NASA Satellite Sees Overheated Tropical Forests Oozing with Carbon Dioxide

You keep telling us that, but here we are.

I didn't know that NASA has been flying satellites over tropical forests for 2000 years.

I'm glad they don't have enough resolution to spot me. I exhale about

For the moment. Fred Bloggs does have a particular obsession about "trip points", but sudden flips in climate do happen.

The Younger Dryas seem to have come on in a decade or so, and went away over fifty years in three distinct and fairly sharp steps.

Something like it could happen again. Melting lots of Arctic ice might do it.

That evidence presumably comes ice ore data or other layered deposits.

So does everybody else. The satellites don't have specific sensors for foolish misconceptions, where you'd have a better chance of standing out from the mob.

Not to worry, even you will be able to notice the change shortly.

"Ancient air bubbles trapped in ice enable us to step back in time and see what Earth's atmosphere, and climate, were like in the distant past."

What is the definition of "shortly" ? I have a season pass at Sugar Bowl for this coming season, and I want to get my money's worth.

Last year was outrageous, 20 meters of snowfall on top. There is now an official glacier near Squaw Valley.

Does that have rainforest-size resolution?

This is interesting:

"The climate system is a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible."

Told'ya so.

pping point or points have been passed.

orests.html

ee what Earth's atmosphere, and climate, were like in the distant past."

They go on to say "Rather the focus must be upon the prediction of the prob ability distribution of the system?s future possible states by the generation of ensembles of model solutions. "

Which means they do have confidence they will be able to bound predicted cl imate states with adequate confidence. Adequate would mean enough confidenc e to justify climate related policy decisions.

Authorities really need to establish a licensing system on just exactly who gets to read what so as to reduce the loonie factor.

People can get injured hand-waving that hard.

Well, they haven't so far. But they have bigger computers now.

Policy decisions are what this is actually all about. The science just does what it's told to do. Where is Stalin now that we need him?

They shouldn't admit that they don't understand everything, at least not in public.

ripping point or points have been passed.

-forests.html

d see what Earth's atmosphere, and climate, were like in the distant past ."

probability distribution of the system?s future possible states b y the generation of ensembles of model solutions. "

d climate states with adequate confidence. Adequate would mean enough con fidence to justify climate related policy decisions.

who gets to read what so as to reduce the loonie factor.

I'm afraid you have just shown yourself as just another anonymous anti-science religious nutcase.

If dissent is forbidden, then it is a religion, not science. Science moves forward by those who make claims having to prove the cliams to those who doubt. Those who doubt (they are called skeptics by the way) have the task of disproving false claims.

When some people want skeptics classified as enemies of the state then the skeptics are usually on to something - the emperor is perhaps actually naked.

John

tripping point or points have been passed.

l-forests.html

d see what Earth's atmosphere, and climate, were like in the distant past."

robability distribution of the system?s future possible states by the gener ation of ensembles of model solutions. "

climate states with adequate confidence. Adequate would mean enough confid ence to justify climate related policy decisions.

Many would beg to differ.

Bigger computers don't make it any more obvious that dumping more CO2 in th e atmosphere isn't a good idea.

Science doesn't "do what it's told to do". It finds out about what it has b een told to find out about. When Trump and Pruit looked like they were goin g to try regulate what scientist might publish, there was an immediate move to put the information where the idiots couldn't try bury it.

Lysenko tried to flatter Stalin by claiming to get results that suited Stal in's understanding of what he ought to get. There's nothing like that going on in climate science, thought Anthony Watts is playing a Lysenko-like rol e for the fossil-carbon extraction industry. Most of the twaddle you post s eems comes from his web-site, but you should keep in mind that it isn't pee r-reviewed science, but bought and paid for propaganda.

who gets to read what so as to reduce the loonie factor.

You admit it all the time here - which is a very public forum. You don't se em to have woken up to the fact that this labels you as a gullible half-wit .

ripping point or points have been passed.

-forests.html

d see what Earth's atmosphere, and climate, were like in the distant past."

probability distribution of the system?s future possible states by the generation of ensembles of model solutions. "

d climate states with adequate confidence. Adequate would mean enough confi dence to justify climate related policy decisions.

who gets to read what so as to reduce the loonie factor.

Perhaps. But John Larkin does read a lot more than he understands - he does understand very little - and he's been primed to jump to the wrong conclus ions by the denialist propaganda machine, since he lacks the critical think ing skills required to detect when you being fed a bill of goods.

In climate science that works fine. Skeptics have done their job by knockin g down a whole lot of denialist nonsense.

Sadly, the denialist nonsense is designed to appeal to half-wits and John L arkin laps it up.

The fossil-carbon extraction industry has been exposed repeatedly for lying about climate science.

is merely the best of the exposures. Sadly, if you've got enough money, not oriety can be exploited.

pping point or points have been passed.

orests.html

ee what Earth's atmosphere, and climate, were like in the distant past."

Pity about the rest of the paragraph.

"Rather the focus must be upon the prediction of the probability distributi on of the system's future possible states by the generation of ensembles of model solutions. Addressing adequately the statistical nature of climate i s computationally intensive and requires the application of new methods of model diagnosis, but such statistical information is essential. "

In other words, they are aren't going for "prediction" but rather an apprec iation of where it might go, and likelihood of particular different outcom es (some of which can be disasterous).

You attitude is that since we can't have precise predictions, we can't know anything - and you do choose to know very little.

That entirely depends on the width of the probability distribution.

I've snipped the global warming context since that elementary point is obviously true for far more that context.