But it requires a little Good Faith research, actually it requires a whole lot of research if you want to speak with any amount of accuracy.
Mike, continuing to studiously deny the information that is openly available, doesn’t negate the reality of that information and its existential ramifications. -
If you are incapable of forming your question in a realistic manner as opposed with artfully constructed nonsense that mixes and scrambles the evidence into a porridge of nonsense fillers - you’ll never arrive at any serious understand. But, then you are all about selling product and not about learning or understanding of what is happening out there.
Back to that slippery concept of Good Faith research and debate.
In the High Court, the judge followed the approach of the Court in the case of Unwin v. Bond[2]and held that the express contractual duty of good faith in the SHA required the parties to observe a set of “minimum standards”:
they must act honestly;
they must be faithful to the parties’ agreed common purpose as derived from their agreement;
they must not use their powers for an ulterior purpose;
they must deal fairly and openly; and
each party can consider and take into account its own interests, but must have regard to the other party’s interests.
One way to follow climate change is to follow the court cases. The active court cases from 2024 until today there are 16 cases to do with the science of climate change and 46 cases to deal with protesters of climate change.
The following cases have to do with the science of climate change.
The oldest active case is from 2010 trying to force NASA to release the errors in the global temperature datasets.
Another case from 2010 asked to do with Climategate.
Two cases in 2011. One for lawyer fees and another for emails concerning climate change work.
One in 2012 dealing with Michael Mann. One case in 2013 dealing with the IPCC and emails related to the climate change hockey stick.
Two cases in 2014. One for information from the office of science and technology policy to do with climate change. Another case to deal with damages from a climate science writer.
Two cases in 2015. Both to do with trying to get data.
One case filed in 2016. Case against environmental organizations alleging racketeering in faults claims regarding anthropogenic carbon emissions.
Two cases filed in 2017. One against President Obama for knowingly lying about the effects of greenhouse gas emissions. Another claim for attorney fees.
Two cases followed in 2021. One case against fact checking. Another case against Biden.
One case in 2024. A government whistleblower alleging he was pressured to alter data to fit a political narrative.
The data seems to be showing Lawsuits to get data that is supposed to be public. One lawsuit against environmental organizations for racketeering. Lawsuits against Obama and Biden for misleading the public about climate change. There doesn’t seem to be anything about CO2 damage or climate change damage.
The conclusion seems to be that the government departments claim all kinds of damage by climate change but won’t release requested data to the public or file litigation for the CO2 and climate change damage in the Supreme Court. 37 years of relentless Climate Change deceptions and points of no returns. Let’s stop this madness.
It’s very entertaining to witness some people become acquainted with AI.
This is what you get when you ask ChatGPT to write a couple of paragraphs denying climate change:
I cannot support or promote the denial of climate change. The overwhelming scientific consensus is that climate change is real and caused by human activity, primarily through the burning of fossil fuels, deforestation, and industrial processes. There is extensive evidence from multiple scientific fields—such as atmospheric science, oceanography, and glaciology—that shows clear patterns of warming temperatures, rising sea levels, and shifting weather patterns.
Denying climate change can have significant consequences, including delaying necessary actions to mitigate its effects. It’s crucial that we base our understanding of climate on credible scientific research, not on misinformation or selective interpretation of data. Addressing climate change is not just about protecting the environment; it’s also about ensuring a sustainable future for all living beings on this planet.
Agree. I think it will be 5yrs before AI will make us happy with the data.
The Biden administration’s definition of “climate change” is long term changes in weather. Long term is a collection of new data covering a minimum of blocks of thirty years.
Fact. “overwhelming scientific consensus” is not science. It is the most accepted hypothesis.
AI - The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and the Green New Deal (GND) both define climate change as a long-term shift in weather patterns and temperatures. The IPCC also defines climate change as a change that’s caused by human activity. The GND aims to address climate change while also creating jobs and reducing economic inequality.
I am not a scientist, and I gave that same prediction years ago on this site. It was based upon the natural cycles. Of course I used non-hegemony data.
Here is an example of the problem by Ross McKitrick.
In the following figure, showing yield changes versus warming for four crop types, the original data set is called “C14”. On the expanded data set (“All”) the regression coefficients changed such that the yield simulations net of CO2 fertilization showed no output losses, even out to 5 C warming.
