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

First, the only way to calibrate satellite ocean surface temperature is to use the now in question buoy and ship intake temperatures to calibrate it to.

Greenhouses do not inject CO2 into greenhouses to raise temperature. That is simply absurd.

 

I fail to see a problem how this is impossible.

They still do it. And they grow plants in greenhouses to have a different climate there compared to outside.

 

The surface ocean temperature record is now under investigation due to tampering. If the surface temperature record is wrong then the satellites are being calibrated to a wrong temperature.

I am surprised that you don't know how a greenhouse works.

 

You mean the temperature record tampering accoring to Gary Palmer,... a politician?
http://www.factcheck.org/2015/02/nothing-false-about-temperature-data/

I'm suprized I had to freaking source that GIS, part of NASA uses satellites,
and that I had to source that C02 causes global warming.

 

Nope, according to a whistleblower, Dr Bates was one of two Principal Scientists at NCEI. As recently as 2014, the Obama administration awarded him a special gold medal for his work in setting new, supposedly binding standards ‘to produce and preserve climate data records’.

 

You did. One inch per decade will result in astronomical costs ??

 

Read your own link. Where does that link indicate that CO2 causes a rise in temperature in a greenhouse - it doesn't. CO2 absorbs and reradiates infrared energy. The globe has warmed and cooled with steady, increasing, and decreasing CO2 concentration. That is a factual statement of natural history.

 

And as Bates flat out said there was no tampering, you latest fraudulent conpiracy theory flops even harder than all your previous fraudulent conspiracy theories.

http://bigstory.ap.org/article/3fc5...warming-study-again-questioned-again-defended
---
However Bates, who acknowledges that Earth is warming from man-made carbon dioxide emissions, said in the interview that there was "no data tampering, no data changing, nothing malicious."

"It's really a story of not disclosing what you did," Bates said in the interview. "It's not trumped up data in any way shape or form."
---

Ooh. sucks to be you. The person you were just proclaiming to be perfect says you're making it all up. I'd say that denier credibility had cratered even more, if it wasn't already at zero.

 

From the article:

 

Nope. You don't have to falsify data to manipulate it. You can just choose not to use certain data that don't agree with your conclusion. That is the major form of AGW dishonesty.

 

If "looked like" is all you have,then...

 

Seeing how they did not use their own process to vet it yes. Bates was not the only one to complain.

 

Actually a huge positive development for academia. A leading denier cult faux-scientist propaganda pusher who takes money from the fossil fuel industry to spread disinformation and anti-science bullcrap has left her undeserved position at an American University. About time they 86ed that lying (*)(*)(*)(*)(*).

 

Ah, eco fanatic fake narrative.

 

I think we have identified Curry Derangement Syndrome. ^^

 

One voice - the leftist voice.

Got it.

 

<Rule 2>

Curry is a lying nutjob and a stooge for the fossil fuel industry, as her history clearly shows.

Judith Curry
RationalWiki
Judith Curry is a climatologist at Georgia Tech, infamous for flirting with the denier community on the basis that some of them have "good ideas" and can't get their contrarian papers published.

For instance, she has posted on Anthony Watts' blog, as well as Steve McIntyre's Climate Audit.

She has further embarrassed herself (and her university) by using refuted denier talking points and defending the Wegman Report, eventually admitting she "hadn't even read it in the first place".[1]

This and other shenanigans led Tamino of Open Mind to say, "Judith, your credibility is now below zero."[2]

In short, she's the Richard Lindzen of the South. Or maybe the Roy Spencer of Georgia, take your pick.

Perhaps what has sparked the most criticism, more than any other one thing, is that she has invited McIntyre to talk at Georgia Tech. No, really.[3] This makes her a massive enabler.

Some other stuff she's been wrong about:

* Maybe the Heartland Institute isn't so bad after all![4]

* The BEST team tried to "hide the decline," because there has been "no warming since 1998." (This was widely quoted in a Daily Mail article.)[5]

* (From the same Daily Mail article) "The models are broken." She later backed down about this on her blog, saying she was misquoted and "had no idea where it came from."[6]

* Murry Salby is right about CO2 and every other scientist is wrong.[7]

This list could actually go on for much longer -- just go to her blog for more info.

