If you didn't know Mike's history, this thread would be hard to follow. If you started at the end, you might be compelled to go back over the thread and try to find evidence for the accusations he makes, that CC doesn't give data, that CC is unwilling to engage in debate, that clouds are the issue, that money is the issue. But you'd never find any of that. You would find him saying that he has given evidence, but not the actual evidence.Recap. No secrets. Really quite simple. It is all about weather. We need to understand how weather works. To do this we need to use computer models. This was all agreed upon back in 1988 with the formation of the IPCC. Are the computer models working? You could say they are in the testing stage. We are getting some data in certain areas and still five years away in other areas. Today we agree that all heat basically comes from the sun. The earth takes in some of the heat and space takes some of the heat from earth. The earth seems to have a thermostat that controls how much heat stays and leaves earth. We have also learned that everything seems to operate in cycles. Today we are trying to figure out what is the control knob on the thermostat. The hurricanes were predicted by the scientists. And they predicted there was gonging to be a lot of high level hurricanes. Hurricanes and other storms act as a natural form of "carbon capture". They also have proved that hurricanes follow a cycle. We should expect high level hurricanes for the next twelve years. Now I could fill a couple of pages of links as to who said what. Then CC could fill fifty pages contradicting the scientists. You understand the circle. What we really need is the government TV debate to go forward. By having such a debate, we would clear up a lot of misconceptions. And just maybe realize if we are in a hurricane cycle that we need to take steps that work with the weather. You better believe that the re-insurance companies are two steps ahead of the public on the hurricane issues. By following the actions of the re-insurance pools, one can see where the science is heading. But trying to post those actions is impossible for a guy with very limited skills like me. Companies and governments count on universities and government departments for operational weather data for operational risks. There is also one private company providing forecast products for cutting-edge research and weather predictions. That company is Climate Forecast Applications Network (CFAN) who’s president and co-founder is Dr. Curry. Funding for Dr. Curry includes the NSF, NASA, NOAA, DOD and the DOE. In the private sector and non-governmental organizations include power companies, reinsurance companies, weather service providers, NGO’s and development banks. Contracts include hurricane activity and landfall impacts. Why would I not want to follow and listen to Dr. Curry? And one should ask why are the alarmist against anything that Dr. Curry says? As far as debating. One or two thoughts or ideas is all I can handle at one time. When someone posts a dozen issues and I answer them all. The pages are too long and the main subject matter gets sidetracked in the muddle. As TromboneAndrew said in post #99 to re-state your opponent’s position. I am going to move in that direction. The problem I am having is the opponent posts articles and videos that I find hard to nail down in one paragraph and impossible to zero in just one thought.
And degrades people like Dr. Moon and Dr. CurryDegrade, that's your term. I listed big problems with their presentations, which consists of an awful lot of misrepresentations. I've done my best to explain in a constructive manner that invites constructive responses - I've invited you to correct any errors you think I've made, with substantive information not the opinionated handwaving you do so well. I notice you have not been able to offer anything substantive in defense of Curry's character or competence
Judith Curry illustrates how to ask a stupid question that receives an equally stupid response! Harvey’s global warming connection http://www.centerforinquiry.net/forums/viewthread/19547/#235829
Dr. Curry is referring to “earth’s natural thermostat" -it’s a misleading mechanistic term that does nothing to help understand the dynamic processes involved. Another strike against Curry’s competence.
Dr. Curry has been talking about how the hurricane cycles are matching some of the sun’s cycles. Guess what, they were right. Is that of any value to you?About what? Making a solar hurricane connection? Are you f/n serious? Talk about voodoo. Where are her numbers published?
Let’s you back it up with the real numbers.The real numbers are for experts who understand such complexities, we are stuck at the level of having to grasp the basic fundamentals and to accept the considered learned opinions of the community of experts who’ve spent their entire lives studying these things.
