… and it’s something that the Milankovitch cycle has absolutely nothing to do with, not now, and at no time in the past. :red:
JohnH, I have striven to respond to your challenge “What caused global temperatures to fall in the past?” using explanations in my own words, supported by an assortment of links to bona fide sources of valid scientific information. That I don’t like you, and visa versa, shouldn’t be any issue, let’s keep to the main question and answering it.
I’ve done it with care, not just for you personally, but also for the onlookers who glance at these posts, and become I’m always striving to improve my writing.
In light of your rant about me and others], why not show that you are more than you appear by doing the stand-up thing
and offer your considered critique of how I (and perhaps others) have offended your sensibilities and why I should be ashamed of how I’ve attempted engaging you?
Can you do that John?
@ Mike and John,
I believe that we all agree that the earth’s average temperature is getting warmer (GW), resulting in a general change of intensity of weather patterns and the rise of ocean levels. This change is caused by several forces, some natural cyclical of long periods of time and some as a result of human industry spewing millions of tons of CO2 into the atmosphere, which traps the heat form the sun through the greenhouse effect, speeding up the process.
Can we all agree on this? Good.
In order to slow down this greenhouse effect and possible even reverse the process to allow more heat to escape to keep the inevitable warming at its absolute lowest rate, what would be the order of steps to take?
Does it sound reasonable to begin with ;
a) stopping human industrial pollution of the atmosphere by absolutely minimizing our CO2 release?
b) creating ecofriendly (non-polluting) power generation?
c) creating CO2 scrubbers, by planting large areas with trees and other efficient CO2 sequestration plants (such as hemp).
d) creating chemical CO2 destroying or sequestering devices before it is released into the atmosphere.
(We are doing this with nuclear waste products, why can’t we do this with CO2)
Can we all agree that this would be a prudent and intelligent approach to slow down GW, at least our contribution to the problem?
As ordinary lay persons, does this sound doable? With the exception of d) we can all contribute to slowing down and let the scientists work on d) . I am sure that the effects would be noticeable in just a decade.
All we need to do is to make this a global effort, which was started with the Paris accord.
China, Germany, France, Netherlands, Belgium, Spain and a host of other countries are voluntarily participating in this effort and some countries even have set deadlines for achieving total independence from natural resources.
This voluntary agreement is an clear indication that the world considers this a major threat to life on earth itself.
Ask yourself, why did the US withdraw from this consensus agreement that all countries need to participate in this existential effort
The US withdrew from the Paris climate change accord because trump is a denier.
Not only is his government not going to do anything effective to reduce carbon dioxide emissions, under Rex Tillerson the US State Department is encouraging other nations to use more fossil fuels.
U.S. diplomats should sidestep questions from foreign governments on what it would take for the Trump administration to re-engage in the global Paris climate agreement, according to a diplomatic cable seen by Reuters. The cable, sent by U.S. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson to embassies on Friday, also said diplomats should make clear the United States wants to help other countries use fossil fuels. In the wake of President Donald Trump’s announcement in June that the United States would withdraw from the accord, the cable tells diplomats to expect foreign government representatives to ask questions like: “Does the United States have a climate change policy?" and “Is the administration advocating the use of fossil fuels over renewable energy?" If asked, for example, “What is the process for consideration of re-engagement in the Paris Agreement?", the answer should be vague: “We are considering a number of factors. I do not have any information to share on the nature or timing of the process," the cable advises. A U.S. State Department official declined to comment on the cable.It is entirely clear that the US under a trump presidency and a republican controlled Congress will do absolutely nothing to address the most serious issue facing all people in the world today. Not only that but trump is encouraging other nations to take the worst possible steps by burning even more fossil fuels. This is what decades of totally fabricated denial gets us, the nation that should be leading the rest of the world in what is in reality a very serious crisis instead of pretending it doesn't even exist.
Here is a page] I found in skeptical science that articulated the concern I’ve tried to express about climate change. It is a 2011 article but I don’t think things have changed dramatically since then. The suggestion is that warming could be double that currently anticipated due to issues not well researched at the time. The article discusses some of the unsettled and or ignored issues leading to uncertainties in the models predicting future temperatures. Note that the quote below estimates a CO2 climate sensitivity of 8°C, double the currently used estimate of 3-4°C.