External links

* A Scientific American article about her

* Her Skeptical Science Page (more on her Daily Mail brouhaha and "preference for mild Curry")

* Is Judith Curry Peddling Disinformation?, Collide-a-Scape at Discover Magazine

* Go Judy, Stoat (Can't think of any more amusing Curry jokes?)

* Greenfyre sums up all her antics in one place.

* It's Gettin' Hot in Here: The Big Battle Over Climate Science, Discover Magazine (Curry vs. Mann)

* Uncertain science: Judith Curry's take on Climate Change, NPR

 

Since you are curious, here are the facts.....not that you are likely to be able to accept or comprehend them

Climate Sensitivity
(excerpts)
Most studies have been very consistent in estimating that surface temperatures will warm between 2 and 4.5°C (3.6 to 8.1°F) in response to a doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide, most likely 3°C (5.4°F). A major recent study published in the journal Nature examined nearly two dozen studies estimating climate sensitivity based on past climate changes over the past 65 million years. These were all consistent with the established range of climate sensitivity estimates between about 2 and 4.5°C. Estimates based on detailed climate models are also consistent with this range.

When we put all the evidence together, we can be confident that average surface temperatures will warm between about 2 and 4.5°C in response to a doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide. It's also important to remember that this range is based on a large body of evidence using several different approaches, which all give us about the same answer. No single study is going to overturn that vast body of evidence.

 

Funny stuff. The AR5 has the range now at 1.5 to 4.5 deg C with the 1.5 being based on real world data. So if the science is sound then two things - why the 3X range on climate sensitivity of CO2 and why do the models not match the real world ?? And btw model predictions are not facts (or data).

It is clear just who the bamboolezee is.

 

....rightwingnut politics, not science, from a tiny group of 'lukewarmers' overly influenced by the non-existent 'pause'.

As I anticipated, you are clearly unable to either comprehend or accept the scientific facts of the matter.

In the real world, the climate model predictions have proved to be pretty accurate, despite your anti-science crackpot denier cult myths to the contrary.

Climate models are even more accurate than you thought | Dana Nuccitelli | Environment | The Guardian
Jul 31, 2015 - Dana Nuccitelli: The difference between modeled and observed global surface temperature changes is 38% smaller than previously thought.

Climate models are accurately predicting ocean and global warming | John Abraham | Environment | The Guardian
Jul 27, 2016 - John Abraham: A new study from my colleagues and I vindicates climate models, which are accurately predicting the rate of ocean heat accumulation. since 1992, the models have been within 3 % of the measurements.

[PDF]How Reliable Are the Models Used to Make Projections of Future Climate Change? - National Ocean Service
oceanservice.noaa.gov
of Future Climate Change? There is considerable confidence that climate models provide credible quantitative estimates of future climate change, particularly at continental scales and above. This confidence comes from the foundation of the models in accepted physical principles and from their ability to reproduce observed features of current climate and past climate changes.

Climate Change Facts: Climate Models Are Reliable | Weather Underground
Science says: Models successfully reproduce global temperature since 1900. Climate models are mathematical representations of the interactions between the atmosphere, oceans, land surface, ice, and the sun. ... The models used to predict future global warming can accurately map past climate changes.

Climate models don't over-predict warming, study shows - LA Times
Jan 28, 2015 - A new study suggests that climate models have been accurate in predicting accelerated accelerated warming of Earth's surface.

New study narrows the gap between climate models and reality -- ScienceDaily
Jul 30, 2015 - A new study addresses an important question in climate science: how accurate are climate modelprojections? Climate models are used to estimate future global warming, and their accuracy can be ...

Yup! YOU ARE!

In the real world of science....

How high is climate sensitivity? Here’s the answer of the world’s 16 leading climate experts!
May 10, 2016
(excerpts)

Short summary:
It’s good to know all seem to more or less agree. The most likely value for ‘equilibrium climate sensitivity’ is ~3 degrees Celsius – something close or perhaps just over 3 degrees, closer than the wide range of IPCC estimates suggests. They also agree about the limitations of the definition and even the metric of climate sensitivity. There are feedbacks, reactions, disturbances – and inevitably there is even warming, beyond climate sensitivity. Whether you call it Earth System Sensitivity or ‘ocean heat content change’ or biosphere CO2 & deep sea methane.

1. Piers Forster, Professor of Physical Climate Change at the University of Leeds:

“It has changed over the years but my current thinking puts it just shy of 3C for a doubling of carbon dioxide.”

