climate science. More specifically, around 95% of active climate researchers actively publishing climate papers endorse the consensus position.
All you are is the result of those few "scientists" who aren't doing any work but are being paid by the fossil fuel sector to keep claiming there's doubt. As I keep posting, if the science behind climate change through the absorption of infrared radiation by CO2 in the atmosphere wasn't highly accurate then neither would the science that allows the transistors in your electronic devices to work. You wouldn't even be posting here if there was any real doubt with this basic understanding of how nature works on the smallest scale. And as I've already posted, we've been able to measure the increase in photons in the spectrum absorbed by CO2 all along, we can say with a high degree of certainty just how much heat that is adding to the Earth and it's huge. https://www.skepticalscience.com/4-Hiroshima-bombs-worth-of-heat-per-second.html
The slope of the global heat accumulation graph tells us how rapidly the Earth's climate is building up heat. Over the past decade, the rate is 8 x 1021 Joules per year, or 2.5 x 1014 Joules per second. The yield of the Hiroshima atomic bomb was 6.3 x 1013 Joules, hence the rate of global heat accumulation is equivalent to about 4 Hiroshima bomb detonations per second. That's nearly 2 billion atomic bomb detonations worth of heat accumulating in the Earth's climate system since 1998, when we're told global warming supposedly 'paused'. That has to be the worst pause ever.
None of this is in "doubt" and hasn't been for decades. Which means you aren't talking science at all... By catastrophe impacts. You are referring to ‘rapid temperature increases’. Is that correct?
169
Doug, I understand what you are saying. I need you to answer a few questions to be able to bring this into a debate. On the earth’s cycles around the sun, do you believe we are now in the cooling cycle?
"earth's cycles around the sun", some of us just call this an orbit. It doesn't have a cooling cycle.
170
Exactly, as I keep pointing out if the same quantum mechanical effects that make emitting billions of tons of CO2 a year so dangerous weren't at work then no climate change denier could even use the internet let alone any electronic device. We've known for over 150 years that carbon dioxide traps infrared photons, what we commonly refer to as heat. When we keep adding more and more carbon dioxide to the atmosphere the science from 150 years ago tells us that the planet is going to warm up. But we're not relying on the science from 150 years ago, we have much more powerful theoretical and technical tools to observe what is happening. 150 years ago the atmospheric concentration of CO2 was less than 300 ppm. Now it is over 400 ppm because of the hundreds of billions of tons of CO2 that have been emitted by humans since then. We can directly measure how much electromagnetic energy in the spectrum affect by CO2 is being re-directed to the Earth because of all this additional CO2. There's no scientific doubt on this, it's equal to the heat from 4 Hiroshima sized atom bombs a second and will remain that way until the atmosphere returns to a radiative balance where as much energy is being re-emitted into space as the Earth receives from the Sun. The more carbon dioxide we emit into the the atmosphere, the more outgoing infrared heat will be blocked and the longer the Earth will warm. We are seeing this year exactly what this warming means in catastrophic impacts, from massive wildfires that can cover much of a continent to record breaking hurricanes slamming into islands and the US south killing many and doing incredible damage. Something that deniers still deny before fleeing for their lives. This is an indication of just how totally dishonest climate change denial is, Rush Limbaugh telling people to ignore a coming hurricane before saving his own ass... that is what climate change denial is, some asshole telling everyone to ignore looming catastrophe while doing what they need to save themselves. What Mike Yohe is doing here is exactly the same as Rush Limbaugh calling both hurricane Harvey and Irma "fake" news. There's nothing fake about catastrophic climate change or it's cause... the emission of billions of tons of CO2 a year from burning coal, oil and gas.
Let’s see if I understand what you are saying. The earth gets 1,900 Hiroshima bombs worth of heat per second from the sun. And you are saying that the CO2 is adding 4 more bombs worth of heat every second. Is that correct? It has been agreed that the CO2 contributes one percent of one percent or 0.01% of extra heat. Which is it? The 4 bombs per second is less than the one-one-hundredth of a percent. So that would be good news, correct?
