17 of 23
17
Science, science, science.
Posted: 03 October 2017 11:54 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 241 ]
Jr. Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  65
Joined  2017-09-24

hate to break it to you CC but you’re trying to talk reason to the functional equivalent of a spambot.

No matter what you say it’s always going to end up trying to sell you oil, coal and gas…

Profile
 
 
Posted: 04 October 2017 06:33 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 242 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1451
Joined  2016-12-24
DougC.V2 - 03 October 2017 11:54 PM

hate to break it to you CC but you’re trying to talk reason to the functional equivalent of a spambot.

No matter what you say it’s always going to end up trying to sell you oil, coal and gas…

That’s only because everyone else is lying down for them.

Have you thought general apathy and laziness, might be an even bigger problem?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 04 October 2017 10:18 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 243 ]
Jr. Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  65
Joined  2017-09-24
Citizenschallenge-v.3 - 04 October 2017 06:33 AM
DougC.V2 - 03 October 2017 11:54 PM

hate to break it to you CC but you’re trying to talk reason to the functional equivalent of a spambot.

No matter what you say it’s always going to end up trying to sell you oil, coal and gas…

That’s only because everyone else is lying down for them.

Have you thought general apathy and laziness, might be an even bigger problem?

No I’m pretty sure that an intentionally created disinformation campaign that is decades long and fueled with billions of dollars is the real problem.

And I’m pretty sure that a tiny little cog in that wheel isn’t suddenly going to see the light and agree with the science on this at all.

Instead they’re going to do things like start a thread called “Science, Science, Science” and pretend that science is the problem.

And trying to engage them at all is just keeping this insane denier billboard up there longer and longer which is all that “Mike Yohe” wants.

You’re working for them not against them doing this.

This issue will be decided in the courts, if the fossil fuels corporations aren’t listening to prominent scientific bodies like the London Royal Society and are siccing their pitbulls on experts like Michael Mann and James Hansen, the chances of any us making any headway here with an intrinsic part of that denial machine is so close to zero that there’s no point in even trying.

All you or anyone is doing by addressing them directly is making it look like they have a rational position that can somehow be brought into agreement with the facts. They don’t, their position is that there is no other facts than the ones generated by them that assume from the start that we can never stop exploiting fossil fuels.

You want to keep working with them go ahead, all you’re doing is helping give a bunch of liars a platform they otherwise wouldn’t have.

I’m blocking them and moving on, legal and political action will remove these psychopaths or their won’t be human society any longer. You’re not going to somehow help a psychopath find a conscience.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 04 October 2017 11:29 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 244 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1451
Joined  2016-12-24
DougC.V2 - 04 October 2017 10:18 AM
Citizenschallenge-v.3 - 04 October 2017 06:33 AM
DougC.V2 - 03 October 2017 11:54 PM

hate to break it to you CC but you’re trying to talk reason to the functional equivalent of a spambot.

No matter what you say it’s always going to end up trying to sell you oil, coal and gas…

That’s only because everyone else is lying down for them.

Have you thought general apathy and laziness, might be an even bigger problem?

No I’m pretty sure that an intentionally created disinformation campaign that is decades long and fueled with billions of dollars is the real problem.
{And I’m pretty sure ignoring the disinformation and encouraging the general disconnect and oblivion to our planet’s natural realities is what got us into this problem by constantly voting consummate self-interested Earth-oblivious liars into office.  If we had educated informed interested engaged voters all the billions in PR would get laughed out of the ball park.}

And I’m pretty sure that a tiny little cog in that wheel isn’t suddenly going to see the light and agree with the science on this at all.
{Oh but what a fantastic victory that would be.  Even just one tiny little cog.}

Instead they’re going to do things like start a thread called “Science, Science, Science” and pretend that science is the problem.
{And you want their assertions to stand unopposed as billboards for an alter-reality?}

And trying to engage them at all is just keeping this insane denier billboard up there longer and longer which is all that “Mike Yohe” wants.
{And gives me more opportunities to reach some onlooker, not to forget what got me started on this to begin with, personal understanding - so I will chase mikie’s shticks and do the homework that continues increasing and honing my own understanding. 
I also think it’s of value to provide other less curious folks with easy reference to substantive information explaining how the real world works.}

You’re working for them not against them doing this.
{You’re just foaming with frustration and anger, so I’ll bit my tongue and hold back my rejoinder on this one.  kiss  }

