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

People seem to forget the direct relationship between C02 and globar warming. We've pumped an astronomical amount in the air in just a 100 years. And that amount hasn't been around for 400.000 years. And it is not that plants are unable to live in that environment. It is the fact that the plants are all growing in the previous climate, and most can't cope with it. They are dying, hence animals are in trouble, just like farmers will be in trouble. Not to mention higher sealevels are a problem financially, in astronomic proportions. New Orleans stuck well over a 130 BILLION dollars in a better coastal protection. Just New Orleans. The US biggest agricultural asset it grows is corn. It's value is around 55 billion dollars a year. Let that sink in,... just protecting New Orleans better is equal to the value of 2 years of corn grown in the entire US. That is how irrelevant lush plant growth is. It is a minuscule + that is eclipsed by the negatives.

- - - Updated - - -

How about you look it up

 

Satellites are calibrated after launch and continually calibrated due to deterioration from age and satellite drift. Not all satellites will give the same reading for the same area for a multitude of reasons. Also the atmosphere influences and sometimes blocks ocean surface reading. Many of the satellites were launched for weather observation and have a larger error band than can be used for climate study so the data is manipulated by models to reduce the error.

- - - Updated - - -

Just as I thought, you have no clue. I am asking because I know better.

BTW: You are completely wrong about CO2. Plants grow better with more CO2 and is the reason greenhouses often pump in CO2 at 1000ppm to enhance growth.

 

My opinion is based on experimental science. Uncontrolled measurements are meaningless.

How have farmers been using greenhouse gasses to achieve higher temperatures ??

 

What is the equation for the correlation and what is the R**2 of your claimed correlation ?? And how does this correlation explain the Minoan, Roman, and Medieval warm periods and intervening cold periods ??

Your own link describes the calibration process.

 

The results say otherwise. You'd never make it in the reality-based community.

Yes, yes, the science said you were totally wrong, therefore the science is a faked. Boring.

 

That's not what the conclusion indicates.

 

They pump CO2 into greenhouses because they are under the false impression that CO2 is used up in greenhouses because of photosynthesis. A greenhouse is a closed system. But venting, or opening a greenhouse door will accomplish the same thing. They also sell CO2 systems for aquarium plants and they are all a waste of money.

 

They pump in enough to bring the level to 1000 ppm. Plants grow better in that environment.

 

Politicized science isn't science. It offers no basis for decisions involving percentages of global GDP.

But emotion and totalitarian tendencies carry your side forward.

 

Your opinion is not worth a thing, without a source. lol

 

There is a correlation between your DNA and the DNA of your parents. Is there an exact equation? No. Does this disprove the correlation? No.

If you got something to dispute about the correlation between C02 and the warmth of the planet, than lets have it already.... instead of demanding me to disprove myself.

My link says how satellites are calibrated.
I asked you how they were not calibrated.

 

What is your point?

Oh... and thats coming from a person who claimed GIS doesn't use satellites for weeks, without even taking the trouble to look it up how incredible ignorant you are. You can ask whatever, but I aint your personal maid. If you got an argument, than bring it and source it.

I do not deny that plants grow better with more C02. I added 2 things to it:
1) that plants grow in certain environments. If it's to hot or cold they just do not grow as well or even die. That is why climate change harms plant growth.
2) The economic benefits for farmers is exceptionally tiny, compared to the damages elsewhere that climate change brings.

And so far, you're not even commenting on this.

 

This is your comment. Care to explain or will you avoid it again?

 

Plants have optimum temperatures for growth. Too hot and plant production suffers. Also too cold and plant production suffers. To say that increasing temperature will increase productivity is misleading. In some places this may be true. In other places no. But many things are involved in farming. It is not by any means completely dependent on one factor alone.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide

Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, absorbing and emitting infrared radiation at its two infrared-active vibrational frequencies (see the section "Structure and bonding" above). This causes carbon dioxide to warm the surface and lower atmosphere while cooling the upper atmosphere.


Let me rub it in again that you denied GIS / Nasa did not used satellites for well over a week, as a way to trash the entire idea the measurements can not be accurate if these are not included.... to you finally had to bend over backwards and admit you were wrong all along.

Let me add to the economic damages of higher water, as in the building of better dams for just New Orleans are astronomical compared to the value of the entire agricultural profits.

 

Care too explain your comment about farmers or are you going to avoid it again?

 

It already has been explained. In my point 1 and 2.
You have yet to commend on that.

And let me rub in that satellite rant you totally went fubar on.
You lost the entire debate on that. lol

 

My opinion is based on ~ 40 years experience as a development engineer. If the results of a measurement are to be considered accurate the measurement device must be calibrated in place.

 

What percentage of warming is due to human CO2 emissions ??

Natural history. The globe has warmed and cooled many times in the last few thousand years at constant CO2 concentration.

The satellites are calibrated by the surface temperatures measured by 'thermometers' at the place of satellite measurement. The assumption is then made that this calibration holds universally.

 

And that is why global warming is NET beneficial.

 

Evidently you don't know what explanation means. We know why they use fertilizer so please inform how they are using CO2 to achieve higher temperatures (which evidently you are implying is beneficial).

 

No, increased temps will cause a reduction in organic matter in soils due to increased biological activity. A changing and unpredictable climate makes timing of planting an even bigger roll of the dice. And...farmers do not increase CO2 to increase temps in greenhouses but to replace CO2 used in photosynthesis in the enclosed greenhouse system. A greenhouse gets plenty of heat during the day. It does not need to add CO2 to increase heat. Greenhouses actually have to have cooling systems in place to cool the house during the day. This cooling is usually provided by a swamp cooler.

 

You are claiming that plant growth is not a function of ambient CO2 concentration ??

 

You are trying to promote some sort of global conspiracy theory.

That's ridiculous.

I agree with Dr. Curry to some extent in her concern that there should be a better way for novel or minority results to be aired, but that is not even slightly enough to support the idea of a conspiracy.

 

Well, under the highly politicized climate she is still considered a denier for even considering other views.