171
Doug, I understand what you are saying. I need you to answer a few questions to be able to bring this into a debate. On the earth’s cycles around the sun, do you believe we are now in the cooling cycle?
"earth's cycles around the sun", some of us just call this an orbit. It doesn't have a cooling cycle. For debate I need to know where Doug is on the cycles. The next step is that scientists are saying that CO2 warming is good for keep our weather more stable. We have just left the intermediate stage of the cycle, which is the most stable part of the earth’s climate cycles. And due to the CO2 effects, they think that we will get intermediate stage weather for the next one hundred years. And that they say is a really good thing.
172
Doug, I understand what you are saying. I need you to answer a few questions to be able to bring this into a debate. On the earth’s cycles around the sun, do you believe we are now in the cooling cycle?
"earth's cycles around the sun", some of us just call this an orbit. It doesn't have a cooling cycle. For debate I need to know where Doug is on the cycles. The next step is that scientists are saying that CO2 warming is good for keep our weather more stable. We have just left the intermediate stage of the cycle, which is the most stable part of the earth’s climate cycles. And due to the CO2 effects, they think that we will get intermediate stage weather for the next one hundred years. And that they say is a really good thing. It's more than obvious by now that you're not really asking a question, you're just throwing out another canard. If you actually wanted to know could easily use a resource that has been presented many, many times here. https://www.skepticalscience.com/ The recent and well documented warming of the Earth's surface is best explained by the addition of billions of tons of CO2 to the atmosphere which trap infrared radiation. This has been detected directly by measuring the surface increase of infrared radiation in the spectrum absorbed by CO2. I've already indicated how much additional energy this is for Earth, it's equal to the heat from 4 Hiroshima sized bombs a second or 2.5 billion and counting since 1998 alone. This has totally overwhelmed the natural systems that have created recent glacial and inter-glacial periods there will be no cooling of the Earth for centuries now and possibly thousands of years due to all the CO2 we have already emitted into the atmosphere. The radiative forcings in the Milankovitch Cycles are on the order of a few 1/10 of a watt per meter squared. The human created radiative forcings are over +2.5 already and growing totally overwhelming the natural forcings. The danger in what we're doing is it changes climate and habitat so quickly that most of the life there will eventually go extinct, a process that has already begun. In the meantime we get absolutely hammered by catastrophic weather events which climate change denier assholes claim don't even exist. Limbaugh claimed that a massive hurricane that killed 60 Americans and did as much as $190 BILLION in damages was "fake" news and not to worry about the approach of the strongest hurricane ever measured in the Atlantic. It wasn't at Cat 5 by the time it hit Florida it had already expended a huge amount of force chewing up small Caribbean islands and Cuba. It still killed about 50 Americans and did over $10 BILLION in damage. So no, this has nothing to do with these "natural" cycles you're trying to throw out as a way to once more distract attention from the real issue here. denier....
173

oiu

What if the scales have not been balanced for science and carbon is not the driving force behind Global Warming. Yes, is holds heat and creates a little heat itself. But what do the scientists say that are not after the money and political agenda? While polls of scientists actively working in the field of climate science indicate strong general agreement that Earth is warming and human activity is a significant factor, 31,000 scientists say there is "no convincing evidence" that humans can or will cause "catastrophic" heating of the atmosphere.
you keep forgetting that is make believe fantasy talking. That is not the real world we live in. We know this for sure, even if you never acknowledge the evidence.
