No. They wouldn’t indicate that. What makes you say that?
I can’t believe you googled that. Mike’s mind has been drifting off to parts unknown for as long as we’ve known him. I’m hoping soon he will just forget his password.
He used to give sources, after weeks of claiming he had them, and they would be horrible. Now he doesn’t bother.
[quote=“mikeyohe, post:10, topic:9229”]
Not true. If you include clouds and the sun. For example, In your above posting about disasters was predicted by four of the eleven solar cycles ten years ago. The IPCC will not use the sun. And for years said that clouds zeroed out and therefore had zero affect. The IPCC is now just starting to gather cloud data. Every farmer that uses greenhouses knows the greenhouse affect of warming. Higher humidity. All this talk about warmer weather creating deserts. Which place has higher humidity desert or rainforest? Heat is exchange more quickly when the air contains more water vapor, or humidity [/quote]
Farmers know how to predict weather bur scientist who study the mechanics of weather do not because they are using wrong criteria?
Are you out of your mind?
Why do you persist in making wild speculations based on totally false assumptions?
Why can’t scientists accurately predict the weather?
While most scientists are revered for making sense of our complex universe (Einstein is practically a hero), meteorologists often face ridicule. How can we put a person on the moon or foretell planetary alignments years in advance, yet still fail to put together accurate weather forecasts?
First, to give credit where credit is due: Weather forecasters have improved their game significantly over the last 20 years. The three-day forecasts they deliver today are better than the one-day forecasts they delivered 20 years ago. They’re also much better equipped to provide advanced warnings of severe weather, doubling the lead times for tornado warnings and giving people an extra 40 minutes to escape flash floods.
Modern meteorologists wouldn’t be nearly so accurate without numerical forecasting , which uses mathematical equations to predict the weather. Such forecasting requires powerful computers and lots of observational data collected from land, sea and air. A single weather station would never be able to collect so much information. Instead, thousands of stations across the globe are linked and their data pooled. Some of these stations – ground-based wind gauges (what meteorologists call anemometers), rain collectors and temperature sensors – resemble those used by amateur weather watchers. Others lie far out at sea, strapped to buoys. And still others travel on commercial airliners or shipping vessels, collecting weather data as passengers and goods are moved from point A to point B. Finally, weather satellites and balloons provide information from the upper regions of the atmosphere. Satellites photograph Earth’s weather from their orbit in space, while balloons monitor upper-air data over a particular location.
Collectively, all of these sensors and gauges produce more than 1 million weather-related observations every day. A normal computer – the kind you buy at your local electronics store – would choke on all of this data. Luckily, meteorologists can rely on supercomputers, crazy-fast machines that perform millions of calculations per second.
In the United States, these computers are housed at the National Centers for Environmental Prediction (NCEP), located in Camp Springs, Md. There, weather observations stream into a supercomputer’s brain, which uses complex mathematical models to predict how, based on the incoming data, weather conditions might change over time. The computer’s output form the basis of almost every forecast broadcast on radio and television channels across America.
You might think that the National Centers for Environmental Prediction’s supercomputers could never make mistakes, but even their abilities aren’t up to the enormous challenge of weather forecasting. That’s because they must take into account several large-scale phenomena, each of which is governed by multiple variables and factors. For example, they must consider how the sun will heat the [Earth’s] (Earth: A Primer on the Third Rock From the Sun | HowStuffWorks) surface, how air pressure differences will form winds and how water-changing phases (from ice to water or water to vapor) will affect the flow of energy. They even have to try to calculate the effects of the planet’s rotation in space, which moves the Earth’s surface beneath the atmosphere. Small changes in any one variable in any one of these complex calculations can profoundly affect future weather.
more…
Why can’t scientists accurately predict the weather? | HowStuffWorks
If the increase of heat happens to increase in the lave lakes around the world during a neutrino cycle why would that not be connected?
You answered your own question
If I piss into the ocean, won’t that increase the sea level?
Answer: Well yes, it would,
but by such a minute amount one couldn’t even measure it.
Unfortunately what we are dealing with is a character who appears to have sworn an oath, to disregard CO2 and all the science surrounding our understanding of the behavior of CO2 in our atmosphere.