The exact value of climate sensitivity depends on which feedbacks you include, the climate state you start with, and what timescale you’re interested in. While the Earth has ice sheets the total climate sensitivity to CO2 is up to 8°C: 1.2°C direct warming, 1.8°C from fast feedbacks, 1°C from greenhouse gas feedbacks, and nearly 4°C from ice albedo feedbacks. The slow feedbacks have historically occurred over centuries to millennia, but could become significant this century. Including CO2 itself as a feedback would make climate sensitivity even higher, except for the weathering feedback which operates on a geologic timescale.
Does it sound reasonable to begin with ; a) stopping human industrial pollution of the atmosphere by absolutely minimizing our CO2 release? b) creating ecofriendly (non-polluting) power generation? c) creating CO2 scrubbers, by planting large areas with trees and other efficient CO2 sequestration plants (such as hemp). d) creating chemical CO2 destroying or sequestering devices before it is released into the atmosphere. (We are doing this with nuclear waste products, why can't we do this with CO2) Can we all agree that this would be a prudent and intelligent approach to slow down GW, at least our contribution to the problem?Yes, but I'd like to see vigorous research continue on the topics that Hansen and others need to improve our understanding of climate - and a more accepting audience for those people who suggest we shouldn't be complacent or satisfied with our current understanding of climate change.
Here’s an example of JohnH manipulating information in order to advocate for pretending what’s settled science isn’t settled.
Also an example of focusing on second, third base issues, before thorough understanding and accepting first base understanding.
That would be the physics of greenhouse gases that John keeps avoiding.
Here is a page] I found in skeptical science that articulated the concern I've tried to express about climate change. It is a 2011 article but I don't think things have changed dramatically since then. The suggestion is that warming could be double that currently anticipated due to issues not well researched at the time. The article discusses some of the unsettled and or ignored issues leading to uncertainties in the models predicting future temperatures. Note that the quote below estimates a CO2 climate sensitivity of 8°C, double the currently used estimate of 3-4°C.Here's a great example of your deviousness. Why did you leave out the rest of that section?The exact value of climate sensitivity depends on which feedbacks you include, the climate state you start with, and what timescale you’re interested in. While the Earth has ice sheets the total climate sensitivity to CO2 is up to 8°C: 1.2°C direct warming, 1.8°C from fast feedbacks, 1°C from greenhouse gas feedbacks, and nearly 4°C from ice albedo feedbacks. The slow feedbacks have historically occurred over centuries to millennia, but could become significant this century. Including CO2 itself as a feedback would make climate sensitivity even higher, except for the weathering feedback which operates on a geologic timescale. ... ...
https://www.skepticalscience.com/print.php?n=967 Climate Sensitivity: Feedbacks Anyone? Climate modeling is notoriously complex, but it all boils down to one key question: How sensitive is the Earth’s climate to perturbations like an increase in the greenhouse effect? [body of article, then comes the conclusion, which John only showed the first paragraph of] What it all means ... As is explained in Target Atmospheric CO2, 4 W/m2 of greenhouse gas forcing sustained long enough would ultimately return the Earth to an ice-free state, raising the global sea level by 75 metres. The preindustrial level of atmospheric CO2 was ~275 ppm, so 4 W/m2 would be the effect of doubling the CO2-equivalent of all greenhouse gases (CO2e) to 550 ppm, or increasing CO2 to ~450 ppm with other greenhouse gases responding as feedbacks. Currently CO2 is at 390 ppm and rising; CO2e levels are at 470 ppm and counting; implying significant feedbacks are already in the pipeline. However, we may still be able to prevent them if we can get the Earth back in energy balance by reducing atmospheric CO2. In practical terms, that means cutting global CO2 emissions to near-zero as soon as possible. Contrarians often argue the paleoclimate record shows CO2 and climate change are nothing to worry about. What it actually tells us is the climate system is extremely sensitive to perturbations – and we are running out of time to prevent the global warming we started from spiraling out of our control. Posted by James Wight on Sunday, 28 August, 2011That doesn't sound near as casual as John implies.
