I would link to something explaining that, but it would be for my benefit only since you don’t use sources and don’t accept anything that doesn’t match whatever notion you have in your head.
Less than driving your car to the supermarket.
No, we are going to run out of oil in less than 40 years (see worldometers).
Problem is that we are not spending money in preparation of an infrastructure that supports switching.
Global warming is a phenomena which affect the whole world. It disrupts the traditional flows or air in atmosphere, it destroy the flows of oceanic waters.
These changes cause changes at the level of local places. For instance it causes more tropical storms. and Florida suffers from them.
If the gulf stream which regulates the temperatures of western Europe is destroyed, we will get colder winters and more extreme summer heat.
Another exemple, snow in Texas
Why not?
Yes we can, after all it is a global circulation system!
for a deeper dive
You appear not to have learned anything about our global heat and moisture distribution engine! Please try to get an honest education.
February 19, 2025JPEG
Despite global temperatures being well above normal in the third week of February 2025, a blast of frigid Arctic air spilled south across Canada into the central and eastern United States. The cold air came on the heels of a winter storm that pushed east across the Great Plains, Southeast, and Mid-Atlantic, bringing heavy snowfall to parts of Kentucky, West Virginia, North Carolina, Maryland, and Virginia. …
The cold and snow in the United States came amid a period of unusual warmth in the Arctic. Arctic sea ice extent was at record lows for February, while temperatures in parts of Greenland and the Northwest Territories in Canada were running 15-30°F above average. Some researchers think that Arctic warming may contribute to cold weather outbreaks in the mid-latitudes by altering the polar vortex and the behavior of the jet stream, though meteorologist Bob Henson reported in Yale Climate Connections that “vigorous scientific debate” continues about this idea.
So what, do you or anyone have a clue exactly what the difference is between 3% and 5%. This is supposed be about grasping the system how it operates. One wouldn’t teach a captain how to sail a ship by sending him into the engine room with calipers!
We do the best with what information we can gather
Nonsense - beside we do have the math,
Mike, you simply demand impossible expectations -
Earth isn’t a nice neat bench top experiment!!!
Google it buddy
You gotta ask Exxon and Fox faux news for that answer.
Oh you mean like basic western science based on observation grounded physics, following the laws of nature that scientists have been unraveling for centuries?
Fool, this isn’t about lawsuits, this is about the future our children and grandchild and all of life will have to endure.
Lausten recall that Self-absorbed thinking and Self-serving actions I keep whining about - Mike is western society writ tiny. And here we are . . .
Mike, that’s a nothing burger.
You said it baby. But you are pointing at the victim, not the perpetrators:
The Republican war on science
Merchants of Doubt
[EXXON lied - they knew.]
(Exxon Knew about Climate Change Almost 40 Years Ago | Scientific American)
Looks like another Citizens United ruling.
1 Like
Mike is a mesmerist, all we need is the exact number, then we can start changing our ways and fix up everything.
That’s not the way humanity as ever functioned, following Mike’s above directive, planes would have never gotten into the air, same of ships, massive bridges, skyscrapers and all the rest.
Humanity has always done by learning as much as possible, then doing the best we can, with what we have. Then, hopefully we live and learn and keep moving forward.
No one has ever gotten anywhere using the exactitude and guarantees that Mr. Mesmerist is telling us we need.
What we need to understand the global creature we are dealing with.
We need to understand what it is doing and the dangers it holds.
Then make rational decisions doing the best we can with what we know.
But the Exxon Mikes and Koch have guaranteed the fundamental requirement to honesty learn from the facts at hand has been blown to smithereens - calculated and tactical, and here we are, because everyone was having too a good time and too few were willing to stand up for honest public discourse in what was supposed to be a global education - and they got battered to hell by everyone.
Where was the public when scientists were ruthlessly tarred and feather with ruthless ball faces lies? Oh yeah, reading Ian Rand, telling each other that greed was good, was necessary was the human destiny - now some get to ask how did that turn out for us**?**
Now here we are, and Mike has returned for a victory lap.
The tragedy is that the man with the loudest megaphone gets his way, because in general, it turns out people are too lacking in the requisite desire to understand, curiosity, critical thinking passions - we simply struggle to get through our day to day, like all the other animals, following the same basic biological instincts with nary a thought, with little to no curious about anything outside of their periphery.
I find it tragic that Mike’s team will carry the day, making sure the future unfolds as viciously and ugly as possible.
As I wonder what ever happened to those noble goals we were constantly repeated to kids and ourselves, yet never cared enough to do the hard work to retain the freedoms we were blessed with, it was simply asking to much.