At standard temperature and pressure, one metric ton of carbon dioxide (CO₂) would fill a sphere 32 feet (about 9.8 meters) in diameter. The average car in the U.S. will produce this over a three-month period. NASA
Next question, where’s a scientific quantification for how much energy a neutrino shower adds to our global heat and moisture distribution engine?
Please do share that - before you start supposing that neutrinos play a role in current Manmade Global Warming. So, the big question, why to the experts constantly blame CO2 rather than periodic neutrino cycles?
https://climate.nasa.gov/news/3020/how-much-carbon-dioxide-are-we-emitting/
APRIL 29, 2020,
More than half of all CO2 emissions since 1751 emitted in the last 30 years
Remember about a month ago the post about Christianity and I brought up the fact that Jesus’ Christianity and Paul’s Christianity were two different pathways? It’s about the same here. You are on the pathway of Political driven scientists. But there is another pathway of factual science. For years on this site, I was the biggest backer of the IPCC and Climate Change models. But as the years pasted I found that there was a split between the scientists and the factual scientist really don’t want to have anything to do with the political driven science. To them that is not science. As the Science moves forward it has left the Climate Change scientist, tree ring reading type of science behind in their world of political controlled issues. The factual scientists are now more of the astrophysics type, you know physics and astronomy. There are a lot of major projects taking place right now that may end up answering the Climate Change math problems.
A little history of what brought this on. Neutrinos have always been questioned in the scientific world with relationship as a driving force in Mother Nature. Most neutrinos we are talking about come from the center of sun. You have 60T (sixty trillion) neutrinos going through your body ever second. The problem is that is missing 120T neutrinos/sec. Where are those neutrinos. And that has now received an answered that is acceptable but not proven. Now to be fair. Until about ten years ago it was believed that neutrinos have no mass. But that has been proven wrong. You must have mass to have energy. Neutrinos do have mass. Right now, the scientists are trying to figure out if neutrinos are Dirac or Majorana.
What we are talking about is the driver of Climate cycles.
You are such a bald-faced-liar!
You’ve done nothing but denigrate IPCC, Climate Models, and the scientist doing the work, instead giving all your support to a few dozen wing nut scientists and others, who are actually the politicizers of this climate studies and education process, and being supported by Dark Money special interests. Such as Roy Spencer the creationist, self-anointed anti-tax ‘watchdog’. Or Judith Curry the second rate scientist who wants to blame everyone else for her own failures and short comings, or Lindsey with his god-complex and Iris Hypothesis that was never close to reflecting what observations were showing scientists, yet never admitting to its failure.
You still can’t even get yourself to admit that Michael Mann, et al 1999 “hockey stick graph” was first class science for a pioneering field of study, nor admitted that the paper itself points out, it was working with limited information and that future years and decades would refine and improve their rough assessment.
Before going on and on about how scientific you judge yourself to be,
how about watching this video then letting us know if you’ve learned anything.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CqtZdnpfgIc
The infamous hockey stick figure was published in 1999. A new paper just blew it out of the water with an incredible reconstruction.
Sophistry! The argument is between research scientists and corporate scientists who will use every possible obfuscation to delay the inevitable so that their bosses can reward them with yearly bonuses, until fossil fuels become scarce and unprofitable, or the weather just destroys enough of civilization that we are back to the horse and buggie days.
What Putin has been doing in the past month, the weather can do in a day. There is a historic record of resisting change until it is too late.
People actually refusing to wear protective mask against an invisible enemy, but praying to an invisible Father figure to protect them from evil.
Stay with the evidence and the proven results. IOW, keep it simple and practice “better safe than sorry” a moral command that humanity breaks at every opportunity.
1 Like
So what!!!
Please explain how you imagine that mass is responsible for Earth temperatures.
Oh and about that mass?
Particles are often measured (and weighed) in units called electronvolts.
The current best estimate says that the sum of the
masses of the 3 neutrinos should be below about 1 electronvolt. (web)
For comparison,
1 electron has a mass of 511,000 electronvolts.
Each carbon atom has 6 protons and 6 electrons, plus 12C has 6 neutrons, 13C has 7 neutrons, and 14C has 8 neutrons and so on.
Now Mike Yohe, please explain to us:
How does a neutrino’s mass relate to Earth’s insulating atmosphere’s ocean of Nitrogen and Oxygen and other gases and particles?
As a bonus questions:
If CO2 is a greenhouse gas, why isn’t oxygen, or nitrogen a greenhouse gas?