Here is a page] I found in skeptical science that articulated the concern I've tried to express about climate change. It is a 2011 article but I don't think things have changed dramatically since then. The suggestion is that warming could be double that currently anticipated due to issues not well researched at the time. The article discusses some of the unsettled and or ignored issues leading to uncertainties in the models predicting future temperatures. Note that the quote below estimates a CO2 climate sensitivity of 8°C, double the currently used estimate of 3-4°C.We can do all this at the same time, look how many jobs would be created. As the head of the theam that landed the Rover on Mars said, "we don't have to do it exactly right, we need to do it just right enough"The exact value of climate sensitivity depends on which feedbacks you include, the climate state you start with, and what timescale you’re interested in. While the Earth has ice sheets the total climate sensitivity to CO2 is up to 8°C: 1.2°C direct warming, 1.8°C from fast feedbacks, 1°C from greenhouse gas feedbacks, and nearly 4°C from ice albedo feedbacks. The slow feedbacks have historically occurred over centuries to millennia, but could become significant this century. Including CO2 itself as a feedback would make climate sensitivity even higher, except for the weathering feedback which operates on a geologic timescale.Does it sound reasonable to begin with ; a) stopping human industrial pollution of the atmosphere by absolutely minimizing our CO2 release? b) creating ecofriendly (non-polluting) power generation? c) creating CO2 scrubbers, by planting large areas with trees and other efficient CO2 sequestration plants (such as hemp). d) creating chemical CO2 destroying or sequestering devices before it is released into the atmosphere. (We are doing this with nuclear waste products, why can't we do this with CO2) Can we all agree that this would be a prudent and intelligent approach to slow down GW, at least our contribution to the problem?Yes, but I'd like to see vigorous research continue on the topics that Hansen and others need to improve our understanding of climate - and a more accepting audience for those people who suggest we shouldn't be complacent or satisfied with our current understanding of climate change.
As the head of the team that landed the Rover on Mars said,
“we don’t get paid to do it exactly right, we get paid to do it just right enough”
Oh and a hell of a lot has been learned in the past six years!
Scientists Fear Trump Will Dismiss Blunt Climate Report New York Times shares the NAS's quadrennial National Climate Assessment By LISA FRIEDMAN - AUG. 7, 2017 https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/07/climate/climate-change-drastic-warming-trump.html WASHINGTON — The average temperature in the United States has risen rapidly and drastically since 1980, and recent decades have been the warmest of the past 1,500 years, according to a sweeping federal climate change report awaiting approval by the Trump administration. ... The report was completed this year and is a special science section of the National Climate Assessment, which is congressionally mandated every four years. The National Academy of Sciences has signed off on the draft report, and the authors are awaiting permission from the Trump administration to release it. ... The report concludes that even if humans immediately stopped emitting greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, {And why did we have to wait for it to get that bad when had a fundamental understanding 50 years ago - } the world would still feel at least an additional 0.50 degrees Fahrenheit (0.30 degrees Celsius) of warming over this century compared with today. The projected actual rise, scientists say, will be as much as 2 degrees Celsius. ... Among the more significant of the study’s findings is that it is possible to attribute some extreme weather to climate change. The field known as “attribution science" has advanced rapidly in response to increasing risks from climate change. ... The study examines every corner of the United States and finds that all of it was touched by climate change. The average annual temperature in the United States will continue to rise, the authors write, making recent record-setting years “relatively common" in the near future. It projects increases of 5.0 to 7.5 degrees Fahrenheit (2.8 to 4.8 degrees Celsius) by the late century, depending on the level of future emissions. It says the average annual rainfall across the country has increased by about 4 percent since the beginning of the 20th century. Parts of the West, Southwest and Southeast are drying up, while the Southern Plains and the Midwest are getting wetter. ...JohnH - can you explain why you think we need more study and more debate before the reality (er the truth) of our situation is allowed to soak in? What specifically is missing? The ability to exactly explain every fluctuation in the deep past - although all the fundamental fluctuations are understood and well studied? Is it that perfect Crystal Ball that no one in any field of study or politics or love has every achieved? What is intellectually honest about impossible expectations? What level of certainty are you demanding anyways? Oh and I notice you have no critiques to offer regarding my various links and references - guess they must all pass muster now that you've actually been tasked with reviewing them. Good to know. :-)For the text of the document: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/08/07/climate/document-Draft-of-the-Climate-Science-Special-Report.html
Yes, but I'd like to see vigorous research continue on the topics that Hansen and others need to improve our understanding of climate - and a more accepting audience for those people who suggest we shouldn't be complacent or satisfied with our current understanding of climate change.Why? When that audience demands to use deception, misrepresentation and refuses to accept bona fide information to then absorb and process ?! Why is misrepresenting the science seen as okay to your team?
