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.Thank you, discrediting me puts me in good company with the many climate scientists you have discredited. It tells me that I am on the right track. The common factor all these discredited scientists have in common is that they make predictions that come true. Right now, your scientists will only make new predictions that are 84 years away. And you will not make any predictions at all. Did you not say that Climate Science is done? All the science that needs to be done has been done? All you have is a hundred billion dollars of reports that can’t separate nature from man-made. The most serious climate scientist today is Dr. Judith Curry. But wait, you have discredited her, over and over again. Let me ask you a question. Does the earth have a thermostat? If it does then the CO2 heat increases will be controlled by the thermostat. And the hockey stick theory is no good. If the earth does not have a thermostat. Then should we not be in a run-a-way greenhouse effect? It was after all predicted by your scientists that if we did not stop the CO2 levels from reaching 400 then we would go into a run-a-way heating affect. Simple question. That requires a simple answer. We don’t need data dumps that no one has the time or wants to look at because they really have nothing to do with the question at hand.
Does the earth have a thermostat?It's an idiotic question the way you ask it. It only underscores your base cluelessness when it come to Earth's fundamental processes. Your questions are all about posturing, and so far, never about informing with straight facts and references for checking those alleged facts. As I consistently do. :cheese: (you can't do algebra until you've first figured out math.) You think the words in your mind are reality, when they are only your playground. You can't even acknowledge the profound changes this past half century has brought to weather patterns and Earth systems. Or the increasing tempo and intensity of destructive weather events that are unfolding across our planet. Some day you may wake from your dream.
Thank you, discrediting me puts me in good company with the many climate scientists you have discredited. It tells me that I am on the right track.Is that something like taking pride in being called a racist? Now you proudly proclaim you are with the slanders and misinformers? On the side of "confirmation bias" and of science by rhetoric and slander, grotesque cherry picking and avoidance along with an amoral attitudes towards honesty. Here's a tip for the trouble,
https://confrontingsciencecontrarians.blogspot.com/p/hall-of-shame.html When it comes to Serious Constructive Debates - that is, dialogues that respect the confines of truth and honestly representing others and the evidence - these showmen are nowhere to be found. I’m talking about intellectual cowards such as Anthony Watts; Dr. Dick Lindzen; Dr. Roy Spencer; Pascal Bruckner; “Lord"Christopher Monckton; Stephen McIntyre; Jim Steele and his Landscapes and Cycles fraud; Heartland’s James Taylor; Marc Morano; Dan Pangburn; Martin Hertzberg; David Rose; Cornwall Alliance’s Beisner; Nasif Nahle; Pete Ridley; John O’Sullivan; Piers Corbyn; Willie Soon; H. Sterling Burnett; 1000frolly; Poptech; Scottish Sceptic; Judith Curry; Donna Laframboise; Henrik Svensmark; Dave(NC20) Burton; Investors Business Daily.;-P
Did you not say that Climate Science is done? All the science that needs to be done has been done?MikeYoheis utterly dependent on misrepresent everything.
Then CC says that we know what doubling of CO2 will do. Don’t be fooled by the dancing.Here Mike is saying we don't understand the physics of CO2. That's nonsense. co2 radiative physics and what GHGs do to our atmosphere is exquisitely understood. Earth geophysics are also well understood (80-90sh %) - if not with the certainty that the radiative physics is understood. Of course Earth is a very complex system, so there is always more to learn. But we are down to learning details - we know with absolute certainty the trajectory we have set Earth on - The only uncertainties are speed and rate, and of course folds within folds of harmonic complexities, so we can be damned sure the changes will be more dramatic with plenty of little surprises in store - but none of that detracts from fact of the trajectory and it's destructive significant to all we hold near and dear and depend for our survival. We can be sure changes will be more extreme than the eternally optimistic blinkered humans' assume. But, that comes from having zero appreciation for Earth's complexity, couples with the Hollyworld fed economic faith that life is as shallow as a cartoon, and can be ignored at will, with no consequences. Silly, stupid, willfully blind people.
