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

The economics of this issue are almost never honestly discussed. That insures that the offered solutions are tainted. Then factor in the uncertainty of all the suggested mitigation. Nobody has pinned down any of these complex relationships to my satisfaction. Then add in the clear hysteria of the Carbonista and I'm left with my standard conclusion:

SCIENCE +POLITICS = POLITICS

Expensive action now is unlikely to be properly directed.

 

I obviously meant air temperature data. I do understand you do not comprehend any of the issues and believe every time the dataset is changed that it is always correct even though it changes every iteration.

 

That's right, the whole planet is wrong about the science, and your little fringe cult is the only group that understands the RealTruth. No, no, that doesn't sound at all cultlike. Really it doesn't.

The point is the CO2 forcing was much smaller at that time, and was overwhelmed by the aerosol forcing. You're just not very good at this.

And they didn't teach you the limitations of it? They should have. They especially should have taught the folly of cherrypicking data to get a fit, as you do, or the folly of extending the curve outside of the cherrypicked area.

That's right, all the data that contradicts your theory is faked. Again, nothing cultlike about that.

"Plunged" to a level far above the historical averge. Even UAH, which has a large known cooling bias, shows the ongoing strong warming.

That's nice. However, the topic being discussed was your support of another's claim that the 3.0C climate sensitivity was wrong, and that a much lower value was correct. That claim got shredded, so now you're trying to change the topic. I'll take that as your admission that you were completely wrong.

No, I'm not claiming that. If I had wanted to say that, I would have said it. I didn't say it, because I believe no such thing. Try arguing with what I say, instead of what you wish I'd said.

Again, the point you're running from here is that you tried to pass off a load of bunk that climate sensitivity was too high. I demonstrated it was spot on, and that denier lowball claims were flatly contradicted by the observed data. I understand why you're trying to run from that now, given how bad it made you look.

Is that a prelude to your final "declare victory and retreat" speech?

Nope. That's just you lying about what my claim supposedly was. Doing that only makes you look bad.

And dishonest.

The data flatly contradicts your theory in multiple ways. Your theory doesn't even reach the point where it can be tested with Occam's razor. It's just flat out falsified. In contrast, AGW theory explains all the data well, and is the simplest theory to do so, hence it is most likely to be correct.

 

More like "believing the crazy claims of Anthony Watts"

The "bad" stations, as defined by Watts, and using his data, show exactly the same temperature trend as the "good" stations.

https://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/ushcn/v2/monthly/menne-etal2010.pdf
---
Further, the influence of nonstandard siting on
temperature trends can only be quantified through an analysis of the data. Adjustments
applied to USHCN Version 2 data largely account for the impact of instrument and siting
changes, although a small overall residual negative (“cool”) bias appears to remain in the
adjusted maximum temperature series.
---

Okay, I take that back. The "bad" stations showed _less_ warming than the others. Should we leave them out, and thus make the rate of warming look bigger?

 

What is obvious that you claimed the data set does not contain any satellite data. You claimed that, you claimed that over and over. And I proved you wrong. You admitted defeat. You admitted defeat to than rant that the calibration of satellites is iffy and so hint that the data set who you previously demanded it must contain satellite data to be of value, is now crap because it contains satellite data.

flip flop flip flop
Whatever it takes to discredit global warming.

So now it is, satellites do not measure the temperature of the air, but of water... so it's not of any value.
Can you enlighten us why there is a need of measuring the temperature of the air and not of the water?

 

^^
It's obvious to any child that there is correlation. Farmers use C02 to crank up the heat in their greenhouses. Hence the term "greenhouse gasses". It's just more than dumb to deny all this.

crops and animals die if it gets too hot.

The GISS temperature analysis uses temperatures measured on the surface as well. It has been quotes/sourced. Your claim that satellites are not well calibrated is not founded on anything. And do note, your fake news site only rants about data from satellites.

 

How do you explain the last 70 years.

Crops and animals thrive in the increased habitat area and warm season. And crops thrive in higher CO2 concentrations. That's why CO2 is sometimes used in greenhouses.

Satellites must be calibrated using surface temperature measurements.

 

Known stations with unquantifiable urban heat effects should be discarded. Period. Attempting to correct for urban heating which varies throughout the day and night is impossible.

Read the conclusion of the paper - it's a bunch of hand waving attempting to justify the use of data contaminated by the environment of certain stations.

 

What about it? It always fluctuates, but the correlation is exceptionally obvious. Farmers even use it to crank up the temperature on purpose in their greenhouses. Starts to be going total retard to deny the obvious.

.
Too hot, they die

Can you source that the data collected by NASA is not calibrated?

 

The calibration is still dependent on the highly adjusted buoy and ship engine intake data.

- - - Updated - - -

From 1970 to 1998 only, not before and not now during the pause.

 

Here is a good example of what is 'estimated' or basically made up. The first picture shows where the NOAA/NASA says is the record heat, the second picture shows that there are no recording stations where much of it is.

 

Your equation is true, but meaningless.