This issue will be decided in the courts,{Courts aren’t going to do diddly shit - and anything they do won’t matter anyways so long as most the people still have no real comprehension of deep time, Earth’s evolution and what this manmade global warming geophysics “experiment” is all about.}

if the fossil fuels corporations aren’t listening to prominent scientific bodies like the London Royal Society and are siccing their pitbulls on experts like Michael Mann and James Hansen, the chances of any us making any headway here with an intrinsic part of that denial machine is so close to zero that there’s no point in even trying.
{That is true.  The chances of increasingly extreme weather, increasing draining our resources and self-restraint are pretty damned certain.  About as certain as the sun rising, still the climate thing will take a few more decades of increasing hurt before society gets pushed past its limits. 
But life goes on today, and we must all live with ourselves.  I’m feeling so demoralized and hopeless, but that doesn’t mean I need to roll up, or at least when I do, something else seems to kick me in the ass, jez, at least die with your boots on fella.  Even if you’re in a stinking desert with no eyes around to give a damned.}

All you or anyone is doing by addressing them directly is making it look like they have a rational position making it look like they have a rational position that can somehow be brought into agreement with the facts. They don’t, their position is that there is no other facts than the ones generated by them that assume from the start that we can never stop exploiting fossil fuels.{I’m doing my best to show the exact opposite, but yes it would demand reading what I offer with curious good-faith interest.  Not much of that around, anywhere these days.}

You want to keep working with them go ahead, all you’re doing is helping give a bunch of liars a platform they otherwise wouldn’t have.
{There you go with that cheap judgmentalism again.  I believe you are very wrong about it.  I agree what I’m doing has turned out to be a waste when it comes to converting anyone, but that’s mainly because there seem so few others who have an Earth Centric understanding of our planet’s evolution and geophysical process and are willing to preach about it.  }

I’m blocking them and moving on, legal and political action will remove these psychopaths {How the hell are you going to get political action when everyone’s running around like clueless clones plugged into the great media machine in the sky???} 

or their won’t be human society any longer. {You can take it to the bank.  And America electing trump is going to guarantee that there’ll be anything graceful about our down fall, we gonna make it as ugly as possible.} 

You’re not going to somehow help a psychopath find a conscience.{ But I can try.  Beyond that, simply better comprehending them better would help my mental health - as I’m strapped in with a world of apathetic clueless people and our societal vehicle careens down the hill gathering momentum.  Besides, but he’s sure helped me refine some of my ideas and I dare say writing considering some of the posts he’s inspired.  }

“Climate Fears and Finance” - A look at CRC’s Dr. S.J. Allen’s fraud.
http://whatsupwiththatwatts.blogspot.com/2017/09/cataloguing-capital-research-center.html
Another waste, no doubt , still it was good to catalogue the deception.

[ Edited: 04 October 2017 11:33 AM by Citizenschallenge-v.3 ]
Profile
 
 
Posted: 04 October 2017 12:16 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 245 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2120
Joined  2013-06-01
Citizenschallenge-v.3 - 03 October 2017 05:32 PM

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.

 
The CO2 hypotenuse is sort of covered by Al Gore’s 2006 “An Inconvenient Truth”.  Eleven years latter “An Inconvenient Sequel” is released. A pessimistic copy of the first movie. The first movie won Hollywood Oscars and Nobel Peace prize. 
 
Gore is still making the same arguments that have been hallmarks of CO2 warming. But seems to have moved into the pessimistic alarmist message that has become no less urgent with time but has the feeling of being already outdated. 
 
In 2006 there were 3 main hypotenuses.
 
A.  The CO2 lag supports a hypothesized relation between temperature and the ocean’s net release or intake of atmospheric CO2.
B.  The opposing hypothesis is that CO2 is a forcing factor on temperature and is proposed by many scientists but has little numerical evidence from ice core records.
C.  The third proposal is that the Sun’s radiation has an effect on both temperature and CO2.
Now in 2017 there are only 2 main hypotenuses, B and C. With some adjustments on B and expanded knowledge of difficult to measure scenarios on C. The hypotenuses A has been melted into the B to explain the CO2 lags.
 
B.  CO2 is the main forcing factor on temperature and the focus is changing from atmosphere to how the oceans are a major forcing factor in this hypothesis. 
C.  The third, now second, proposal is that the Sun’s radiation has an effect on both temperature and CO2.

Note, CO2 is understood to include all greenhouse gases. The biggest change is in hypotenuses B. Many of the scientist in 2006 believed that temperature controlled the CO2 concentrations by the effects of the surface ocean temperatures. Today it is believed that humans (out of control) the CO2 concentrations.
 