@ Mike and John, I believe that we all agree that the earth's average temperature is getting warmer (GW), resulting in a general change of intensity of weather patterns and the rise of ocean levels. This change is caused by several forces, some natural cyclical of long periods of time and some as a result of human industry spewing millions of tons of CO2 into the atmosphere, which traps the heat form the sun through the greenhouse effect, speeding up the process. Can we all agree on this? Good.You forgot to add EPA head Scott Pruitt. That is also his thinking. Yes, we all agree. At this time we are trying to figure out which force is the primary contributor. But, yes what you said is correct and agreed upon.
In order to slow down this greenhouse effect and possible even reverse the process to allow more heat to escape to keep the inevitable warming at its absolute lowest rate, what would be the order of steps to take? Does it sound reasonable to begin with ; a) stopping human industrial pollution of the atmosphere by absolutely minimizing our CO2 release? b) creating ecofriendly (non-polluting) power generation? c) creating CO2 scrubbers, by planting large areas with trees and other efficient CO2 sequestration plants (such as hemp). d) creating chemical CO2 destroying or sequestering devices before it is released into the atmosphere. (We are doing this with nuclear waste products, why can't we do this with CO2) Can we all agree that this would be a prudent and intelligent approach to slow down GW, at least our contribution to the problem? As ordinary lay persons, does this sound doable? With the exception of d) we can all contribute to slowing down and let the scientists work on d) . I am sure that the effects would be noticeable in just a decade.Yes, totally agree with your point on the concept. I would like to add “e)" to your list. e) the funding of geothermal energy. Please read this IPCC report and see if you don’t agree. www.ipcc.ch/pdf/special-reports/srren/Chapter 4 Geothermal Energy.pdf
Ask yourself, why did the US withdraw from this consensus agreement that all countries need to participate in this existential effortWhat you are saying is that the powers in control of those countries agree. Try using the country codes and reading the news in countries around the world and you will see that the countries you named the people agree but in most of the world they could care less about global warming. Why did we withdraw? Thank you, President Trump. We withdrew because on the political face this was about the saving of the world. But in operational this was about the greatest movement of wealth from the United States to other parts of the world. For example, the government talked about the need for the Paris agreement and the lowering of CO2 but supported the US Export-Import Bank that spent $34 billion supporting 70 fossil fuel projects around the world. The agreement would have cost the US $15 trillion dollars and created globalizing powers. I don’t need to pay someone in Germany so they can tell me how and when I can mow my yard or use the bathroom.
CC, we have started into harvest time in my field of work. Really busy. I have not had the time to review your posted YouTubes yet.
Yes, but I'd like to see vigorous research continue on the topics that Hansen and others need to improve our understanding of climate - and a more accepting audience for those people who suggest we shouldn't be complacent or satisfied with our current understanding of climate change.From what you've posted, you want to see this in absolute terms, which you've already admitted science doesn't provide. http://www.centerforinquiry.net/forums/viewthread/19434/ And it's pretty clear by now that no amount of validation will satisfy those engaged in climate change denial - which is what this is - because virtually every scientist and almost all the peer-reviewed science is in support of human forced climate change. https://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus-intermediate.htm So you're basically saying you're demanding we get to 100% before you're satisfied that action is necessary which isn't science and isn't possible. You aren't engaged in an actual scientific discussion which means you are in fact a climate change denier...
