I ask you where you are on climate change. Ok, let me try again. Lausten where are you and NASA at on climate change?http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg2/index.php?idp=144
I don’t know where you are trying to lead me? The IPCC Working Group II was set up to check out the socio-economic to climate change. And the negative and positive consequences of climate change. Ended up with a lot of basic reports as you would expect. As we don’t know if climate change is good or bad for us yet. They were not able to cover this topic as hoped. The feedback was that the IPCC played down the positive impacts of climate change.
Humans are having an impact on climate change and probably a major one. But we will don’t know the entire extent. I seriously don’t think we will have catastrophic changes in a few decades, but its certainly going to cause an impact.
catastrophic changesWhat do you consider catastrophic?
I seriously don't think we will have catastrophic changes in a few decades, but its certainly going to cause an impact.What constitutes a few decades? What if it is not catastrophic in 8 decades but is in 12? How is that better? It will take centuries for the CO2 to decline by natural means. psik
So much data, so many ideas. I am not backing the posts. They are just some ideas out there on how many decades before change is to happen. Arduino Tronic has post this on youtube with the year 2019-2029 being when the weather starts to change. Mini Ice Age 2024 Maths- Its not good news - Milankovitch Cycles - YouTube
Then Murray Jonasson has a posting.
We are in Global Cooling!! not warming !! - YouTube
§
The world is full of jackasses that can produce cheap talk and articles, folks that have the chops and put in time doing real study are much more rare.
You can actually learn something from this guy, David Barber.
Seven surprising results from the reduction of Arctic Sea ice cover | David Barber Ph.D. from the University of Waterloo, Ontario | TEDxUManitoba https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ofaoiHYKtlc&t Dr. Barber obtained his Bachelors and Masters from the University of Manitoba, and his . He was appointed to a faculty position at the University of Manitoba in 1993 and received a Canada Research Chair in Arctic System Science in 2002. He is currently Associate Dean (Research), CHR Faculty of Environment, Earth and Resources. Dr. Barber has extensive experience in the examination of the Arctic marine environment as a ‘system’, and the effect climate change has on this system. Dr. Barber has published over 200 articles in the peer-reviewed literature pertaining to sea ice, climate change and physical-biological coupling in the Arctic marine system. He led the largest International Polar Year project in the world, known as the Circumpolar Flaw Lead system study. He is recognized internationally through scientific leadership in large network programs This talk was given at a local TEDx event, produced independently of the TED Conferences. It is now well known that sea ice in the Arctic has changed in both extent and thickness over the past several decades. In fact the change in sea ice is seen as one of the key global climate variables confirming model estimates of global scale warming of our planet through the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) process. Extensive investigations at the leading edge of Arctic System Science have recently uncovered a number of surprises, many somewhat counterintuitive, each having significant consequences in the Arctic and through teleconnections to the rest of our planet.In this talk I will review the rate and magnitude of change in sea ice, put this into the context of our understanding of the ‘natural variability’ in sea ice over the past several thousand years. I will then review seven surprising impacts of this change: 1) increasing coverage of young ice significantly changes atmospheric chemistry; 2) more snow both preserves and destroys ice; 3) Polar bear habitat can actually improve in some areas while deteriorating in others; 4) match-mismatch timing in the marine ecosystem increases vulnerability; 5) uncertainty as to whether the Arctic ocean will increase or decrease in overall productivity is a key unknown; 6) evidence that ice hazards are actually increasing while the world marshals to increase development of Arctic resources; and 7) evidence that our recent cold winters are actually linked to our warming Arctic.
Yes, apples and oranges. Mr. Tronic and Mr. Jonasson were showing historical cycles. The earth is known for repeating cycles. Mr. Barber is a scientist and is making observations. To totally disregard earth’s history is questionable as to who the jackass is.
David Barber (2015)
Earlier this year, Stein et al., 2017 published a reconstruction of Arctic sea ice variations throughout the Holocene that appeared to establish that there is more Arctic sea ice now than for nearly all of the last 10,000 years.