Sea levels are rising at triple the pace since 1990, find scientists Meltwater from the vast ice sheets on Greenland and Antarctica is increasing the rate Chris Mooney Tuesday 23 May 2017 https://www.independent.co.uk/environment/sea-levels-rising-triple-1990-melting-ice-caps-climate-change-greenhouse-gas-global-warming-a7750926.html
US scientists raise bar for sea level by 2100 January 24, 2017 by Kerry Sheridan https://phys.org/news/2017-01-scientists-bar-sea.html The report by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) set the "extreme" scenario of global average sea level rise by 2100 to 8.2 feet (2.5 meters), up half a meter from the last estimate issued in 2012. "We raised the upper limit of our scenarios," lead author William Sweet told AFP. "It is possible. It has a very low probability. But we can't discount it entirely." The figures are among the highest ever issued by the US government, and take into account new scientific studies on the disappearing ice cover in Greenland and Antarctica. "Recent (scientific) results regarding Antarctic ice sheet instability indicate that such outcomes may be more likely than previously thought," said the report, released on January 19. It also revised the lower end of the anticipated range, saying nearly one foot (0.3 meters) is expected by 2100, up from four inches (0.1 meters) previously. This put the NOAA report closer in line with the 2013 United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which said global sea levels would likely rise from one to three feet by the end of the century. The US space agency NASA has also warned that significant sea level rise is "unavoidable," given mankind's continued burning of fossil fuels like oil and gas that contribute to warming the planet. In 2015, NASA said the Earth is likely locked in to at least three feet of sea level rise, and probably more. ...~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
For plant life, the current amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is near starvation levels.Here's an example of the absolutely childish delusions Mike parrots. Notice he's brought no information into the discussion. Such as what kind of study is it based on? What criterial are used to determine plant "starvation level," and so on. Nothing, just a smug self-certain declaration that everyone is supposed to buy into - or at least be confused by... So Mr. Yohe: Please explain what "plant co2 starvation levels" are all about? How do you know? (this is the part where you're supposed to offer educational resources and not yet more layers of smug ignorance based assumptions and declarations.)
The ideal range for maximum plant growth is 1500 ppm. Plants will may exhibit signs of CO2 toxicity including reduced seed yields in extremely high CO2 concentrations of 10,000 to 25,000 ppm. Plants start dying at 180 ppm.
(this is the part where you're supposed to offer educational resources and not yet more layers of smug ignorance based assumptions and declarations.)
Of course, all of this ignores the so f’n what question.
What in the world do plant CO2 requirements have to do with atmospheric CO2 regulating our planet’s insulation level,
and, in turn our Earth’s heat budget, (which in turn, profoundly impacts the type of biosphere that exists on Earth during any given epoch.)???
Can’t get past the spam on posting replies, sorry.
(this is the part where you're supposed to offer educational resources and not yet more layers of smug ignorance based assumptions and declarations.)
Can't get past the spam on posting replies, sorry.And the dog ate my homework :roll: :lol: :lol: :lol: Here's a hint to help you out of the corner you've painted yourself into. Titles and authors can be googled, URLs can be de-weaponized by removing periods, perhaps adding a judicious space. Trust us to figure it out. :cheese:
Lausten point out that my posts are hard to follow because this debate has been going on for years and for anyone just now reading the debate finds that a lot of information has been left out because it was talked about in different posting.
Let me state that so much money has been spent by the alarmists who have been funded by the taxpayer’s money that the scales are unbalanced for any real scientific debate using reports. Hell, you can find reports that will state any point on either side of the issue.
What we must do is look at performance. And every prediction the alarmists have made, has failed. We can also follow the consensus of the IPCC somewhat to get an idea where the science is heading and what the problems are.
The strong effect of cloud processes on climate model sensitivities to greenhouse gases was emphasized further through a now-classic set of General Circulation Model (GCM) experiments, carried out by Senior and Mitchell (1993). They produced global average surface temperature changes (due to doubled atmospheric CO2 concentration) ranging from 1.9°C to 5.4°C, simply by altering the way that cloud radiative properties were treated in the model. It is somewhat unsettling that the results of a complex climate model can be so drastically altered by substituting one reasonable cloud parametrization for another, thereby approximately replicating the overall inter-model range of sensitivities. Other GCM groups have also consistently obtained widely varying results by trying other techniques of incorporating cloud microphysical processes and their radiative interactions (e.g., Roeckner et al., 1987; Le Treut and Li, 1991), which differed from the approach of Senior and Mitchell (1993) through the treatment of partial cloudiness or mixed-phase properties. The model intercomparisons presented in the TAR showed no clear resolution of this unsatisfactory situation.
That’s why, in 1997, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) described clouds as “the largest source of uncertainty” in predictions of climate change. To reduce this uncertainty and improve predictions of climate change/global warming, scientists are now working to better understand the relationships between clouds and climate.