Ignore it all you want, but we know much for CERTAIN this is where our fundamental understanding comes from ! But you can't afford to absorb tight sort of information too much cognitive dissonance,... worried your head might explode, I imagine. Archive, Hanscom AFB Atmospheric Studies, Cambridge Research Labhttp://whatsupwiththatwatts.blogspot.com/2016/02/archive-usaf-atmospheric-studies-afcrl.html ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ CO2 Science - Why We Can Be Sure. http://whatsupwiththatwatts.blogspot.com/2016/12/co2-science-just-facts.html
Oh your petition is another precious example of your base dishonest and disregard for learning from incoming information. Your petition was accompanied by a vicious opinion piece written by Fred Seitz, masquerading as a Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences paper. This thing is one of the most blatant crimes against We The People's right to hear the true story - yet Mike believes in it. The disconnect from honest reality is amazing Debate is fine, but it needs to be an honest debate where both sides are bound by the evidence and learning from mistakes. Rather than the sort of endless obfuscation MikeYohe and the Republican party have to offer. Science Academy Disputes Attack on Global Warming By WILLIAM K. STEVENSAPRIL 22, 1998 http://www.nytimes.com/1998/04/22/us/science-academy-disputes-attack-on-global-warming.html
April 20, 1998 http://www8.nationalacademies.org/onpinews/newsitem.aspx?RecordID=s04201998 The Council of the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) is concerned about the confusion caused by a petition being circulated via a letter from a former president of this Academy. This petition criticizes the science underlying the Kyoto treaty on carbon dioxide emissions (the Kyoto Protocol to the Framework Convention on Climate Change), and it asks scientists to recommend rejection of this treaty by the U.S. Senate. The petition was mailed with an op-ed article from The Wall Street Journal and a manuscript in a format that is nearly identical to that of scientific articles published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. The NAS Council would like to make it clear that this petition has nothing to do with the National Academy of Sciences and that the manuscript was not published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences or in any other peer-reviewed journal. The petition does not reflect the conclusions of expert reports of the Academy. In particular, the Committee on Science, Engineering, and Public Policy of the National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering (NAE), and the Institute of Medicine (IOM) conducted a major consensus study on this issue, entitled Policy Implications of Greenhouse Warming (1991,1992). This analysis concluded that " ...even given the considerable uncertainties in our knowledge of the relevant phenomena, greenhouse warming poses a potential threat sufficient to merit prompt responses. ... Investment in mitigation measures acts as insurance protection against the great uncertainties and the possibility of dramatic surprises." In addition, the Committee on Global Change Research of the National Research Council, the operating arm of the NAS and the NAE, will issue a major report later this spring on the research issues that can help to reduce the scientific uncertainties associated with global change phenomena, including climate change. NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES COUNCIL Bruce Alberts (president) National Academy of Sciences Washington, D.C. Jack Halpern (vice president) Louis Block Distinguished Professor Emeritus Department of Chemistry University of Chicago Peter H. Raven (home secretary) Director Missouri Botanical Garden St. Louis F. Sherwood Rowland (foreign secretary) Donald Bren Research Professor of Chemistry and Earth System Science Department of Chemistry University of California Irvine Ronald L. Graham (treasurer) Chief Scientist AT&T Laboratories Florham Park, N.J. Mary Ellen Avery Professor of Pediatrics Harvard Medical School Boston Ralph J. Cicerone Chancellor-Designate Dean, School of Physical Sciences, and Daniel G. Aldrich Professor of Earth System Science Department of Earth System Science University of California Irvine Edward E. David Jr.(1) President EED Inc. Bedminster, N.J. Marye Anne Fox Chancellor-Designate North Carolina State University, and Vice President for Research and M. June and J. Virgil Waggoner Regents Chair in Chemistry Department of Chemistry University of Texas Austin Ralph E. Gomory(2) President Alfred P. Sloan Foundation New York City David M. Kipnis Distinguished University Professor Department of Internal Medicine Washington University School of Medicine St. Louis Daniel E. Koshland Jr. Professor in the Graduate School Department of Molecular and Cell Biology University of California Berkeley Mary-Lou Pardue Boris Magasanik Professor Department of Biology Massachusetts Institute of Technology Cambridge Luis Sequeira J.C. Walker Professor Emeritus Department of Plant Pathology University of Wisconsin Madison I.M. Singer Institute Professor Department of Mathematics Massachusetts Institute of Technology Cambridge Robert H. Wurtz Chief Laboratory of Sensorimotor Research National Eye Institute National Institutes of Health Bethesda, Md. Richard N. Zare Marguerite Blake Wilbur Professor Department of Chemistry Stanford University Stanford, Calif.
