16 of 34
16
Science, science, science.
Posted: 30 September 2017 12:12 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 226 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4335
Joined  2014-06-20
MikeYohe - 30 September 2017 10:26 AM
LoisL - 30 September 2017 12:47 AM
Offler - 02 September 2017 03:02 PM

I studied geology for 2 years on University of Komensky in Bratislava. I wanted to study paleontology, however i was forced to stop the study. Environmentalism was one of the subject of the study and my professor was RNDr. Peter Fedor.
Geology shows to us that there were times when Earth was much colder or hotter as its now. Records in this matter are milions and bilions years old. Climate is changing, and was changing long before the age of men.

Professor was asking us as students few questions:
1. Meteorology uses data about weather collected since 1780.
He compared 220 years of meteorological measuring to geological evidence.

2. Eruption of Tambora in 1815 and Krakatoa in 1883
He pointed out that both eruptions had impact on global climate - making Earth cooler for years, maybe decades, probably affecting collected data by meteorology. He made this remark in 2005, and he doubted about humans as a cause for climate change. Latest eruption at least comparable with two previous ones was Mount Pinatubo in 1991. (And Novarupta in 1912)

3. Earth pollution is bad enough
Now we know that chemicals which are result of industry can be found in Arctic and Antarctic ice samples, we know how wide-spread impact we really have.


Articles about simulations how will temperature increase, i read also that scientists got to scenario when global warming stopped only when they removed human industry from the simulation. When I simply asked them if they considered volcanic eruptions I didnt received any answer. I might doubt whether humans are factor in current climate change, but i would never use it as an excuse to continue with pollution. If we produce more CO2 that is biosphere (trees, phyytoplankton, other green plants) able to absorb back, it will act as a factor in current trend - even when the real amount of factors might be much higher as we now know.


“For most of the past 10,000 years, global average temperature has remained relatively stable and low compared to earlier hothouse conditions in our planet’s history. Now, temperature is among the highest experienced not only in the “recent” past—the past 11,000 years or so, during which modern human civilization developed—but also probably for a much longer period.

Carrie Morrill of the National Climatic Data Center explains, “You’d have to go back to the last interglacial [warm period between ice ages] about 125,000 years ago to find temperatures significantly higher than temperatures of today.”

https://www.climate.gov/news-features/climate-qa/what’s-hottest-earth-has-been-“lately”


The cartoon chart is typical of the 2014 climate movement. That same article today would be pushing how the 11,000-year cycle is matching the Sun’s 11,000 cycle. Yet, the author Michon Scott used five sources for his news article. One of the papers from The Royal Society was all about “orbital forcing”. Which is the sun’s relationship to global warming. Yet, Scott did not tell his readers that the 11,000-cycle matched the same solar 11,000 cycles. To me that is dishonest. Or if he has, would he have gotten his new article printed? I think it shows that the science was going one direction and the public was going another.
 
The cycles of Ice Ages are Milankovitch Cycles. They follow the sun cycles. We are right now at the closest to the sun. The last time we were that close was over 100,000 years ago. Makes sense that was also the last time we were this hot.
 
Average global sea surface temperatures around 125,000 years ago were indistinguishable from the 1995 to 2014 average, the researchers estimate.
 
Previous estimates suggested that this period, the height of the last warm phase in the ongoing ice age, was as much as 2 degrees Celsius warmer.
http://www.sciencenews.org/article/earth’s-last-major-warm-period-was-hot-today

Which is no different than what I posted. The temperatures have not been as high as they are now since the ice age.

Lois

 Signature 

[color=red“Nothing is so good as it seems beforehand.”
― George Eliot, Silas Marner[/color]

Profile
 
 
Posted: 30 September 2017 12:16 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 227 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1690
Joined  2016-12-24
LoisL - 30 September 2017 12:12 PM

Which is no different than what I posted. The temperatures have not been as high as they are now since the ice age.

Lois

Which brings us back to the fact that mikie can’t, refuses to, digest the reality that Milankovitch Cycles operates on geologic time scales of thousands and tens of thousand of years. 

Milankovitch cycles have absolutely nothing to do with today’s warming, beyond a vague background wisp lost in a gale.
They have become irrelevant to our unfolding climate conditions and will remain irrelevant for who knows how many millennia it will take Earth to regain its equilibrium.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 01 October 2017 10:03 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 228 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2227
Joined  2013-06-01
LoisL - 30 September 2017 12:12 PM
MikeYohe - 30 September 2017 10:26 AM
LoisL - 30 September 2017 12:47 AM
Offler - 02 September 2017 03:02 PM

I studied geology for 2 years on University of Komensky in Bratislava. I wanted to study paleontology, however i was forced to stop the study. Environmentalism was one of the subject of the study and my professor was RNDr. Peter Fedor.
Geology shows to us that there were times when Earth was much colder or hotter as its now. Records in this matter are milions and bilions years old. Climate is changing, and was changing long before the age of men.