- Like Stein et al. (2017), Yamamoto et al., 2017 largely attribute Holocene sea ice concentration variations to solar forcing, and they assemble a reconstruction of sea ice trends for the region that once again clearly shows sea ice coverage is greater now than it has been for almost all of the Holocene.
Science debunks the "Arctic sea ice extent at its lowest for at least 1500 years" meme – Watts Up With That?
Credibility Of Climate Scientists Effectively Gone | Real Climate Science
Point being we should look at both the apples and oranges. We should consider everything. No stone unturned.
In the real world, sea walls need to be built as the population is expanding. Therefore, the construction people need real data. Where are they at? They were given sea level rises -
of +0.6 m up until 2050
of +2.6 m up until 2100
and +17.5 m up until 2300
As there is no one set of enforcement nationwide, each state can set its own values. The insurance and bonding companies need to insure the projects and banks need to make sure the best data and construction is used so these long-term loans will be paid off.
What the industry is using today.
well below 0.4 m at 2050 instead of +0.6 m
well below 0.9 m at 2100 instead of +2.6 m
well below 2.9 m at 2300 instead of +17.5 m
It seems that the real world calls for hard work in the field and deep knowledge in a number of subjects to arrive at workable numbers in a correct and meaningful way.
It seems like when reading the data or reports like the David Barber video. One needs to put it in contrast with where the cycle is at in the time period that the report covers. Weather not only moves in cycles. It moves in leads and lags over time. It is not one smooth movement at all. The pictures can change when viewed in a larger time scale as to what the norm is.
Note, I am using sea level rise because it is directly connected to ice levels. I am not claiming Mr. Barber is wrong or right. I am saying that his report did not include much climate history. But it did give us great information on what is going on today.
I don’t have the time or energy to respond to a guy who never hears or processes anything.
Been too busy lately
Americans for Koch's Prosperity, et cetera. : ¶ “O the irony!” says "Save"LaPlata's front man, Peters. The irony indeed.
Someone who’d would rather have his climate science distilled though an insane politicized mind such as Anthony Watts, and even crazier dude than that slob.
- rather than read the actual papers themselves, or to hear what the real scientists have got say about them.
I doubt anyone else out there give a damned one way or the other - the comfort within their respective bubbles beats facing the reality we are creating for ourselves.
2017 CLIMATE SUMMARY Dr. Keith Strong - Published on Jan 29, 2018 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BbrVx5sKCVw 2017 WAS THE 3RD HOTTEST YEAR ON RECORD AND THE HOTTEST YEAR WITHOUT AN EL NINO - HERE'S WHY.
JANUARY 2018 GLOBAL CLIMATE REPORT Dr. Keith Strong - Published on Feb 21, 2018 NOAA HAS ISSUED ITS SUMMARY OF THE GLOBAL CLIMATE - GLOBAL WARMING IS ALIVE AND WELL AND LIVING ON EARTH! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5zkIvUDXISQ&feature=em-subs_digest
IS GLOBAL WARMING GOOD OR BAD? REBUTTAL OF A VIDEO "GLOBAL WARMING LIE #1 EXPOSED: GLOBAL WARMING IS BAD" BY MARTIN Dr. Keith Strong - Published on Jan 19, 2018 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ETNYhh_q6MYNo Mike, These aren't for you! - I put them up here, just in case someone wants to listen to a serious guy discuss some damned serious issues, in an intelligent constructive manner. something MikeYohe has shown us he has absolutely no interest in - his heart and soul and brain are dedicated to chasing his worthless tail. So spare me your idiot fantasy monologues of pure bellybutton bs that totally ignores the realities infolding upon our planet.
F.Y.I.
