14 of 24
14
Science, science, science.
Posted: 27 September 2017 08:12 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 196 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2124
Joined  2013-06-01
Citizenschallenge-v.3 - 27 September 2017 05:20 PM
MikeYohe - 27 September 2017 03:06 PM

Weather can be a bitch.
In the earth’s 100,000 cycle there is a period where the weather is stable compared to the rest of the cycle.
This period happens at the end of the warming cycle before we go into the cooling cycle. It is called the intermediate period.

We left the intermediate period in 1998 and started into the cooling cycle. Lot of guessing is going on right now as to when we will start cooling.

Oh dear you silly,
you forget something big happened around during the 18th, that kicked into high gear in the 19th, then into hyper drive in the 20th century, during the 21st we’re going to watch it tear apart all we’re so hubristically proud of.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x8yOvmw8RL4  (Fred Dibnahs)

A change that totally, yes, totally, changed Earth’s future trajectory.  Take a peek.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gH6fQh9eAQE

But you’ll absolutely refuse to acknowledge or absorb any of that.  Tragic.

You leave me guessing at the point you are trying to make here. Yes, we are in an industrial age. Yes, there is more CO2 being put in the atmosphere. Your point being? I cannot connect the cycle being in the cooling cycle to what happened in the 1800’s.
 
It is premature to conclude that human activities–and particularly greenhouse gas emissions that cause global warming–have already had a detectable impact on Atlantic hurricane or global tropical cyclone activity. That said, human activities may have already caused changes that are not yet detectable due to the small magnitude of the changes or observational limitations, or are not yet confidently modeled (e.g., aerosol effects on regional climate). Aug. 30, 2017 https://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/global-warming-and-hurricanes/ This is the latest from the Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory.
 
Read the news and climate change is causing the warming and hurricanes. Yet the scientists are say the climate change is not enough to even measure when it comes to items like hurricanes.
 
Can you absorb what climate will be like in an Ice Age? Did you get the point that the CO2 heating may be stopping us from going into the Ice Age and give us better weather? Unless you know how to grow rice or wheat in snow. A warmer earth is better.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 27 September 2017 08:45 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 197 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2124
Joined  2013-06-01
Citizenschallenge-v.3 - 27 September 2017 07:16 PM
MikeYohe - 27 September 2017 07:03 PM
Lausten - 27 September 2017 03:29 PM
MikeYohe - 27 September 2017 02:24 PM

 
Lausten that is a good move bring Lawrence Otto’s thinking to the table. I’m ready to use it in comparing what has and is happening with climate change. I especially like your quote “Look it up and look up if it has been refuted or even retracted.” Good idea.

If you thought it was a good idea, why didn’t you do it for the “31,000 scientists” petition?

Because I am not perfect. Why do you have no problem with the 97% data going all the way to the point of being repeated by the president, and now there are claims that it may have only been as much as 3%? We damn well know its no where near the 97%. Why do you expect more from me than from a guy who has 4,000 people making sure he gets it right?

You’ve already been asked to provide your source for that claim.

Why don’t you?

“What if the scales have not been balanced…” the point I was trying to make was that the science has been unbalanced because of political reasons. Like the 97% fake science, yet when the other side of the issue does the same sort of thing. It is not a political issue. I bet you never hear of the 31,000 before, proving the scales are unbalanced. As far as: You’ve already been asked to provide your source for that claim. Why don’t you?
 
You didn’t read the post did you. The link was posted.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 27 September 2017 09:12 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 198 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2124
Joined  2013-06-01
Lausten - 27 September 2017 07:15 PM
MikeYohe - 27 September 2017 07:03 PM
Lausten - 27 September 2017 03:29 PM
MikeYohe - 27 September 2017 02:24 PM

 
Lausten that is a good move bring Lawrence Otto’s thinking to the table. I’m ready to use it in comparing what has and is happening with climate change. I especially like your quote “Look it up and look up if it has been refuted or even retracted.” Good idea.

If you thought it was a good idea, why didn’t you do it for the “31,000 scientists” petition?

Because I am not perfect. Why do you have no problem with the 97% data going all the way to the point of being repeated by the president, and now there are claims that it may have only been as much as 3%? We damn well know its no where near the 97%. Why do you expect more from me than from a guy who has 4,000 people making sure he gets it right?

Are we talking about the same President?

And the author is Shawn Otto. Guess I’m not perfect.