How does their respective mass relate to greenhouse gas potential?
You are starting to sound like a badly written AI article that gathers words from websites and makes sentences
1 Like
How does greenhouse gases insulate the earth. No doubt you understand that. Now if the neutrinos are able to change a electron of the gases from negative to positive or vice versa. Then the neutrinos are just one of the Sun’s Climate driving forces. The scientists do not understand how all the favors of the neutrinos work. That is why projects like the Long-Baseline Neutrino Facility (LBNF) are being constructed.
It seems Essentially $ hegemony = global warming
Hence Biden’s recent message to Poland that they need to switch to coal and US LNG resonates with them. And that is just a side issue
We don’t know that oxygen and nitrogen are not greenhouse gasses. What we know is that they are not greenhouse gases with infrared light. Even that is being questioned at different wavelengths in the upper atmosphere. The fact that the most abundant matter in the universe was claimed to have no mass. Then that was changed ten years ago by the subatomic particle scientists. But the subatomic particle scientists don’t want to get involved with what is going on with IPCC. And the scientists working with the IPCC don’t have the skills needed to deal with neutrinos. That takes us back to the above answer. How do we know that the neutrinos are not changing the electrons in the oxygen and nitrogen? I will look for a YouTube video by a company that thinks they can make a battery that stays charged by the neutrinos affecting the charge of the electrons. They want to work on the cell phone first. Busy now, might be a couple of days. But I’ll find the address and post it. I think you should find it interesting.
That is part true. If I come across an article that is worth noting. Then I copy and timeline some of the article. When I need that data, I go to my directory and files on the subject. That way if questioned I can go back to my file where I have the web address. The only problem is that the numbers of files on some subjects are now massive and my index/timeline does not always work the way I was hoping .
That’s what makes you a criminal level vandal of science, you contemptible pieces of . . . . .
Andrew Dressler
Perhaps something more straightforward,
In this episode of climate basics we investigate how and why greenhouse gas molecules are able to absorb infrared radiation (heat energy) and how their unique structure allows them to vibrate asymmetrically.
Why the fuk would they???
http://forecast.uchicago.edu/lectures.html
You pretend you are smarter than experts and that it’s okay to ignore their evidence with you delusion, greed-driven crazy-making.
JANUARY 1, 2018
CO2 Science - Pruitt, proof is in the pudding! Impossible Modern Marvels
After explaining that the USAF scientists and technicians who established our "CO 2 science" possessed impeccable credentials, we should also point out that if those scientists had been wrong, they would have been exposed in short order.
Why you ask? Because of the increasing variety of modern marvels that would have been impossible had those studies not produced exquisitely accurate facts and figures.
The following was written to supplement the previous review of USA atmospheric research and to explain why a layperson can feel very comfortable trusting, heck believing, scientists, their atmospheric studies, and overall understanding.
This post is an interesting sort of one way collaborative effort. You see, over the years I’ve communicated with a number of scientists and grads. Asking straight forward questions and often receiving informative replies. I try not to overdo my welcome, after all these are very busy professionals with more important things to do. Still, for this post I sent a grand shout out to a number of my correspondence pals and received more responses than I expected including some informative surprises for me. I have taken great liberty slicing and dicing their contributions. Rewriting some, leaving other quotes untouched and giving all of it some order.
I mention this because I want to be clear the following List of " CO 2 science dependent" modern marvels is not my own cleverness and I send a big Thank You! out to my informed anonymous heroes!
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
The increase in atmospheric concentration of CO2 since preindustrial times is a given. Appreciate that the radiative physics of greenhouse gases are very well-understood.
Consider, heat seeking missiles flying through different altitudes searching for a heat source who’s signature is changing with altitude. In order to program the computer to track and home in on a jet’s exhaust, the programmer must know how to accurately compensate for the changing signature. It requires a complete knowledge of the radiative properties of all the gases and how they change throughout the atmosphere, or all that hardware is for naught.
{Incidentally, there is not one contrarian “theory” or challenge to climate science or the geophysics that hasn’t been looked at by informed individuals. You’ll find that contrarian errors, omissions, and falsifications have been clearly explained.
