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.Now you are using the "some scientist was once wrong" argument. Another one of those annoying things you do. It only matters how they were wrong, why, what data, what changed, what was learned, what new evidence. Those are the questions you need to apply. How famous Einstein was, what he did with his life, how many times he was wrong, what mistakes he made, all that is pretty much meaningless in determining if his theory had merit or still has relevance. And, are you still on about this "finishing the models" thing? What does that even mean? How will you know when they are finished?
You couldn’t teach Dr. Curry science, so now you are trying to teach me?You are lost. I'm not trying to teach Curry anything, I'm pointing out her dishonesty statements. Beyond that we are all teachers and students. You could learn a few things from me, if you had the slightest interest in learning anything. But you're too busy buttressing your delusions to hear anything that's shared with you.
And, are you still on about this "finishing the models" thing? What does that even mean? How will you know when they are finished?As the items that we use that is connected to our weather keeps growing. More datasets are needed. A computer model is really a cluster of computers each working with the same group of datasets. The datasets are update as fast as new data can be put together. Some datasets are updated several times a day and others might take a week and others can take years. The idea setup would require bigger and faster computers working with real time data. Each cluster is required to use its own method and math. The only common denominator is the same datasets are used by all the clusters. The clusters decide what pathway it will use with the datasets to come up with the results. When the results match from two or more clusters, that is a sign that the models are beginning to work. The error tolerances are big to begin with. Once the models are working then the tolerances will be tightened. This year the climate model system, is fifty years old. It is hard to get a count on the number of models. When the money is right, the owners of powerful computer are available for the task. An example, when the IPCC ask to have the tropical intraseasonal variability evaluated, fourteen models became available. Only two of the fourteen’s results matched. This was in 2006, and getting two to match back then was good enough. In 2008 the IPCC ask how clouds and CO2 reacted together. 20 climate modeling groups from around the world responded. The first results were published in 2011. And the final results by the end of 2013. Today in 2017 we are basically redoing these cloud studies. The science and the dataset requirements have gotten that much better in just a few years that old data is unreliable. In 2007 three-time Pulitzer Prize winner Thomas Friedman claimed that Global Warming was mankind’s biggest project ever. And I think we are still in the startup stage.
Somewhat confused and random, but we’ve come to expect that. Nothing in here talks about “finishing” nor does it indicate there is some set of models that could be finished. You talk about beginnings and endings of modeling projects, which is actually what happens. I asked the question because in general, you talk about “the models” and “the science” as if there is some conclusion that could be reached if certain people would just stop misappropriating funds or we’d just listen to this or that voice that you think is right. Some sort of “if you were king of the world” scenario.
As the items that we use that is connected to our weather keeps growing. More datasets are needed.It is stuff like that. Please how were we less dependent on the weather (and not hostage to its vagaries) in the past? Never mind, I misread that this morning, was thinking about the substance (or lack thereof) and the way you have of stringing together a series of non sequiturs crafted around a misunderstanding and then totally ignore information you're offered. "Items that we use that (are) connected to our weather" - What is that? What are you talking about? Why don't you look at this list of models that explain precisely what is happening. There is no need for an exact road map, which is inherently impossible because so many factors influence, moderate and exasperate season by season weather patterns. It's insane to think this intense season isn't all about the global warming hiatus, all you fools were trumpeting on about. The heat went into the oceans and some of it is now circulating back providing juice(hear/moisture) - that is what manmade global warming is all about. , link a few of those studies and stories. Explain why that doesn't give us enough information to stuff this idiot pretending that's it's not global warming driving this crazy season. Sad thing is, they believes this nonsense. The nonsense that comes from sequestering themselves within a hermetically sealed echo-chamber. The Kochs and Murdochs, etc. have spun a fine yarn that demonizes all opponents. Treat all with scorn, contempt, fear and disregard what you don’t want to hear. What’s up with that? Say nothing, make no forecast, more nonsense. Of course, if you make a habit of shielding yourself from the evidence, how can you know. In reality climate scientists have been getting a lot more right than not, take a review:
