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

Discussion in 'Environment & Conservation' started by In The Dark, Jan 6, 2017.

  1. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    59,467
    Likes Received:
    16,350
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Yes. She agrees the planet is warming, but believes the human contribution isn't as significant as almost all other climatologists are finding to be true.

    I'd point out that Curry lobbies for MORE action on climate change.

    The fact of the matter is that even if there were no human contribution (which is supported only by a tiny minority), there still would be serious actions we should take due to the fact that earth's temperature is rising.



    Plus, when we go about making public policy, we have to consider odds. There will never be proof. In fact, no public policy is based on proof. Let me know if you find a public policy that was put in place based on proof.
     
  2. AFM

    AFM Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2014
    Messages:
    35,776
    Likes Received:
    8,610
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The economic analyses which consider the benefits of global warming indicate that there are net benefits for the next 3 deg C of warming. That amount of warming will take ~ 200 years at the climate sensitivity to CO2 calculated from real world data. That is proof enough to indicate that energy policies to increase the price of fossil fuels will only do net harm to the world's economy and specific harm to third world countries. That is the public policy which you are advocating.
     
  3. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    59,467
    Likes Received:
    16,350
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The earliest exposure to biology covers the fact that life forms have various combinations of requirements, and adding more of any single requirement does NOT necessarily result in more vigorous growth.

    As for CO2 in our atmosphere, we can look around and notice the results of having more CO2 - which are not limited to the direct exposure of a plant to CO2, since there are many indirect affects of having more CO2.
     
  4. Hoosier8

    Hoosier8 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2012
    Messages:
    107,541
    Likes Received:
    34,488
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The problem you run into deciding policy based on the worst case scenario put out by the alarmists is the same problem you would have if you made decisions based on any worst case scenario. You would never open the door to go outside.
     
  5. notme

    notme Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2013
    Messages:
    42,019
    Likes Received:
    5,395
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Again. Your opinion is not worth a thing, without a source. lol
    Does it look like I care about your alleged personal experience?
     
  6. notme

    notme Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2013
    Messages:
    42,019
    Likes Received:
    5,395
    Trophy Points:
    113
    If you got a point to bring in, than lets have it already.

    We pumped in a good 1/3 above the maximum of C02 we have previously recorded over the last 400.000 years.

    If you got prove that the satellites, a multi million industry, are poorly calibrated, than lets have it.

    - - - Updated - - -

    I already have sourced C02 increases the temperature. With higher temperatures you can grow flowers and veggies straight through the winter. Apparently you never given it a second though when doing your groceries.
     
  7. AFM

    AFM Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2014
    Messages:
    35,776
    Likes Received:
    8,610
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Oh, really ?? I'd suggest you review your biology and read "Miracle Molecule - CO2 the Gas of Life" - Driessen - 2014 for a comprehensive review including the effects of CO2 concentration on water requirements and the specific beneficial effects on C3, C4, and CAM plants.

    What are some of these indirect effects of more CO2 ??
     
  8. notme

    notme Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2013
    Messages:
    42,019
    Likes Received:
    5,395
    Trophy Points:
    113
    To protect a city like New Orleans cost the tax payer a good 130 billion bucks. The entire value of the corn grown in the US is like 50 billion bucks. Corn is the biggest agricultural industry in the US. There simply is no way that better plant growth outweighs the cost of global warming. It's not even in the same ballpark.
     
  9. AFM

    AFM Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2014
    Messages:
    35,776
    Likes Received:
    8,610
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You are claiming that there is a correlation between CO2 and global temperature but in the last 70 years there have been periods of warming, cooling, and steady temperatures. This shows no direct functional relationship between CO2 concentration and global temperature. How do you explain that ??

    We have warmed and cooled at constant CO2 and warmed and cooled with increasing CO2. How do you conclude that there is a direct link between CO2 and global temperature ??

    The surface temperature derived from satellites is meaningless without known surface temperatures from thermometers.

    And how does increasing CO2 in a greenhouse increase the temperature in the greenhouse ?? You haven't source anything that explains that.
     
  10. AFM

    AFM Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2014
    Messages:
    35,776
    Likes Received:
    8,610
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Katrina was a Cat 3 hurricane which scored a direct hit on a highly vulnerable city. Katrina had nothing to do with global warming.
     
  11. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    59,467
    Likes Received:
    16,350
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The national security threat of a warming planet is NOT mitigated by greater agricultural output in Canada or other specific locations.

    People move and governments fail when local food production fails.

    So, the issue is whether India, Pakistan, Iran, etc., etc. can feed their people.