Professor was asking us as students few questions:
1. Meteorology uses data about weather collected since 1780.
He compared 220 years of meteorological measuring to geological evidence.

2. Eruption of Tambora in 1815 and Krakatoa in 1883
He pointed out that both eruptions had impact on global climate - making Earth cooler for years, maybe decades, probably affecting collected data by meteorology. He made this remark in 2005, and he doubted about humans as a cause for climate change. Latest eruption at least comparable with two previous ones was Mount Pinatubo in 1991. (And Novarupta in 1912)

3. Earth pollution is bad enough
Now we know that chemicals which are result of industry can be found in Arctic and Antarctic ice samples, we know how wide-spread impact we really have.


Articles about simulations how will temperature increase, i read also that scientists got to scenario when global warming stopped only when they removed human industry from the simulation. When I simply asked them if they considered volcanic eruptions I didnt received any answer. I might doubt whether humans are factor in current climate change, but i would never use it as an excuse to continue with pollution. If we produce more CO2 that is biosphere (trees, phyytoplankton, other green plants) able to absorb back, it will act as a factor in current trend - even when the real amount of factors might be much higher as we now know.


“For most of the past 10,000 years, global average temperature has remained relatively stable and low compared to earlier hothouse conditions in our planet’s history. Now, temperature is among the highest experienced not only in the “recent” past—the past 11,000 years or so, during which modern human civilization developed—but also probably for a much longer period.

Carrie Morrill of the National Climatic Data Center explains, “You’d have to go back to the last interglacial [warm period between ice ages] about 125,000 years ago to find temperatures significantly higher than temperatures of today.”

https://www.climate.gov/news-features/climate-qa/what’s-hottest-earth-has-been-“lately”


The cartoon chart is typical of the 2014 climate movement. That same article today would be pushing how the 11,000-year cycle is matching the Sun’s 11,000 cycle. Yet, the author Michon Scott used five sources for his news article. One of the papers from The Royal Society was all about “orbital forcing”. Which is the sun’s relationship to global warming. Yet, Scott did not tell his readers that the 11,000-cycle matched the same solar 11,000 cycles. To me that is dishonest. Or if he has, would he have gotten his new article printed? I think it shows that the science was going one direction and the public was going another.
 
The cycles of Ice Ages are Milankovitch Cycles. They follow the sun cycles. We are right now at the closest to the sun. The last time we were that close was over 100,000 years ago. Makes sense that was also the last time we were this hot.
 
Average global sea surface temperatures around 125,000 years ago were indistinguishable from the 1995 to 2014 average, the researchers estimate.
 
Previous estimates suggested that this period, the height of the last warm phase in the ongoing ice age, was as much as 2 degrees Celsius warmer.
http://www.sciencenews.org/article/earth’s-last-major-warm-period-was-hot-today

Which is no different than what I posted. The temperatures have not been as high as they are now since the ice age.

Lois

I am agreeing with you. On the same page. Sorry for taking so long in responding. I have to use WiFi for internet because of my location and the service was down.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 02 October 2017 06:23 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 229 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1690
Joined  2016-12-24

Looks like mike still hasn’t noticed

Citizenschallenge-v.3 - 30 September 2017 12:16 PM
LoisL - 30 September 2017 12:12 PM

Which is no different than what I posted. The temperatures have not been as high as they are now since the ice age.

Lois

Which brings us back to the fact that mikie can’t, refuses to, digest the reality that Milankovitch Cycles operates on geologic time scales of thousands and tens of thousand of years. 

Milankovitch cycles have absolutely nothing to do with today’s warming, beyond a vague background wisp lost in a gale.

They have become irrelevant to our unfolding AGW climate conditions and will remain irrelevant for who knows how many millennia it will take Earth to regain its equilibrium.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 02 October 2017 09:07 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 230 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2227
Joined  2013-06-01
Citizenschallenge-v.3 - 30 September 2017 12:16 PM
LoisL - 30 September 2017 12:12 PM

Which is no different than what I posted. The temperatures have not been as high as they are now since the ice age.

