20 of 34
20
Science, science, science.
Posted: 10 October 2017 11:47 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 286 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  225
Joined  2017-07-06
MikeYohe - 10 October 2017 09:59 PM
Citizenschallenge-v.3 - 10 October 2017 07:55 AM
Adamski - 09 October 2017 02:19 PM

Why are you arguing about something that isn’t being argued in the scientific community. Focus on the way forward. What needs to be done technologically environmentally politically economically and socially to bring down atm co2 to 300 ppm

Well our pal mikie keeps trying to say there is.

Beyond that you’ll never achieve that political environment if most the people remain ignorant on the topic.

Unfortunately we have a very well financed climate science disinformation campaign that spends a lot more money, hundreds, if not thousands of times more on PR than scientists have to spend on science outreach and libel lawyers.

We are at this sorry state of affairs, because a democracy demands an informed and engaged citizenry - something that seems not exist in this country any longer.
There are a few people who for whatever god-awful reason feel a connection and duty to society to help education and engage.
Unfortunately, it feels more and more like a totally hopeless task.
Things have gone too far and deep down seems most have already given up.

So we get to watch as this shit show takes us down the slippery slidey road to oblivion, next stop California.

Science first. What Global Warming needs is science. Global Warming has got the cart in front of the horse. The science needs to be done first, then the political chore of what steps needs to be taken comes into play. We have had the political leaders up until Trump leading the science by helicopter dumping money on politically approved science.
 
It has reached the point where those scientists who are getting the money shower on them wants the political powers to jail their opponents or anyone who publicly disagrees with them. The best-known name in the research phase of the Global Warming problem should not be a politician. The leaders of research should be universities and not countries. 
 
As you have stated, the research was done in 2010, what’s the problem? The problem is that today we still don’t have even a standard baseline for the main science. The science is finding answers for problems that are the same answers that were brought to the table in the 1980’s, but thrown in the trash because they did not follow the political agenda.

Just how much time and money should we throw away trying to get the job done. Doing a job correctly the first time, is always faster than doing the job over and over again, trying to get it right. The correct way is science first, political action second, public laws and regulations third.

It’s over mate. We have moved on. You are as relevant as a flat earther on this topic.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 11 October 2017 07:38 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 287 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1704
Joined  2016-12-24
MikeYohe - 10 October 2017 09:59 PM

The problem is that today we still don’t have even a standard baseline for the main science.

Define what this baseline is supposed to consist of.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 11 October 2017 09:35 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 288 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2231
Joined  2013-06-01
Citizenschallenge-v.3 - 11 October 2017 07:38 AM
MikeYohe - 10 October 2017 09:59 PM

The problem is that today we still don’t have even a standard baseline for the main science.

Define what this baseline is supposed to consist of.

I am pretty sure you ask that same question about four to five years ago. I gave you the same answer and guessed that it might take up to five years to get the science in place and have good answers.
 
We are getting much closer to having a baseline on the CO2 that the earth gives out. The only baseline that the scientists are using of how much carbon mother nature puts in the atmosphere came from the Antarctica Ice Cores. The YouTube video you posted in #284 is an example of how far the scientists have gotten in gathering data.
As you know that video of the CO2 levels moving around the earth is part of the DEOS-5 computer model program. Those are not real CO2 numbers. They are computer estimates based upon the data collection they have to work with. 65% of that data comes from the ground gathering systems we have been talking about. And the scientists that have to use that ground data don’t want to. They say that is very questionable data and is constantly full of so many variables that the data has to be reworked and cleaned up over and over again before they can use it. When done only as small percentage of the 65% of data collected ends up in the models. The rest is satellite and a lot of math.
 
Satellite data is good when the sun is shining. Not so good when it is cloudy. Just a couple of months ago the scientists move the earth’s cloud coverage from 60% to 70%. As you know the news was covering stories about the climate models running hot as the reason (excuses) predictions of warming and sea level rises where not happening as claimed. I have lost count of how many times excuses have been used for bad predictions.
 
Ground gathering data is slow, costly and questionable on the data. The scientists have just readjusted the ground gathering system when the models were not matching actual weather. Many of the ground stations have been operating for fifteen years now and have given enough data that readjustments in math are needed to match the actual weather. 
 
I wonder if the system we have has been created by scientists or mathematicians. It is way past time for the real scientists to step up and tell the world that the system in place is impressive on any scientific scale. But it is not going to get the job done. We need to realize that the earth is part of a solar system and all the parts of that system no matter how small can affect the weather on earth.
 