A question that comes to mind is, if a decade ago Al Gore’s hypotenuses was correct, why is it not a theory yet? After spending hundreds of billions of dollars and millions and millions of man-hours on the hypotenuses? Logic alone says that this hypotenuse is not taking the standard science pathways of solving the hypotenuse.
 
•  This just brings up another question. Is there a history of mankind having problems with other major scientific hypotenuses? There is the one of how humans got knowledge. Not born with knowledge, so how did knowledge come to reside in your heart was the question. The answer was that god sent that knowledge to you by sunlight. Which just brought up the question. How was man able to see or how did sunlight work with man’s eyes. Which brought up the question. How did sunlight get to earth if space was empty? That was answered by the theory of luminiferous aether, (note, theory because it was believed by all scientists of the time).  The first Americans to win the Nobel Prize in Physics (1907) was given to scientists that theorized that earth’s surface could detect the “ether winds”. 
•  Brings up the question, is the CO2 controlling earth’s temperature just another hypotenuse like the ether winds?

1st of 2 postings.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 04 October 2017 12:17 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 246 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2120
Joined  2013-06-01

Back to nature. This might be more fun to relate to nature with you. Goal is to talk about forcing and lags.
 
Camping trip in early high-country winter in the snow-covered mountains of Bridger National Forest near Dubois Wyoming. I spooked a herd of mountain goats that were bedding in some trees on an animal trail. Who in turn spooked an elk coming down the trail. The elk made a jump across a wash out that would have made Evil Knievel jealous. The jump I witnessed was physically impossible. I stayed at the spot for an hour trying to guess the distance of the jump and shaking my head in disbelief of what wild animals are capable of. Later that day I was sliding down a slope from tree to tree and came across an elk bedding spot that was so steep that I could not stand up. I could not understand how the elk could sleep and keep from sliding down the hill. At the edge of the tree line in an opening at the bottom of the slop was what I was looking for, a snowshoe rabbit. Being familiar with the white and black tail jacks, I had always wanted to see a snowshoe. It was worth the trip.   
 
Now for the sake of Climate Change let’s make up a scenario. Let’s say we have a cooked turkey that we want to keep warm. We put the turkey in a plastic roasting bag and place the turkey near the campfire to keep warm.
 
The light from the fire is warming near the fire but is just light the further away you are. But the roasting bag around the turkey keeps it warm because the campfire light hits the bag and warms the bag. The bag loses heat to the freezing air, but helps keep the air warm between the bag and the turkey.
 
The hotter the bag air gets the more the turkey itself is warmed. The campfire light also goes through the bag and warms the surface of the turkey itself. Just like the effects of the sun and earth.
 
Now the temperature of the turkey and bag air will go down as the campfire burns down and will go up as more wood is added to the campfire. As the campfire goes down and less warming is caused by the bag, heat is drawn from the turkey itself to help heat the bag air. Just like the oceans release heat.

The human affect is like adding another roasting bag around the turkey. An extra bag will cause the bag air to warm faster and keep the heat longer. It will also cause the turkey to get hotter than it would with just one bag. Bingo, just like the CO2 hypotenuse. Except the temperature forcing is clearly the campfire and not the bag itself. The extra bag clearly accelerates the process and will cause extra warmth if it was not for the fact that we had put a half a cup of water in each of the bags. 
 
The water gets heated and turn to steam which is condensed on the bag. This will stop some of the campfire light and reflect some of the campfire light. The water is the control knob and the actions of the water is the temperature thermostat. The affect stops the CO2 hypotenuse by temperature regulation, thus the turkey does not get to hot. Making the Sun’s radiation hypotenuse the correct hypotenuse to use with Climate Change.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 04 October 2017 12:23 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 247 ]
Jr. Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  65
Joined  2017-09-24

None of us are going to do any better in convincing psychopaths than some of the most qualified people to ever exist.

The problem isn’t that there isn’t enough information supporting human forced climate change or that it hasn’t been presented in the most effective way possible. The essential issue is that those with the most to lose have the most money and they are using it create an intentional smoke screen. These are people who clearly don’t care at all about the evidence and the already catastrophic impacts of anthropogenic global warming, they’ve been denying it for decades.

This will be decided in the courts and at the polls - or more likely the battlefield -, the sides are already set and there is no middle ground.

Either those who care about life will win and at least make a last valiant effort at survival or we’re all going down together.