Lois

Which brings us back to the fact that mikie can’t, refuses to, digest the reality that Milankovitch Cycles operates on geologic time scales of thousands and tens of thousand of years. 

Milankovitch cycles have absolutely nothing to do with today’s warming, beyond a vague background wisp lost in a gale.
They have become irrelevant to our unfolding climate conditions and will remain irrelevant for who knows how many millennia it will take Earth to regain its equilibrium.

 
CC, after years of watching you standing on the soap box promoting CO2 as driving force of weather along with other Green House gases. Which I think is good that you bring up some of the issues. And I applaud you for that. It gets people thinking and makes them more aware of how weather works.
 
It is time for you to answer a few questions that I for one, have been asking you for years. If you don’t answer the questions now. I am afraid that the political part of your weather promoting will sweep you away for another couple of years. The democratic party is desperately searching for anything that they think people will unite on. And calling “all” weather “Climate Change” seems to work with the majority of the overly schooled Americans. 
 
Debates are good too. There can be no successful debate of Climate Change without breaking it down to itemized issues that also cover the Driving Forces. And I get the feeling you will not debate those subjects because it does not fare well for the CO2 hypotheses.
 
Now let talk about the two major hypotheses we have today. CO2 and Solar. I think people understood the CO2 hypotheses better three years ago than they do today. Today if it snows, rains or the wind blows. If a tree falls, or if it doesn’t rain or snow. It is blamed on CO2 Climate Change. None of the CO2 predictions that are not also included in standard Global Warming process have come true. Making the CO2 predictions track record very dismal.
 
Where the Solar track record is right on target. The main problem with the Solar hypotheses is that nobody, and when I say nobody, I mean you to CC, understands the Solar hypotheses. Some of the Solar concepts goes farther back in time than the CO2 concept. If I am wrong. Can you please explain to me what you think the Solar hypotheses is? 
 
The Milankovitch cycles may not produce that much heat in the short term. But it is enough over the long term that the earth’s past has recorded the cycles for millions and millions of years. And has caused the ice sheets to pile up from one to two miles high. Plus raise and lower the sea levels by 400 feet.
 
The point being for these postings. Is that we need to stop spinning our wheels and move in the right direction with our resources. Moving in the wrong directions will cost lives and a lot of our resources spent for nothing. How big is the human-caused CO2 fingerprint compared to other uncertainties in our climate model? For tracking energy flows in our model, we use watts per square meter (Wm–2). The sun’s energy that reaches the Earth’s atmosphere provides 342 Wm–2—an average of day and night, poles and equator—keeping it warm enough for us to thrive. The estimated extra energy from excess CO2—the annual anthropogenic greenhouse gas contribution—is far smaller, according to Frank, at 0.036 Wm–2, or 0.01 percent of the sun’s energy. If our estimate of the sun’s energy were off by more than 0.01 percent, that error would swamp the estimated extra energy from excess CO2. Unfortunately, the sun isn’t the only uncertainty we need to consider.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 02 October 2017 09:10 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 231 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2227
Joined  2013-06-01
MikeYohe - 02 October 2017 09:07 AM
Citizenschallenge-v.3 - 30 September 2017 12:16 PM
LoisL - 30 September 2017 12:12 PM

Which is no different than what I posted. The temperatures have not been as high as they are now since the ice age.

Lois

Which brings us back to the fact that mikie can’t, refuses to, digest the reality that Milankovitch Cycles operates on geologic time scales of thousands and tens of thousand of years. 

Milankovitch cycles have absolutely nothing to do with today’s warming, beyond a vague background wisp lost in a gale.
They have become irrelevant to our unfolding climate conditions and will remain irrelevant for who knows how many millennia it will take Earth to regain its equilibrium.

 
CC, after years of watching you standing on the soap box promoting CO2 as driving force of weather along with other Green House gases. Which I think is good that you bring up some of the issues. And I applaud you for that. It gets people thinking and makes them more aware of how weather works.
 
It is time for you to answer a few questions that I for one, have been asking you for years. If you don’t answer the questions now. I am afraid that the political part of your weather promoting will sweep you away for another couple of years. The democratic party is desperately searching for anything that they think people will unite on. And calling “all” weather “Climate Change” seems to work with the majority of the overly schooled Americans. 
 
Debates are good too. There can be no successful debate of Climate Change without breaking it down to itemized issues that also cover the Driving Forces. And I get the feeling you will not debate those subjects because it does not fare well for the CO2 hypotheses.
 