We need to realize that weather is always changing and we are just leaving the most stable part of earth’s cycle that goes from hot to cold. And we need to realize that cutting carbon and going back to 300 PPM is a political stratagem. There are so many things that we could be doing right now to help fix the problem. Instead of being truthful and telling it like it is, the story gets played in a way that there are reals smart people looking out for us that know what they are doing. The problem is that these stupid companies and political parties are leading the world into destruction for profit. And stopping these real smart people from saving the earth. When will people learn that these really smart people leading the climate movement, aren’t smart, they are deceptive and have gotten rich.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 11 October 2017 09:44 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 289 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2797
Joined  2007-07-05
MikeYohe - 10 October 2017 03:37 PM

Go to post 281. Sorry, computer slowed me up for a couple of days.
I’m not sure. It seems like the locations picked are away from cities and ground activity. I would think that a lawn for example would be pulling CO2 out of the air and a house would be putting CO2 into the air. Maybe they want to give the air time to mix for a normal readings.

Oh, you mean that is why a mountain top in the middle of the Pacific is a good location for evaluating the planet as a whole?

psik

 Signature 

Physics is Phutile
Fiziks is Fundamental
Since 9/11 Physics has been History

Profile
 
 
Posted: 11 October 2017 11:45 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 290 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1704
Joined  2016-12-24

Please psik, you’d be better off googling

psikeyhackr - 11 October 2017 09:44 AM

Oh, you mean that is why a mountain top in the middle of the Pacific is a good location for evaluating the planet as a whole?
psik

https://www.skepticalscience.com/Measuring-CO2-levels-from-the-volcano-at-Mauna-Loa.html

Why Mauna Loa?
Early attempts to measure CO2 in the USA and Scandinavia found that the readings varied a lot due to the influence of growing plants and the exhaust from motors.
Mauna Loa is ideal because it is so remote from big population centres. Also, on tropical islands at night, the prevailing winds blow from the land out to sea,
which effect brings clean, well-mixed Central Pacific air from high in the atmosphere to the observatory.
This removes any interference coming from the vegetation lower down on the island.

But how about gas from the volcano?
It is true that volcanoes blow out CO2 from time to time and that this can interfere with the readings.
Most of the time, though, the prevailing winds blow the volcanic gasses away from the observatory.
But when the winds do sometimes blow from active vents towards the observatory, the influence from the volcano is obvious on the
normally consistent records and any dubious readings can be easily spotted and edited out (Ryan, 1995).

https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/blogs/climateqa/mauna-loa-co2-record/

cheers

Profile
 
 
Posted: 11 October 2017 11:53 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 291 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1704
Joined  2016-12-24
MikeYohe - 11 October 2017 09:35 AM

We are getting much closer to having a baseline on the CO2 that the earth gives out.

Please Mike, produce a scientific paper, or serious article based on a study - that’s focuses on establishing: “baseline on the CO2 that the earth gives out”

I ask because it seems a totally meaningless sentence. 
Can you produce something serious to explain what you are talking about here?

Bonus,
How is that specific understanding (if you can even define it) supposed to make a difference in our understanding of
Anthropogenic Global Warming and its cascading consequences upon our biosphere and complex society?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 11 October 2017 12:04 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 292 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1704
Joined  2016-12-24

What’s wrong with these baselines for CO2?

https://www.co2.earth/global-co2-emissions
IPCC Carbon Budget

Countries that signed the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change adopted a target to stop the average global temperature from rising before it reaches 2°C above pre-industrial levels.

The Fifth Assessment Report of the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) quantifies the glboal maximum CO2 the world can still emit and also have a likely chance of keeping global average temperature rise below 2°C above pre-industrial temperatures.  It reports that the goal is likely to be met if cumulative emissions (including the 535 GtC emitted by the end of 2013) do not exceeed 1 trillion tonnes of carbon (PgC).  A gigatonne of carbon (1 GtC) is the same as a petagram of carbon (1 PgC).

If you accept the 2°C target, the world need to emit no more than 465 GtC by the time carbon emissions end.  Many developing countries also support a reduction in the target to keep global average temperature increases below 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels.