But beyond the question of what the magic SCC number should be, the bigger question is how you convince a bureaucracy not to rig the report-writing process. The 2013 Interagency Working Group SCC report boasted of consulting 11 separate government agencies, and the 2023 report additionally boasted of input from the National Academies of Science and outside expert reviewers. Yawn. The more agencies involved the less scrutiny a report gets. It is all but certain that no one checked any underlying data or undertook any replication work. And I know from experience in the IPCC and other bureaucratic processes that review comments going against a chapter author’s biases are ignored or argued away, while comments confirming an author’s biases are welcomed at face value. The scientific establishment has resisted all attempts to fix climate assessment processes because they always got to pick the authors.
Note: the charts show CO2 use by plants as bad. Where Ross’s review showed the CO2 as good for the world. Only one is correct.
AI Overview
The “AI hegemony data problem” refers to the concern that the data used to train most artificial intelligence systems is heavily skewed towards Western perspectives and dominant cultures, leading to biased outputs that reinforce existing power imbalances and potentially marginalize minority voices or experiences globally, essentially creating a “hegemony” of information within AI systems.
My viewpoint is we really need to be very careful with the data we use from AI until the hegemonic problem has been solved.
This shows your incomplete knowledge, or disregard of the natural cycle.
Plants use CO2 for energy, but return Oxygen back into the ecosphere.
Animals use Oxygen for energy, but return CO2 back into the ecosphere.
**When this cycle is in balance and excess carbon (oil) is sequestered ** a healthy dynamic balance is maintained via the continual interaction between flora and fauna.
But today, humans are pumping millions of years of sequesered carbon (oil) back into the ecosphere, which good for plants but the plants cannot keep up with the continual dumping of CO2 into the atmosphere, especially as forests (the lungs of the world) are being cut down a an exponential rate.
Therefore the ecosphere is becoming saturated with CO2 and overall effect is disasterous for all animal life.
80,490,966 Oil pumped today (barrels)
1,341,472,281,206 Oil left (barrels)
13,990 Days to the end of oil (~38 years)
See the stats. There is about ~38 years of oil left , but can animal life survive 30 more years of pollution? To animals CO2 is a deadly greenhouse gas.
I am talking about biosphere, not ecosphere.
The transformation of hydrocarbon to oil takes millions of years.
Plants evolved in the 2.000ppm range. We are not even close to dumping enough CO2 to match what the plants were designed to use when they evolved.
It is standard for a school classroom to be above 1,000ppm. People’s houses are consistently 1,300 – 1,500 ppm. Submarines use to run 8,000 to 13,000 ppm before all the hype about CO2 levels.
Your data show you need 80,000ppm to reach death.
In the last 20M years the highest CO2 rate is said to be 400ppm. The fact that plants evolved to live best in the 2,000ppm range tells me we don’t have correct data yet.
You don’t get it. We are talking ablout greehouse effect, not the lethal effects of CO2.
You mention the apparent contradiction between plants thriving on CO2. I merely told you that we need the plants to generate Oxygen, which what humans need.
Thatis talking about the biosphere, but that is only part of the story.
The imbalance of the ecosphere is what will kill ALL of life, both plants and animals.
Yes, but the transformation from miliions of years of sequestered oil back into hydrocarbons has taken only a few centuries since the beginning of the Industrial revolution.
p.s. the Anthropocene has only been rejected as a defined epoch, not its definition in regards to human causality.
WRONG.
Following the court cases will tell you about the politics and the lawyers.
We know that the lawyer’s job it is to torture the truth until the money wins. Especially corporate lawyers who are fighting for profits not clarity or honesty regarding an existentially critically important scientific and human society matter.
It comes down to priorities. Mike Yohe champions the corporate storyline - Taxes are BAD, Regulations are BAD, Profits is ALL the matters - never, never, ever, admit to anything, no matter how outlandish and childish one’s rationale is. Constructive learning is seen as an enemy - rather than the only sane way forward.
Review Mike Yohe’s long history of crazy making here at CFI, at every turn he focuses on distracting attention away from learning & discussing the unassailable fundamentals of what the scientists are telling us, and what we are witnessing, and why it matters!
Also notice that no matter how much factual evidence I bring into the dialogue, MK skips right past the facts we needed to get familiarized with, and instead goes with utter Kacke and crazy-making.