1959 - “Carbon Dioxide and Climate" https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/carbon-dioxide-and-climate/ An article from our July 1959 issue examined climate change: “A current theory postulates that carbon dioxide regulates the temperature of the earth. This raises an interesting question: How do Man’s activities influence the climate of the future?" … During the past century a new geological force has begun to exert its effect upon the carbon dioxide equilibrium of the earth [see graphs on page 43]. By burning fossil fuels man dumps approximately six billion tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere each year. His agricultural activities release two billion tons more. ... ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 1967 - “Thermal Equilibrium of the Atmosphere with a Given Distribution of Relative Humidity" The First Climate Model Turns 50, And Predicted Global Warming Almost Perfectly Ethan Siegel, March 15, 2017, Forbes.com https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2017/03/15/the-first-climate-model-turns-50-and-predicted-global-warming-almost-perfectly/#1001b776614d Modeling the Earth's climate is one of the most daunting, complicated tasks out there. If only we were more like the Moon, things would be easy. The Moon has no atmosphere, no oceans, no icecaps, no seasons, and no complicated flora and fauna to get in the way of simple radiative physics. No wonder it's so challenging to model! In fact, if you google "climate models wrong", eight of the first ten results showcase failure. But headlines are never as reliable as going to the scientific source itself, and the ultimate source, in this case, is the first accurate climate model ever: by Syukuro Manabe and Richard T. Wetherald. 50 years after their groundbreaking 1967 paper, the science can be robustly evaluated, and they got almost everything exactly right. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 1972 - “Man-made carbon dioxide and the “greenhouse" effect" A remarkably accurate global warming prediction, made in 1972 Dana Nuccitelli, March 19, 2014, UK Guardian https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2014/mar/19/global-warming-accurate-prediction-1972 A paper published in Nature in 1972 accurately predicted the next 30 years of global warming John Stanley (J.S.) Sawyer was a British meteorologist born in 1916. He was elected a Fellow of the Royal Society in 1962, and was also a Fellow of the Meteorological Society and the organization's president from 1963 to 1965. A paper authored by Sawyer and published in the journal Nature in 1972 reveals how much climate scientists knew about the fundamental workings of the global climate over 40 years ago. For example, Sawyer predicted how much average global surface temperatures would warm by the year 2000. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 1975 - “Climate Change: Are We on the Brink of a Pronounced Global Warming?" http://www.fas.harvard.edu/~eps5/writing_assignment/CLIMATE_BKGD/broecker_science_1975.pdf https://thinkprogress.org/wallace-broeckers-remarkable-1975-global-warming-prediction-1976337267b8/ Wallace Broecker was among the first climate scientists to use simple climate models to predict future global temperature changes. Broecker anticipated the actual increase in CO2 very closely, predicting 373 ppm in 2000 and 403 ppm in 2010 (actual values were 369 and 390 ppm, respectively). Broecker also used an equilibrium climate sensitivity of 3°C for doubled CO2; however, his model’s transient climate sensitivity worked out to be 2.4°C for doubled CO2. … ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 1981 - “Climate Impact of Increasing Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide" http://www.c02.gr/pdf/6.pdf https://phys.org/news/2012-04-climate-eerily-accurate.html A paper published in the journal Science in August 1981 made several projections regarding future climate change and anthropogenic global warming based on manmade CO2 emissions. As it turns out, the authors’ projections have proven to be rather accurate — and their future is now our present. … ( http://whatsupwiththatwatts.blogspot.com/2017/08/antti-lipponen-visualize-globalwarming.html )______________________________________________________________ Investor's Business Daily POC#25 - "Yet, ever since Hurricane Katrina in 2004, climate-change advocates have warned that hurricanes and storms would be far worse as a result of global warming." {Yup! It's physics. } http://whatsupwiththatwatts.blogspot.com/2017/09/d-investorscom-fraud-libel-mann.html
