It is fun reading non cited remarks since they make no attempt to be the authority. Speaking of Greenland https://www.skepticalscience.com/10000-years-warmer.htm
You don't generally cite any of your remarks on climate change and this is one of the few times you are doing any citation. I was just briefly going over over the research I have found over the past few years and will be happy to go into more detail about any specific topic you want to learn more about. The general point is that there is more than just CO2 influencing the climate and there are a lot of long-term, short-term, and feedback factors and just because temperature slows down doesn't mean CO2 isn't working. I never said anything about greenland so I don't know why you are bringing it up. On average the globe has warmed by 2 F but some places warm more than others and we have seen the arctic take a disproportionate amount of warming. This is a little unfortunate because melting ice in the arctic will raise sea levels, release greenhouse gasses trapped inside, and increase the albeto of the planet.
You DO realise that Skeptical science is one of the premier pro AGW sites on the net and you just quoted someone supporting global warming?
Let me clear up your confusion. First, I opened this thread to allow communications by Judith Curry to be public. The routine is that her remarks are bashed. I comment on that. It does not take citings to comment for her favor. Why do you think floating ice in the Arctic upon melting causes sea level rise?
Because much of that ice melting is above ground and when it melts it joins the water. If the entire arctic was to melt it would raise sea levels by 20 feet. If Antarctica was to melt it would rise by 200 feet. Currently sea levels have risen by 7 inches due to melting ice and thermal expansion of the water due to heat.
Witch-Hunt and Pseudo-Science: Sorry State of Climate Science https://townhall.com/columnists/vij...tm_medium=email&utm_campaign=nl&newsletterad= " Very rarely are scientists sacked for their difference of opinion. But such hostility toward dissenters is becoming increasingly common in climate science, and it is not limited just to scientists. Marine biologist Peter Ridd was sacked last month by James Cook University (JCU) in Australia for disagreeing on the state of the Great Barrier Reef. Ridd, a skeptic of exaggerated impacts of climate change on coral reefs, was put on notice earlier this year after he expressed his opinion on a private news channel. Despite Ridd’s posing no threat to the university or to the health of research there, the university sacked him for disagreeing with some propaganda climate alarmists use to scare the general public—the destruction of the Great Barrier Reef due to man-made climate change. The health of the Great Barrier Reef, the world’s largest and most biodiverse coral reef, is not as bad as claimed by scientists who advocate climate alarmism. Ridd is not the only victim of this climate witch-hunt. Climate alarmists routinely attack scientists who pose a threat to the extremist narrative. Here are six others (out of many), with links to articles that document their persecution: Roger A. Pielke, Jr., is a political scientist known for his expertise in public policy, science, environment-society interactions, and advocates of climate science that is free from political influence. Ross McKitrick, tenured professor at the University of Guelph, is a Canadian economist specializing in environmental economics and policy analysis. He played an important role in unearthing the undeniable flaws in the current climate change models used by alarmist scientists, especially the Hockey Stick Graph. John Christy, is a climate scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville (UAH), where he and another climate scientist, Roy Spencer, developed the first successful satellite temperature record. He has testifiedto the U.S. House Committee on Science, Space & Technology on the faulty nature of climate models and how the warming trend has been exaggerated by climate alarmists. Fred Singer, an emeritus professor of environmental science at the University of Virginia, was the first director of the U.S. National Weather Satellite Service. A Fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, and a Member of the International Academy of Astronautics, he is known for his ground-breaking contributions in space research, atmospheric pollution, rocket and satellite technology, and stratospheric ozone loss. Judith Curry, is an acclaimed climatologist and critic of climate alarmism, who endured hostility from climate alarmists. She was the former chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology and a recipient of the Henry G. Houghton Research Award from the American Meteorological Society. David Legates, a geologist and climatologist, is the former Director of the Center for Climatic Research at the University of Delaware. He is known for his research papers, opinion editorials, and talks on the dangers of climate alarmism. This attitude of climate alarmists that all critics must be attacked and silenced undermines science by curtailing freedom of speech, destroying the environment necessary for scientific debate. More worryingly, alarmists’ censorship curtails the culture of evidence-based empirical science, in which observational data override any theory. Alarmists’ obsession with faulty forecasts about our climatic system and hypotheses about the coming climate doomsday has led them to resist any challenge posed by actual, real-time observational data that indicate otherwise. And this pervasive attitude of alarmists is not just within the academies! It is surprising and shocking how the alarmist contingent weeds out dissenting voices from all spheres of our society, including mass media and political institutions. The majority of climate alarmists oppose President Trump because of