No, you decide to bad mouth them without even understanding what has taken place.Supply a specific example of what you are talking about. Bet you can’t. Critiquing her with specific complaints is another matter - and if you don't like that you simply need to come to the table with some facts rather than the hand waving you are so good at.
Then you try and connect the climate change as the driving force of hurricanes that does nothing but confuse the public.Another example of misrepresenting what I say. Even when I go out of my way to clarify, one more time:
* Global warming is definitely directly related to those hot Gulf of Mexico waters that fed an explosive intensification of a tropical storm. * Global warming is definitely directly related to the fact that the atmosphere is holding more moisture and making it available for storm systems such as Harvey to collect and dump, while adding energy to the system. * Global warming is definitely directly related to the fact that our Jet Stream has gotten weirder and was the cause of Harvey stalling and reversing it’s northward movement. * Global warming is definitely directly related to the fact that sea level is rising and thus adding substantially to damaging storm surges. * Global warming is definitely directly related to the "Brown Ocean Effect" that continued feeding moisture and energy into Harvey and certain other hurricanes after making land fall.What is confusing about that, please explain. _____________________________________________ Incidentally, for the record, “climate change" is a result and tells us nothing. Think physics, it’s “Global Warming" that is driving all these transitions. Increasing heat, energy and atmospheric moisture is what’s changing our climate, along with the weather patterns that spawn out of this energized weather engine. Compounding interest working in the natural world. Simple physics. Mike Yohe wants us to ignore that we know for certain that greenhouse gases are Earth’s atmospheric insulating medium and exactly by how much, have for nearly a half century - think air to air heat seeking missiles, etc. We know for certain that humanity has been injecting increasingly gargantuan quantities of greenhouse gases (read insulation) into our atmosphere. Think about it, in a year we burn up the amount of hydrocarbons it took a million years to accumulate, and now we’re returning the CO2 back into our atmosphere.
iyw
Are you a scientist? How do you know there is problems with her presentations? Or any misrepresentations? What you have shown me so far is that you are the one who takes her data and twists it to your goals.Then do it. In a constructive manner quote an example of what I said and correct my specific mistake as you perceive it. Instead you always come at this with arm waving and drama.
Why don’t you admit it, when you all were claiming a 20-foot sea level rise by 2020 that you hated her because she disagreed. Better do a rain dance, you need 20 more feet to make your goal, and 2020 is getting closer.What the hell is all this about? “you all" “you hated her" “20 feet by 2020" “rain dance" I have no idea who you are mistaking me with. Can you clarify? Better yet can we discuss the actual geophysics.
I have offered several times now to clear up the debate by listing all the agreements and disagreements that we both have with Global Warming and Climate Change.No you’ve never simply taken quotes from me and presented facts about the specific scientific items we happen to be trying to discuss. It’s always this sort of long winded defensive passive aggressive slap fighting.
Then go over them one at a time from a list. There is no way a debate can work with data dumps or throwing five or six issues into one posting along with a bunch of name calling.I don’t see no list. Why not try it now. Bullet point style, short, sharp like.
What I see Dr. Curry doing is helping move the computer models forward. You got your group that works with consensual science. If 8 out of 10 scientists agree that the sea level will rise twenty feet in twenty years.No, I don’t want to play what if fantasies. If you got something to say about 20 feet by 2020, then come out with it lad. Give us something solid to work with here. Oh and this Curry Computer Model stuff, please what papers has she published lately and what model is she working with?
Then to you it is written in stone.Well yeah, you know, when it comes to physics like fire under a kettle produces hot, then boiling water and steam, or that fluids ebb and flow, or that heat seeks cooler regions, you know geophysical stuff like that. Yeah, I’m a bit of written in stone kinda of guy. Trust me I’ve learned punching stone hurts no matter how much mind over matter I manage to muster.
Dr. Curry comes along and say, you may be scientists, but not climate scientists and your facts are wrong because you refuse to look at all the subjects that are contributors to the weather. Nobody wants their government money shut off, so they attack Dr. Curry.What you mean like the sun’s influence over hurricane seasons and formation? Oh please, don’t tell me that’s a tough one for you to figure out?