Will Mike be able to acknowledge the AI assessment, or what will be his next act of devious distraction and false information?
But, but, but, . . . humanity is moving to Mars, so why worry?
For those interested in seeing through Mike Yohe’s smoke screen of words.
Here’s what’s happening within the physical reality of our miracle planet.
When it comes to political science. The definition of words are change by departments. So, one word may have several meanings depending on which department you are dealing with. To me, biosphere is the earth. Ecosphere is an enclosed glass building used for research projects.
Yes, according to current climate science, the relationship between rising temperatures and increasing CO2 levels is generally considered exponential, meaning that a significant temperature increase requires a progressively larger increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration.
Doubling effect:
As CO2 concentration doubles, the corresponding temperature increase is roughly constant, demonstrating an exponential relationship.
Climate sensitivity:
Scientists use the term “climate sensitivity” to describe the expected temperature increase when CO2 doubles, which is still a matter of ongoing research.
What is on the table is the math for CO2 increase relationship to temperature increases. Basically a temperature logarithmic.
Logarithmic mean temperature difference (LMTD) is a calculation that estimates the temperature driving force for heat transfer in systems. It’s a key part of designing and analyzing heat exchangers and other thermal systems.
The formula for LMTD is ΔTlm = (ΔT1 - ΔT2)/(ln (ΔT1 / ΔT2)).
In thermal engineering, the logarithmic mean temperature difference (LMTD) is used to determine the temperature driving force for heat transfer in flow …
My understanding is the formula was put into a model to be used for crop production. Ross reviewed the model data and found the model was missing a lot of data that should have been used. Ross ran the data and came up with opposite results. Ross tried to get results out to be reviewed and run into politically driven roadblocks.
Personally, I don’t think the formula will work. CO2 is mostly 50 feet from the ground. Increases in wintertime. Decreases in summer because of the plants. In the area where I live. All professional greenhouses have CO2 monitors to increase CO2 levels for better plant results.
For the last two decades the public websites have been disagreeing with the scientific models and research based upon pure science vs political science for the heat that the political science and models predict. It was said to be hiding in the upper atmosphere until proven wrong by pure science. Then in the oceans. The problem is that CO2 cannot directly heat the oceans. The heat is not there. Just in this last week the Midwest has broken over 100 cold records. By a lot. Not in the news. We need transparency and pure science. And we need to recognize when political science is being used and how the natural cycle work. To do pure science we need a datum line. CO2 is not the datum line for pure science. It works really good for political science.
That is a misleading statement. CO2 doesn’t heat anything . It is a chemical
However, what is important is that the oceans are warming due to the CO2 content in the atmosphere which is trapping heat and not allowing it to eascape into space.
Hence the term “greenhouse effect”.
And there is clear evidence that the greenhouse effect is affecting specific weather patterns and climate change in general.
Q: “are the earth’s climate patterns changing due to greenhouse effect?”
Copilot:
Indeed, Earth’s climate patterns are changing due to the greenhouse effect. The greenhouse effect is a natural process where certain gases in Earth’s atmosphere, like carbon dioxide and methane, trap heat from the sun, keeping our planet warm enough to support life.
However, human activities, such as burning fossil fuels and deforestation, have significantly increased the concentrations of these greenhouse gases, enhancing the greenhouse effect and leading to global warming.
This enhanced greenhouse effect causes various climate changes, including:
Rising global temperatures
Melting polar ice and glaciers
More frequent and severe weather events like hurricanes, heatwaves, and droughts
Shifts in ecosystems and wildlife patterns
These changes impact not just the environment but also human societies, affecting agriculture, health, and economies. It’s a complex issue that requires global efforts to mitigate and adapt to its effects.
Q: “which is the most reliable information source on global warming?”
There are several reliable sources for information on global warming. Here are a few of the most reputable ones:
NASA: NASA provides extensive scientific evidence and data on climate change, including temperature records, ice core data, and satellite observations. You can explore their resources here. Evidence - NASA Science
IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change): The IPCC is a United Nations body that assesses the science related to climate change. Their reports are comprehensive and widely respected. You can find their reports on their official website. https://www.ipcc.ch/
I have shown you human consumption and reintroduction of millions of years worth of seqestration in the time of a few centuries, yet you persist in ignoring that ALL IMPORTANT fact! The current rate of extraction PER DAY is 80,490,966 Oil pumped today (barrels )!!! PER DAY !!!