Clouds, which cover about 60% of the Earth’s surface, are responsible for up to two-thirds of the planetary albedo, which is about 30%. An albedo decrease of only 1%, bringing the Earth’s albedo from 30% to 29%, would cause an increase in the black-body radiative equilibrium temperature of about 1°C, a highly significant value, roughly equivalent to the direct radiative effect of a doubling of the atmospheric CO2 concentration. 1.5.2 Model Clouds and Climate Sensitivity IPCC.
One has to ask. Are the climate change charts and graphs really any good unless they work in conjunction with the clouds?
I took out the bold, italics and some of the spacing and resubmitted. The point to look at is if the cloud readings are off just a little then the effect of the CO2 concentration reading are way off.
Let me state that so much money has been spent by the alarmists who have been funded by the taxpayer’s money that the scales are unbalanced for any real scientific debate using reports. Hell, you can find reports that will state any point on either side of the issue.Right off the bat you present your extreme and cynical theatrical paranoid take on things. "Alarmists" what the hell is that, to you? Can you give a clarifying description? { https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O133ppiVnWY ever hear of Professor Barlett? } I am alarmed at the transitions I've been observing, because I understand their underlying drivers, and I appreciate how much these drivers will taking the natural patterns that our entire biosphere depends, into a realm unexperienced in many millions of year. Nothing less than a total reset of our biosphere is what we have initiated with such arrogant disregard. what mike refuses to face is We are the evolutionary product of a certain climate/biosphere regime, with its fluctuations that have remained relatedly predictable within very livable parameters for millions of years*, look at the charts. - and MK hasn't have a clue what I'm talking about. Nope. Rather than try to learn from all the resources I've shared with him, he comes back with Romper Room gambit. It's all a leftie plot by greedy scientists sucking taxes out of hard working people like you. That's how it is in your world, ehh :smirk: MikeYohe, do you ever listen to real climate scientists' talks/lectures and doing Q/As on YouTube or other venues ? I ask because it's like all you share is regurgitated GOP misinformation, and hostility-fomenting, as you inject all your contrived sinister spin into every sentence. You seem clueless regarding the real individuals doing this scientific work, or their pay grades!!! You and the entire alt-right machine is utterly dependent on demonizing, delegitimize every opponent with contrived distraction, rather than accepting their humanity and dealing with the issues and facts presented. It's disgusting, and oh so counter-productive, suicidal even. (what's the word for self-cannibalizing?) No appreciation for or realistic understanding of how scientists are driven by an inner need for learning and solving questions and puzzles and striving to understand the world around ourselves, during our short allotted time on this stage. Mike, everyone knows that the greedy brainaniacs, quickly move into finance, investment, the law and other such avenues, the one's left over for Earth Sciences are driven by an inner desire for understanding that's stronger than the need for ever more material riches. They can't conceive that many of us are quite content with comfortable modest lives, I've got time to experience life, to observe and think and be part of a community, I find all that exceedingly cool. Little minds, can't conceive of anything other than being driven by greed. Being driven by a love for learning and adventures, does not seem to register. Know what doesn't register with me, why someone would want a huge house, nothing but headaches and more expenses every time they turn around. That part doesn't bother me near as much is the viciousness, dishonesty that seems GOP/tea party/alt-right et al's only way of dealing with issues and 'opponents'. That's scary as Lord of the Flies and its here and now. I notice all your papers are from last century, this will be interesting. Yes okay, it's true, the fundamental atmospheric studies, I keep trying to share with you, go all the way back to 50/70s, but that was fundamental physical discovery and the physics has not changed. Ah, yes, the clouds - I notice you've ignored the various videos I've tried sharing on that topic. Clouds aren't near the wild card you make them out to be, besides they certainly do nothing to change our understanding of other much bigger issues, the kind, your kind must ignore. Such as our reflective polar ice cap becoming a liquid solar collector plate, or that permafrost melting will contribute yet more CO2 and CH4, both more than capable of swamping the small uncertainty regarding clouds. {*And the rare exceptions underscoring how disruptive bad climate can be for people}
Here’s some serious perspective on climate models.