As an alarmist, you promote consensual science and trash Dr. Curry. Dr. Curry by questioning all the contributors to weather has opened debates that have moved money and opened doors wider for the scientists. The solar is a good example. Right now, it is clouds. The issue of clouds was put to bed a long time ago. Today there is a lot of science and money being spent on understanding clouds. And it is now realized this work needs to be done if the computer models are going to work correctly.No I question someone who lies about what serious scientists are actually saying. I have also taken the time to become familiar with what real scientists and experts, as opposed to you and me, have to say about her work. I’ve striven to organize it in a rational and intelligible way, have at it: The Judith Curry Collection - May 8, 2014 http://whatsupwiththatwatts.blogspot.com/2014/05/the-judith-curry-collection.html
And degrades people like Dr. Moon and Dr. CurryDegrade, that's your term. I listed big problems with their presentations, which consists of an awful lot of misrepresentations. I've done my best to explain in a constructive manner that invites constructive responses - I've invited you to correct any errors you think I've made, with substantive information not the opinionated handwaving you do so well. I notice you have not been able to offer anything substantive in defense of Curry's character or competence Really, do I need to remind you of your May 8, 2014 open letter to Dr. Curry where you told her how science really works and that the climate system is a “settled science". And that she encourages people to ignore the fundamentals of science. Books to Dr. Curry’s credit are, Thermodynamics of Atmospheres and Oceans and Encyclopedia of Atmospheric Sciences. Plus, she has published over 130 scientific peer reviewed papers. Was given the Henry G. Houghton Award from the American Meteorological Society for achievements in the field of physical meteorology, including atmospheric chemistry.
Really, do I need to remind you of your May 8, 2014 open letter to Dr. Curry where you told her how science really works and that the climate system is a “settled science". And that she encourages people to ignore the fundamentals of science.Yes, you really do need to remind me and onlookers of what I wrote. Then you can list your complaint. Then we can discuss it. Stop throwing your appeal to authority at me. No one questions Judith Curry scientific beginnings, it's her later, and current stage that has many wondering . . . So let's stick to the subject not the messengers. What was it that I wrote that you take issue with? Lets discuss it fair and square, this slap fighting is so empty.
Or if you don’t want to bother with that, how about arguing against any of this. Have at it.
* Global warming is definitely directly related to those hot Gulf of Mexico waters that fed an explosive intensification of a tropical storm. * Global warming is definitely directly related to the fact that the atmosphere is holding more moisture and making it available for storm systems such as Harvey to collect and dump, while adding energy to the system. * Global warming is definitely directly related to the fact that our Jet Stream has gotten weirder and was the cause of Harvey stalling and reversing it’s northward movement. * Global warming is definitely directly related to the fact that sea level is rising and thus adding substantially to damaging storm surges. * Global warming is definitely directly related to the "Brown Ocean Effect" that continued feeding moisture and energy into Harvey and certain other hurricanes after making land fall._____________________________________________ Incidentally, for the record, “climate change" is a result and tells us nothing. Think physics, it’s “Global Warming" that is driving all these transitions. Increasing heat, energy and atmospheric moisture is what’s changing our climate, along with the heat circulating weather patterns that spawn out of this energized weather engine. Compounding interest working in the natural world. Simple physics. What is confusing about that, please explain.
This is exactly where science research is at today. The key that is being looked for is the control knob for “earth’s natural thermostat". What’s wrong with keeping it simple and to the point?Dr. Curry is referring to “earth’s natural thermostat" -it’s a misleading mechanistic term that does nothing to help understand the dynamic processes involved. Another strike against Curry’s competence.