    The Syrian exodus and the violence springing from hopelessness that we see today is trivial in comparison to what we could see if local agriculture fails in other areas, or when sea rise causes people to have to move in numbers. Three quarters of all large cities are on the coast. Today, Bangladesh is experiencing agricultural change and sea rise, resulting in large numbers trying to move, and causing India to build an extensive wall against them.
     
  12. Hoosier8

    Hoosier8 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2012
    Messages:
    107,541
    Likes Received:
    34,488
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You specifically said farmers are using CO2. How so?
     
  13. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    59,467
    Likes Received:
    16,350
    Trophy Points:
    113
    This is well known technology for greenhouses.

    Here's one system you could buy:
    http://purehydroponics.com/products/electronics/co2-injection/

    Of course, greenhouses may also have control of water, heat, humidity, air movement, sometimes day length & solar intensity, nutrients, biota (improving nutrient availability, for example), substrate (soil, sand, water), acidity, disease control (which can have implications on the other factors), etc.

    Also, too much of a "good" thing (including CO2) can cause damage.
     
  14. notme

    notme Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2013
    Messages:
    42,019
    Likes Received:
    5,395
    Trophy Points:
    113
    What is your point? If you got a point, than lets have it already instead of non stop asking questions that are going nowhere. You added nothing to this entire thread so far, with your petty denials about satellites, and how they measure that the globe is warming.
     
  15. notme

    notme Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2013
    Messages:
    42,019
    Likes Received:
    5,395
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Who said anything about Katrina? You admit it was a direct hit on a highly vulnerable city. With higher sea levers due to a warmer climate, means that more cities are vulnerable. And the cost to protect them just dwarfs the entire agricultural industry. Get it. Your point about plants go better with it, is true but still totally irrelevant because the costs of the damage outweigh the entire agricultural industry. Talking about things that benefit our economy.... it's lower taxes due to lower sea levels, not higher.
     
  16. notme

    notme Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2013
    Messages:
    42,019
    Likes Received:
    5,395
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I put up a graph of the last 400.000 years and any child will notice the lines move up and down at roughly the same time by default. That there are fluctuations when you eyeball only a decade at a time, does not disprove the overal correlation what so ever.

    The graph that shows the last 400.000 years, shows a correlation between global temperature and C02.
    And we know C02 contributes to the temperature.

    You claim the we do use thermometers to measure the surface temperatures?
    Really? omg... lol

    I have sourced this:
    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.

    Tell me,.. how hard is it for you to look up C02 on wikipedia?
    This is an adult forum. If you can not even do this, than it's obvious this is too difficult to follow.
     
  17. AFM

    AFM Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2014
    Messages:
    35,776
    Likes Received:
    8,610
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Alarmism based on what ?? The disregard of the benefits of global warming. There is no national security threat resulting from a warming planet. That is a false narrative generated by the Obama executive branch which was included in the Dept of Defense report. It is all speculation based on the upper limits of the computer models and application of the precautionary principle. All those countries will have no trouble feeding their people with increases in arable land, increased growing seasons, and increased plant growth rates. And if those countries have greater access to fossil fueled electrical power generation producing inexpensive electricity available 24/7/365 their economies will grow at faster rates, the standard of living of their poor will increase at faster rates, the poor will transition away from open flame black carbon air pollution which results in high death rates, and food production will be increased with the resources generated from the economic growth.

    The situations in Syria and Bangladesh have nothing to do with global warming. And a sea level rise of 1 inch per decade is nothing to worry about unless public energy policy results in reductions in economic growth which significantly reduce the capability of nations to adapt. Claiming that sea level rise of ~ 1 ft per century is an existential threat to the world coastal cities is ridiculous.
     
  18. AFM

    AFM Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2014
    Messages:
    35,776
    Likes Received:
    8,610
    Trophy Points:
    113
    New Orleans ?? Katrina had nothing to do with global warming. The storm surge due to Katrina were measured in tens of feet. The sea level rise due to global warming is ~ one foot per century.
     
  19. AFM

    AFM Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2014
    Messages:
    35,776
    Likes Received:
    8,610
    Trophy Points:
    113
    It shows that global temperature goes up and down independent of CO2 concentration.

    It also shows that global temperature precedes increases in CO2 concentration.

    I'm claiming that the satellite data used to determine surface temperature is meaningless. The surface temperature at that specific location and point in time must be known to calibrate the satellite. That is in the source you linked to.

    That link has nothing to do with greenhouses. In a greenhouse solar radiation enters through the glass and is absorbed by the objects in the greenhouse which acts to heat them. The objects in the greenhouse then radiate energy at longer wavelengths. This longer wavelength radiation is reflected by the glass. The mass in the greenhouse warms to a temperature equilibrium determined by the heat transfer through the glass to the outside via conduction and convection. CO2 has nothing to do with the operation of a greenhouse.
     