Some time back I looked into that 97% to see what was going on. The data was correct by the scientists. The problem came from the journalist who did not know how to read the data. President Obama use the 97%.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 27 September 2017 10:03 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 199 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1455
Joined  2016-12-24
MikeYohe - 27 September 2017 08:45 PM

the point I was trying to make was that the science has been unbalanced because of political reasons. … yet when the other side of the issue does the same sort of thing. It is not a political issue. I bet you never hear of the 31,000 before proving the scales are unbalanced. (What do you know, you can’t even call it what it is Oregon Institute’s Petition,  krispy krist you got chutzpah.  Oh yeah, confusion is the game),

Oh but since you brought it up:

December 14, 2013
The Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine Petition on climate change
http://whatsupwiththatwatts.blogspot.com/2013/12/oregon-institute-science-medicine.html

January 21, 2014
Why trust Roy Spencer?...or the “NASA 50”…or the Oregon Petition for that matter?
http://whatsupwiththatwatts.blogspot.com/2014/01/why-trust-roy-spencer-nasa50.html

                wink

Citizenschallenge-v.3 - 26 September 2017 11:00 AM

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.
 
Mike: “Here you go again. Blaming me and all the Republicans for climate change.”
and here you go again with the lying about what I’m saying. 

What I am blaming you and all current Republicans for - is your easy acceptance of fanciful LIES and MISREPRESENTING very clear science and explanations!!!
I am also blaming you people for the brain-dead attitude that allows you to steadfastly ignore all learning opportunities.

You bring up that malicious Oregon Institute fraud.

That it’s a fabrication and perversion of honest debate, let alone the scientific process of learning, let alone the available information at the time, doesn’t bother you in the least.  Instead all your moral indignation is for me, that I’m not stupid enough to fall for the various idiotic turd balls you toss out.

Then you believe being a full-time liar is your ‘free speech Right’ - that is what I condemn you and your GOP handlers for.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 27 September 2017 10:47 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 200 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1455
Joined  2016-12-24
MikeYohe - 23 September 2017 12:17 PM

Consensual science came out with 97% of the scientists backing CC. I need you to read a selection of quotations from a U. S. Senate Minority Report and then get back to me. 
http://www.hatch.senate.gov/public/_files/UNClimateScientistsSpeakOut.pdf
(The Hatch Report is as wildly partisan a production of political propaganda as you can ask for.
It is no sober review of the science it is a deviously crafted piece of cherry picking and misrepresentation
and is as far removed from reviewing the actual science as is possible to get.
But, for Mike it’s his gold standard.
Though he doesn’t offer any quotes to consider)

MikeYohe - 27 September 2017 07:03 PM

Why do you have no problem with the 97% data going all the way to the point of being repeated by the president, and now there are claims that it may have only been as much as 3%? We damn well know its no where near the 97%.

MikeYohe - 27 September 2017 08:45 PM

Like the 97% fake science, yet when the other side of the issue does the same sort of thing. It is not a political issue..

MikeYohe - 27 September 2017 09:12 PM

Some time back I looked into that 97% to see what was going on. The data was correct by the scientists. The problem came from the journalist who did not know how to read the data.

So where is this source you said you supplied.  Surely it isn’t the Hatch Report, or is it?

Let us approach this differently.  Why not look at https://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus-advanced.htm
or if you prefer https://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus-basic.htm
Go through there and tag what they got wrong.
Explain best as you can.
I’ll listen carefully, honest.
Please explain to us what they got wrong.

And pray tell where does that 3% come from, other than sounding cute.

Incidentally, do you know Cook et al. was a study of abstracts, it wasn’t a survey of scientists’ opinions on global warming,
so it’s a bit disingenuous to portray it that way.

And then there’s the physics, it’s kinda, sorta, sure as sunrise stuff, if you know what I mean.
You don’t?  Okay let me explain, 
humans really and truly have been injecting millions of gigatonnes worth of greenhouse gases into our atmosphere, 100% sure thing, accounting.
Those added molecules really and truly are increasing our atmosphere’s ability to warm Earth, 100% sure thing, physics.

What I’m saying is you can argue about consensus survey’s and results till you’re blue,
but the physics, that still remains at 100% from whatever angle you care to look at it.
Find me a scientist that disagrees.
Of course, if you choose to turn a blind eye to physical reality, that’s an entirely different issue.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 28 September 2017 08:25 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 201 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4068
Joined  2009-10-21
MikeYohe - 27 September 2017 09:12 PM

Some time back I looked into that 97% to see what was going on. The data was correct by the scientists. The problem came from the journalist who did not know how to read the data. President Obama use the 97%.

Oh good, I’d hoped you meant Obama, since Trump does not rely on 4,000 people to check his facts, in fact he thrives on having a few people under him who fight with each other. And I’ll agree that journalists can be a problem, but I know better than to ask you which journalists and which problems because you almost never give straight answers to questions like that.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 28 September 2017 09:22 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 202 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2124
Joined  2013-06-01
Lausten - 28 September 2017 08:25 AM
MikeYohe - 27 September 2017 09:12 PM

Some time back I looked into that 97% to see what was going on. The data was correct by the scientists. The problem came from the journalist who did not know how to read the data. President Obama use the 97%.