Somewhat confused and random, but we've come to expect that. Nothing in here talks about "finishing" nor does it indicate there is some set of models that could be finished. You talk about beginnings and endings of modeling projects, which is actually what happens. I asked the question because in general, you talk about "the models" and "the science" as if there is some conclusion that could be reached if certain people would just stop misappropriating funds or we'd just listen to this or that voice that you think is right. Some sort of "if you were king of the world" scenario.There is a level of assuming that you have some understanding about a project that has been going on most of your adult lifetime and has grown into one of the largest projects on earth. So, don’t hammer me if you don’t understand the frame work. Just ask where you are having problems understanding. I will help if I can. 5% of our workforce are scientists. But half of them are social scientists and most of the others work in fields that are unrelated to global warming. I bet you could educate me about social scientists. I don’t have a clue about why we have so many or for that matter, what good they do. Or if they even do any good at all. Finishing is when the models have matching results. I thought you could connect the dots. A dataset is need for each driving force. The driving forces as talked about in post #93 includes items like earth’s orbit, the moon, the water cycles, carbon based lifeforms, natural disasters, land changes, water vapor, the sun, greenhouse gasses and carbon dioxide just to name a few. The list gets longer each year. A lot of these items only have minor effects on weather. A lot of minor effects adds up and can make a difference. I pointed out and gave example of the CO2 and cloud modeling. Five years to finish the driving force and then I explained that science had advanced and outdated the results three years later and we are back at the drawing board again looking at the issue with different perspectives of how clouds really work. I do some farming; therefore, weather reports are important to me. I can get reliable weather reports ten days in advance. Five days in advance I can find out what time the wind will start blowing and how fast it will be and when it will stop blowing. These reports are coming from some of the same computer models that are used in global warming. They are impressive to say the least. I used to think the problem could be fixed by funding. A lot of people in charge must have thought the same way because we have overfunded the hell out of global warming to a point that the funding is now a problem. Now I feel that we need proper guidance from the people in control of the checkbooks and to only use qualified scientists. I don’t know about your king of the world scenario. I am sitting in the bleachers and watching the game being played out. Just like any fan being an armchair coach at any sporting event. And just like the sports fans that can tell you the names of the players because they are interested in the sport. I am concerned about our earth. The way I see it, global warming is just part of effects of domestication and over population of earth by mankind combined with the natural cycles of the solar rock’s chemistry being effected by sun energy. Back before the OT was even thought of in Babylonia. If you leased a house. Your contract stated that you had to provide your own doors and windows. Wood was hard to come by as domestication grew. Fast forward to the peak of the Roman Empire and Rome started baking for free the bread needed for the city of a million people. This was also because of wood shortages. All the forests had been cut from Rome to the Alps. This was not domestication, this was over population and mismanagement of natural resources.
No man! The Cosmological Constant is where it's at! psikThanks for the lead. Will check it out when I got time. How in the hell did Einstein come up with these ideas with the limited resources he had?
As the items that we use that is connected to our weather keeps growing. More datasets are needed.It is stuff like that. Please how were we less dependent on the weather (and not hostage to its vagaries) in the past? Never mind, I misread that this morning, was thinking about the substance (or lack thereof) and the way you have of stringing together a series of non sequiturs crafted around a misunderstanding and then totally ignore information you're offered. "Items that we use that (are) connected to our weather" - What is that? What are you talking about? CC, it will have to be tomorrow before I can respond. Got a real busy day and will be on the road. Thanks for being patient.