his more neutral stance on climate. In fact, some call for imprisonment of politicians who fail to endorse the climate doomsday agenda. And, any journalist in the liberal media who writes or speaks against the doomsday narrative will be quickly reprimanded. Case in point? Bret Stephens, formerly a Wall Street Journal columnist who moved to the New York Times, got blasted by climatistas for pointing out that aside from the pretty universally accepted facts that global temperature had risen by about 1.5 degrees Fahrenheit since 1880 and that human action contributed to the warming, everything else was up for grabs—as any reading of the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s massive reports would show. One fellow journalist—if you can call her that—Libby Watson of Gizmodo, tweeted something so vulgar I can’t quote it. Eve Peyser at Vice called his ideas “violently hateful.” And some social media users called for a boycott of the Times for publishing Stephens’s article, while others created a petition on Change.org demanding that he be fired. Dissenters are even cut off from discussion in social media. A climate scientist controversial for his infamous hockey stick graph that minimized climate change over the past thousand years but exaggerated it over the past century blocked me from his Twitter account after I retweeted one of his tweets. It is quite extraordinary that climate scientists block skeptical voices on the social media platform, yet claim that they are the real agents for the progress of climate science. Alarmist climate scientists, largely steered by grant providers, are turning their field into what is at best pseudo-science. It looks like science and is performed by scientists, but both its practice and its conclusions are driven by vested interests of lobbyists, politicians, and global governance institutions. Climate science is truly in a sorry state. Proponents and advocates of real science must protest climate alarmists’ calculated attacks on skeptics—whose probing questions are marks of the truly scientific mind—in universities and the press. We’re glad to see that one of them, Cliff Mass, Professor of Atmospheric Sciences at the University of Washington, has spoken out boldly against calling skeptics “deniers.” Many more should join him. It is high time scientists, journalists, and politicians stopped suppressing skeptical voices and attacking the skeptics in the climate-change debate. They should instead promote critical enquiry in climate science—the same critical enquiry that has made so many other branches of science successful in the quest for true understanding of the world around us, how it works, and how we can make it work better for mankind."
You have to see the irony here. AGW supporters can point you to thousands of different lines of evidences by thousands of different people. You have sought out just two people (Lindzen and Curry) that support your skeptical viewpoint. So the question is...did you harbor the skeptical worldview first and then sought out those specifically supporting your position or did you weigh all of the available evidence and build a position around that? The former is confirmation bias while the later is not. I, for one, didn't decide to be an AGW advocate because it felt right or because I'm a liberal (which I'm not by the way). I am an AGW advocate because I have no choice. The overwhelming majority of evidence leads me to the conclusion that AGW is real and that it has explanatory and predictive power far beyond any other theory. The point is that for every piece of evidence you can present that is skeptical of AGW (and it does exist) I can point you to 10 others that support AGW.
When will the alarmists commence using these thousands of sources? I normally see bloggers, similar to myself, chatting eagerly as if they are researchers. But they are not researchers. My history is this. Back in 1980, I was formally introduced to weather as a study during my study for the pilots license. Most do not understand why Weather is vital to pilots but we are trained to know why and to understand it. Weather is definitely short term climate. To help train us, we are trained not only in local weather, but global weather. most who attack me never even trained in this. They do not understand how weather works globally. But they want to teach me. The irony is rich. I tried to e mail Lindzen one time and only hoped he might comment. But he was gracious enough to elaborate and i was asking him questions. He made available to me his papers though they are at the MIT internet site. As to my skepticism, most of this is over the alarm. Why are the alarmists trying to frighten the world to death? I suspect there is a pot of money when they do so. I can't collect a dime over asking questions nor making excellent points. It's all for free. Since I do not fear warming, nor fear climate, for me it is kind of like trying to help that poor red headed step child that is abused by the alarmists. Fine, you choose to worry about climate. i was trained to live with it and cope with it.
Are you sure? I have some data that suggests that the sea state rose over a couple hundred feet since the abatement of the last ice age. Are you sure you want to suggest total ablation of all ice on the planet? Do you have a temp profile that suggests that this is even ever possible?
Many times people have posted to you charts showing watts per square meter of forcing for the various sources of heating and cooling of our earth. Yet, YOU continue to claim these factors aren't cited. What's up with you? Do you really think you can retain ANY kind of credibility while blatantly ignoring cites - even to the point of denying their existence???
WOW, now you blame me over what you just now claimed. I do not need such charts. I have long studied this so am aware of said charts. I never brought up charts. But you just now did.