Quick Link

GCP 2015 global carbon budget highlights (compact)

CDIAC Data for Global Carbon Project (all years) [2015 .xlxs]

CDIAC DATA: Global CO2 emissions 1751-2011 [files] [more]

ESSD Related articles & links

ESSD Le Quéré et al. | Global Carbon Budget 2015 [.pdf]

Did I Say 30 Billion Tons of CO2 a Year? I Meant 40.
By Phil Plait
http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2014/08/20/atmospheric_co2_humans_put_40_billion_tons_into_the_air_annually.html

Every now and again a global warming denier will say that humans aren’t putting much carbon dioxide into the air, and it’s less than a lot of natural sources. I’ve pointed out that in fact, humans throw about 30 billion tons of it into the atmosphere every year, 100 times as much as volcanoes do. I got that number from a paper published a few years back.

Well, I just found out that paper is out of date. Guesss what the more accurate, current number for the human-made CO2 pollution put into the air every year is?

40 billion tons.

Yeah. 40. As in billions of tons. 40. ...

Which emits more carbon dioxide: volcanoes or human activities?
Author: Michon Scott, Rebecca Lindsey
June 15, 2016

https://www.climate.gov/news-features/climate-qa/which-emits-more-carbon-dioxide-volcanoes-or-human-activities

Profile
 
 
Posted: 11 October 2017 03:17 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 293 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2797
Joined  2007-07-05
Citizenschallenge-v.3 - 11 October 2017 11:45 AM

Please psik, you’d be better off googling

cheers

I find the sarcasm amusing.

Trying to educate him is just a waste of time.

psik

 Signature 

Physics is Phutile
Fiziks is Fundamental
Since 9/11 Physics has been History

Profile
 
 
Posted: 11 October 2017 08:37 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 294 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1704
Joined  2016-12-24
psikeyhackr - 11 October 2017 03:17 PM
Citizenschallenge-v.3 - 11 October 2017 11:45 AM

Please psik, you’d be better off googling

cheers

I find the sarcasm amusing.

Trying to educate him is just a waste of time.

psik

Yeah, that’s what DougC.V2 keeps telling me. 
You’re right, he’s right, the hope is that some onlookers might have benefited from his exposure.

Or at least come across an interesting link to information they didn’t appreciate before.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 11 October 2017 09:54 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 295 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4335
Joined  2014-06-20

As my son said, “I think with all the hurricanes and wild fires, mass shootings and earth quakes.
SOME ONE WOULD REALIZE THAT GOD IS PISSED OFF THAT TRUMP IS PRESIDENT.”

 Signature 

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

Profile
 
 
Posted: 14 October 2017 06:05 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 296 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  7855
Joined  2009-02-26

To all scientific minded persons, this is a must read.

“Based on these interviews, he compiled a list of ten dimensions of complexity-ten pairs of apparently antithetical characteristics that are often both present in the creative minds. The list includes:

1. Bursts of impulsiveness that punctuate periods of quiet and rest.

2. Being smart yet extremely naive.

3. Large amplitude swings between extreme responsibility and irresponsibility.

4. A rooted sense of reality together with a hefty dose of fantasy and imagination.

5. Alternating periods of introversion and extroversion.

6. Being simultaneously humble and proud.

7. Psychological androgyny-no clear adherence to gender role stereotyping.

8. Being rebellious and iconoclastic yet respectful to the domain of expertise and its history.

9. Being on one had passionate but on the other objective about one’s own work.

10. Experiencing suffering and pain mingled with exhilaration and enjoyment.”

Mario Livio, The Equation That Couldn’t Be Solved: How Mathematical Genius Discovered the Language of Symmetry

https://www.goodreads.com/work/quotes/226501-the-equation-that-couldn-t-be-solved-how-mathematical-genius-discovered

 Signature 

Art is the creation of that which evokes an emotional response, leading to thoughts of the noblest kind.
W4U

Profile
 
 
Posted: 14 October 2017 09:56 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 297 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1704
Joined  2016-12-24

r2d2

Write4U - 14 October 2017 06:05 AM

To all scientific minded persons, this is a must read.

“Based on these interviews, he compiled a list of ten dimensions of complexity-ten pairs of apparently antithetical characteristics that are often both present in the creative minds. The list includes:

1. Bursts of impulsiveness that punctuate periods of quiet and rest.

2. Being smart yet extremely naive.

3. Large amplitude swings between extreme responsibility and irresponsibility.

4. A rooted sense of reality together with a hefty dose of fantasy and imagination.

5. Alternating periods of introversion and extroversion.

6. Being simultaneously humble and proud.

7. Psychological androgyny-no clear adherence to gender role stereotyping.

8. Being rebellious and iconoclastic yet respectful to the domain of expertise and its history.

9. Being on one hand passionate but on the other objective about one’s own work.

10. Experiencing suffering and pain mingled with exhilaration and enjoyment.”

Mario Livio, The Equation That Couldn’t Be Solved: How Mathematical Genius Discovered the Language of Symmetry

https://www.goodreads.com/work/quotes/226501-the-equation-that-couldn-t-be-solved-how-mathematical-genius-discovered

Okay. Makes sense. 
What I’m curious about is what’s going on in the mindscapes of the politically biased absolutist?
The ones that can be totally blind to evidence and who reject absorbing and learning from new facts?