Why trust climate models? It’s a matter of simple science How climate scientists test, test again, and use their simulation tools. by Scott K. Johnson - Sept 5 2013 - ARS TECHNICA.COM http://arstechnica.com/science/2013/09/why-trust-climate-models-its-a-matter-of-simple-science/ It starts out: ¶1 " Talk to someone who rejects the conclusions of climate science and you’ll likely hear some variation of the following: “That’s all based on models, and you can make a model say anything you want." Often, they'll suggest the models don't even have a solid foundation of data to work with—garbage in, garbage out, as the old programming adage goes. But how many of us (anywhere on the opinion spectrum) really know enough about what goes into a climate model to judge what comes out? ¶2 Climate models are used to generate projections showing the consequences of various courses of action, so they are relevant to discussions about public policy. Of course, being relevant to public policy also makes a thing vulnerable to the indiscriminate cannons on the foul battlefield of politics. ¶3 Skepticism is certainly not an unreasonable response when first exposed to the concept of a climate model. But skepticism means examining the evidence before making up one’s mind. If anyone has scrutinized the workings of climate models, it’s climate scientists—and they are confident that, just as in other fields, their models are useful scientific tools." It’s a model, just not the fierce kind (¶4-¶13) {Touches on equations, comparing them with earth observations, explaining how various components of the climate present challenge and how dealing with those challenges helps explore the complexities of climate. Andrew Weaver, a researcher at the University of Victoria, described the model evaluation process in three general phases.} Coding the climate (¶14-¶22) {Get's into questions of verification and validation of climate models, and Steve Easterbrook's review of climate modeling groups and what he found.} Firing up the wayback machine (¶23-26) {Looking at the work of Bette Otto-Bliesner at the National Center for Atmospheric Research on their Community Earth System Model, researching past climate. Taking model simulations one step further by mimicking the creation of proxy records such as ocean sediments and comparing that with actual depositions.} Setting the bar (¶27-¶30) {Then, on to Gavin Schmidt a climate researcher at the NASA Goddard Institue for Space Studies, who evaluates climate models and studies issues with comparisons between models and observations, "Improving the model means better simulating physical processes"} Why so cirrus? (¶31-¶35) {Next up is Tony Del Genio, also from at the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies who studies complex cloud modeling. Looking for weakness, and improving next-generation versions: "We then run the model with the new process in it and we look for two things: whether the process as we have portrayed it behaves the way it does in the real world and whether or not it makes some aspect of the model's climate more realistic. We do this by comparison to observations, either field experiment, satellite, or surface remote sensing observations, or by comparing to fine-scale models that simulate individual cloud systems." } Ice, on the rocks (¶36-¶41) {Finishing with Richard Alley the well know Penn State glaciologist who's an expert on ice cores and modeling ancient climate discussing his work.} Community service (¶42-¶47) {Comparing climate models with each other, the “model intercomparison projects," including ones focused on atmospheric models, paleoclimate simulations, or geoengineering research. Explains what the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP) is about.} No crystal ball—but no magic 8 ball, either (¶48-¶53) … ¶49 "But climate scientists know models are just scientific tools—nothing more. In studying the practices of climate modeling groups, Steve Easterbrook saw this firsthand. g he said. "The models are perfectly suited for this. They get the basic physical processes right but often throw up surprises in the complex interactions between different parts of the Earth system. It is in these areas where the scientific knowledge is weakest. So the models help guide the scientific process." … Check out the full article at: http://arstechnica.com/science/2013/09/why-trust-climate-models-its-a-matter-of-simple-science/
That's why, in 1997, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) described clouds as ...Why not reference the 2013 IPCC report, take a look at all they've learned. Yes, clouds remain the largest single source of uncertainty, but the uncertainty is about some increase or more increase. In either case it's no showstopper. Mike's fraud is using a well studied and parameterized uncertainty as an excuse to ignore all that we do know for certain.
IPCC 2013 7.2.2.2 Global Models with Explicit Clouds Since AR4, increasing computer power has led to three types of devel- opments in global atmospheric models. First, models have been run with resolution that is higher than in the past, but not suf ciently high that cumulus clouds can be resolved explicitly. Second, models have been run with resolution high enough to resolve (or ‘permit’) large individual cumulus clouds over the entire globe. In a third approach, the parameterizations of global models have been replaced by embedded CRMs. The first approach is assessed in Chapter 9. The other two approaches are discussed below. page 583 There's much more information than there was in the 1997 version. https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_Chapter07_FINAL.pdf
34C3 - On the Prospects and Challenges of Weather and Climate Modeling at Convection-Resolving Resolution https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tllv2OpxmaY