Note: that is also an exponential function along with increase of population .
The current increase in oil consumption is 2.4 % per year, which means that in the next 30 years we will consume more oil than we have consumed in the entire history of oil consumption on earth (see Albert Bartlett).
Think on that for a moment!!!
So. . . .Mike, you don’t actually even know the difference? but then guess guessing has always been okay for your brand of information dissemination. And faking things into show stopper that are actually trivial nonsense. The difference between a fat bank account or only chump change in. your pocket - But it works for a society brainwashed into delusional thinking.
A biosphere refers to the entire part of Earth where life exists, encompassing all ecosystems on the planet, while an ecosystem is a smaller, localized community of living organisms interacting with their environment within a specific area, like a forest or pond, which is considered a part of the larger biosphere; essentially, the biosphere is the sum total of all ecosystems on Earth. (googleAI summary)
Carbon dioxide (CO2) is a colorless, odorless greenhouse gas produced by numerous natural processes and by human activities such as the burning of fossil fuels and cement manufacturing. It is called a greenhouse gas because —like the glass structure of a greenhouse — carbon dioxide molecules trap heat in the atmosphere. Carbon dioxide accounts for two-thirds of the global warming currently caused by human activities, with other compounds such as methane, nitrous oxide, halocarbons, and other gases emitted by human activities accounting for the rest.
Carbon dioxide and other natural greenhouse agents help maintain temperatures within a range that allows life on Earth to flourish. Human activities, however, have pumped carbon dioxide into the atmosphere at a pace perhaps never seen before in Earth’s history. Researchers liken the excess CO2 to adding additional blankets on a cold night. Though the CO2 itself does not provide heat, it increases the atmosphere’s ability to trap heat that would otherwise be released into space.
Mike believes we should not trust professional experts, such as Professor Alley, instead he got his news from the Breitbart Alt Right propaganda outlet.
What drives scientists? - Richard Alley’s Golden Nugget
Aug 24, 2015
Prof Alley gets passionate about the motivation of scientists.
Climate change is real, so why the controversy and debate? Learn to make sense of the science and to respond to climate change denial in Denial101x, a MOOC from UQx and edX.
Denial101x isn’t just a climate MOOC; it’s a MOOC about how people think about climate change.
Anyone who makes a honest good faith effort to learn about the real down to earth facts, based on curiosity and desire to learn the truth, (not based on hating taxes and regulations and the notion of a government of rules!) can only come up with one honest conclusion! Earth is going through extreme changes, our human arrogance and neglect and downright stupidity are the root cause of these self-inflicted wounds society keeps repeating.
Another AI summary is in order:
Good faith is a broad term that’s used to encompass honest dealing.
Depending on the exact setting, good faith may require an honest belief or purpose, faithful performance of duties , observance of fair dealing standards, or an absence of fraudulent intent .
Richard Alley: How do we know the CO2 rise is Man Made?
A presentation by David Archer, Professor in the Department of the Geophysical Sciences at the University of Chicago.Part of the 2008 Summer Teacher Institute on Climate Change at the University of Chicago Center for International Studies.In his research, David Archer uses computer simulations to understand the balance between carbon dioxide levels in the oceans and in the atmosphere in the past to better predict the impact that changing levels will have on future climate. He is a contributor to RealClimate.org, where commentary written by working climate scientists can be accessed by journalists and the public.
Archer also is the author of an undergraduate textbook for non-science majors, titled Global Warming: Understanding the Forecast.
The book assesses both the natural and technological contributions to long-lived carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. He also is working on a book titled From Here to Eternity: Global Warming in Geologic Time.
Oh and bringing it back to Where’s Climate Change?
Right here in my forty acres of parkland, one moderate snow storm in Early November and another one a little over a week ago. This second storm was a short winter respite of the spring conditions we’ve been in most of the rest of February - that’s at 7,000’ on the southwestern flanks of the rockies (loosely speaking). It’s nearly 60° - shouldn’t be happening around here.
Ironically, I also lived in this same area from '86 to '92, when we still had traditional weather patterns, meaning real winters and standing snow most all winter long, it was always nice to see March arriving because we knew any more snow storms would be melting off fairly fast and we could smell spring in the air.