  20. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    59,467
    Likes Received:
    16,350
    Trophy Points:
    113
    No, warming is definitely a national security threat. Our military has recognized that for some time now, and has been investing accordingly.

    We always set public policy in a manner that makes reasonable investments to mitigate problems that are seen to be arising. The primary reason for that is that we don't EVER have proof for what's going to happen. I often cite TARP as such a case. But, so is FEMA, spending on education, or anything else. When one can never have proof, it is a little ridiculous to wait for proof.

    Reputable scientific assessment of the net impact of a warming planet is ALWAYS negative.

    Your claim that problems in Syria and Bangladesh haven't been exacerbated by warming are refuted by many. But, it doesn't even matter, as those ARE models of exactly what is predicted.

    You're just trying to downplay the threat of rising seas by suggesting it isn't existential. But, the threat is very real, expensive, and can cause people movement, which is a security issue.
     
  21. AFM

    AFM Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2014
    Messages:
    35,776
    Likes Received:
    8,610
    Trophy Points:
    113
    That is a politicized policy straight out of the Obama administration.

    The economic analyses which account for the benefits of global warming show net benefits. Your "reputable" assessments consider only the negatives based on exaggerated climate sensitivities of CO2 from the models which fail hindsight tests. The evidence of the relative progress which humans made in the Minoan, Roman, Medieval warm periods contrasted with the intervening cold periods is well documented and is proof of the benefits of a warm planet.

    Even the IPCC does not blame droughts on global warming. There is no predicted or observed increase in frequency of droughts or other extreme climate variations. The models do not predict increased frequency. They do predict increased intensity but that has not yet been observed.

    The sea level rise of 1 ft per century is trivial and can be easily adapted to especially in the ever increasing economic wealth of the future. This is a common deception of alarmists to project the economic state of the world today into the future with sea level rise of 1 ft per century.
     
  22. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    59,467
    Likes Received:
    16,350
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I didn't suggest any events were being made more frequent.


    Please cite your source on warming being a net benefit.

    Measuring by the success of ancient civilizations is nonsense. People of the time took advantage of methods that we just don't have at our disposal, given our population. They could move. Today, we see people movement as a MAJOR problem affecting national security, and we work hard to block it. Also, they could die, such as periods where grain from Northern Africa was insufficient for those in Rome.


    Today, earth produces about enough food to feed 1.5 times as many people as alive today. Yet, about 1 billion people (3X the population of America) go to sleep hungry every night. Total production just is NOT the food problem. So, saying that Canada can produce more food if it got warm means nothing as far as world hunger is concerned. On the other hand, water scarcity does.

    So, today we have China rerouting a river so that it doesn't flow to Bangladesh, because China is too dry. Dr. Curry points to that as a serious climate change related problem we should be addressing.


    As for being better than being cold, nobody cares. That's a false dichotomy. The issue is what happens if we get warmer. Earth was once totally covered by ice. Totally. Does that affect our decision making when we contemplate the next couple hundred years? Obviously NOT.
     
  23. AFM

    AFM Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2014
    Messages:
    35,776
    Likes Received:
    8,610
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Dr. Richard Tol has written a paper compiling all papers which consider both the benefits and costs of global warming.

    The reason people go to sleep hungry in third world countries is because they have insufficient access to energy sources which results in their susceptibility to the effects of climate. This has nothing to do with global warming.

    Why is the UN not doing anything about the Chinese rerouting this river ?? Global warming has nothing to do with what is going on in China. If the world is really interested in the people of Bangladesh they would build fossil fuel electrical power generation plants there which produce inexpensive power 24/7/365.

    Now please cite your sources which account for the benefits of global warming and conclude that the net impact of a warming planet is ALWAYS negative which says that there are no benefits to global warming. History clearly disproves that.
     
  24. notme

    notme Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2013
    Messages:
    42,019
    Likes Received:
    5,395
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Again: who said anything about Katrina?

    Due to global warming. The cost to protect yourself against that is astronomical compared to the benefits for farmers. Farming simply is an insignificant industry.
     
  25. notme

    notme Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2013
    Messages:
    42,019
    Likes Received:
    5,395
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Please source that satellites, who costs millions to put up in space, are not calibrated, or shush already.

    Oh that link has everything to do with CO2 and their use in greenhouses.
    It says right there it causes a rise in temperature.

    I sourced C02 is a cause of global warming.
     

Share This Page