Somewhat confused and random, but we've come to expect that. Nothing in here talks about "finishing" nor does it indicate there is some set of models that could be finished. You talk about beginnings and endings of modeling projects, which is actually what happens. I asked the question because in general, you talk about "the models" and "the science" as if there is some conclusion that could be reached if certain people would just stop misappropriating funds or we'd just listen to this or that voice that you think is right. Some sort of "if you were king of the world" scenario.There is a level of assuming that you have some understanding about a project that has been going on most of your adult lifetime and has grown into one of the largest projects on earth. So, don’t hammer me if you don’t understand the frame work. Just ask where you are having problems understanding. I will help if I can. 5% of our workforce are scientists. But half of them are social scientists and most of the others work in fields that are unrelated to global warming. I bet you could educate me about social scientists. I don’t have a clue about why we have so many or for that matter, what good they do. Or if they even do any good at all. Finishing is when the models have matching results. I thought you could connect the dots. A dataset is need for each driving force. The driving forces as talked about in post #93 includes items like earth’s orbit, the moon, the water cycles, carbon based lifeforms, natural disasters, land changes, water vapor, the sun, greenhouse gasses and carbon dioxide just to name a few. The list gets longer each year. A lot of these items only have minor effects on weather. A lot of minor effects adds up and can make a difference. I pointed out and gave example of the CO2 and cloud modeling. Five years to finish the driving force and then I explained that science had advanced and outdated the results three years later and we are back at the drawing board again looking at the issue with different perspectives of how clouds really work. I do some farming; therefore, weather reports are important to me. I can get reliable weather reports ten days in advance. Five days in advance I can find out what time the wind will start blowing and how fast it will be and when it will stop blowing. These reports are coming from some of the same computer models that are used in global warming. They are impressive to say the least. I used to think the problem could be fixed by funding. A lot of people in charge must have thought the same way because we have overfunded the hell out of global warming to a point that the funding is now a problem. Now I feel that we need proper guidance from the people in control of the checkbooks and to only use qualified scientists. I don’t know about your king of the world scenario. I am sitting in the bleachers and watching the game being played out. Just like any fan being an armchair coach at any sporting event. And just like the sports fans that can tell you the names of the players because they are interested in the sport. I am concerned about our earth. The way I see it, global warming is just part of effects of domestication and over population of earth by mankind combined with the natural cycles of the solar rock’s chemistry being effected by sun energy. Back before the OT was even thought of in Babylonia. If you leased a house. Your contract stated that you had to provide your own doors and windows. Wood was hard to come by as domestication grew. Fast forward to the peak of the Roman Empire and Rome started baking for free the bread needed for the city of a million people. This was also because of wood shortages. All the forests had been cut from Rome to the Alps. This was not domestication, this was over population and mismanagement of natural resources. The vast majority of CLIMATE SCIENTISTS agree that global warming has serious effects on climate. No social scientists are involved. The good thing about science is that it has a process to reveal errors and is self correcting. You can't say that about breligion or consoiracy theories. Both religious believers and conspiracy theorists hold onto their ideas, come hell or high water--or evidence supported revelations. Neither religious believers nor conspiracy theorists have a process for correcting errors. They assume they can't possibly be wrong.
I used to think the problem could be fixed by funding. A lot of people in charge must have thought the same way because we have overfunded the hell out of global warming to a point that the funding is now a problem. Now I feel that we need proper guidance from the people in control of the checkbooks and to only use qualified scientists.See, this is the part I'm not getting. Can you give me a concrete example of how "funding" for global warming is the problem? How is "global warming" being FUNDED anyway? I don't understand what you're getting at with this.
The way I see it, global warming is just part of effects of domestication and over population of earth by mankind combined with the natural cycles of the solar rock’s chemistry being effected by sun energy. Back before the OT was even thought of in Babylonia. If you leased a house. Your contract stated that you had to provide your own doors and windows. Wood was hard to come by as domestication grew. Fast forward to the peak of the Roman Empire and Rome started baking for free the bread needed for the city of a million people. This was also because of wood shortages. All the forests had been cut from Rome to the Alps. This was not domestication, this was over population and mismanagement of natural resources.Okay, good! That's what I thought it was all about, too! And without getting bogged down in arguing whether or not the Primary cause is human industry, I think we can agree that the carbon dioxide released by our factories at least Contributes to it. What's wrong with taking steps to Reduce how much we pour into the atmosphere? What's wrong with trying our best to recycle resources whenever we can? In short, building a Green Economy? Wouldn't that make the world a little better anyway?