Another example of misrepresenting what I say. Even when I go out of my way to clarify, one more time:Global warming is the natural cycle the earth is rotating in. We have been in Global Warming for the last 90,000 years. Global warming also includes man-made heat under the sub-category called “Climate Change". We have reach the peak of the earth’s rotating cycle and are now heading into Global Cooling for the next 10,000 years. It takes 90,000 years to warm the earth and only 10,000 years to cool the earth. The Ice Cores shows these 100,000 years cycles for the last 800,000 years. Basically, Global Warming includes everything. Therefore, Global Warming is definitely directly related to everything. So, what is your point? Can you name one thing that Global Warming is not related to? If climate change was only a result, then we would not need the computer models. Climate change is a reaction to compounds and elements that are involved with weather because of mankind. Compounds and elements are measurable and moveable. The whole climate change debate involved in Global Warming is about which compounds and elements are responsible for how much of the climate change. The general consensus is the compound CO2 needs to be reduced by X amount to slow Global Warming. Example, change the temperature in your house. You have created climate change. It has nothing to do with the sun or earth's rotation, therefore it is not the result of Global Warming or Cooling. A billion homes being heated on earth will create heat, so it can affect Global Warming. That is why climate change is a sub-category of global warming. The heat in your house is measurable, that is why the bill is base on compounds used and not results.* Global warming is definitely directly related to those hot Gulf of Mexico waters that fed an explosive intensification of a tropical storm. * Global warming is definitely directly related to the fact that the atmosphere is holding more moisture and making it available for storm systems such as Harvey to collect and dump, while adding energy to the system. * Global warming is definitely directly related to the fact that our Jet Stream has gotten weirder and was the cause of Harvey stalling and reversing it’s northward movement. * Global warming is definitely directly related to the fact that sea level is rising and thus adding substantially to damaging storm surges. * Global warming is definitely directly related to the "Brown Ocean Effect" that continued feeding moisture and energy into Harvey and certain other hurricanes after making land fall.What is confusing about that, please explain. _____________________________________________ Incidentally, for the record, “climate change" is a result and tells us nothing. Think physics, it’s “Global Warming" that is driving all these transitions. Increasing heat, energy and atmospheric moisture is what’s changing our climate, along with the weather patterns that spawn out of this energized weather engine. Compounding interest working in the natural world. Simple physics. Mike Yohe wants us to ignore that we know for certain that greenhouse gases are Earth’s atmospheric insulating medium and exactly by how much, have for nearly a half century - think air to air heat seeking missiles, etc. We know for certain that humanity has been injecting increasingly gargantuan quantities of greenhouse gases (read insulation) into our atmosphere. Think about it, in a year we burn up the amount of hydrocarbons it took a million years to accumulate, and now we’re returning the CO2 back into our atmosphere.
You are lost in space buddy - spouting gibberish without even recognizing how disconnected from reality it is.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning–Kruger_effect In the field of psychology, the Dunning–Kruger effect is a cognitive bias wherein persons of low ability suffer from illusory superiority, mistakenly assessing their cognitive ability as greater than it is. The cognitive bias of illusory superiority derives from the metacognitive inability of low-ability persons to recognize their own ineptitude. Without the self-awareness of metacognition, low-ability people cannot objectively evaluate their actual competence or incompetence.[1]Worst you couldn't care less and you'll proudly never ever let anyone teach you anything.
ps Mike, rather than such stupid arm waving that scrambles up so many concepts there’s nothing to be done with the mud pie.
Why not be specific. Narrow down your profundity to bite sized chunks we can look at them rationally.
Really, do I need to remind you of your May 8, 2014 open letter to Dr. Curry where you told her how science really works and that the climate system is a “settled science". And that she encourages people to ignore the fundamentals of science.Yes, you really do need to remind me and onlookers of what I wrote. Then you can list your complaint. Then we can discuss it. Stop throwing your appeal to authority at me. No one questions Judith Curry scientific beginnings, it's her later, and current stage that has many wondering . . . So let's stick to the subject not the messengers. What was it that I wrote that you take issue with? Lets discuss it fair and square, this slap fighting is so empty.
