4 of 6
4
What’s with the scientific fixation on the Carbon Theory?
Posted: 12 July 2017 09:50 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 46 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1607
Joined  2016-12-24

Allow me a slight correction to the above

Mike Yohe said,
To put it simple: If the temperatures decline, the CO2 values also decrease and vice versa.”

Write4U - 12 July 2017 04:13 AM

That may be correct, but we are in the man-made vice versa cycle, thus the CO2 values increase and may lead to a domino effect, which will make the earth’s ecosphere unlivable for humans.  Is that simple enough?

That is the bottomline.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 12 July 2017 10:00 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 47 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1607
Joined  2016-12-24

It would be simple enough if not for committed trolls. 

As DougC points out Mike’s a troll, he’s not out for a constructive dialogue, it’s playing rhetorical games and keeping the “debate” or more honestly keeping the confusion cranked up as much as possible is his goal.

Where I disagree with Doug is that I’ve always used these exchanges as learning experiences, I wouldn’t know half of what I do about our climate system if not for chasing down the bones and challenges that climate science contrarians and trolls toss out there.  If not for all that homework, I wouldn’t now have the foundation to know how to appreciation obvious bull shit and understand why it’s bs.

It’s that leave them be mentally that got us to this damned political and environmental disaster we are living today.
I dare say if science defenders had adopted my more aggressive, in your face challenges, calling lies lies and offered corrections and explanations,
our public wouldn’t have remained so willfully dumb on the topic.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 12 July 2017 10:09 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 48 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2207
Joined  2013-06-01

Disagree on a couple of points. First, I did not say that. That came from one of the latest articles on the subject that was printed in respectable journals. Second is that I never said I agree with the vice versa they were claiming. That claim was based upon a spike 80,000 years ago. They were trying to explain the extra carbon in the air not following the ice core charts of first the temperature changes then the co2 changes. I bet it had to do with Mt. Toba in 74,000 B.C. That was 76,000 years ago. It lasted for 4,000 years. But what if Mt. Toba started erupting before the big eruption 4,000 years earlier. To close on the timeline to ignore.
 
And as far as unlivable. That has to do with the lag and the amounts of carbon we have put into the air over the last 500 years. We are 30 years into the lag and it is warming up but not as much as one would expect in the global warming cycle alone. If the climate change warming kicks in the way some are saying, then we are in a world of hurt. If it doesn’t and we stabilize then this may turn out to be a mild global warming cycle peak compared to past global warming cycles.  Yes, pretty basic and simple.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 12 July 2017 10:17 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 49 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1607
Joined  2016-12-24
MikeYohe - 12 July 2017 02:26 AM

The debate started…. I post one of the latest articles about climate change.

But you ignored

Team takes temperature to determine cause of Ice Age
June 13, 2017
https://phys.org/news/2017-06-team-temperature-ice-age.html#nRlv
“This study shows for the first time how temperatures changed across the whole ocean as the earth entered the last ice age,” says Karen Kohfeld, Associate Professor in the School of Resource and Environmental Management at Simon Fraser University.

Fast facts:
Atmospheric carbon dioxide dropped in several steps over 100,000 years, as the earth entered the last ice age 20,000 years ago.
Kohfeld’s study put together a global picture of how ocean surface temperatures, sea ice, and deep-ocean circulation changed over this time.
The first drop in carbon dioxide, 115,000 years ago, occurred because of early cooling of the poles and expansion of sea ice around Antarctica
The second carbon dioxide drop, 70,000 years ago, was accompanied by a re-organization of the deep ocean and heightened ocean productivity
The lowest, ice age carbon dioxide levels occurred 20,000 years ago when ocean temperatures, productivity, deep circulation, and sea-ice had changed the most ...

Explore further: Climate change caused by ocean, not just atmosphere, study finds

 

MikeYohe - 12 July 2017 02:26 AM

I point out that this article (Falling sea level caused volcanos to overflow) was very confusing on the carbon theory.
The point being was that I believe people do want to learn about climate change. But, it was the article that was confusing.
The question is serious, simple and on subject.


