‘CRAZINESS’ in climate field leads dissenter Dr. Judith Curry to resign

Nonsense. You merely DEFINE what you call "denialism" in a way that makes it unfalsifiable. But what you define as denialism is not a view anyone here is defending. No one here denies that global climate warmed in the 20th C or that increased CO2 contributed to that warming. THAT is the 97% scientific consensus, with which every informed person, including most of those you call "deniers," agrees. What I and other AGW skeptics claim is that the global climate's sensitivity to CO2 has been overstated in the climate models that predict rapid warming in step with rising CO2, as was seen 1970-1998 (and at no other time in the history of the world).

Want to falsify our views? That's easy: just show us unmanipulated global average temperature data that shows temperature tracking CO2 with a sensitivity greater than the ~1C predicted by the physics of radiative heat transfer for any integral multiple of 60 years (the length of the decadal oscillation).

Thought not.

 

So why is it not used?

 

But they are not used in GISTEMP which includes SCAR which is land based. Why is that ??

 

If I believed something was a hoax, I could list ways to falsify that belief.

The warming has been steady from 1970-2016. Therefore, your theory is falsified, because observed reality doesn't agree with it.

Which would show faster warming. You sure you want that? The "manipulations" have made the warming look smaller. That seems to kill the "scientists are faking data" conspiracy theory, because why would they fudge to make the warming look smaller? Are they working for the fossil fuel companies?

Not a problem at all.

280 to 400, 40% increase. Half a doubling on a log scale. So, with 3.0C sensitivity, 1.5C total warming expected from that. Some of it still to come.

Around 1.0C warming so far. Right on track.

Your sensitivity says only 0.5C warming total. We've already blown through twice that. Therefore, your views are falsified.

 

Every iteration of the land ocean data has made the past cooler in current times warmer.

 

No, I don't. Because they don't. They quantify it quite clearly, the forcings from humans and from natural causes.

Hence, your argument go boom.

Yes. And the drawbacks can be quantified as well, and are bigger, so any warming now is a net loss.

 

That's a false statement. The adjustments have made the past look warmer, and thus made the current warming look smaller.

http://variable-variability.blogspo...zation-adjustments-reduce-global-warming.html

 

What percentage is from humans and what percentage is from natural causes ??

That's not what economists say. Since you've acknowledged that there are benefits to global warming what are the top three most significant benefits ??

 

Less than 2% natural, according to the forcings chart I posted.

Sure it is. Most of 'em say any warming is bad, but they disagree on how much should be spent to minimize it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economics_of_global_warming
---
No models suggest that the optimal policy is to do nothing, i.e., allow "business-as-usual" emissions.
---

Please explain why the question is relevant.

 

How do you know what you are looking at when 66% of GHCN is estimated?

 

From the IPCC ?? How do you explain then the complete cancelling of any global warming and cooling since 1950 with constantly increasing CO2 ??

Please review Dr. Richard Tol's compilation of economic studies.

It is not relevant to those who refuse to consider the benefits of longer growing seasons, increased arable land, and increased growth rates of plants.

 

For the USHCN 61% of stations had greater than a 2 deg C warming bias and 8% of stations had greater than a 5 deg C warming bias. It's a mystery on just how a justifiable correction for that is made ??

 

We've been over this extensively, and you chose to ignore my reply.
Add that, to your dubious claim satellites can not measure surface temperatures.
it is whatever it takes to serve your agenda.

 

https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/paper/gistemp2010_draft0803.pdf

The GISS temperature analysis has been available for many years on the GISS web site
(www.nasa.giss.gov), including maps, graphs and tables of the results. The analysis is updated
monthly using several data sets compiled by other groups from measurements at meteorological
stations and satellite measurements of ocean surface temperature. Ocean data in the pre-satellite
era is based on measurements by ships and buoys.

They are.
End of discussion.

 

Satellite measurements can not used directly as temperature measurements. They do not stand on their own and therefore cannot be used directly in GISTEMP. End of discussion.

 

So could I, I have done so, and AGW theory has accordingly been falsified.

That's just baldly false, and ignores the fact that warming was NEGATIVE during the period of rapid CO2 increase 1940-1970, which falsifies AGW theory.

No, that's also just false. It is AGW theory that has been falsified because observed reality doesn't agree with it. See above. My theory is well supported by observed reality.

No it wouldn't. It would show faster warming during the up-phase of the decadal oscillation, little or even negative warming during the down-phase. Which is the observed reality. Unlike the predictions of AGW theory.

Clearly false.

They haven't. They've done the opposite, as proved by the fact that all the adjustments to the data have reduced earlier temperatures and increased later ones. Your nonsense is unsupported by evidence.