2. James Hansen, climatologist at Columbia University, former head of NASA GISS

“It depends on what you mean by ECS, specifically E, what is equilibrium? The usual “fast feedback” sensitivity is pretty tightly constrained to 3C + or – 0.5C for a 4 W/m2 doubled CO2 forcing.

However to get that response you have to wait several centuries, by which time slow feedbacks, such as ice sheet disintegration, will have come into play (see our paper).

The transient climate sensitivity is much more complicated. It includes effects such as the cooling around Antarctica and SE of Greenland due to ice melt (see).”

3. Gavin Schmidt, climate modeler, head of NASA GISS

“Somewhere between 2.5 and 3 deg C for a doubling of CO2.”

4. Alan Robock, climatologist, Professor Environmental Studies Rutgers University

“3 K for doubling CO2&#8243;

5. Michael Mann, climatologist, head of Earth System Science Center at Pennsylvania State University

“While the canonical (“most likely”) estimate of the “fast feedback” ECS is around 3C, I feel that more recent evidence suggests it might very well be higher than that, between 3C and 4C (say, 3.5C).

The long feedback “Earth System Sensitivity” (ESS) is almost certainly higher, closer to 5C.”

6. Ken Caldeira, climate scientist at Carnegie Institution for Science

"My ‘gut’ feeling, i.e., not informed by any careful analysis is something on the order of 3 C per CO2-doubling.

When I was a grad student nearly 30 years ago, I would have said 2 C per CO2-doubling, so I have gone up a degree in my estimation over the past 30 years.

My estimate is probably based largely on CMIP5 model results. That is the area of my work where I come in most contact with estimates of climate sensitivity."

(Ken Caldeira also added some interesting additional thoughts about political bias)

“It would be interesting to do a study of climate sensitivity estimates and correlate them with political viewpoints. Marty Hoffert has hypothesized that there is a correlation with people on the right estimating a lower climate sensitivity than people on the left. This would be an interesting study in sociology of science.”

7. Stefan Rahmstorf, Professor of Ocean Physics at Potsdam University

“Short answer: 3 °C.”

(To which he added)

“Lots of lines of reasoning (including our own work on deriving sensitivity from paleoclimate data) consistently point to about 3 °C, while those studies that created a stir with higher or lower numbers invariably turned out to be methodologically questionable. I even think the IPCC uncertainty range of 1.5 – 4.5 °C is too wide, I personally say 2 – 4 °C."

8. Chris Forest, Associate Professor of Climate Dynamics at Pennsylvania State University

“3.3C – Chris.”

(…and when asked for his thoughts about the ‘usefulnes’ (for climate policy) of the metric of ECS, he replied)

“While ECS has been useful for climate science, the transient climate response (TCR) and TCRE are much more relevant for policy, in general.

As a scientific community, we have needed diagnostics such as ECS to improve our understanding of the earth system response to anthropogenic and natural factors. But it has become clear that we will never live to see the earth reach an equilibrium.”

9. Gabriele Hegerl, Professor Climate System Science at the University of Edingburgh

“I suspect it’s under 3 and over 2. My gut range is 2.2 to 2.8. (And as my work is about certainties, I really can’t give a single guess!)"

10. Hans Joachim Schellnhuber, Director of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research

“Ignoring many complexities involved, my best guess for the ECS is 3°C + small delta.

As for the full Earth-system response including all feedbacks, we do not know enough to provide any reasonable number. This is highest-priority research terrain.”

(Interpretation of ’3C + small delta’ – that is a real scientist saying “just over 3 degrees”, so Hans Joachim Schellnhuber’s remark is in line with for instance Chris Forest and Michael Mann (and of course all others suggesting ECS values close to 3 degrees – the clear majority of leading climate experts).)

11. Jonathan Gregory, climate modeller National Centre for Atmospheric Science and Met Office Hadley Centre

“It’s a good question but I don’t place any confidence in gut feelings, so my answer would be the likely range of the AR5. I found Kahneman’s discussion convincing in “Thinking, fast and slow” of the ways in which intuition misleads us, and in particular that experts are overconfident.”

12. Drew Shindell, Professor Climate Sciences at Duke University

“The thing is, my gut feeling is that the starlight I see when I look up at night can’t possibly have been emitted long before I was born, and that quantum mechanical entanglement of two particles at a distance can’t happen, but I know these feelings are wrong. So I trust the research and not my feeling on climate too and hence go with the studies’ results that from multiple lines of evidence point to 2-4.5C for the most credible papers.”