“Weather is not Climate." https://robertscribbler.com/2018/02/25/a-hole-in-winters-heart-temperatures-rise-to-above-freezing-at-the-north-pole-in-february/ But when a warm air influx carves a wide-ranging above-freezing hole into the heart of what should typically be ice-solid Arctic winter, then maybe it’s time to start re-evaluating the gist of the statement.Weather and climate are inexorably married one to the other. Though weather is often variable and tied to locality, climate is broader-ranging and roughly characterized as average weather over 30 years. When climate changes, it ultimately changes average weather. It thus changes the rules in which weather occurs. So you can end up with weather events that are typically not common or have never been seen before — like category six hurricanes, much more heavy rainfall events, historic and unprecedented droughts, and above freezing temperatures at the North Pole during February even as Arctic air is driven south over Europe. In the context of climate change, what we’re talking about is average global weather across the span of multiple decades. In some locations, this ongoing climate change has resulted in very little perceptible weather change. In other locations, and this is more and more-so the case, the changes to weather are both disruptive and profound.(Today, on Sunday February 25, 2018 at 0900 UTC — temperatures rose to above freezing at the North Pole. This event, which is probably unprecedented or, at the very least, an extreme instance in the polar record, is an exemplar — or a good example — of the kinds of wrenching weather changes we can expect as a result of human-caused climate change. Image source: Earth Nullschool [ https://earth.nullschool.net/ ]. Data source: Global Forecast System Model.)
catastrophic changesWhat do you consider catastrophic?cat got your tongue ? What constitutes a catastrophe in your imagination Rhea?
Impact of climate change on health is ‘the major threat of 21st century’ https://www.skepticalscience.com/impact-cc-on-health-major-threat-21st-century.html Posted on 26 February 2018 by Guest Author This is a re-post from Carbon Brief by Daisy Dunne The health of millions of people across the world is already being significantly harmed by climate change, a major new report finds. From driving up the number of people exposed to heatwaves to increasing the risk of infectious diseases, such as dengue fever, climate change has had far-reaching effects on many aspects of human health in last few decades, the authors say. In fact, the effect of climate change on human health is now so severe that it should be considered “the major threat of the 21st century", scientists said at a press briefing held in London. The report is the first from the Lancet Countdown on Health and Climate Change, a project involving 24 academic institutions and intergovernmental organisations from across the world. The project plans to release a report tracking progress on climate change and global health every year. Feeling the heat The report uses a set of 40 indicators to track the effects of climate change on global health. The first of these indicators assesses the “direct impacts" of climate change on human health, including the effects of exposure to extreme heat and natural disasters. ... (read on the details are not pretty)
I hope it’s possible to be a critic of both sides in this highly sensitive debate because both are being political and unscientific.
Climate scientists are unscientific when they fail to acknowledge the limits of their models predictive powers or worse, grossly overstate their models “accuracy”. It has become so politically incorrect to suggest that the models are not as good as they claim that I fully expect to be labeled a denier just from making the observation that climate scientists appear to be politically biased in overstating their position.
Likewise, Happer cannot claim to be an objective critic of the models when it is so obvious that he’s a political pawn. And sadly, I believe he is correct about the models’ limits. When he says it’s a good idea to pump millions of tons of CO2 into the atmosphere he’s clearly willing to say anything to support his political agenda.
You don’t need great science to realize doubling the amount of a greenhouse gas in the atmosphere is a really bad idea. Unfortunately, in this debate, science has donned a politicians hat and behaved very unscientifically.
Mike, I'm curious are you familiar with the concept of "weighing the evidence"?As Dr. Judith Curry observes, IPCC climate models are not fit (useful) for fundamentally altering our society, economy and energy systems. Tuning models, in both hindcast and “modified forecast," does not assist one in deciding their validity. Accurate forecasts would be needed to justify spending trillions. Paul Matthews says, climate change predictions — what went wrong? Climate scientists have admitted their estimates of global warming were wrong. So, can we all chill out now? Not quite As egg-on-face moments go, it was a double-yolker. Last week a group of climate scientists published a paper that admitted the estimates of global warming used for years to torture the world’s conscience and justify massive spending on non-carbon energy sources were, er, wrong. We can justify massive spending on non-carbon based energy sources i.e. replacements for oil, coal, and gas, because we are running out of them!