Are you trolling?

Observe yourself failing:

BWAHAHAHAAHHAAHAHAAAA!!!

"Expected." By AGW screamers. But not OBSERVED.

You are done.

BWAHHAHAHAAAA!!

I'm waiting....

That's just flat false. The 1.0C is not for an integral number of 60-year cycles, and has only been concocted by altering the temperature data.

We have done no such thing. You forgot to use an integral number of 60-year cycles.

Nope. You failed.

 

That false statement is based on your misunderstanding of the science. You think the real science claims CO2 is the only thing affecting climate. Obviously, the real science says no such stupid thing, which makes your claims fail. The real science points out the cooling effect of atmospheric aerosols overwhelmed the warming effext of CO2 during that period

You need to start looking at the real science, instead of the faked version of it that your cult conspiracy blogs feed you.

You're just mathturbating now. Curve fitting is not science. And you don't even do that well. I mean,your senseless theory predicts we should be moving into cooling, yet the warming is as strong as it's always been. Your theory might have been defensible 3 years ago, but the last 3 years of record global temperatures have totally demolished it.

Outright falsehoods like that no doubt play well with your fellow cultists, who give accolades to whoever lies the most brazenly on behalf of the cult. However, I know the science and data, so I know with 100% certainty that you're trying to pass off a big lie. Adjustments have made the warming look smaller. That fact is not debatable, at least not by honest people. Hence, your conspiracy theory of 'adjusted data' is cult nonsense. The data is what it is, and it won't change just because you possess a deep religious faith that is has to be wrong.

So, you're telling me the directly observed 1.0C warming over a 60-year cycle isn't really observed. As you're just denying reality outright now, what's the point in speaking with you?

Last I checked, "1" is an integer. If you compare 2016 to 1956, it's closer to 1.1C, but I rounded down to be conservative.

Scientologists, flat-earthers, antivaxxers and members of every other cult out there also tell me that all the data which contradicts their cult teachings clearly has to have been faked. You're nothing new in that regard.

 

Easily. That's just your fantasy. Temperatures have been climbing steadily since 1970.

I have. All the other economist say they're flawed. You're cherrypicking the single economist who agrees with you.

What does that have to do with me? After all, I consider all the benefits. Unlike you, I look at the drawbacks as well.

 

It's a mystery where you got such crazy numbers. Did a cult blog feed them to you, or did you make them up on your own?

 

There has been no significant warming since 1998 according to the satellite data.

Dr. Tol's work summarizes ~ 20 papers. The consensus is that global warming is net beneficial for the next 3 deg C. Both benefits and costs are included in these analyses.

 

It's called doing your homework.

http://surfacestations.org/

 

It's not false.

I understand it better than you, having studied planetary physics, including atmospheric physics, at an internationally respected university.

No, I am aware that real science says CO2 is a minor influence on climate. You are just makin' $#!+ up again.

You mean your false claims about my claims.

No, that is a claim of bogus science, which says aerosols were somehow massively greater 1940-70 than in 1910-40 or 1970-2000.

I have actually studied science.

It is most definitely science. I remember curve fitting in the physics lab at university to determine the relationship between experimental parameters -- an experience you obviously missed.

That's just baldly false. Aside from the 2015-16 El Nino (and some creative upward adjustments to thermometer readings), warming has been at a standstill since 1998.

Nope. Wrong again. Satellite temperatures have plunged since the end of the El Nino, and the surface temperature record is now so thoroughly falsified that we can't actually tell what the temperature is.

Your claim is unsupported by evidence. It's just you makin' $#!+ up again.

No, I'm saying that period saw a multimillenium high in solar activity.

<yawn> Weren't you the one protesting that CO2 is not the only influence on climate? Now you are claiming it IS the only influence that could have increased temperatures 1956-2016?

You're done. Nothing you can possibly say makes any difference any more.

So your claim is that only CO2 raised temperatures during that period. No methane, no increase in solar activity, no deforestation, no thermogenic activities, no albedo-lowering brown air from India and China, no nothing.

And you accuse ME of being unscientific....?

The data clearly support my theory better than AGW theory.

 

source?

Also... you've been ranting utter nonsense so far. Really.
For over a week you've been wrongly ranting that GISTEMP does not use satellites, while it does.
You've been using a fake news site, thinking it outmatches sites like nasa and bbc.
Than claiming satellites can not measure surface temperatures, while they can.

According to my previous source: they also use meteorological stations.
So they don't stand on their own, now do they? lol

 

GISS does not use satellite data.

 

Your link.