Then why are you ignoring my explanation and repeating the same question?
There is nothing confusing about the study. 

MikeYohe - 12 July 2017 02:26 AM

To put it simple: If the temperatures decline, the CO2 values (atmospheric concentration) also decrease and vice versa.”

Right and no one is disputing that, this is the important sentence,

“Our approach has shown that the decreasing pressure at the seafloor could have induced increased lava and carbon dioxide emissions. The enhanced volcanic carbon dioxide flux may have stabilized the atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations during the climate system’s descent into the last ice age,” says Prof. Dr. Lars Rüpke of GEOMAR.

Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2017-07-falling-sea-volcanos.html#jCp

You keep ignoring there are other factors involved. 

Also, to repeat this study is about Heat Distribution not CO2 Theory and you refuse to learn and recognize that distinction.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 12 July 2017 10:31 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 50 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1607
Joined  2016-12-24

It doesn’t matter where that came from, deliberately misreading is deliberately misreading it.

MikeYohe - 12 July 2017 10:09 AM

That came from one of the latest articles on the subject that was printed in respectable journals.
...
If the climate change warming kicks in the way some are saying, then we are in a world of hurt. If it doesn’t and we stabilize then this may turn out to be a mild global warming cycle peak compared to past global warming cycles.  Yes, pretty basic and simple.

Lying jerk, it is heating plenty fast, and in line with the serious models.