Considering how fucked up some people’s beliefs are and many seem to want to bring about the end of the world, it’s pointless trying to talk reason to them. They either never had any or they gave it up because it was just too much work for them.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 04 October 2017 02:19 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 248 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1451
Joined  2016-12-24

Now you are starting to sound like Titano, maybe it’s pointless to you, it’s not pointless to me.

Good day sir.  cool smile  (eye protection, spit balls and all don’t cha know.)

Profile
 
 
Posted: 04 October 2017 02:39 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 249 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1451
Joined  2016-12-24

And you mikie what the fuk,
why the hell you keep needing to prove DougC correct.  vampire

MikeYohe - 04 October 2017 12:16 PM

Gore is still making the same arguments that have been hallmarks of CO2 warming. But seems to have moved into the pessimistic alarmist message that has become no less urgent with time but has the feeling of being already outdated. 
 
In 2006 there were 3 main hypotenuses.
 
A.  The CO2 lag supports a hypothesized relation between temperature and the ocean’s net release or intake of atmospheric CO2.
B.  The opposing hypothesis is that CO2 is a forcing factor on temperature and is proposed by many scientists but has little numerical evidence from ice core records.
C.  The third proposal is that the Sun’s radiation has an effect on both temperature and CO2.

A)  Al Gore was a politician making a documentary doing his best to explain the state of climate science - For the most part Gore was accurate, the errors he did make are all relatively minor when taken in context with the scientific understanding at the time.

It’s totally screwed for you to try to present him as the face of the scientific consensus.  He never was.  He never claimed to be!

B)  You still haven’t figured out the difference between greenhouse gas physics and cascading consequences within our global heat and moisture distribution engine. 

C)  I would love to hear what the hell you are talking about here: “Sun’s radiation has an effect on both temperature and CO2”
It’s one of those sentences that’s so weird it’s not even wrong, it’s nothing, just another non sequitur.
I always understood hypothesis require exacting clarity in spelling out it’s thesis. 
Sort of like, only intelligent questions offer constructive intelligent answers. 
These three points of your’s fail big time.

D)  You keep presenting yourself as scientifically aware, yet seems you don’t have the first clue what a hypothesis is.

E)  You still haven’t grasped the significance of atmospheric greenhouse gases

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

CO2 Science - Why We Can Be Sure.
 http://whatsupwiththatwatts.blogspot.com/2016/12/co2-science-just-facts.html

F)  Nor have you developed the slightest appreciation for the difference between insulation and heat/energy moving about within a complex global system.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gH6fQh9eAQE

Profile
 
 
Posted: 04 October 2017 02:47 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 250 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1451
Joined  2016-12-24

let’s try that again,

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

Mikie, here’s a summation of the state of climate science if you want to take the time to learn what the understanding is really based on.

1959 - “Carbon Dioxide and Climate”
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/carbon-dioxide-and-climate/

1967 - “Thermal Equilibrium of the Atmosphere with a Given Distribution of Relative Humidity”
    The First Climate Model Turns 50, And Predicted Global Warming Almost Perfectly
    Ethan Siegel, March 15, 2017, Forbes.com
https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2017/03/15/the-first-climate-model-turns-50-and-predicted-global-warming-almost-perfectly/#1001b776614d

1972 - “Man-made carbon dioxide and the “greenhouse” effect”
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2014/mar/19/global-warming-accurate-prediction-1972

1975 - “Climate Change: Are We on the Brink of a Pronounced Global Warming?”
http://www.fas.harvard.edu/~eps5/writing_assignment/CLIMATE_BKGD/broecker_science_1975.pdf
https://thinkprogress.org/wallace-broeckers-remarkable-1975-global-warming-prediction-1976337267b8/

1981 - “Climate Impact of Increasing Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide”
http://www.c02.gr/pdf/6.pdf
https://phys.org/news/2012-04-climate-eerily-accurate.html

First direct observation of carbon dioxide’s increasing greenhouse effect
February 25, 2015
https://phys.org/news/2015-02-carbon-dioxide-greenhouse-effect.html

Profile
 
 
Posted: 04 October 2017 03:02 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 251 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1451
Joined  2016-12-24
MikeYohe - 04 October 2017 12:16 PM

A.  The CO2 lag supports a hypothesized relation between temperature and the ocean’s net release or intake of atmospheric CO2.

Guess I sort of skipped over this doozie.

Vaguely worded meaningless non sequitur.