Don’t believe me, look at this outline for yourself:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php?f=taxonomy
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
- Weather satellites that can image heat and moisture and wind’s effects into comprehensible images.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
- Precipitable water. Contrast brightness temperatures measured via oxygen emissions and via H2O emissions to back calculate how much water is present.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
- Heat seeking air to air missiles, they would not function if those guidance computers didn’t have a complete description of how heat moves through the atmosphere.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
- Lasers wouldn’t work if we had radiative physics wrong.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
- Early-Warning satellites. How are they going to distinguish between a missile launch from lightning, over Siberia? Better look at IR in DETAIL! (There’s much more)
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Spectroscopic Databases such as HiTran and Geisa have military origins. Going back to WWII and the desire to do Night Bombing better. Then this continued during research programs in the 50’s & 60’s, with a lot of it through the Cambridge Research Laboratory.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
The program ModTran that is an example of a narrow band Radiative Transfer Code , for calculating radiative transfer. Half the patents for this are held by the Pentagon. The company that develops it - Spectral Sciences Inc - does so under license to the United States Air Force.
http://www.spectral.com/MODTRAN.shtml
http://climatemodels.uchicago.edu/modtran/
For 20 years developments to ModTran were signed off by the Commandant of the USAF GeoPhysics Laboratory, Hanscom AFB, Ma. These days it is the responsibility of the Commandant, the USAF Laboratory, Kirtland AFB, NM.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
- The detection of specific chemicals in the atmospheres of exoplanets:
By modeling the gases at high pressures, you can produce an expected absorption for infrared from the planet and compare the model to the spectra recorded by the Spitzer space telescope.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
*Spectroscopy includes measurement of absorption of IR wavelengths
eg measurement of CO2 levels in the atmosphere and ice cores relies on IR absorption. (that would make using ice core records to “prove” GHE doesn’t exists amusing)
“Each sample has a volume of 4~6 cm3. CO2 concentration was measured with IR tunable diode laser spectroscopy, scanning a single vibrational-rotational absorption line.” https://nsidc.org/data/docs/agdc/nsidc0202_wahlen/
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
-
And it’s not just physics of the standard GH gases.
-
Microwave emissions of oxygen molecules gives us satellite temperature sensing of the atmosphere.
-
Nitrogen - Nitrogen collisions form part of the basis of the GH effect on places like Saturn’s moon Titan.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
- Getting out of the IR range, but the Dobson spectrophotometer designed in 1924 to measure ozone (and the standard instrument for doing so, for many years) is based on the application of Beers Law. Using two close wavelengths that differ mainly in their O3 absorption coefficients, total column O3 is determined by the difference in transmission (sun view).
Careful selection of wavelengths allows measurement of many atmospheric gases.
IR instruments for CO2 and H2O are off-the-shelf items.
But wait, there’s more . . .
1 Like
That’s a lot of work just for Mike, but thanks for that.
The two of you define the difference between someone who collects words and strings them together, and someone who understands how to theorize. With scientific theory, you can implement technology, you can predict outcomes with some accuracy. With the sort of speculation and mere “asking questions” that Mike does, you can’t do much at all, except maybe accuse someone of not having all of the knowledge of the universe.
Actually, it was written for Pruitt, but he didn’t give a flying fart for the facts either.
F.Y.I.
Confronting Science Contrarians.blogspot. com
Cc’s Elevator Pitch
We The People have a moral ethical right - along with a pragmatic need - to learn what scientists have learned about this planet’s biosphere and climate engine without constant dishonest crossfire.
We should not tolerate serious scientists always being drown out by amoral, dishonest and frankly ignorant arguments - that an astoundingly ruthless PR factory repeats over and over again, without ever learning a damned thing from the evidence in front of us.
I’m also looking for someone to reach out to me, perhaps even hire me - to do some research and writing, and to help this effort achieve a greater audience - an editor, agent, interested other. Someone who gets what I’ve been trying to do here and thinks it deserves a bit of help.
Drop me a line @ citizenschallenge at gmail. com
I’ve left the third paragraph just for shits and grins.
I respond to Mike Yohe’s malicious calculated deceptions, not for him but for the others who might be reading his nonsense, and who want to understand the rest of the story.
Probably because you are looking to confirm your bias instead of follow the data. Hawking didn’t believe black holes radiate anything, but someone said they did, so he set out to disprove them. He found out he was wrong, and now we have “Hawking radiation”.
That’s how science works