A billion homes being heated on earth will create heat, so it can affect Global Warming. That is why climate change is a sub-category of global warming. The heat in your house is measurable, that is why the bill is base on compounds used and not results.So, when my father said, "close the door, you're going to heat up the entire outdoors", he was right!
A billion homes being heated on earth will create heat, so it can affect Global Warming. That is why climate change is a sub-category of global warming. The heat in your house is measurable, that is why the bill is base on compounds used and not results.So, when my father said, "close the door, you're going to heat up the entire outdoors", he was right! Yea, your dad was right. According to the CO2 concept the campfires of Jesus may be affecting the earth’s heating. Traces of different compounds can stay in the atmosphere for periods of thousands of years. But that is nit-picking. And of no substantial value that affects global warming to any measurable degree. A billion campfires burning for one-hundred years is of substantial value and would be measurable. Kind of like alcohol, a little bit doesn’t hurt because your body can handle it, a lot of alcohol for long periods can be bad for you.
Talking about the term “Global Warming" is confusing because of how the public has been fed the science relating to “Global Warming". Twenty years ago, just about everything was under Global Warming. Then about six years back, the reports from the White House and the IPCC seemed at first to have replaced the term “Global Warming" with the term “Climate Change". It was confusing at first to say the least. The science was trying to separate Mother Nature from Man-Made (anthropogenic climate change) weather. The real term is “anthropogenic climate change", but that is a mouth full and people end up using “anthropogenic" or “climate change".
Today we have another problem with the term “climate change". And that is, a hard rain or a hard wind is now blamed on climate change. Therefore, the scientists have started using the term “extreme weather" to try and help the public understand the science.
An example. “* Global warming is definitely directly related to the fact that sea level is rising and thus adding substantially to damaging storm surges." This is really talking about extreme weather. If mankind was not on earth global warming would still be taking place. The fact that mankind is on earth and contributing to the weather, yes, mankind will have some effects. How much is what is in question today. The hurricanes have brought these issues to the center of the public radar. Some scientists say what climate change is contributing to the hurricanes is not even measurable. What is agreed upon is that climate change accelerates the natural cycles.
Point being that people today are still adjusting to the weather terms use by the scientists. So, if the way the posts use the terms seem confusing. It is because they are. They should clear up over time.
A billion homes being heated on earth will create heat, so it can affect Global Warming. That is why climate change is a sub-category of global warming. The heat in your house is measurable, that is why the bill is base on compounds used and not results.So, when my father said, "close the door, you're going to heat up the entire outdoors", he was right! Yea, your dad was right. According to the CO2 concept the campfires of Jesus may be affecting the earth’s heating. Traces of different compounds can stay in the atmosphere for periods of thousands of years. But that is nit-picking. And of no substantial value that affects global warming to any measurable degree. A billion campfires burning for one-hundred years is of substantial value and would be measurable. Kind of like alcohol, a little bit doesn’t hurt because your body can handle it, a lot of alcohol for long periods can be bad for you. No, he really wasn't. The heat in our house just dissipated. He wasn't referring to the CO2 generated at the coal plant. I'm not sure you even know the difference.
You are lost in space buddy - spouting gibberish without even recognizing how disconnected from reality it is.You couldn’t teach Dr. Curry science, so now you are trying to teach me?https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning–Kruger_effect In the field of psychology, the Dunning–Kruger effect is a cognitive bias wherein persons of low ability suffer from illusory superiority, mistakenly assessing their cognitive ability as greater than it is. The cognitive bias of illusory superiority derives from the metacognitive inability of low-ability persons to recognize their own ineptitude. Without the self-awareness of metacognition, low-ability people cannot objectively evaluate their actual competence or incompetence.[1]Worst you couldn't care less and you'll proudly never ever let anyone teach you anything.