Only a matter of time before he brought up domestication
Only a matter of time before he brought up domesticationDamn right, I shouldn’t have to remind anyone. When our forebears determined to domesticate the earth for mankind the path of our future was given to us. It is our god given job to continual taking care of the earth and everything on it. Its looking like someone forgot to pass this information to the next generations and look at the mess that has caused.
f the "solar rock’s chemistry" being effected by sun energy. ... Back before the OT was even thought of in Babylonia. .... Fast forward to the peak of the Roman EmpireWhat are you saying they had rock bands back then? I'm asking because surely you are not referring to the "carbon rock cycle" - Babylonia did not exist millions and millions of years ago. Another M.Y. mystery. PS.
Understanding the long-term carbon-cycle: weathering of rocks - a vitally important carbon-sink Posted on 2 July 2013 by John Mason https://www.skepticalscience.com/weathering.html
How long before Mike takes an interest in these climates models that tell us all we need to know about manmade global warming and to take it more seriously that kicking it down the road.
1959 - “Carbon Dioxide and Climate" https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/carbon-dioxide-and-climate/ An article from our July 1959 issue examined climate change: “A current theory postulates that carbon dioxide regulates the temperature of the earth. This raises an interesting question: How do Man’s activities influence the climate of the future?" … During the past century a new geological force has begun to exert its effect upon the carbon dioxide equilibrium of the earth [see graphs on page 43]. By burning fossil fuels man dumps approximately six billion tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere each year. His agricultural activities release two billion tons more. ... ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 1967 - “Thermal Equilibrium of the Atmosphere with a Given Distribution of Relative Humidity" The First Climate Model Turns 50, And Predicted Global Warming Almost Perfectly Ethan Siegel, March 15, 2017, Forbes.com https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2017/03/15/the-first-climate-model-turns-50-and-predicted-global-warming-almost-perfectly/#1001b776614d Modeling the Earth's climate is one of the most daunting, complicated tasks out there. If only we were more like the Moon, things would be easy. The Moon has no atmosphere, no oceans, no icecaps, no seasons, and no complicated flora and fauna to get in the way of simple radiative physics. No wonder it's so challenging to model! In fact, if you google "climate models wrong", eight of the first ten results showcase failure. But headlines are never as reliable as going to the scientific source itself, and the ultimate source, in this case, is the first accurate climate model ever: by Syukuro Manabe and Richard T. Wetherald. 50 years after their groundbreaking 1967 paper, the science can be robustly evaluated, and they got almost everything exactly right. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 1972 - “Man-made carbon dioxide and the “greenhouse" effect" A remarkably accurate global warming prediction, made in 1972 Dana Nuccitelli, March 19, 2014, UK Guardian https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2014/mar/19/global-warming-accurate-prediction-1972 A paper published in Nature in 1972 accurately predicted the next 30 years of global warming John Stanley (J.S.) Sawyer was a British meteorologist born in 1916. He was elected a Fellow of the Royal Society in 1962, and was also a Fellow of the Meteorological Society and the organization's president from 1963 to 1965. A paper authored by Sawyer and published in the journal Nature in 1972 reveals how much climate scientists knew about the fundamental workings of the global climate over 40 years ago. For example, Sawyer predicted how much average global surface temperatures would warm by the year 2000. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 1975 - “Climate Change: Are We on the Brink of a Pronounced Global Warming?" http://www.fas.harvard.edu/~eps5/writing_assignment/CLIMATE_BKGD/broecker_science_1975.pdf https://thinkprogress.org/wallace-broeckers-remarkable-1975-global-warming-prediction-1976337267b8/ Wallace Broecker was among the first climate scientists to use simple climate models to predict future global temperature changes. Broecker anticipated the actual increase in CO2 very closely, predicting 373 ppm in 2000 and 403 ppm in 2010 (actual values were 369 and 390 ppm, respectively). Broecker also used an equilibrium climate sensitivity of 3°C for doubled CO2; however, his model’s transient climate sensitivity worked out to be 2.4°C for doubled CO2. … ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 1981 - “Climate Impact of Increasing Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide" http://www.c02.gr/pdf/6.pdf https://phys.org/news/2012-04-climate-eerily-accurate.html A paper published in the journal Science in August 1981 made several projections regarding future climate change and anthropogenic global warming based on manmade CO2 emissions. As it turns out, the authors’ projections have proven to be rather accurate — and their future is now our present. … ( http://whatsupwiththatwatts.blogspot.com/2017/08/antti-lipponen-visualize-globalwarming.html )______________________________________________________________ Investor's Business Daily POC#25 - "Yet, ever since Hurricane Katrina in 2004, climate-change advocates have warned that hurricanes and storms would be far worse as a result of global warming." {Yup! It's physics. } http://whatsupwiththatwatts.blogspot.com/2017/09/d-investorscom-fraud-libel-mann.html
I used to think the problem could be fixed by funding. A lot of people in charge must have thought the same way because we have overfunded the hell out of global warming to a point that the funding is now a problem. Now I feel that we need proper guidance from the people in control of the checkbooks and to only use qualified scientists.See, this is the part I'm not getting. Can you give me a concrete example of how "funding" for global warming is the problem? How is "global warming" being FUNDED anyway? I don't understand what you're getting at with this. Will try and explain what I have been watching evolve in the Global Warming over the years. First some facts the way I understand them to be. 1. The biggest mistakes I think people make is not separating GW (global warming) from CC (climate change). 2. The IPCC mission is for CC and not for GW. Key point. 3. I back the IPCC because it is the only world game player of GW in town. Yet the IPCC does not really research GW. What GW gets is fallout from the research of CC. The IPCC is more corrupt than countries like Mexico or Ukraine that are still being backed by the US because it is still the best of all the options for the US, the same with the IPCC for me. Plus they have all the money they want. The IPCC was established to promote global world management by one committee control. So, we are really trying to hijack the IPCC and change its mission. First from backing the one world government and next from move from CC to GW. This is being done by exposing the scientific facts. 4. Our government spends $1 on GW for every $3,000 spent on CC. 5. CC is a sub-category of GW. That’s why GW gets the fall out research of CC. If GW was being studied then CC being a sub-category would still be studied along with the other driving forces. 6. The Ice Cores lags have yet to be answered. 7. CC has only been a problem since the start of the industrial revolution. 8. CC uses consensual science. 9. CC consensual science is controlled by the Union of Concerned Scientists, and industrial organizations. Going to stop right here before getting into the political issues and driving forces. Because I can just about guess what you are thinking right now. Consensual science came out with 97% of the scientists backing CC. I need you to read a selection of quotations from a U. S. Senate Minority Report and then get back to me. www.hatch.senate.gov/public/_files/UNClimateScientistsSpeakOut.pdf
9. CC consensual science is controlled by the Union of Concerned Scientists, and industrial organizations.Sadly Mikie, yet again you demonstrate what a clueless parrot you are. :smirk: You talk about 'scientific consensus' but go straight for the most politicized crazy out there. Inhofe 2009, then Dr. Richard Lindzen, the god father of science by slander and innuendo thus you set the political stage for this none-sense. Here, yet another learning opportunity
https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-05-22/why-scientific-consensus-is-worth-taking-seriously Why Scientific Consensus Is Worth Taking Seriously Yes, collective missteps happen. But if anything, history shows how hard it is to get scientists to agree in the first place. By Faye Flam May 22, 2017,and you totally sidestepped the question:
See, this is the part I'm not getting. Can you give me a concrete example of how "funding" for global warming is the problem? How is "global warming" being FUNDED anyway? I don't understand what you're getting at with this.
Only a matter of time before he brought up domesticationDamn right, I shouldn’t have to remind anyone. When our forebears determined to domesticate the earth for mankind the path of our future was given to us. It is our god given job to continual taking care of the earth and everything on it. Its looking like someone forgot to pass this information to the next generations and look at the mess that has caused. You're right. Please stop reminding us. How else will we ever learn?