For starters it ignores well established physics of gaseous behavior. 
Ocean heat impacts how much CO2 the ocean can absorb.  This is understood with mathematical exactitude.
No hypothetical there!

No physics has been build around the correlation of CO2 and temperatures in ancient ice cores!!!  If anything, and honest reading shows they have reaffirmed the physics, temp lags not withstanding.  Just have to review ALL the facts.* 

The ancient ice core lags have been increasingly understand as the research has continued, and is well explained within the framework of the accepted scientific consensus - according to body of scientific evidence, not reporters or politicians.

I’ll repeat, Mike continues to be willfully oblivious to the difference between atmospheric insulation and what’s causing heat build up, and global heat distribution and such.

* FYI

Ice Core Data Help Solve a Global Warming Mystery
Why do some ice core samples seem to indicate CO2 spikes trailed increases in global temperature? It’s all about the way bubbles move in ice
By William Ferguson on March 1, 2013
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/ice-core-data-help-solve/

What does the Vostok ice core tell us?
Posted on June 18, 2017
https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2017/06/18/what-does-the-vostok-ice-core-tell-us/

Profile
 
 
Posted: 04 October 2017 09:27 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 252 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2120
Joined  2013-06-01
Citizenschallenge-v.3 - 04 October 2017 02:39 PM

A)  Al Gore was a politician making a documentary doing his best to explain the state of climate science - For the most part Gore was accurate, the errors he did make are all relatively minor when taken in context with the scientific understanding at the time.

It’s totally screwed for you to try to present him as the face of the scientific consensus.  He never was.  He never claimed to be!

What’s your problem with Al Gore? Of course, he is the voice of the CO2 movement. Didn’t he get the Nobel Prize for doing just that? And what scientific consensus are you talking about? Are you jumping from Climate Change to Global Warming now?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 04 October 2017 09:30 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 253 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2120
Joined  2013-06-01
Citizenschallenge-v.3 - 04 October 2017 02:39 PM

B)  You still haven’t figured out the difference between greenhouse gas physics and cascading consequences within our global heat and moisture distribution engine. 

 
Oh, please enlighten me.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 04 October 2017 10:45 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 254 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2120
Joined  2013-06-01
Citizenschallenge-v.3 - 04 October 2017 02:39 PM

C)  I would love to hear what the hell you are talking about here: “Sun’s radiation has an effect on both temperature and CO2”
It’s one of those sentences that’s so weird it’s not even wrong, it’s nothing, just another non sequitur.
I always understood hypothesis require exacting clarity in spelling out it’s thesis. 
Sort of like, only intelligent questions offer constructive intelligent answers. 
These three points of your’s fail big time.


Not my points. I am no scientist. Just pointing out the history of what has been going on. You can either be part of the solution or part of the problem.
 
You are right, did not hit the target on that point. What I was trying to say was that the CO2 is included in the hypothesis. Hell, everything including the kitchen sink is included if it has even the slightest effect on earth’s heating. The key to the hypothesis is the H2O. I was trying not to be to technical and keep it simple in that post for you.
 
“Water vapor is the most important greenhouse gas in the atmosphere,” says Steven Sherwood, a professor in the Department of Geology and Geophysics at Yale University.
https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/WaterVapor/water_vapor2.php
http://notrickszone.com/2017/07/31/new-paper-co2-has-negligible-influence-on-earths-temperature/#sthash.7kHwp1IY.dpbs
 
What does the IPCC say about CO2 vs H2o?
Of the atmospheric gases the dominant greenhouse gas is water vapor. If H2O was the only greenhouse gas present then the greenhouse effect of a clear sky midlatitude atmosphere, as measured by the difference between the emitted thermal infrared flux at the surface and the top of the atmosphere, would be about 60 70% of the value with all gases included, by contrast, if CO2 alone was present the corresponding value would be about 25% (but note that because of overlap between the absorption bands of different gases, such percentages are not strictly additive)
https://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/far/wg_I/ipcc_far_wg_I_chapter_02.pdf

Profile
 
 
Posted: 04 October 2017 10:51 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 255 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2120
Joined  2013-06-01
Citizenschallenge-v.3 - 04 October 2017 02:39 PM

D)  You keep presenting yourself as scientifically aware, yet seems you don’t have the first clue what a hypothesis is.

E)  You still haven’t grasped the significance of atmospheric greenhouse gases

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


Come on now. Using blogs. Billions of dollars spent on the science and you resort to blogs!

Profile
 
 
   
17 of 23
17