Being wrong is not a criminal offence, especially in science, where in the long run almost everything turns out to be wrong, but the global warmers have adopted such a high-and-mighty tone to anyone who questions them that for sceptics this was pure joy.I am not talking about Global Warming. I am talking about availability of natural resources such as oil, coal, andnatural gas.
I'll let the experts weigh the evidence. I'm nothing more than a concerned taxpayer.Well, here is an expert, who will show you that it is inevitable that we will have to invest billions of dollars in development of non-carbon based energy sources. And it has nothing to do with Global Warming. It's just plain simple mathematics by Albert Bartlett, Professor Emeritus in Mathematics. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O133ppiVnWY And don't be scared, no heavy maths involved. It's really very simple to understand.
I hope it's possible to be a critic of both sides in this highly sensitive debate because both are being political and unscientific. Climate scientists are unscientific when they fail to acknowledge the limits of their models predictive powers or worse, grossly overstate their models "accuracy". It has become so politically incorrect to suggest that the models are not as good as they claim that I fully expect to be labeled a denier just from making the observation that climate scientists appear to be politically biased in overstating their position. Likewise, Happer cannot claim to be an objective critic of the models when it is so obvious that he's a political pawn. And sadly, I believe he is correct about the models' limits. When he says it's a good idea to pump millions of tons of CO2 into the atmosphere he's clearly willing to say anything to support his political agenda. You don't need great science to realize doubling the amount of a greenhouse gas in the atmosphere is a really bad idea. Unfortunately, in this debate, science has donned a politicians hat and behaved very unscientifically.Hello primate. Welcome to CFI debate. It is understood that the earth right now has Ice Age weather. It is understood that we have just passed the peak of the warm spot on our Ice Age weather cycle. Why is doubling the amount of CO2 a bad idea? I don’t think we have the answer to that question yet. We know that just a few degrees change in earth’s temperature can cause ice sheets to grow. Therefore, the small amount of heat caused by the man-made carbon is important. We want a warmer earth. Mankind does not do well in the cold of the Ice Age cycles. We don’t know if we should be putting more carbon in the air at this time to keep the earth from a weather jump. Jumps, we don’t understand but past weather records give the possibility that climate jumps can happen really fast. There is also the possibility that more carbon will keep the earth warmer and we will not go into cold part of the Ice Age cycle. The earth’s CO2 levels were so low that plant life on earth was close to dying. And that would not be good. CO2 levels are now just over 400. Space crafts use 6,000 and submarines use 8,000. You can’t grow much in a snowbank. The population keeps growing. We are over fishing the oceans. There is a lawsuit filed in CA now. It will be fun to watch. The judge in the case has ask for answers to eight questions. 1. `What caused the various ice ages (including the “little ice age" and prolonged cool periods) and what caused the ice to melt? When they melted, by how much did sea level rise? 2. What is the molecular difference by which CO2 absorbs infrared radiation, but oxygen and nitrogen do not? 3. What is the mechanism by which infrared radiation trapped by CO2 in the atmosphere is turned into heat and finds its way back to sea level? 4. Does CO2 in the atmosphere reflect any sunlight back into space such that the reflected sunlight never penetrates the atmosphere in the first place? 5. Apart from CO2, what happens to the collective heat from tail pipe exhausts, engine radiators, and all other heat from combustion of fossil fuels? How, if at all, does this collective heat contribute to warming of the atmosphere? 6. In grade school, many of us were taught that humans exhale CO2 but plants absorb CO2 and return oxygen to the air (keeping the carbon for fiber). Is this still valid? If so, why hasn’t plant life turned the higher levels of CO2 back into oxygen? Given the increase in human population on Earth (four billion), is human respiration a contributing factor to the buildup of CO2? 7. What are the main sources of CO2 that account for the incremental buildup of CO2 in the atmosphere? 8. What are the main sources of heat that account for the incremental rise in temperature on Earth?