http ://news.stanford.edu/news/2013/august/climate-change-speed-080113.html
Not only is the planet undergoing one of the largest climate changes in the past 65 million years, Stanford climate scientists Noah Diffenbaugh and Chris Field report
that it’s on pace to occur at a rate 10 times faster than any change in that period.
Without intervention, this extreme pace could lead to a 5-6 degree Celsius spike in annual temperatures by the end of the century.
~~~~~~~
Earth is warming 50x faster than when it comes out of an ice age
A major new study includes some scary implications about how rapidly humans are changing the Earth’s climate
https: //www .theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2016/feb/24/earth-is-warming-is-50x-faster-than-when-it-comes-out-of-an-ice-age

Profile
 
 
Posted: 12 July 2017 10:31 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 51 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1607
Joined  2016-12-24

We ARE already in a world of hurt, even if it’s hasn’t reached everyone yet.
http://www.climatecentral.org/news/category/show/extreme-weather

Billion-Dollar Weather and Climate Disasters: Table of Events
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/billions/events/US/1980-2017

https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2017/03/record-breaking-climate-events-in-the-last-year/

Profile
 
 
Posted: 12 July 2017 10:32 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 52 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2207
Joined  2013-06-01
Citizenschallenge-v.3 - 12 July 2017 10:00 AM

It would be simple enough if not for committed trolls. 

As DougC points out Mike’s a troll, he’s not out for a constructive dialogue, it’s playing rhetorical games and keeping the “debate” or more honestly keeping the confusion cranked up as much as possible is his goal.

Where I disagree with Doug is that I’ve always used these exchanges as learning experiences, I wouldn’t know half of what I do about our climate system if not for chasing down the bones and challenges that climate science contrarians and trolls toss out there.  If not for all that homework, I wouldn’t now have the foundation to know how to appreciation obvious bull shit and understand why it’s bs.

It’s that leave them be mentally that got us to this damned political and environmental disaster we are living today.
I dare say if science defenders had adopted my more aggressive, in your face challenges, calling lies lies and offered corrections and explanations,
our public wouldn’t have remained so willfully dumb on the topic.


Sure, blame on trolls that does not even exists except in your mind. The fact that 2.5 billion has been spent pushing consensus science might just be some of the parts of this subject you refuse to come to grips with. Calling people stupid and putting yourself on a pedestal try to teach the poor helpless idiots. You might take the time to realize that consensus science is part of the reason thing are as bad as they are today. It was consensus science that gave us nuclear energy over geothermal energy. The same science that claimed we would not even be using carbon driven cars by the 1980’s. Real science use facts and data. This data needs the computer models to be understood. Something that you don’t want. My biggest fear for climate change right now is that the IPCC has a lot of political pressure from these consensus scientist, who are living off taxpayer’s money. It is easy to see that the IPCC is having a hard time with consensus science fighting real science. And if we lose the IPCC then it is all political. And politically it is about globalization and wanting to move 15 trillion from the US taxpayers to the rest of the world. I wish you would stop selling out your fellow American.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 12 July 2017 10:48 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 53 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2207
Joined  2013-06-01
Citizenschallenge-v.3 - 12 July 2017 10:17 AM

I point out that this article (Falling sea level caused volcanos to overflow) was very confusing on the carbon theory.
The point being was that I believe people do want to learn about climate change. But, it was the article that was confusing.
The question is serious, simple and on subject.


Then why are you ignoring my explanation and repeating the same question?
There is nothing confusing about the study. 

Sorry, I did miss that part of your posting. My fault. I am real busy with work at this time.
 
Good, we agree then that the article was confusing to people on the carbon theory? Is that correct? Next, I would like to agree on what choices people have about carbon theory.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 12 July 2017 05:00 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 54 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1607
Joined  2016-12-24
MikeYohe - 12 July 2017 10:48 AM
Citizenschallenge-v.3 - 12 July 2017 10:17 AM

STOP MISQUOTING ME!

Profile
 
 
Posted: 12 July 2017 05:11 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 55 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1607
Joined  2016-12-24

You continue to delude yourself.

MikeYohe - 12 July 2017 10:48 AM

It’s about how the heat moves through the system!
It’s also, though not explicitly mentioned - though extreme volcanism is a strong hint,
about sulfide aerosols acting to reflect insolation before it has a change to be converted to infrared.

Good, we agree then that the article was confusing to people on the carbon theory? Is that correct? Next, I would like to agree on what choices people have about carbon theory.

NO - &*#!%$$$$!

There are no choices other than to lie to yourself or recognize the rock solid exquisite understanding that scientists working independently throughout the globe have achieved.  Recognize the many modern marvels we depend on that would be impossible with that established exquisite understanding.

The Non-Expert Problem - Why We Can Be Sure of CO2 Science
http://whatsupwiththatwatts.blogspot.com/2016/12/nonexpert-problem-why-we-can-be-sure.html

Archive, Hanscom AFB Atmospheric Studies,
Cambridge Research Lab
http://whatsupwiththatwatts.blogspot.com/2016/02/archive-usaf-atmospheric-studies-afcrl.html