Yes, but I'd like to see vigorous research continue on the topics that Hansen and others need to improve our understanding of climate - and a more accepting audience for those people who suggest we shouldn't be complacent or satisfied with our current understanding of climate change.Those people aren't suggesting anything, they have been making a concerted attack on the valid science on human forced climate change which goes back decades. This isn't about valid scientific skepticism and never has been. This about an intentional, sophisticated, long term and highly funded campaign to deny the highly confident science on human forced climate change. Deniers get their way by incessantly claiming we need more study and that we need to remove the "uncertainty" which is almost non-existent now anyway. This is no different from climate change denial because it is climate change denial.
I also think it’s ridiculous to believe it’s possible to find a consensus position based on the facts with “people” who’s sole focus is to deny there is a consensus position, Mike Yohe is clear evidence of this here.
Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.
Yes, but I'd like to see vigorous research continue on the topics that Hansen and others need to improve our understanding of climate - and a more accepting audience for those people who suggest we shouldn't be complacent or satisfied with our current understanding of climate change.Those people aren't suggesting anything, they have been making a concerted attack on the valid science on human forced climate change which goes back decades. This isn't about valid scientific skepticism and never has been. This is about an intentional, sophisticated, long term and highly funded campaign to deny the highly confident science on human forced climate change. Deniers get their way by incessantly claiming we need more study and that we need to remove the "uncertainty" which is almost non-existent now anyway. This is no different from climate change denial because it is climate change denial. This is worth bring to the top of the page.
Here is a page] I found in skeptical science that articulated the concern I've tried to express about climate change. It is a 2011 article but I don't think things have changed dramatically since then. The suggestion is that warming could be double that currently anticipated due to issues not well researched at the time. The article discusses some of the unsettled and or ignored issues leading to uncertainties in the models predicting future temperatures. Note that the quote below estimates a CO2 climate sensitivity of 8°C, double the currently used estimate of 3-4°C.What I get from all this that you are not trying to make the point that science is not (and does not claim) to be truth. You are trying to say that all science is false…....difference!!!!!!!!!!!!! You are just trying to subvert Science as a valuable source of information..The exact value of climate sensitivity depends on which feedbacks you include, the climate state you start with, and what timescale you’re interested in. While the Earth has ice sheets the total climate sensitivity to CO2 is up to 8°C: 1.2°C direct warming, 1.8°C from fast feedbacks, 1°C from greenhouse gas feedbacks, and nearly 4°C from ice albedo feedbacks. The slow feedbacks have historically occurred over centuries to millennia, but could become significant this century. Including CO2 itself as a feedback would make climate sensitivity even higher, except for the weathering feedback which operates on a geologic timescale.Does it sound reasonable to begin with ; a) stopping human industrial pollution of the atmosphere by absolutely minimizing our CO2 release? b) creating ecofriendly (non-polluting) power generation? c) creating CO2 scrubbers, by planting large areas with trees and other efficient CO2 sequestration plants (such as hemp). d) creating chemical CO2 destroying or sequestering devices before it is released into the atmosphere. (We are doing this with nuclear waste products, why can't we do this with CO2) Can we all agree that this would be a prudent and intelligent approach to slow down GW, at least our contribution to the problem?Yes, but I'd like to see vigorous research continue on the topics that Hansen and others need to improve our understanding of climate - and a more accepting audience for those people who suggest we shouldn't be complacent or satisfied with our current understanding of climate change.
Yes, but I'd like to see vigorous research continue on the topics that Hansen and others need to improve our understanding of climate - and a more accepting audience for those people who suggest we shouldn't be complacent or satisfied with our current understanding of climate change.So JohnH is basically saying he doesn't care what the facts around climate change are, science seeks the best explanation for empirical data. PR seeks a willing audience for their products. Those "people" who are denying the valid science are working for the fossil fuel sector, they are basically salesmen for a deadly product. We no longer allow tobacco companies to advertise on TV or anywhere that vulnerable audiences like children can be exposed to their poisons. we need to do the same with fossil fuels and that includes drying up the source of funding without which climate change deniers like JohnH will no longer have a motive to lie for money...