Yes Lausten could say of me, look who believes in impossible expectations. I don’t actually believe anymore, but it will always remain my ideal, and I rather be a witness to that, than the dystopia unfolding at our doorsteps, soon to engulf our homes. 
Dec. 1995
Duh. You confuse “normalizing” people like him with the value of ignoring him. The algorithms thrive off of your interactions with him. He is merely pawn who can’t change his ways. What are sacrificing in your attempts to take him out?
Interesting way of looking at it.
I don’t suppose those links or arguments will mean anything to anyone else, so what’s the point?
Reminds me of how we got ourselves into this mess to begin with, sheee ignore the liars, they’ll go away. That didn’t work out so well.
There is a sickness out there worth being aware of and your advice is not to talk about anything - give the floor to the loudest megaphone since you ya can’t win anyways, don’t rock the boat.
I wonder if you ever watched that bio video,
George Orwell: A Life in Pictures Full Documentary
It might help you better understand why your passive (what amounts to) acceptance is unacceptable to me.
As for the algorithms, why not a little more societal soul searching about why Google gets to flood science quires with waves of out and out lies with such alacrity. Besides why not feed the algorithm with pulling up worthy articles?
The same logical fallacy I pointed out 5 minutes ago. I didn’t say ignore the liars, I said ignore mikeyohe on this platform. Ignore a bot or a teenager on social media. Don’t address Fox News directly, provide the alternative and make it clear that’s what you’re doing but do it in a piece that begins with your message and ends with and barely mentions their point. Point out the absurdity of putting one pro-AGW and one AGW denier on a stage for 10 minutes and calling it a debate.
Let’s review what’s been going on here.
Lausten: Literally on the news. Weather reports are the easiest data to digest.
Mike: 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!
Lausten: Mike - “Record cold. Is not said to be related to Climate Change. It is impossible to have it both ways!”
Lausten’s reply: I would link to something explaining that, but it would be for my benefit only since you don’t use sources and don’t accept anything that doesn’t match whatever notion you have in your head.
CC: mikeyohe - 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!
Let’s review what has been going on here. The subject being the data which is the weather reports on the news channels. Lausten claims are the easiest data to digest.
What I am seeing is record heat always brings up the issue of climate change on the news reports of the weather. I said in the last week we have had record-breaking cold records and no issue connecting it to climate change. Record-breaking heat and climate change are always paired together. But that is not true with record-breaking cold.
So how can the weather reports be the easiest data to digest when it is political science. It would be impossible for CO2 to only affect hot weather and not affect cold weather.
Lausten then stated: “I would link to something explaining that, but it would be for my benefit only since you don’t use sources and don’t accept anything that doesn’t match whatever notion you have in your head.”
I must assume that Lausten could not find an equal amount of data showing record cold weather reports stating caused by climate change. My source is obvious. I am the source. As often done when you can’t confront the data confront the messenger.
This week we had over 100 cold records broken in the Midwest. Not by a little but by a lot. I did not see one weather report say it was related to climate change. I could be wrong, I’ve been wrong before. So if you can find weather reports showing that the cold records were broken because of climate change and reported that way to the public. I’d like to see it.
CC, I believe you live in an area that may have had record cold. And the point I’m making here is that social science gets ingrained over the decades and it corrupts the pure science.
The point being. I am for transparency and pure science. You are the ones that keep moving it into political science.
Logical fallacy: not presenting data means that the data doesn’t exist. <-Not logical.
Records will continue to be broken. You are not paying any attention to where, when, or why those records are being broken. The “I am the source” comment is really the only thing that matters here. I know that’s how you think. I’ve said that. We all know that. It’s why we can’t discuss science with you. You as the source is the exact opposite of science.
Just Have a Think
Feb 23, 2025
The Arctic region has been a massive store of carbon for thousands of years. Now it’s warming between 3 and 7 times faster than the global average and that carbon is escaping into our atmosphere. The latest research suggests that more than a third of it is now a net emitter! And in case you’re wondering…that’s NOT good!
Climate change is not the same as Global warming.
Climate change is the seasonally expressed extreme local weather patterns, which is demonstrable by the record extreme storms and temperature fluctuations.
Global warming is the gradual change (warming) of the average global temperature, which is also demonstrable by the melting polar caps.
The 2 are related but do not measure the same expressed phenomena.
Climate change is not the same as Global warming.
That’s a fools game!
What’s happening to our home planet Earth can only be accurately described thus:
“Anthropogenic Global Warming driven Climate Changes”
Trying to weave the reality into any other politically correct wording is a fraud.
And the truth in that can only make sense by realizing what a complex Global Heat and Moisture Distribution Engine our miracle planet possesses.