Continuing to divert with kindergarten bullshit, as is your habit, is intellectual fraud.  Hell, from the standpoint of future generations criminal.

MikeYohe - 12 July 2017 10:32 AM

Calling people stupid and putting yourself on a pedestal (it’s not me on the pedestal, it’s the rock solid understanding!!!) try to teach the poor helpless idiots.

Lets be clear Willfully Stupid !
It’s a label that defines an attitude and if it applies it applies mad

I’m beyond worrying about stroking faker’s egos anymore.

I don’t give a damned if I come off as a little rude at this point, it sure as hell is beats being ruthlessly maliciously shamelessly dishonest the way your words are.

MikeYohe - 12 July 2017 10:32 AM

The same science that claimed we would not even be using carbon driven cars by the 1980’s

See what a deceptively malicious a hole you are. 
NO!
You are talking about corporate ad agents.
For the record, regarding the serious science.
Science, and scientists, claimed nothing about how we should respond to the unavoidable truth that the more and the faster we inject CO2 into our atmosphere the faster our planet will warm.  The faster our planet warms the faster and more extreme our weather patterns must be expected to get.

The succeeding decades are proving the truth in that understanding.  You are a committed crazy-maker dude.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 17 July 2017 03:32 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 56 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  225
Joined  2017-07-06
Citizenschallenge-v.3 - 12 July 2017 05:11 PM

You continue to delude yourself.

MikeYohe - 12 July 2017 10:48 AM

It’s about how the heat moves through the system!
It’s also, though not explicitly mentioned - though extreme volcanism is a strong hint,
about sulfide aerosols acting to reflect insolation before it has a change to be converted to infrared.

Good, we agree then that the article was confusing to people on the carbon theory? Is that correct? Next, I would like to agree on what choices people have about carbon theory.

NO - &*#!%$$$$!

There are no choices other than to lie to yourself or recognize the rock solid exquisite understanding that scientists working independently throughout the globe have achieved.  Recognize the many modern marvels we depend on that would be impossible with that established exquisite understanding.

The Non-Expert Problem - Why We Can Be Sure of CO2 Science
http://whatsupwiththatwatts.blogspot.com/2016/12/nonexpert-problem-why-we-can-be-sure.html

Archive, Hanscom AFB Atmospheric Studies,
Cambridge Research Lab
http://whatsupwiththatwatts.blogspot.com/2016/02/archive-usaf-atmospheric-studies-afcrl.html

Continuing to divert with kindergarten bullshit, as is your habit, is intellectual fraud.  Hell, from the standpoint of future generations criminal.

MikeYohe - 12 July 2017 10:32 AM

Calling people stupid and putting yourself on a pedestal (it’s not me on the pedestal, it’s the rock solid understanding!!!) try to teach the poor helpless idiots.

Lets be clear Willfully Stupid !
It’s a label that defines an attitude and if it applies it applies mad

I’m beyond worrying about stroking faker’s egos anymore.

I don’t give a damned if I come off as a little rude at this point, it sure as hell is beats being ruthlessly maliciously shamelessly dishonest the way your words are.

MikeYohe - 12 July 2017 10:32 AM

The same science that claimed we would not even be using carbon driven cars by the 1980’s

See what a deceptively malicious a hole you are. 
NO!
You are talking about corporate ad agents.
For the record, regarding the serious science.
Science, and scientists, claimed nothing about how we should respond to the unavoidable truth that the more and the faster we inject CO2 into our atmosphere the faster our planet will warm.  The faster our planet warms the faster and more extreme our weather patterns must be expected to get.

The succeeding decades are proving the truth in that understanding.  You are a committed crazy-maker dude.

Why can’t capitalism fix climate change ??

Profile
 
 
Posted: 17 July 2017 03:54 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 57 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4170
Joined  2009-10-21
Adamski - 17 July 2017 03:32 AM

Why can’t capitalism fix climate change ??

There is nothing in capitalism that looks ahead to big changes in the future landscape.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 17 July 2017 04:36 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 58 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  225
Joined  2017-07-06
Lausten - 17 July 2017 03:54 AM
Adamski - 17 July 2017 03:32 AM

Why can’t capitalism fix climate change ??

There is nothing in capitalism that looks ahead to big changes in the future landscape.

So then we die or capitalism dies??

Profile
 
 
Posted: 17 July 2017 06:13 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 59 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1607
Joined  2016-12-24
Adamski - 17 July 2017 04:36 AM
Lausten - 17 July 2017 03:54 AM
Adamski - 17 July 2017 03:32 AM

Why can’t capitalism fix climate change ??

There is nothing in capitalism that looks ahead to big changes in the future landscape.

So then we die or capitalism dies??

We will first destroy this planet, then die.

But then this thread was supposed to be about addressing the idiots who refuse to learn about what the f’n Carbon Theory is all about in the first place.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 17 July 2017 06:18 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 60 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1607
Joined  2016-12-24
Lausten - 17 July 2017 03:54 AM
Adamski - 17 July 2017 03:32 AM

Why can’t capitalism fix climate change ??

There is nothing in capitalism that looks ahead to big changes in the future landscape.

Because the capitalism American has evolved to put purely about short term self interest.

Enlighten self-interest seems a thing of past to the greed haunted brains of our oligarchs who possess zero scruples and have now gotten bigger than our governments, and thus moving towards ever increasing lawlessness.

Profile
 
 
   
4 of 6
4