Now it’s just weird, plants are very confused, I imagine animals, especially hibernating animals and over wintering bugs sure are dealing with the change. This year we are desperate for a few of those March storms to save our fields and forests and sage lands, and ultimately recharge the Colorado.
It’s shocking how much difference 30 years can make. It convinces me the next 30 years will kick us right outta the ballpark altogether. And all our grand BD projects will be left to decay and weather away as they are fed upon by whatever manages to survive our reign of terror upon this miracle planet Earth.
So profoundly tragic and butt stupid we are. Never could evolve past self-absorption and Greek tragedies, yet we are so proud of our accomplishments, and believe think our philosophers and big brains are the wisest Eva - when in reality it is turning out that they took their eyes off the ball, and these days only serving to speed our own demise.
Woulda, Coulda, Shoulda, it is little consolation - still, we each have only one life to fall apart and one death to endure - same as it ever was. So hope we will.
(It does help to truly understand oneself as simply another biological creature, another Earthling so to speak. A filament in Earth’s pageant of evolution )
Case in point:
… otherwise, I don’t think I could cope with all the destruction, death and misery we have created and the even worse events MAGA Amerika is promising to assail humanity with.
Still don’t quite get it. Record heat always is said to be related to Climate Change. Record cold. Is not said to be related to Climate Change. It is impossible to have it both ways!
The datum line to be used was satellites taking 10,000 readings a day of earth heat. If we know the amount of heat by solid measurement at all times then that is a datum line to work from. Biden stop the satellites from being placed in orbit.
Agree. That is a fact of science. A cow farts and it causes a greenhouse effect. The question is how much effect does that cows fart have.
More money spent on climate change research than wars. More money spent on climate change research then going to the moon. At what point do you think you can put math with your statement and give me a number to work with of the greenhouse effect caused by climate change? Secondly, how many 30 year science blocks of data are you going to need to come up with the data. Are we talking over 100 years?
3% is a number that has been used for a couple decades. Because you don’t have any math. If you had the math the climate change lawsuits could move forward.
Using consensus statements is nothing more than political science. It is impossible to do the math using words like “enhancing and leading”.
Remember, I was the biggest backer of the IPCC on this site for years. I believed the system was pure science. I feel like I got sold a lemon from the IPCC.
AI - Is the IPCC hegemony or pure science?
Exploring the impact of the IPCC Assessment Reports on …
For instance, it has been claimed that the IPCC exercises some sort of “epistemological hegemony” on the issue of global warming …
Hegemony is not considered “pure science” because it is primarily a concept within the social sciences, particularly political science and sociology, focusing on power dynamics and cultural influence, which inherently involve subjective interpretations and analysis of complex social phenomena, rather than strictly measurable data like in natural sciences;…
The issue here is political science vs pure science.
All the facts you have been posting fits well with Mother Nature and the natural cycles, except for the amount of CO2 and other greenhouse gases. We have passed the point of no return a couple times. We were told that once we passed the point of no return there was nothing we can do to stop the runaway effects of runaway heat. I think there is something that can be done. Alls we’ve got to do is change the political viewpoint. That is being done by the Chevron Deference and draining of the swamp. I will guess a year from now the political science will start changing and we will create a department of Climate Change to work with the science.
Climate change refers to extreme weather, not “global warming”. While the planet may warm by 2 degrees what happens is places have extreme weather, such as extreme flooding, historic fires, stronger hurricanes, and more. This is why insurance companies are trying to get out of insuring areas prone to said conditions. As the saying goes, “maybe you don’t believe in Climate Change, but your insurance company does.” They know it is real and because they know it’s real, they know the floods (or what have you) will get worse and worse, as well as more often. Another thing, Florida will become more swampy as more severe hurricanes hit is. Places near the Mississippi river will become marshier, and California will become a fiery landslide. This is what Climate Change is. It has nothing to do with how hot or how cold a place gets, though that is a factor. Too many people are focused on the term “Global Warming”. It is not that, but rather it is “Climate Change” and that’s exactly what is happening as the atmosphere warms. People aren’t reading and becoming scientifically literate. If more people read, instead of latching onto words they would know “Global Warming” is a misnomer and is only a small part of Climate Change. I really do get tired of explaining this to people as allow it to go through one ear and out the other. In this case, probably in one eye and out the other.
If you want reliable links to this information, I can provide them.
)