The Oregon Institute - The Oregon Petition 32000 Scientists https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Py2XVILHUjQ
And this is the sort of crap that MikeYohe and his Republican pals treat as their gold standard of truth. All the time evading the simple questions being asked of him.
174
By catastrophe impacts. You are referring to ‘rapid temperature increases’. Is that correct?
Nope, another total miss. Temperature rise is the driving factor, but it's the cascading consequences that are getting us, and we are but tasting the tip of where this show is going. This show being a radical climate regime shift on Earth, faster than nature can keep up. Sea level rise and it's destruction of coastal cities and estuaries; Tundra melting, totally disrupting a society and eco-system that has lived up there for millennia, not to mention becoming another positive warming feedback; Disruption of ecological interactions and relationships, pollinators and flower timing, pests not getting killed back during winter freezes, etc.; Ocean acidification and all it's problems, heat waves and droughts - oh yea, it's the temperatures too. Know anything about wetbulb temps and what they tell about future habitability of some areas; Extra moisture in the atmosphere transforming seasonal rain patterns towards torrential destructive downpours; What's more destructive to farm land and our society's infrastructure? Too much water, or drought? How about drought ended by torrential flooding, such are the catastrophes that are visiting us already at an alarmingly increasing rate. This list could go on and on, are you interested in learning more?
175
But what do the scientists say that are not after the money and political agenda?
So Mike chooses to believe scientists working in their field are to be assumed dishonest. Mike has no appreciation that these people are about understanding their fields of study to the best of modern abilities, Have you ever listened to their lectures explaining their science and findings? Ever try to imagine them as passionate, curious, competitive honest professionals??? NOPE, instead Republicans have increasingly depended on this sort of cheap baseless innuendo and slander and libel as part of their normal thinking and operating procedures. They reach for disaffected hacks who'll say anything, often with big chips on their shoulders ready to strike back at the establishments that hurt their tender feelings so. That sort of low life Mike raises to positions of trusted authority. While impugning the genuine professionals and experts, disgusting. Such is the ugly path of the absolutist and totalitarians the extreme right and today's GOP certainly act like they are. One more time Mikie, try listening to a real scientist tell about what it's like in the real world.
Published on Aug 24, 2015 - 1:41 min Prof Alley gets passionate about the motivation of scientists. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b_WLArrksB4
176

The date on that thing just hit me, twenty f’n years and the dialogue hasn’t budged one inch. :down:
No matter how much happens that is totally in line with the fears back in the 70s.
No matter how much detail we are gaining, it will never be enough.
Trying to wrap my head around that one, is what’s going to make mine explode some day.
So selfish, so stupid, so greedy, so deep down nasty and hateful towards others and in the end nothing but self-destructive.
All those lessons of history, all that growing understanding of our planet’s geophysics and biosphere and how fruitful it was.
All for nought.
How easy it would have been to work with it rather than, ignoring the limits of growth and dedicating ourselves to devouring the whole show.
I really don’t get why it had to be this way.
Never could. I mean I was f’n 13 and a clear explanation of the underlying science told me enough to figure it out,
from then on I been watching the years - paying attention to the growing understanding, nothing about the fundamentals has changed. Nothing!
Wonderful details have been opened up, surprises and revelations for sure, it is information that has filled in the picture with increasing details,
yet still never once have they had to erase the image and start over. The fundamental outline is that simple, straightforward and certain.
One only needs the intellectual honestly to look at it.
But they refuse because they got God on their side.
Too bad they are too childish to recognized that their “god” is in actually nothing but their own EGO ballooned to dangerous proportions.

177

You were right CC, trying to have a rational discussion with this denier is like trying to talk to an automated spambot.
We get nothing intelligible in return because there is nothing intelligible there.
The science is clear and has been for well over a century, Joseph Fourier, John Tyndall, Svante Arrhenius, James Hansen and so many more weren’t making mistakes. They were just doing science in an area that has significant economic impacts that causes some people to resist reality no matter the evidence or the cost.