A billion homes being heated on earth will create heat, so it can affect Global Warming. That is why climate change is a sub-category of global warming. The heat in your house is measurable, that is why the bill is base on compounds used and not results.So, when my father said, "close the door, you're going to heat up the entire outdoors", he was right! Yea, your dad was right. According to the CO2 concept the campfires of Jesus may be affecting the earth’s heating. Traces of different compounds can stay in the atmosphere for periods of thousands of years. But that is nit-picking. And of no substantial value that affects global warming to any measurable degree. A billion campfires burning for one-hundred years is of substantial value and would be measurable. Kind of like alcohol, a little bit doesn’t hurt because your body can handle it, a lot of alcohol for long periods can be bad for you. No, he really wasn't. The heat in our house just dissipated. He wasn't referring to the CO2 generated at the coal plant. I'm not sure you even know the difference. Are you telling me that you took your dad literally and not in the intended spirit all the rest of us understood when our dads said the same thing. They did not care about CO2 or the climate. They were teaching us to conserve and not waste. I was just pointing out the science of every action has a reaction. Newton’s third law. Sorry to confuse. update, meant to say didn't and not did. That happen when in a hurry.
ps Mike, rather than such stupid arm waving that scrambles up so many concepts there's nothing to be done with the mud pie. Why not be specific. Narrow down your profundity to bite sized chunks we can look at them rationally.I'm in agreement if there is any reciprocity in what you say.Really, do I need to remind you of your May 8, 2014 open letter to Dr. Curry where you told her how science really works and that the climate system is a “settled science". And that she encourages people to ignore the fundamentals of science.Yes, you really do need to remind me and onlookers of what I wrote. Then you can list your complaint. Then we can discuss it. Stop throwing your appeal to authority at me. No one questions Judith Curry scientific beginnings, it's her later, and current stage that has many wondering . . . So let's stick to the subject not the messengers. What was it that I wrote that you take issue with? Lets discuss it fair and square, this slap fighting is so empty.
The most famous scientist in history is Einstein. He changed the world with his views on general relativity. Yet, books have been written about Einstein’s mistakes. All that proves is that if you are not making mistakes then you are probably not doing anything. And yes, Einstein made a lot of mistakes. And we need scientists that are going to get things done with climate change. If a mistake or two is made along the way, we should deal with them and not dwell. Keep moving towards finishing the computer models.
No man!
The Cosmological Constant is where it’s at!
psik
A billion homes being heated on earth will create heat, so it can affect Global Warming. That is why climate change is a sub-category of global warming. The heat in your house is measurable, that is why the bill is base on compounds used and not results.So, when my father said, "close the door, you're going to heat up the entire outdoors", he was right! Yea, your dad was right. According to the CO2 concept the campfires of Jesus may be affecting the earth’s heating. Traces of different compounds can stay in the atmosphere for periods of thousands of years. But that is nit-picking. And of no substantial value that affects global warming to any measurable degree. A billion campfires burning for one-hundred years is of substantial value and would be measurable. Kind of like alcohol, a little bit doesn’t hurt because your body can handle it, a lot of alcohol for long periods can be bad for you. No, he really wasn't. The heat in our house just dissipated. He wasn't referring to the CO2 generated at the coal plant. I'm not sure you even know the difference. Are you telling me that you took your dad literally and not in the intended spirit all the rest of us understood when our dads said the same thing. They did not care about CO2 or the climate. They were teaching us to conserve and not waste. I was just pointing out the science of every action has a reaction. Newton’s third law. Sorry to confuse. update, meant to say didn't and not did. That happen when in a hurry. No. I'm not telling you that. You are the one who said, "Yea, your dad was right." I asked the question. I meant it as sarcasm, but that doesn't really matter, you answered it. You didn't just answer it, you added reasons to your answer. You gave every appearance of taking my question literally, but now you are trying to 'splain to me what I meant. You do this a lot. It's extremely annoying. Hint: any time you are thinking of saying "I was just", don't, just stop, go outside, do something constructive.