Oh good, I’d hoped you meant Obama, since Trump does not rely on 4,000 people to check his facts, in fact he thrives on having a few people under him who fight with each other. And I’ll agree that journalists can be a problem, but I know better than to ask you which journalists and which problems because you almost never give straight answers to questions like that.

I posted the data chart in Post #51. Have you reviewed the chart? You will find that there were several journalists that were wrong who wrote reports at several different percentages amounts using the charts. Why Obama picked the 97% and did he know it was wrong? Makes one wonder if this is like, if you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 28 September 2017 09:44 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 203 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2124
Joined  2013-06-01
Citizenschallenge-v.3 - 27 September 2017 10:47 PM

Incidentally, do you know Cook et al. was a study of abstracts, it wasn’t a survey of scientists’ opinions on global warming,
so it’s a bit disingenuous to portray it that way.

Did you tell Obama this? He is the one that told the world from the highest office in the world that that it was scientists.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 28 September 2017 10:05 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 204 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2124
Joined  2013-06-01
Citizenschallenge-v.3 - 27 September 2017 10:47 PM

And pray tell where does that 3% come from, other than sounding cute.

Incidentally, do you know Cook et al. was a study of abstracts, it wasn’t a survey of scientists’ opinions on global warming,
so it’s a bit disingenuous to portray it that way.

And then there’s the physics, it’s kinda, sorta, sure as sunrise stuff, if you know what I mean.
You don’t?  Okay let me explain, 
humans really and truly have been injecting millions of gigatonnes worth of greenhouse gases into our atmosphere, 100% sure thing, accounting.
Those added molecules really and truly are increasing our atmosphere’s ability to warm Earth, 100% sure thing, physics.

What I’m saying is you can argue about consensus survey’s and results till you’re blue,
but the physics, that still remains at 100% from whatever angle you care to look at it.
Find me a scientist that disagrees.
Of course, if you choose to turn a blind eye to physical reality, that’s an entirely different issue.

Yes, I know it was abstracts. If I remember right, it came out of Australia. And the work was done by Cook’s students. Now can you make a guess of how many times you and Doug boy use this 97% data as proof the scientists were backing humans as the driving force of Global Warming? When in fact only 1.6% explicitly stated that fact. Which after the abstract data has been rechecked by journalist who now claim the correct figure is really only 0.3%.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 28 September 2017 10:16 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 205 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2124
Joined  2013-06-01
Citizenschallenge-v.3 - 27 September 2017 10:47 PM

And then there’s the physics, it’s kinda, sorta, sure as sunrise stuff, if you know what I mean.
You don’t?  Okay let me explain, 
humans really and truly have been injecting millions of gigatonnes worth of greenhouse gases into our atmosphere, 100% sure thing, accounting.
Those added molecules really and truly are increasing our atmosphere’s ability to warm Earth, 100% sure thing, physics.

They say your memory is the second thing to go. I totally agree with what you have stated here. And I have agreed with that at least 50 with you. That’s why I have ask you over and over again to work from a list of agreed and disagreed issues. That way we can move forward in a real debate on the real issues. And you can stop taking up time and space with the same stuff year after year.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 28 September 2017 10:50 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 206 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4068
Joined  2009-10-21
MikeYohe - 28 September 2017 09:22 AM
Lausten - 28 September 2017 08:25 AM
MikeYohe - 27 September 2017 09:12 PM

Some time back I looked into that 97% to see what was going on. The data was correct by the scientists. The problem came from the journalist who did not know how to read the data. President Obama use the 97%.

Oh good, I’d hoped you meant Obama, since Trump does not rely on 4,000 people to check his facts, in fact he thrives on having a few people under him who fight with each other. And I’ll agree that journalists can be a problem, but I know better than to ask you which journalists and which problems because you almost never give straight answers to questions like that.

I posted the data chart in Post #51. Have you reviewed the chart? You will find that there were several journalists that were wrong who wrote reports at several different percentages amounts using the charts. Why Obama picked the 97% and did he know it was wrong? Makes one wonder if this is like, if you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor.

You’re doing the thing you said you wouldn’t do. You’re picking the data you like, in this case someone else’s opinion on what counts toward the consensus. You aren’t looking at methods or motivations, even when you are given links to them. You are just moving on saying “97% is wrong” without demonstrating that. Then you ask that WE keep track of what has been agreed upon! It’s impossible to keep up with your constantly changing mind.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 28 September 2017 07:10 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 207 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1455
Joined  2016-12-24
MikeYohe - 05 September 2017 12:09 PM

1.  Anti-climate change. The global warming terms have over the years been quite confusing to say the least. But to stop confusion there needs to be a better title. Climate change is nothing more than weather caused by the actions of mankind. (NO IT’S NOT!  Leave the words alone - “climate change’ -  what’s driving those changes that’s also well known, human industry and fossil fuels burning - the physics is quite thoroughly understood, even if mikie refused to learn that lesson.)  Everyone agrees with climate change. But at different levels. Denier and skeptic are also incorrect for use as a blanket statement.I would say that it is wrong to call something that it is not and is very miss-leading.  Well, is contrarian more to your liking? If you willfully ignore the evidence or if you refuse to learn from available knowledge - that makes one a denier.  Really quite simple. T
2.  Of course, they have. They are no dummies. Sea level rise has been rising at the same rate for hundreds of years.