How long before Mike takes an interest in these climates models that tell us all we need to know about manmade global warming and to take it more seriously that kicking it down the road.OK, we got it. The more of a chemical placed in the atmosphere, the more of a blanket to hold the heat we have. We have understood that for years. This same chemical in my soda does not heat my soda nor does it heat the ice in the glaciers. For that we need a driving force to work with the chemical. The driving force for many of the chemicals in the atmosphere is the sun. The sun can heat the ice to a point and then it becomes water. That is a natural thermostat. The control knob for the sun would be the distance between the earth and the sun. Move the earth closer to the sun and we have more ice becoming water, away from the sun, less ice becoming water. Let’s agree that CO2 acts like a warming blanket and creates a small amount of sun related heat, OK. The question has always been for over a decade - The bottom line is that rising temperatures cause carbon levels to rise. Carbon may still influence temperatures, but these ice cores are neutral on that. If both factors caused each other to rise significantly, positive feedback would become exponential. We’d see a runaway greenhouse effect. It hasn’t happened. Some other factor is more important than carbon dioxide, or carbon’s role is minor. CO2’s driving force is most likely the atmospheric heat created by sun, and not the heat created by the sunlight reacting to the CO2. We also don’t know Co2’s natural thermostat and control knob. How many more decades and hundreds of billions to figure this out? Consensual science said was a closed case because all the science was figured out back in 2010. Unless your posting can answer those questions, we are not moving forward.1959 - “Carbon Dioxide and Climate" https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/carbon-dioxide-and-climate/ An article from our July 1959 issue examined climate change: “A current theory postulates that carbon dioxide regulates the temperature of the earth. This raises an interesting question: How do Man’s activities influence the climate of the future?" … During the past century a new geological force has begun to exert its effect upon the carbon dioxide equilibrium of the earth [see graphs on page 43]. By burning fossil fuels man dumps approximately six billion tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere each year. His agricultural activities release two billion tons more. ... ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 1967 - “Thermal Equilibrium of the Atmosphere with a Given Distribution of Relative Humidity" The First Climate Model Turns 50, And Predicted Global Warming Almost Perfectly Ethan Siegel, March 15, 2017, Forbes.com https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2017/03/15/the-first-climate-model-turns-50-and-predicted-global-warming-almost-perfectly/#1001b776614d Modeling the Earth's climate is one of the most daunting, complicated tasks out there. If only we were more like the Moon, things would be easy. The Moon has no atmosphere, no oceans, no icecaps, no seasons, and no complicated flora and fauna to get in the way of simple radiative physics. No wonder it's so challenging to model! In fact, if you google "climate models wrong", eight of the first ten results showcase failure. But headlines are never as reliable as going to the scientific source itself, and the ultimate source, in this case, is the first accurate climate model ever: by Syukuro Manabe and Richard T. Wetherald. 50 years after their groundbreaking 1967 paper, the science can be robustly evaluated, and they got almost everything exactly right. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 1972 - “Man-made carbon dioxide and the “greenhouse" effect" A remarkably accurate global warming prediction, made in 1972 Dana Nuccitelli, March 19, 2014, UK Guardian https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2014/mar/19/global-warming-accurate-prediction-1972 A paper published in Nature in 1972 accurately predicted the next 30 years of global warming John Stanley (J.S.) Sawyer was a British meteorologist born in 1916. He was elected a Fellow of the Royal Society in 1962, and was also a Fellow of the Meteorological Society and the organization's president from 1963 to 1965. A paper authored by Sawyer and published in the journal Nature in 1972 reveals how much climate scientists knew about the fundamental workings of the global climate over 40 years ago. For example, Sawyer predicted how much average global surface temperatures would warm by the year 2000. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 1975 - “Climate Change: Are We on the Brink of a Pronounced Global Warming?" http://www.fas.harvard.edu/~eps5/writing_assignment/CLIMATE_BKGD/broecker_science_1975.pdf https://thinkprogress.org/wallace-broeckers-remarkable-1975-global-warming-prediction-1976337267b8/ Wallace Broecker was among the first climate scientists to use simple climate models to predict future global temperature changes. Broecker anticipated the actual increase in CO2 very closely, predicting 373 ppm in 2000 and 403 ppm in 2010 (actual values were 369 and 390 ppm, respectively). Broecker also used an equilibrium climate sensitivity of 3°C for doubled CO2; however, his model’s transient climate sensitivity worked out to be 2.4°C for doubled CO2. … ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 1981 - “Climate Impact of Increasing Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide" http://www.c02.gr/pdf/6.pdf https://phys.org/news/2012-04-climate-eerily-accurate.html A paper published in the journal Science in August 1981 made several projections regarding future climate change and anthropogenic global warming based on manmade CO2 emissions. As it turns out, the authors’ projections have proven to be rather accurate — and their future is now our present. … ( http://whatsupwiththatwatts.blogspot.com/2017/08/antti-lipponen-visualize-globalwarming.html )______________________________________________________________ Investor's Business Daily POC#25 - "Yet, ever since Hurricane Katrina in 2004, climate-change advocates have warned that hurricanes and storms would be far worse as a result of global warming." {Yup! It's physics. } http://whatsupwiththatwatts.blogspot.com/2017/09/d-investorscom-fraud-libel-mann.html
9. CC consensual science is controlled by the Union of Concerned Scientists, and industrial organizations.Sadly Mikie, yet again you demonstrate what a clueless parrot you are. :smirk: You talk about 'scientific consensus' but go straight for the most politicized crazy out there. Inhofe 2009, then Dr. Richard Lindzen, the god father of science by slander and innuendo thus you set the political stage for this none-sense. Here, yet another learning opportunity The consensus Cook considered was the standard definition: that Man had caused most post-1950 warming. Even on this weaker definition the true consensus among published scientific papers is now demonstrated to be not 97.1%, as Cook had claimed, but only 0.3%. Only 41 out of the 11,944 published climate papers Cook examined explicitly stated that Man caused most of the warming since 1950. Cook himself had flagged just 64 papers as explicitly supporting that consensus, but 23 of the 64 had not in fact supported it.
9. CC consensual science is controlled by the Union of Concerned Scientists, and industrial organizations.Sadly Mikie, yet again you demonstrate what a clueless parrot you are. :smirk: You talk about 'scientific consensus' but go straight for the most politicized crazy out there. Inhofe 2009, then Dr. Richard Lindzen, the god father of science by slander and innuendo thus you set the political stage for this none-sense. Here, yet another learning opportunity The consensus Cook considered was the standard definition: that Man had caused most post-1950 warming. Even on this weaker definition the true consensus among published scientific papers is now demonstrated to be not 97.1%, as Cook had claimed, but only 0.3%. Only 41 out of the 11,944 published climate papers Cook examined explicitly stated that Man caused most of the warming since 1950. Cook himself had flagged just 64 papers as explicitly supporting that consensus, but 23 of the 64 had not in fact supported it. Mike Yohe once again demonstrates the science that underlies both human forced climate change and transistors that allow him to function here. We don't get to pick and choose the science we accept, if the quantum mechanical effects that allow electrons to pass in certain ways through specific materials then those same quantum mechanical effects also work with billions of tons of carbon dioxide we emit into the Earth's atmosphere. Based on this constantly proven affect - if quantum mechanics didn't function as described then none of us would be posting here - the equivalent the heat from over 2.5 billion Hiroshima sized atom bombs has been added to the Earth's surface since 1998 alone. https://www.skepticalscience.com/4-Hiroshima-bombs-worth-of-heat-per-second.html
The slope of the global heat accumulation graph tells us how rapidly the Earth's climate is building up heat. Over the past decade, the rate is 8 x 1021 Joules per year, or 2.5 x 1014 Joules per second. The yield of the Hiroshima atomic bomb was 6.3 x 1013 Joules, hence the rate of global heat accumulation is equivalent to about 4 Hiroshima bomb detonations per second. That's nearly 2 billion atomic bomb detonations worth of heat accumulating in the Earth's climate system since 1998, when we're told global warming supposedly 'paused'. That has to be the worst pause ever.