It’s been estimated that trump’s climate change policies will eventually cost $100 trillion, that’s before we even get to the fact that the hostile conditions we are creating on the only home we have are insane. Who cares how much money ExxonMobil or Koch Inc. makes if it kills everybody.

The financial implications of the carbon bubble are immense, dwarfing those of the 2008 housing bubble, according to Carney and the Who’s Who of global financial leaders that have echoed his warnings, including private banks Citigroup and HSBC and the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank. Citigroup estimated in 2015 that the “total value of stranded assets could be over $100 trillion." $100 trillion. It’s one of those figures it’s hard to get one’s head around. Just how much money is that? By way of comparison, $100 trillion is nearly five times the size of the losses associated with the housing bubble that nearly crashed the economy in 2008. One hundred trillion dollars is larger than the combined value of all the stock markets on earth. It is nothing to play with.
Climate change denial is a form of insanity, it doesn't make sense from a scientific, economic, political or social standpoint. The people who engage in it have gone bye bye....
178
Climate change denial is a form of insanity, it doesn't make sense from a scientific, economic, political or social standpoint. The people who engage in it have gone bye bye....
Tough to argue with that. hmmm, now that I think about it, impossible. :down: Mikie, you're up. :smirk:
179
While polls of scientists actively working in the field of climate science indicate strong general agreement that Earth is warming and human activity is a significant factor, 31,000 scientists say there is "no convincing evidence" that humans can or will cause "catastrophic" heating of the atmosphere.
I'm pretty sure no one is really responding to you directly Mike, just letting other readers know how wrong you are. Any reasonable person could see that. Here are a few facts about your 31,000 scientists. Facts that you could have found yourself if you cared. The organizers have never revealed how many people they canvassed (so the response rate is unknown) nor have they revealed the sampling methodology, an ironic omission considering how much fuss is made about scientists being candid and making public their methods and data. The petition is, in terms of climate change science, rather out of date. According to figures from the US Department of Education Digest of Education Statistics: 2008, 10.6 million science graduates have gained qualifications consistent with the OISM polling criteria since the 1970-71 school year. 32,000 out of 10 million is not a very compelling figure, but a tiny minority - approximately 0.3 per cent. .1% of Signers Have a Background in Climatology. To be fair, we can add in those who claim to have a background in Atmospheric Science, which brings the total percentage of signatories with a background in climate change science to a whopping .5%. Along with the Exxon-backed George C. Marshall Institute, Robinson’s group co-published the infamous “Oregon Petition" claiming to have collected 17,000 signatories to a document arguing against the realities of global warming. The petition and the documents included were all made to look like official papers from the prestigious National Academy of Science. They weren’t, and this attempt to mislead has been well-documented. You obviously have spent some time on this, how could you have missed this information?
180
oiu
What if the scales have not been balanced for science and carbon is not the driving force behind Global Warming. Yes, is holds heat and creates a little heat itself. But what do the scientists say that are not after the money and political agenda? While polls of scientists actively working in the field of climate science indicate strong general agreement that Earth is warming and human activity is a significant factor, 31,000 scientists say there is "no convincing evidence" that humans can or will cause "catastrophic" heating of the atmosphere.
you keep forgetting that is make believe fantasy talking. That is not the real world we live in. We know this for sure, even if you never acknowledge the evidence.