Now let talk about the two major hypotheses we have today. CO2 and Solar. I think people understood the CO2 hypotheses better three years ago than they do today. Today if it snows, rains or the wind blows. If a tree falls, or if it doesn’t rain or snow. It is blamed on CO2 Climate Change. None of the CO2 predictions that are not also included in standard Global Warming process have come true. Making the CO2 predictions track record very dismal.
 
Where the Solar track record is right on target. The main problem with the Solar hypotheses is that nobody, and when I say nobody, I mean you to CC, understands the Solar hypotheses. Some of the Solar concepts goes farther back in time than the CO2 concept. If I am wrong. Can you please explain to me what you think the Solar hypotheses is? 
 
The Milankovitch cycles may not produce that much heat in the short term. But it is enough over the long term that the earth’s past has recorded the cycles for millions and millions of years. And has caused the ice sheets to pile up from one to two miles high. Plus raise and lower the sea levels by 400 feet.
 
The point being for these postings. Is that we need to stop spinning our wheels and move in the right direction with our resources. Moving in the wrong directions will cost lives and a lot of our resources spent for nothing. How big is the human-caused CO2 fingerprint compared to other uncertainties in our climate model? For tracking energy flows in our model, we use watts per square meter (Wm–2). The sun’s energy that reaches the Earth’s atmosphere provides 342 Wm–2—an average of day and night, poles and equator—keeping it warm enough for us to thrive. The estimated extra energy from excess CO2—the annual anthropogenic greenhouse gas contribution—is far smaller, according to Frank, at 0.036 Wm–2, or 0.01 percent of the sun’s energy. If our estimate of the sun’s energy were off by more than 0.01 percent, that error would swamp the estimated extra energy from excess CO2. Unfortunately, the sun isn’t the only uncertainty we need to consider.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 02 October 2017 09:13 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 232 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2227
Joined  2013-06-01

Sorry for the extra post. Damn spam program.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 02 October 2017 12:22 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 233 ]
Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  157
Joined  2017-09-24

Just block him and we’ll have our own facts based discussion on human forced climate change, deniers have nothing real to add to this subject.

And there is no reasonable doubt left that Mike Yohe is just a tiny little piece of the overall climate change denial machine.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 02 October 2017 05:07 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 234 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1690
Joined  2016-12-24
DougC.V2 - 02 October 2017 12:22 PM

Just block him and we’ll have our own facts based discussion on human forced climate change, deniers have nothing real to add to this subject.

And there is no reasonable doubt left that Mike Yohe is just a tiny little piece of the overall climate change denial machine.

Don’t know about blocking him,
How about pointing out

MikeYohe - 02 October 2017 09:10 AM

It is time for you to answer a few questions that I for one, have been asking you for years. If you don’t answer the questions now.
I am afraid that the political part of your weather promoting will sweep you away for another couple of years.

yet he didn’t ask one serious questions in there.

As for his rambling on about the sun’s connection, plenty of resources have been offered to help him get his head out of this ass,
instead he’s content flapping his mouth about stuff he knows nothing about.

Got a question of Mikie, please point out which claims I make that you think are political based.
Lets look at them,

Or do you mean, if I reference NASA or NOAA, that’s a political statement?

Please explain.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 02 October 2017 05:55 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 235 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4213
Joined  2009-10-21
Citizenschallenge-v.3 - 02 October 2017 05:07 PM

yet he didn’t ask one serious questions in there.

Glad you noticed that. Even when he gets to the solar cycle, he explains it, again, as if he knows the answer, repeating his misconceptions. The closest he comes is the challenge to “please explain” it. Then he goes on to explain it some more. I learned a long time ago to wait for someone to be open to listening. Mike is screaming then complaining that he can’t hear you.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 03 October 2017 09:35 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 236 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1690
Joined  2016-12-24

ikq

Mike,
Sharing some morning walk’s thoughts, (For the following it helps to have forty relatively undisturbed acres for the walk),
still allow me to share and then pose a question of my own.
As I was walking along looking at the grown and patterns made by a recent ‘gully washer’ as the oldtimers would say,

I had my attention diverted by some worm castings and a moments musing on the wonder worms and all the work going on below that itty bitty weird looking mound of muck, and how everything I was enjoying up here was enabled by the worms and all their efforts.

Then there was the 2 burrow hole, which took me back to my amazement with the shear variety of holes in the ground,
each made by a different sort of critter, some I can recognize at a glance, most remain a mystery to me.
Then on to the active birds on this moist morning, and how different things sound on dry mornings.

Have you ever been able to spend time out of doors simply observing and absorbing, allowing Earthly things to piece themselves together?