§
Hello primate. Welcome to CFI debate.
It is understood that the earth right now has Ice Age weather. (An ice age is when continents get covered by iceThe Last Time the Arctic Was Ice-Free in the Summer, Modern Humans Didn’t Exist By Eric Holthaus http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2014/12/02/the_last_time_there_was_this_little_arctic_ice_modern_humans_didn_t_exist.htmlHere we have an example of forcing a false narrative.) It is understood that we have just passed the peak of the warm spot on our Ice Age weather cycle. (This is nonsensical - notice he doesn't have a reference to offer so you can see and learn about it yourself. Here's something sober about the ice age cycle https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/08/130807134127.htm) Why is doubling the amount of CO2 a bad idea? I don’t think we have the answer to that question yet. (Mike has a hard time grasping the physics of CO2 - his faith won't allow it. We know damned well what a doubling of CO2 will do. Roughly speaking tells us all we need to know!) We know that just a few degrees change in earth’s temperature can cause ice sheets to grow. Therefore, the small amount of heat caused by the man-made carbon is important.(Mike also still can't grasp the most fundamental of physics as demonstrated by him still (after many corrections) thinking CO2 'produces heat - that is not how the physics works.) We want a warmer earth.(A monstrously ignorant thing to believe. Earth is a product of very stable temperature ranges creating a dynamically balance biosphere - Warming this biosphere is producing negative consequences in every part of the planet. The deliberate blind spot is contemptible beyond words.) Mankind does not do well in the cold of the Ice Age cycles.(The last thing we have to worry about) We don’t know if we should be putting more carbon in the air at this time to keep the earth from a weather jump. (Again utterly moronic thing to claim. A display of complete denial of the scientific facts.) Jumps, we don’t understand but past weather records give the possibility that climate jumps can happen really fast.(The dependency of lying comes through yet again. Scientists have a damned clear understanding of past climate changes!) There is also the possibility that more carbon will keep the earth warmer and we will not go into cold part of the Ice Age cycle. (You can damned well bet on that one. In the process it will cripple our uppity society and then erase it. Years flow into decades, decades flow into centuries fast than we imagine. ) The earth’s CO2 levels were so low that plant life on earth was close to dying.(Utter fantasy land here) And that would not be good. CO2 levels are now just over 400. Space crafts use 6,000 and submarines use 8,000. You can’t grow much in a snowbank. The population keeps growing. We are over fishing the oceans. (not to mention acidifying our ocean, which is beginning to reset our oceans to basics - jelly fish and such. ) There is a lawsuit filed in CA now. It will be fun to watch. The judge in the case has ask for answers to eight questions. (Gonna be a pretty straightforward response to all of those. If i weren't so preoccupied I'd give it a shot. Lordies know the information is out there, its not that tough to look up. There are no mysteries the way Mike wants to portray it. )
Primate, CC response is an example of what you were saying about how climate science is political and unscientific.
The political method seems to be to start off by discrediting the other parties. And CC starts with misdirection by saying that an ice age is when continents are covered by ice. What I said was the earth’s weather is Ice Age weather. And that is scientific correct. We are in the intermediate part of our Ice Age weather cycle right now and it is warm. And it would be nice if we could keep the earth in this intermediate stage of the cycle.
I stated that we have just passed the peak of the warm spot. That is also scientifically agreed upon. CC post a site that talks about the Milankovitch cycles. But they did not cover where the earth is in the Milankovitch cycles right now at this time. And of course, that is what we must know to understand what type of weather to expect in the natural cycles. CC has trouble understanding the simple statement or is intentionally doing misdirection.