Update from Dr. Curry on her presentation Of course feel to critique her presentation. The debate: my presentation Posted on June 12, 2018 by curryja | 25 Comments by Judith Curry My presentation is provided here. This is being posted at the start of the event. I HUGELY appreciate the comments that you provided on that one slide [link], both in the comments and sent via email. I definitely got the message. I will be very interested in your reactions to my presentation [ debate ]. My talking points are provided below, with some of the ppt slides. 1 Cover Good evening everyone. Thank you very much for coming, I look forward to our conversation this evening. 2 Agreement/disagreement There is widespread agreement on these basic tenets: Surface temperatures have increased since 1880 Humans are adding carbon dioxide to the atmosphere Carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases have a warming effect on the planet However, there is substantial disagreement about the issues of greatest consequence: Whether the recent warming has been dominated by human causes How much the planet will warm in the 21stcentury Whether warming is ‘dangerous’ How we should respond to the warming I have bolded the two issues that are the focus of this conversation. Now there is nothing wrong or bad about scientific disagreement. In fact, the scientific process thrives in the face of disagreement, which motivates research in new directions. 3 Disagreement: causes of climate change On the left hand side is the perspective of a stable climate that changes in response to changes in atmospheric CO2. In other words, carbon dioxide as the climate control knob. It’s a simple and seductive idea. However some scientists think that this is a misleading oversimplification. They regard climate as a complex nonlinear dynamical system, with no simple cause and effect. Climate can shift naturally in unexpected ways, owing to natural internal variability associated with large-scale ocean circulations. 4 Elephant Now these two perspectives are not mutually exclusive. Proponents of the CO2as control knob idea acknowledge the existence natural variability but dismiss it as noise that averages out. Proponents of the natural variability arguments acknowledge the impact of CO2, but consider it to be a modest wedge that projects onto the natural modes of climate variability. The point of this cartoon is that if you only look at one part of the elephant, you will misdiagnose. You need to look at the entire elephant. The bottom line is that we don’t yet have a unified theory of climate variability and change that integrates all this. 5 Disagreement: cause of climate change So does this rather arcane scientific debate actually matter? Well, yes it does. If you assume that carbon dioxide is the control knob for climate, than you can control climate by reducing CO2emissions. If you assume that climate change primarily occurs naturally, then the Earth’s climate is largely uncontrollable, and reducing CO2emissions will do little or nothing to change the climate. My personal assessment aligns with the right-hand side, emphasizing natural variability. However, the IPCC and the so-called consensus aligns with the left hand side. About 10 years ago, I also aligned with left hand side, because I thought supporting the IPCC consensus was the responsible thing to do. Here is how and why I changed my mind. 6 Policy cart before scientific horse In 2010, I started digging deeper, both into the science itself and the politics that were shaping the science. I came to realize that the policy cart was way out in front of the scientific horse. The 1992 UN Climate Change treaty was signed by 190 countries before the balance of scientific evidence suggested even a discernible human influence on global climate. The 1997 Kyoto Protocol was implemented before we had any confidence that most of the warming was caused by humans. There was tremendous political pressure on the IPCC scientists to present findings that would support these treaties, which resulted in a manufactured consensus. 7 You find what you shine a light on Here is how the so-called consensus and increasing confidence in human-caused global warming became a self-fulfilling prophesy. You find what you shine a light on. In other words, we have only been looking at one part of the elephant. Motivated by the UN Climate treaty and the IPCC and government funding, climate scientists have focused primarily on human-caused climate change. Other factors important for understanding climate variability and change have been relatively neglected. I have highlighted long-term ocean oscillations and solar indirect effects, since I think that these are potentially very important on decadal to century timescales. 8 The sea level rise alarm One of the most consequential impacts of a warming climate is sea level rise. These two statements by climate scientists typify the alarm over sea level rise: Is this alarm justified by the scientific evidence? 9 Is CO2 the control knob for global sea level rise? This figure illustrates the challenge of attributing long-term sea level rise to CO2emissions. The blue curve shows sea level change since 1800, measured from tide gauges. The red curve shows global emissions of carbon dioxide from burning of fossil fuels. You can see that global sea levels were rising steadily long before fossil fuels emissions became substantial. You can also see that the steep increase in emissions following 1950 is associated with very little sea level rise between 1950 and 1990. An uptick in sea level rise occurred in the 1990’s, which is circled. Lets take a closer look to see what is causing this. 10 What is causing recent sea level rise? Since 1993, global satellite data have provided valuable information about sea level variations and glacier mass balance. This figure shows a recent analysis of the budget of sea level rise since 1993. You can see that overall the rate of sea level rise has increased since 1993. What is causing this increase? The turquoise region on the bottom of the diagram relates directly to expansion from warming. You actually see a decrease until about 2009, which has been attributed to the cooling impact following the eruption of Mount Pinatubo in 1992. What stands out as causing the increase in the rate of sea level rise is the growing contribution from Greenland, which is the dark blue area on top. Hence the recent increase in the rate of sea level rise is caused by Greenland melting. 