I’ve yet to see others using that wording, but even AI gets it:
AI Overview
A “Global Heat and Moisture Distribution Engine” refers to the complex system on Earth where heat and moisture are transported around the globe, primarily driven by the uneven distribution of solar radiation, resulting in atmospheric circulation patterns like winds and ocean currents that redistribute heat from the tropics towards the poles, essentially acting like a giant “engine” regulating global climate patterns.
Key points about the Global Heat and Moisture Distribution Engine:
- Solar Energy as Fuel:
The primary energy source for this system is the sun, which heats the Earth’s surface most intensely at the equator, driving atmospheric convection and the movement of air masses.
- Ocean Circulation:
Ocean currents play a crucial role in transporting heat around the globe, with warm currents moving towards the poles and cold currents returning towards the equator.
- Atmospheric Convection:
Rising warm air near the equator creates areas of low pressure, while cooler air sinks at higher latitudes, leading to the formation of wind patterns like the Hadley Cell.
- Water Cycle:
The continuous process of evaporation, condensation, and precipitation is integral to the heat and moisture distribution, with water vapor transferring heat as it moves through the atmosphere.
How it impacts climate:
- Regional Weather Patterns:
The engine drives different weather patterns across the globe, influencing rainfall distribution, temperature variations, and seasonal changes.
- Climate Regulation:
By distributing heat from the tropics to the poles, the engine helps to moderate extreme temperatures and maintain a habitable climate.
Important factors influencing the engine:
- Topography:
Landmasses and mountain ranges can affect wind patterns and precipitation distribution.
- El Niño Southern Oscillation (ENSO):
A natural climate cycle that can significantly disrupt the normal distribution of heat and moisture in the Pacific Ocean.
- How does the ocean affect climate and weather on land?
In fact, almost all rain that falls on land starts off in the ocean. The tropics are particularly rainy because heat absorption, a…
[image]
NOAA Ocean Exploration
- Ocean circulation: the planet’s great heat engine - NIWA
Dec 4, 2001 — Barbara Manighetti Giant currents in the deep ocean transport so much heat around the globe that they play a critical r…
…
Oct 5, 2019
Solid scientific proofs of CO2’s big role in Earth’s climate change history. Also assessing the minor contribution of sun variability and cosmic rays. Original:
• Richard Alley - 4.6 Billion Years of … NAS member Richard Alley presents on 4.6 Billion Years of Earth’s Climate History: The Role of CO2, during the Symposium—Earths, Moons, Mars & Stars at the National Academy of Sciences 152nd Annual Meeting.
1 Like
The US Environmental Protection Agency announced on Tuesday that it was scrapping $20 billion worth of Biden-era climate and environmental justice grants as well as over 400 diversity, equality and inclusion (DEI) and environmental justice grants worth $1.7 billion.
Should we expect the science to change since the political atmosphere has changed and the money flow for political climate change science is getting reduced.
Watch Sabine Hossenfelder viewpoint.
No, the science won’t change but it will be slowed as we waste time seeing if vaccines cause autism and whatever other ridiculous things trump’s people want to waste money on.
While the AAAS is satisfied with the appointment of Michael Kratsios as director of OSTP, they rightfully fear the kakistocracy that comes with trump.
If the AAAS was doing their job, we would have a Department of Climate Change. If the OSTP was doing their job the term,” climate change” and “global warming”, would not have gone through many definition changes in the last 20 years.
Well, that’s not the job of a nonprofit international organization. Governments are fortunate to have such an organization available to them. AAAS does help make it easy for government to work with them through its Office of Government Relations
The OSTP has nothing to do with what terms people use. But you have mentioned this before and it was explained to you that global warming was and is an accurate term.
But it was discovered that some people don’t understand things like “average” or “mean” when it comes to population or climate change. For example global population growth might be used to explain that the world population is growing.
Someone who struggles to understand things might say, “My city’s population is going down! This global population growth idea is stupid!” The same thing happened with global warming as exemplified by Senator Inhofe and his snowball.
In order to help those people like you and Inhofe, the term climate change was offered. But, alas. Some people will never understand. Sorry, @mikeyohe
It was Obama and Congress that kept confusingly the terminology of climate change and global warming. Then they added anthropogenic climate change and that really messed things up. Then they said all climate change is anthropogenic to try and clean up that mess and get everyone on the same page.
My biggest fear is the OSTP’s ability to inform Trump and congress the correct data on what energy storage and AI is without the mess they had with climate change.
If AI is properly applied, then AI could keep everything in order. I am all for atomic batteries. But I’m afraid they will be confused with nuclear batteries.
As far as having a department of climate science. We need to stop the fearmongering and political science. The public needs a department with the goal of climate science.
Yeah. Dang. We don’t want anyone confusinglying any termology.
1 Like