Then CC says that we know what doubling of CO2 will do. Don’t be fooled by the dancing. The IPCC is still trying to figure that out. What we know so far is that all the predictions have been wrong. And there is the claim that the extra CO2 may keep us in the intermediate period of the cycle for several hundred years more than normal. And that would be fantastic.
Next CC says that warming of the earth is bad. Again, the IPCC is still trying to figure out if it is good or bad.
Then CC says I am lying about Jumps. CC does not understand Jumps at all. It does not work with her hockey stick thinking. The Medieval Warm Epoch and The Little Ice Age are small jumps in weather that are still being studied by scientists today and they show just how fragile the balancing of heat needs to be to keep us out of the ice.
CC got stuck in the political aspect and never evolved with the science. Why would she, CC has said that all the climate science work has been done. It is over, complete.
To simplify the evolving science.
The sun is the driving force.
The sun heats the atmosphere and the surface.
Changes in the sun, atmosphere or surface will change the temperature.
CO2 changed the atmosphere. So, we got a change in the temperature.
So simple, even CC understands and promotes the method.
Predictions were made about not controlling the CO2 increasing levels.
The predictions were all wrong.
It turns out that the earth has a thermostat that is regulating the heat.
Therefore, changes in the sun, atmosphere or surface will change the thermostat, and the thermostat will control the temperature.
The clouds are being looked at as the earth’s thermostat.
CC, will not talk about the clouds. Except to say the clouds have zero affect in climate change. CC is still using the old thinking that there is no thermostat. Using a thermostat will disprove the claimed heating effects of the hockey stick completely. The hockey stick is the base for the political movement of climate change.
The question is, why after all these years are we just getting around to the clouds? We always knew about the clouds. Clouds was the understanding back in the 80’s. Then the hockey stick came around and the clouds were said to have zero affect on climate change. The scientists who backed clouds were ridiculed and labeled deniers. People like Dr. Curry and Dr. Soon were said not to be able to grasp the CO2 concept. That the clouds, sun cycles and earth cycles played such a small part of climate that it was not worth dealing with. CO2 was the one and only item that had to be dealt with.
The CERES (Clouds and the Earth’s Radiant Energy System) experiment is one of the highest priority scientific satellite instruments developed for NASA’s Earth Observing System (EOS)
https://ceres.larc.nasa.gov/
Today there is less noise coming from the political CO2 push. There have been direct challenges by our government to debate Climate Change live over TV and get the facts out to the public. Guess what, there are no scientists today that will put their reputation on the line to back CO2 as the driving force of Global Warming in front of the public on national TV.
M Yohe said, The earth’s CO2 levels were so low that plant life on earth was close to dying. And that would not be goodTrue, but from that perspective, when CO2 levels are too high, that would not be good for non-photosynthetic life, especially if we keep cutting down the earth's forests, the major sources of converting CO2 into Oxygen, which humans and most other surface animals must have to stay alive. No matter how you look at it, too much CO2 is bad for an ecosystem which supports a variety of life forms.
What are the main sources of CO2 that account for the incremental buildup of CO2 in the atmosphere?Release of carbons sequestered in the earth over billions of years, which disturbes the natural balance of the atmosphere everywhere on earth, which supports a variety of life forms.
To simplify the evolving science.{This is your biased distortion, notice you still can't produce papers article to support your position.} The sun is the driving force. The sun heats the atmosphere and the surface. Changes in the sun, atmosphere or surface will change the temperature. CO2 changed the atmosphere. So, we got a change in the temperature.