Ignore it all you want, but we know much for CERTAIN this is where our fundamental understanding comes from ! But you can't afford to absorb tight sort of information too much cognitive dissonance,... worried your head might explode, I imagine. Archive, Hanscom AFB Atmospheric Studies, Cambridge Research Labhttp://whatsupwiththatwatts.blogspot.com/2016/02/archive-usaf-atmospheric-studies-afcrl.html ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ CO2 Science - Why We Can Be Sure. http://whatsupwiththatwatts.blogspot.com/2016/12/co2-science-just-facts.html
Oh your petition is another precious example of your base dishonest and disregard for learning from incoming information. Your petition was accompanied by a vicious opinion piece written by Fred Seitz, masquerading as a Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences paper. This thing is one of the most blatant crimes against We The People's right to hear the true story - yet Mike believes in it. The disconnect from honest reality is amazing Debate is fine, but it needs to be an honest debate where both sides are bound by the evidence and learning from mistakes. Rather than the sort of endless obfuscation MikeYohe and the Republican party have to offer. Science Academy Disputes Attack on Global Warming By WILLIAM K. STEVENSAPRIL 22, 1998 http://www.nytimes.com/1998/04/22/us/science-academy-disputes-attack-on-global-warming.html
April 20, 1998 http://www8.nationalacademies.org/onpinews/newsitem.aspx?RecordID=s04201998 The Council of the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) is concerned about the confusion caused by a petition being circulated via a letter from a former president of this Academy. This petition criticizes the science underlying the Kyoto treaty on carbon dioxide emissions (the Kyoto Protocol to the Framework Convention on Climate Change), and it asks scientists to recommend rejection of this treaty by the U.S. Senate. The petition was mailed with an op-ed article from The Wall Street Journal and a manuscript in a format that is nearly identical to that of scientific articles published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. The NAS Council would like to make it clear that this petition has nothing to do with the National Academy of Sciences and that the manuscript was not published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences or in any other peer-reviewed journal. The petition does not reflect the conclusions of expert reports of the Academy. In particular, the Committee on Science, Engineering, and Public Policy of the National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering (NAE), and the Institute of Medicine (IOM) conducted a major consensus study on this issue, entitled Policy Implications of Greenhouse Warming (1991,1992). This analysis concluded that " ...even given the considerable uncertainties in our knowledge of the relevant phenomena, greenhouse warming poses a potential threat sufficient to merit prompt responses. ... Investment in mitigation measures acts as insurance protection against the great uncertainties and the possibility of dramatic surprises." In addition, the Committee on Global Change Research of the National Research Council, the operating arm of the NAS and the NAE, will issue a major report later this spring on the research issues that can help to reduce the scientific uncertainties associated with global change phenomena, including climate change. NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES COUNCIL Bruce Alberts (president) National Academy of Sciences Washington, D.C. ................. Richard N. Zare Marguerite Blake Wilbur Professor Department of Chemistry Stanford University Stanford, Calif.
The Oregon Institute - The Oregon Petition 32000 Scientists https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Py2XVILHUjQ
And this is the sort of crap that MikeYohe and his Republican pals treat as their gold standard of truth. All the time evading the simple questions being asked of him.
Here you go again. Blaming me and all the republicans for climate change. You said the science was complete, back in 2010, correct? The problem you had was all these stupid scientists that just would not get in line with your hypotheses. Your science is consensual science whose results are controlled by a union. Where are your datum points and datum lines in your science? What the hell kind of science are you backing? Didn’t you learn anything in school? Without datum point and lines your science can move around and you never will get from a hypothesis to a theory. Oh wait, your science set its 2100 goals of 1.5 degrees. That was a bold move. Mainly to help the political goals. And look what happen this last week. Science proved that the goal of 1.5 degrees could not be met. So, what did your science that has spent a couple hundred billion so far to reach their conclusions do? They moved the data points to match the results they are after. Ran the new data points through the models and bingo, the goal of 1.5 degrees is possible now. Oh yea, we were told the models were running hot before. What they are doing is criminal or political, what’s the difference? For years your CO2 was said to stay in the atmosphere for at least an average of 400 years. And as more tests results came in, the number kept increasing. The average went from 400 yrs to 600 to 800 years. And then 800 to 1,000 years was used a lot and is still being used today and even 2,000 years has been claimed. But this became a problem for setting the 1.5-degree goal. So, the IPCC is using the average of 5yrs to 200 years average for calculating the 2100 goal. I want to ask you about the 400 to 800-year lag of the carbon following the heat in the Ice Core data. But in thirty years there has not been an acceptable answer. Science that ignores questions that don’t have good scientific answers is a problem.