That would be another falsehood.

Temperature-driven global sea-level variability in the Common Era
Kopp et al.
http://www.pnas.org/content/113/11/E1434

Significance

We present the first, to our knowledge, estimate of global sea-level (GSL) change over the last ∼3,000 years that is based upon statistical synthesis of a global database of regional sea-level reconstructions. GSL varied by ∼±8 cm over the pre-Industrial Common Era, with a notable decline over 1000–1400 CE coinciding with ∼0.2 °C of global cooling. The 20th century rise was extremely likely faster than during any of the 27 previous centuries. Semiempirical modeling indicates that, without global warming, GSL in the 20th century very likely would have risen by between −3 cm and +7 cm, rather than the ∼14 cm observed. Semiempirical 21st century projections largely reconcile differences between Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change projections and semiempirical models.

https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/sealevel.html
https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends.html

The Fingerprints of Sea Level Change
Jerry Mitrovica, Harvard University
Published on May 18, 2011

Slightly dated, but the basic physics haven’t changed - and he does an excellent job of explaining the scientific understanding,
although our cryosphere has continued melting at accelerating rates.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RhdY-ZezK7w&t=7s

 

MikeYohe - 05 September 2017 12:09 PM

slide12.png

Why not link to the study.  This is worthless without a list of said studies, so we can what look at the kinds of criteria she used to make her judgement. 

For instance while looking up those sea level rise sources, I came across a shrill headline, 4 recent studies prove sea level not rising. I looked at the first three, and the studies don’t say what they are implying at all.  So it’s good to see the evidence behind the headlines.  That’s why I’m so diligent in coming up with other sources you can learn from.

But, the biggest problem is that biased interpretations surveys mean shit,
next to the cascading consequences that are actually being witnessed
along with the clearly understood physics
which for some god awful reason you believe you can dismiss with ignorant impunity.

[ Edited: 28 September 2017 08:21 PM by Citizenschallenge-v.3 ]
Profile
 
 
Posted: 29 September 2017 05:25 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 208 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2124
Joined  2013-06-01
Advocatus - 22 September 2017 10:43 AM

  What’s wrong with taking steps to Reduce how much we pour into the atmosphere?  What’s wrong with trying our best to recycle resources whenever we can?  In short, building a Green Economy?  Wouldn’t that make the world a little better anyway?


Good intentions can lead to bad results.
Of course, the rational thing to do would be to reduce the release of carbon dioxide. One of the problems is that we operate in a world of laws. Laws that can shut down rational steps to help the country and the world. An example is look at what happened when we tried to develop and advance Geothermal energy. Between the bad science coming from the universities and legal cases that went to supreme court. The whole clean energy system of geothermal energy was lost.
 
Look how the government handled the marijuana issues. Temporary calling it a class one drug until some test could be done. When you can’t trust the universities or the government. You got to at least rely on the science as being correct. Because it will be the science used in the hundreds of court cases that are a sure bet to come.
 
Let’s look at some of the track records of our government so far. What about the ethanol program. The GREEN fuel is a textbook example of unintended consequences. It was decided in 2010 that ethanol was not working as a green fuel. Yet, today after 30 years we are still given subsidies, tax breaks, grants and loans to promote ethanol which has been labeled the worst energy ever and getting a ten billion tax subsidy. 
 
Point being, ethanol is just ethanol. That was not the problem. The problem was, science got over shadowed by political supremacy. Just like what we have today with carbon. Our carbon footprint most likely would be 25% lower if the proper steps were taken with geothermal energy. Let’s be smart and push the science.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 29 September 2017 08:13 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 209 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4068
Joined  2009-10-21
MikeYohe - 29 September 2017 05:25 AM

Let’s be smart and push the science.

We should just put you in charge I guess. You seem to know more than anyone else.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 29 September 2017 09:42 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 210 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2124
Joined  2013-06-01
Lausten - 29 September 2017 08:13 AM
MikeYohe - 29 September 2017 05:25 AM

Let’s be smart and push the science.

We should just put you in charge I guess. You seem to know more than anyone else.

What pissed you off this morning. Were you a main backer of ethanol?

Profile
 
 
   
14 of 24
14