Mike got any insights to share on that?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 14 October 2017 10:59 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 298 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4335
Joined  2014-06-20
MikeYohe - 02 September 2017 04:37 PM
deros - 02 September 2017 03:11 PM

The problem is three fold especially, in the U.S.  The first two are power and money and they are one in the same.  The third is that those with the first two apparently don’t give a damn about the future.  Now if money and power doesn’t care about the future and if it is because they don’t hold a religious belief about an after life, maybe that could be a good thing but so far not so much.  Not caring enough about trying to stop the heat wave is essentially condemning our children and grand children.  We may not be able to out spend money and power but we can sure as hell out vote them unless we too don’t care about our children or grand children.  There is simply no future in JUST LIVING FOR YODAY.

Canadian Minister of the Environment says, “No matter if the science of global warming is all phony…climate change provides the greatest opportunity to bring about justice and equality in the world.” Not what I wanted to hear.

Global warming has absolutely nothing to do with justice and equality. It is a natural phenomenon. Justice and equality are human concepts.

 Signature 

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

Profile
 
 
Posted: 14 October 2017 11:16 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 299 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1704
Joined  2016-12-24
LoisL - 14 October 2017 10:59 AM
MikeYohe - 02 September 2017 04:37 PM
deros - 02 September 2017 03:11 PM

The problem is three fold especially, in the U.S.  The first two are power and money and they are one in the same.  The third is that those with the first two apparently don’t give a damn about the future.  Now if money and power doesn’t care about the future and if it is because they don’t hold a religious belief about an after life, maybe that could be a good thing but so far not so much.  Not caring enough about trying to stop the heat wave is essentially condemning our children and grand children.  We may not be able to out spend money and power but we can sure as hell out vote them unless we too don’t care about our children or grand children.  There is simply no future in JUST LIVING FOR YODAY.

Canadian Minister of the Environment says, “No matter if the science of global warming is all phony…climate change provides the greatest opportunity to bring about justice and equality in the world.” Not what I wanted to hear.

Global warming has absolutely nothing to do with justice and equality. It is a natural phenomenon. Justice and equality are human concepts.

What did you dredge that up for?
It’s bullshit story that contrarians, such as mikie here, have spun out of all context with reality.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 14 October 2017 11:34 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 300 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2231
Joined  2013-06-01
Citizenschallenge-v.3 - 14 October 2017 09:56 AM

r2d2

Write4U - 14 October 2017 06:05 AM

To all scientific minded persons, this is a must read.

“Based on these interviews, he compiled a list of ten dimensions of complexity-ten pairs of apparently antithetical characteristics that are often both present in the creative minds. The list includes:

1. Bursts of impulsiveness that punctuate periods of quiet and rest.

2. Being smart yet extremely naive.

3. Large amplitude swings between extreme responsibility and irresponsibility.

4. A rooted sense of reality together with a hefty dose of fantasy and imagination.

5. Alternating periods of introversion and extroversion.

6. Being simultaneously humble and proud.

7. Psychological androgyny-no clear adherence to gender role stereotyping.

8. Being rebellious and iconoclastic yet respectful to the domain of expertise and its history.

9. Being on one hand passionate but on the other objective about one’s own work.

10. Experiencing suffering and pain mingled with exhilaration and enjoyment.”

Mario Livio, The Equation That Couldn’t Be Solved: How Mathematical Genius Discovered the Language of Symmetry

https://www.goodreads.com/work/quotes/226501-the-equation-that-couldn-t-be-solved-how-mathematical-genius-discovered

Okay. Makes sense. 
What I’m curious about is what’s going on in the mindscapes of the politically biased absolutist?
The ones that can be totally blind to evidence and who reject absorbing and learning from new facts?

Mike got any insights to share on that?

Yea, I have been following his lawsuits more than his science. Looks like Michael Mann is going to carry out his lawsuits longer than his science.

Profile
 
 
   
20 of 34
20