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

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


They do. End of discussion.

 

Thanks for proving GISS does not use satellite temperature data.

 

Have you forgotten that your fake news site has its claim all about satellite data?
/facepalm

 

It says "using several data sets compiled ... from satellite measurements of ocean surface temperature"
Seems all the ridicule to global warming deniers are all justified at this point.

 

I stand corrected but here is an interesting issue.

 

I told you all along. You've lost this discussion like last week already.
And I fail to see a significance in you moving the goalpost now.

 

The links on that site were to UAH and RSS.

 

Yes, I've pointed that out - the satellite measurements do not stand alone. They must rely on surface measurements for calibration correction. And also on the applicability of that correction universally.

 

The bouy data, designed for science, did not show warming so it was adjusted up to match problematic ship engine intake and ship bucket data and incorporated into GISS based on the Karl et. al. Paper. For the land/ocean data this removed the pause in warming. Both satellite temperature records still show the pause. If the satellite ocean surface readings are calibrated with the bouy and ship records that means it may be showing a warming bias. GISS does not include satellite air temperature data.

Also the ocean data uses Night air temperature as a reference and there is controversy about how it is used.

 

Your "Satellite measurements can not used directly as temperature measurements." is just your latest rant about moving the goalposts. You lost all the discussions so far. Your utterly fake news site, with no links to UAH and RSS. Your idea that GISS is not using satellite data, even though it does. Only took a week to sink in. And now you think you spot a problem with satellite data... like UAH and RSS are satellite data as well, buddy. It's a first for me that some poster is busy disproving his own sources. lol

 

Uncertainty. Yes. Science ALWAYS provides uncertainty, since there is no way to prove something is true.


The important factor here is that it is public policy that is at issue. That is what we have to decide. Politics.

And, we NEVER have certainty when we make public policy. NEVER!

TARP? Bans on Muslim travel? Regulation on food purity? Affects of a wall against Mexico? There is NO field of public policy where those making that public policy have certainty. In fact, even years later there is no certainty that policy "worked". We spent billions on TARP, and still there is no agreement that it worked.


As Newt Gingrich pointed out, we make public policy when the odds of an event multiplied by the cost of the event goes large.

What science is telling us about climate is that our climate is warming, and that human activity is the primary reason. And, what science is telling us is that the cost of that is gigantic - the cost of major national security threats. That is also the assessment of our military. When agriculture fails (as in Syria), when seas rise, people move. Think of India needing to move.

Even Curry states that we need to be taking action, by the way. She points out that as we warm (which she agrees is happening) water will be a serious issue. One can point to the droughts in the US, in Syria, in India, the water changes that are affecting Bangladesh, the fact that China is rerouting a significant river so that it won't flow to Bangladesh anymore, because they see water shortage coming, etc.


Odds times cost - the odds are significant (not 100%) . The cost is gigantic.

Not doing anything about it is unconscionable.

 

GISS uses surface data as the main source either directly or as calibration. The GISS temperature series is based on surface measurements.

Still can't find the links ?? Can't do much about that problem.

 

What economics and science is telling us is that global warming is net beneficial and that imposing the economic costs of energy policy which acts to increase energy prices and decrease energy availability will do regressive damage to third world countries for zero benefit. And again the science and predictions clearly indicate that global warming will not increase the frequency of droughts, flooding, cyclones, etc. There may be an increase in intensity (which Dr. Curry agrees with) but that has not yet been observed (which has also been observed by Dr. Curry).

 

- what causes people movement is change. The change in agriculture is causing India to build a wall against Bangladesh, because the people there are in distress and want to move. Curry notes that there WILL be major issues with water that will cause people to want to move. This is a gigantic national security issue.

- The intensity of the drought in Syria is consider by scientists to have been exacerbated by the warming trend of earth. The result of people moving from failed farms into the cities caused stress that Assad could not handle, and is a significant factor in the resulting chaos.

- The USA is wealthy. If we end up buying food from Canada, it probably won't be a large issue. However, most nations in the world have to be able to feed their own people, or government will fail. Losing agricultural capability leads to failed states and serious national security issues.

- The energy policy of ALL first world nations (except the US) has included moving taxes from income to extracted hydrocarbon fuels. These nations are not experiencing the economic damage you claim. And, that has these nations producing far less CO2 per person than does the US. Claiming this is some sort of hardship on America is nonsense. And, pointing at third world nations as the reason we can't do anything is pure mendacity.

 

if? if? lol...
You either source it is and that its all fubar, or shush.
besides that... you whined for over a week that GIS does not use satellite data,
and now you whine that it does. Troll much?

 

So what.

 

The satellite measurements of surface temperature are meaningless without actual surface measurements.

 

You continue to confuse climate variability with global warming.

The economic damage done by adopting policies which result in higher energy prices regressively affects third world countries and the people living in them. They pay a much greater percentage of income for energy which reduces the rate of the increase in their standard of living. It is immoral to do so just as it is immoral to raise food prices by the ethanol policies of the US. And for no benefit or effect on the global average temperature.

 

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.


so much for that troll move

 

It is not a normal variability that the C02 levels skyrocketed. That is what us humans did and do.
And that C02, a greenhouse gas... has a direct correlation with global warming.

That investing in free energy is a policy that will make things more expensive is just weird. And since most 3rd world countries are in rather hot area's... it starts to be immoral to not do a thing about global warming, since those countries are hit the most hard.

 

And again - the satellite data is meaningless without the surface temperature calibration.

 

My source says they use meteorological stations as well as satellite measurements. So you got your calibration right there, since they use both. What an utter fail from you.

 

Human emissions of CO2 do not exhibit a direct functional relationship with global temperature. That is a fact.

Yes, economics does present a challenge to some. If third world countries would have fossil fuel fired electrical generation plants supplying inexpensive energy 24/7/365 they would be able to implement air conditioning for all saving lives. It is also well known that humans can adapt very well to slowly increasing global temperatures. Urban areas are an example of this as they typically are ~ 5 deg F warmer during the day and ~ 20 deg F warmer at night than rural areas.

- - - Updated - - -

Your source says that satellite data is meaningless without surface temperature data to calibrate the satellite data. The satellite data is useless without the surface temperature data.

 

It does. You can find tons of graphs on the web that show that there is a direct correlation.
People have been using these gasses in greenhouses to crank up the temperature for a long time now. Them are the facts.

When all the crops and animals die due to the heat, than there is nothing left but to leave those places and move where it is cooler.

You blind? My source says they use temperature data from the surface, so there you go.

 

How do you explain the cooling, warming, and steady temperatures with steadily increasing CO2 ??

The crops and animals thrive in the greater areas of warm temperatures and elevated CO2 concentration.

The satellite surface temperature is meaningless without the surface temperatures for calibration. The satellite data does not stand by itself. That's directly from your source.