The catch is that ALL PUBLIC POLICY (every law, regulation, tax exemption, etc.) is set through politics.

The question isn't that it is political. We KNOW it is political. We voted for the decision makers and they are held to nothing but the law and the opinions of their constituents - politics!


==>The question is whether our policy is PURELY political or whether there is a working method of accepting science as a contributor TO policy.

 

Look at the graph. There is a warming with a similar time rate at a lower CO2 rate from 1920 - 1940 than the higher CO2 rate from 1980 - 2000. Then there is a cooling from 1940 - 1980 with a CO2 rate similar to the rate from 1980 - 2000. And why is the time period from 2000 - 2016 missing.

People can live in cities that are typically ~ 3 deg C hotter than the rural areas surrounding them. Animals will have no trouble adjusting to a slow warming of 1 deg C in the next century.

The satellite data is useless without the surface temperature thermometers. The output signal from the satellite measurements must be calibrated against a known temperature from the area that the satellite samples. Without that information from thermometers the satellite information is meaningless.

 

The equation clearly states that mixing politics with science yields politicized science. The IPCC considers only AGW and pays for AGW science. The IPCC is not interested and does not fund science which investigates for example whether clouds are feedback or forcing. If they are forcing the climate sensitivity to CO2 is very much less than the models (which assume feedback) predict. Would it not be in the best interest of the world to determine whether energy policies which increase the price of energy and thus regressively affect third world and all low income people are of any benefit ??

 

They can put a man on the moon like 60 years back, but to adjust temperature intake via a ship engine... impossible!
right..

lol

What about it? From 1970 to 2000 its mostly under the line, before it mostly above the line.
On average.. its there.

 

Evidently you think about 100 years is a long time in a system that has 1000 and 100,000 year cycles.

 

It is impossible. There is no way to determine with certainty what the actual water temperature was without performing experiments on the actual ship under the actual conditions. Any attempt to do so after the fact is based on speculation.

There is no functional relationship between global average temperature and CO2 concentration.

 

We need a way for science to affect public policy.

That is my point.


Your concern is quite different. You are attacking science, suggesting that science is BS, because of some perception you have.

Specifically, you are trying to promote the idea that there is an international conspiracy. But, the IPCC is NOT the major funding source for climate related science in the USA, and every industrialized nation in the world has funding for science that is independent of other nations. Casting the IPCC as some sort of evil villain just doesn't work.

And, pointing to your one bit of science is a bad way for you to try to make your argument. Nobody has scientific credentials here. And, you have no cite nor rebuttal from the science community so that both sides of your proposed dispute is understood.

 

We need a way to prevent the politicization of science. The IPCC is a political organization - it does not do science. It is an organization that generates public policy recommendations based on the conclusion that human CO2 emissions will basically destroy civilization. Those governments who sign on also fund and pay for scientific research that validates that conclusion. I have a BS in Chemical Engineering and an MS in Mechanical Engineering - Thermal Systems. I am certainly not suggesting that science is BS. But politicization of science is BS.

An equally egregious example is the EPA regulations on 2.5 micron particulate matter.

 

Right now in America, the affect of science on policy decisions is being reduced.

And, that applies to all subjects, NOT just climate. It includes, for example, Conway's "alternative facts" direction - showing total disregard for data readily available from multiple sources.


As for climate change, scientists are presenting evidence that puts climate change within the range of importance that should result in public policy decision making. That is, the likelihood of human contribution times the magnitude of the impact is well over what we would ordinarily consider as reason to act.

Opposition to considering policy response is essentially purely political, supported by those who simply deny science.

Even Dr. Judith Curry agrees with that.


You claim to be an engineer. No engineer can accept this idea that science can be simply ignored.

 

I am not ignoring science. I'm acknowledging science - all of it. That's what engineers do. Human emissions of CO2 can not explain the totality magnitude of global warming. And there are benefits to global warming which makes global warming net beneficial for the next ~ 200 years. Those nations most affected by global warming are the third world countries with the lowest standards of living. The most important factor in improving the standard of living in third world countries is inexpensive electrical power generation 24/7/365 which can only be met by fossil fuels. To enact energy policies which raise the price of this electrical power is immoral. The correct and moral policy response is to grow the global economy at the maximum rate.

Conway's "alternative facts" are also an acknowledgement of the truth - all of it.

 

People seem to forget we are in a 2.5 million year ice age and are lucky to be in one of the relatively short inter glacial periods. Current temperatures are way below the average for earth and when it was warmer is when the earth was lush with much more life. We are actually too close to CO2 levels that hamper plant growth.

 

Indeed. Sometimes it's lower sometimes it is higher. On average... the correlation is right there. And it has been there for 400.000 years.

Prove the satellites weren't calibrated already.

 

That is just your opinion. And your silly opinion means nothing.

Of course there is. Farmers have been using greenhouse gasses to achieve higher temperatures with success.

 

That's a good one. Pray tell explain how they use greenhouse gasses to achieve higher temperatures?