yeah, change https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K4Ra2HR27pQ Visualization based on GISTEMP data. Credit Antti LipponenHere's another example of Dominating the Dialogue with bullshit No matter now many times it gets explained, or how many authoritative sources are shared, steadfast Willful Ignorance in action. The reasons for the above are well understand and it started here and here is the proof: JANUARY 1, 2018 CO2 Science - Blue team: "Pruitt, it's certain as certain gets! It's the physics! Don't you know??? CO2 Science - Pruitt, proof is in the pudding! Impossible Modern Marvels https://confrontingsciencecontrarians.blogspot.com/2018/01/pruitt-proof-isin-modernmarvels.html But, Mike and his team, should I say army, totally refuse to acknowledge what scientists know and tell us about CO2 and what it does to our atmosphere. minimize, minimize, minimize
So simple, even CC understands and promotes the method. Predictions were made about not controlling the CO2 increasing levels. The predictions were all wrong. {vague bullshit, but people eat it up} It turns out that the earth has a thermostat that is regulating the heat. {it has many thermostats and regulators, some more important than others} Therefore, changes in the sun, atmosphere or surface will change the thermostat, and the thermostat will control the temperature. The clouds are being looked at as the earth’s thermostat.Yes, scientists have been looking and learning about clouds for a long time, have you been paying attention to any of it. Oh no, I remember you aren't allowed to roam outside of your bubble, you how would you know. Here Mike, some more of the many learning opportunities that have absolutely nothing to with me or much i know or don't know. (I notice you don't have anything constructive like that to share, only that incessant misleading lip flapping.)
Professor David Archer Global Warming - Science and Modelling of Climate Change 7.4 - Clouds Part 7 - Feedbacks Lesson 4 - Clouds https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6qGRIZNqeSY (9:15) ______________________________________________________ Another one on YouTube - same David Archer, PhD. Lecture 13 - Clouds (48:00 min) The University of Chicago - Published on Apr 6, 2010 This 10-week course for non-science majors focuses on a single problem: assessing the risk of human-caused climate change. The story ranges from physics to chemistry, biology, geology, fluid mechanics, and quantum mechanics, to economics and social sciences. The class will consider evidence from the distant past and projections into the distant future, keeping the human time scale of the next several centuries as the bottom line. The lectures follow a textbook, "Global Warming, Understanding the Forecast," written for the course. For information about the textbook, interactive models, and more, visit: http://forecast.uchicago.edu/Or this:
David Randall: The Role of Clouds and Water Vapor in Climate Change Simon Fraser University - Published on Apr 14, 2011 The Role of Clouds and Water Vapor in Climate Change David Randall: Professor, Department of Atmospheric Sciences Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado This lecture is part of SFU's 2011 global warming seminar series "Global Warming: A Science Perspective".There's more, bottomline is that while clouds have their uncertain, Mike grossly misrepresent them and their significant to understanding what's going on. They are details, but we do know they provide no salvation from what we've done to our atmosphere. You're all Luftgeschäft. :long:
Carbon levels are not agreed upon yet to what is the best levels. The flowering plants we rely upon in our diet evolved 100 million years ago when the carbon dioxide level was four times the current concentration. For plant life, the current amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is near starvation levels. It is a fact plants do better in higher carbon levels.
The earth’s carbon levels do change, but over very long periods of time. What humans have done is make this happen in a short blink of an eye in time. Maybe not all life on earth can deal with rapid changes.
Write4u, the question seems to be. The computer models and alarmist predictions have all been wrong. The alarmists and CC agrees that all the science that needs to be done with Climate Change is done. There is no more need for science when it comes to Climate Change. In other words, all the new science is not helping the point of view of the alarmists. Not that alarmists could or would ever answer any of the basic questions asked.
Did you notice that CC comes back as always trying to discredit me, like I am a climate scientist. Not one word about the earth’s thermostat. Some scientists are claiming there is now 10% more clouds today over the earth than decades ago. In other words, the earth may be reacting to the CO2 build up. Now that we are passing the peak of the 100K year cycle, scientists are claiming that this cycle is 2 degrees cooler than the last cycle. And they claim that is do to sun cycles. We really lucked out with the sun cycles this time.
Notice Mike still won’t, some suggest can’t, produce supporting information.
Yes MikeYohe, I do discredit you - because your baloney demands discrediting.
Because you are a malicious crazier maker and deliberately lie like a rug when it comes to climate science
and what serious climate scientists are saying.