Ever experience the wonder of picking up a sharp weirdly broken up stone that fit into the palm of the hand and then the amazing ‘coolness’ of slicing chicken meat off a bone and viscerally feeling that connection with the dim past, when something first stumbled on such a shard, and the world it opened up, ... 


Ever experience any such simple clarifying lessons that nature has to teach those who pay attention with an open mind?

Can you relate to any of that?

[ Edited: 03 October 2017 09:40 AM by Citizenschallenge-v.3 ]
Profile
 
 
Posted: 03 October 2017 09:37 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 237 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1690
Joined  2016-12-24

(zip )

Profile
 
 
Posted: 03 October 2017 02:18 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 238 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2227
Joined  2013-06-01
Lausten - 02 October 2017 05:55 PM
Citizenschallenge-v.3 - 02 October 2017 05:07 PM

yet he didn’t ask one serious questions in there.

Glad you noticed that. Even when he gets to the solar cycle, he explains it, again, as if he knows the answer, repeating his misconceptions. The closest he comes is the challenge to “please explain” it. Then he goes on to explain it some more. I learned a long time ago to wait for someone to be open to listening. Mike is screaming then complaining that he can’t hear you.


I’ll ask you the same question I ask CC. Can you even explain the difference between two major hypotheses of Climate Change? Don’t care that much about the earth to understand what the science is saying today. But just like CC, you probably know Trump’s latest tweets. Try being honest.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 03 October 2017 02:19 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 239 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2227
Joined  2013-06-01
Citizenschallenge-v.3 - 03 October 2017 09:35 AM

ikq

Mike,
Sharing some morning walk’s thoughts, (For the following it helps to have forty relatively undisturbed acres for the walk),
still allow me to share and then pose a question of my own.
As I was walking along looking at the grown and patterns made by a recent ‘gully washer’ as the oldtimers would say,

I had my attention diverted by some worm castings and a moments musing on the wonder worms and all the work going on below that itty bitty weird looking mound of muck, and how everything I was enjoying up here was enabled by the worms and all their efforts.

Then there was the 2 burrow hole, which took me back to my amazement with the shear variety of holes in the ground,
each made by a different sort of critter, some I can recognize at a glance, most remain a mystery to me.
Then on to the active birds on this moist morning, and how different things sound on dry mornings.

Have you ever been able to spend time out of doors simply observing and absorbing, allowing Earthly things to piece themselves together?

Ever experience the wonder of picking up a sharp weirdly broken up stone that fit into the palm of the hand and then the amazing ‘coolness’ of slicing chicken meat off a bone and viscerally feeling that connection with the dim past, when something first stumbled on such a shard, and the world it opened up, ... 


Ever experience any such simple clarifying lessons that nature has to teach those who pay attention with an open mind?

Can you relate to any of that?


CC, are you on the frontal slopes of Colorado? Spent some time around Glenwood Springs at different times of the year. Of course, I have skied most of the areas, but that’s a different outdoors than you are talking about. I remember early mornings in Denver near Colfax delivering the Rocky Mountain News just as the sun would be lighting the sky. The birds and squirrels controlled the sound waves for the hour before it was overtaken by the sounds of the city wakening to people’s everyday occupations.

Got an old Chevy van that used for spelunking and nature trips. I load up the cooler and a dog or two. Then I look around at the weather and horizon. At that point I pick a direction. I try and get back in two days. But several times I have gotten the van stuck in the wilderness and taken an extra day to get home. Use to fish the woods above Sun Valley Idaho several times a year when I lived closer. Even won a fly fishing contest on the little wood. But the pine beetles and the fish swirling disease have kept me from going there for years now. Part of my fishing trips was to canoe across Red Fish lake and clime to the top of one of the peaks.
 
Don’t look like I am going to have time this year to pick chokecherries that make my pancake syrup and jelly. My favorite picking spot has mountain creeks that are dammed by beavers. And I was looking forward to getting away. Don’t believe that you will have more time on your hands when you get older and retired. Isn’t working that way for me.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 03 October 2017 05:32 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 240 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1690
Joined  2016-12-24

Why is that difficult to believe, but it’s what you write.  What happened?  How did you become such a disingenuous game player?

Okay, onward.

Two theories of climate change?  Hmmm.  Got me - oh please do explain in a concise manner -

but for gosh sake don’t say CO2 theory vs Milankovitch cycles.

If you decide to bring up feedback uncertainties please do support your position with recent science, not dated guess work.

Profile
 
 
   
16 of 34
16