11 Variations in Greenland glacier mass balance So, is the Greenland melting caused by increasing CO2 emissions? This figure shows the Greenland mass balance for the 20th century. Ice sheet mass balance is defined as increase from snowfall, minus the decrease from melting. You can see the negative mass balance values after 1995, reflecting mass loss that raises sea level. If you look earlier in the record, you see even larger negative values particularly in the 1920’s and 1930’s. Clearly, the high surface mass loss rates of recent years are not unprecedented, even in the 20thcentury. Greenland was anomalously warm in the 1930’s and 1940’s. What caused this? The bottom figure shows variations in the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation, which is an important mode of natural internal climate variability. The AMO is a powerful control on the climate of Greenland. Ingeneral, years with positive AMO index are associated with a mass loss for Greenland, whereas negative AMO index is associated with a mass gain. 12 IPCC AR5 quotes on sea level rise From this analysis, I can only conclude that CO2 emissions are not the main cause of sea level rise since the mid 19thcentury. The scientific evidence that I’ve shown you on the preceding slides is well known to the IPCC. Here are some statements that the most recent IPCC report made on sea level change and Greenland: 13 To what extent are man-made CO2 emissions contributing to climate change? I’ve been asked to respond to the question “To what extent are man-made CO2 emissions contributing to climate change?” The short answer is: ‘we don’t know.’ The reason is that we don’t know how to disentangle natural internal variability from the effects of CO2–driven warming Even the IPCC doesn’t claim to know exactly. The most recent IPCC assessment report says it is ‘extremely likely’ to be ‘more than half.’ ‘More than half’ is not very precise. Given the IPCC’s neglect of multi-decadal and longer time scales of natural internal variability, I regard the extreme confidence of their conclusion to be unjustified So here is my personal assessment, using the jargon of the IPCC: Man-made CO2emissions are as likely as not to contribute less than 50% of the recent warming 14 Should we reduce emissions to prevent warming? Even if you believe the climate model projections, there is still genuine disagreement regarding whether a rapid acceleration away from fossil fuels is the appropriate policy response. One side argues that reducing CO2emissions are critical for preventing future dangerous warming of the climate. The other side argues that any reduction in warming would be minimal and at high cost, and that the ‘cure’ could be worse than the ‘disease’. 15 Climate pragmatism What makes most sense to me is Climate Pragmatism, which has been formulated by the Hartwell group. Climate pragmatism has 3 pillars: Accelerate energy innovation Build resilience to extreme weather No regrets pollution reduction These policies provide near-term socioeconomic & environmental benefits and have justifications independent of climate mitigation & adaptation These are no regrets policies that do not require agreement about climate science or the risks of uncontrolled greenhouse gases 16 Madhouse effect I would like to make a few comments on the state of the scientific and public debate on climate change. Here is my take on the Madhouse effect. The madhouse that concerns me is one that has been created by climate scientists. The madhouse is characterized by Rampant overconfidence in an overly simplistic theory of climate change Enforcement of a politically-motivated, manufactured ‘consensus’ Attempts to stifle scientific and policy debates Activism and advocacy for their preferred politics and policy Self-promotion and ‘cashing in’ Public attacks on other scientists that do not support the ‘consensus’ Hmmm . . . maybe I should write a book. 17 Personal statement In closing, I would like to make a personal statement, to clarify my motives I regard my job as a scientist to critically evaluate evidence and to continually challenge and reassess conclusions drawn from the evidence. A year ago I resigned my tenured faculty position because of academic political pressures that interfered with doing my job. My resignation was a direct result of ‘science madhouse effect’ discussed on the previous slide. I am now working in the private sector as President of Climate Forecast Applications Network My direct engagement with public is via my blog Climate Etc. where we discuss a broad range of topics related to climate science and policy. I hope you’ll join us at judithcurry.com. OK, I have concluded that Curry is accurate.
Townhall.com is a website that allows wingnuts to rant about anything too liberal for them, which is nearly everything. It is further to the right than the National Review Online. Like Salem Radio Network it is owned by Salem Communications. It represents all of the loudest sects of the American right, including hardline neoconservatism, the religious right, and some paleoconservatives. https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Townhall.com
That means you could not refute anything at all in the article. We do not need your opinion as to sites. Do you tie all your beliefs to the DailyKos site or Media Matters? Is Soros your hero next to Ailes?
The sea levels rose a couple hundred feet because half the planet was covered by ice and most of that melted. In order to melt Antarctic ice it would take temperatures like the dinosaur era which had an ice-free planet. But the arctic has gone ice free many times in the past and could easily become ice free again raising sea levels 20 feet.
No published peer reviewed research is not confirmation bias not when it is in the form of a systematic review such as the IPCC report