13. Andrei Sokolov, climate sensitivity specialist at MIT

“I’ll say it is 3.5C per CO2 doubling.”

And that’s another very clear and straightforward reply.

14. Mark Zelinka, climate researcher and cloud specialist at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory

“As I actually read your article yesterday, my gut feeling is likely now unduly influenced by the opinions of the luminaries in the field. So take it with a grain of salt: I find the Physics Today article by Stevens and Bony (2013) in which they derive something of a null hypothesis ECS of 2.7K based on robust, relatively well-understood feedbacks, to be pretty convincing. This, coupled with an ever-growing body of evidence that (1) an overall negative cloud feedback is unlikely, and that (2) the overall net negative feedback weakens in strength as equilibrium is approached, make me doubt that ECS is under 3.”

Wonderful reply. It is very nice to hear this article is actually worth reading for the specialists themselves. We add another voice to the expert list stating ECS could well be >3 degrees Celsius.

15. Trude Storelvmo, atmospheric scientist, Associate Professor at Yale University

“I would vote for an ECS somewhere between 3 and 4 K. How is that for a short and simple answer.”

It is straightforward, easy to comprehend, and it adds to the majority of consulted specialists that think climate sensitivity could be higher than 3 degrees.

16. Reto Knutti, Climate Professor at Institute for Atmospheric and Climate Science, ETH Zürich

“If I had to give a number I’d say 3°C, with a tendency for slightly above 3°C. If you want a range, I’d say 2.5-4°C. But note that this is an estimate of the effective climate sensitivity, i.e. essentially the warming we would expect if the feedbacks stayed similar as they are today. The true equilibrium sensitivity might be quite a bit higher, first because there is growing evidence for the feedbacks not to be constant (even the ones in the models) and second because of Earth system feedbacks that the models don’t have. Whether that number actually matters is another question. For most decisions a transient response is more important.”

(Very interesting, because we have yet another expert leaning towards a 3 + something, as an estimated value for equilibrium climate sensitivity, and yet another expert stating ‘Earth system sensitivity’ might be higher still.)

"Regarding gut feeling, I don’t think I have a gut feeling any more about this. Having done IPCC assessments on climate sensitivity more than once, I think the above is more of an informal continuous assessment based on papers, discussions, our own results, and other people’s arguments I trust. Many of these people are on your list.”
*****

Conclusion? “Climate sensitivity is…”

Quick & dirty: +3 degrees Celsius for a doubling of CO2. Or something close. Probably closer than the IPCC range.

A more decent summary: If you see value in “scientific gut-feelings” [we do!] then the most likely value for equilibrium climate sensitivity starts with a 3.
7 experts say it’s likely a bit higher (Michael Mann, Chris Forest, Hans Joachim Schellnhuber, Andrei Sokolov, Mark Zelinka, Trude Storelvmo, Knutti Reto;
3 experts say it’s perhaps just a tad under (Piers Forster, Gavin Schmidt, Gabriele Hegerl);
and 4 experts name exactly the number (James Hansen, Alan Robock, Ken Caldeira, Stefan Rahmstorf) – 3 degrees Celsius.

If you don’t see value in scientific gut-feelings, you can go with the two remaining experts (Gregory and Shindell) who prefer to just stick with the big pile of established research, which suggest (90% interval) 2-4.5 degrees, with most likely value at 3 – so that would get you to almost exactly the same spot as the experts’ gut shots.

 

The 1.5 comes from the IPCC. And the 1.5 matches existing data. And the models range between 2 and 4.5 (science dictates only one answer and the data shows closer to 1.5 (actually a bit less)). And yet all the experts claim the climate sensitivity is ~ 3 which is double what the real world (where science actually operates) indicates. How is that possible ??

Again the real world data indicates a climate sensitivity to CO2 of ~ 1.5 which the IPCC acknowledges but the "experts" insist that the climate sensitivity to CO2 will some how double or triple for some reason going forward ?? How will that happen exactly ??

And again a reminder that computer prediction output is not data.

How to explain all this in your own words ??

 

Wow, I guess if you link to enough word vomit you can claim you know something. Not surprised it is wrong. Not even aware of the current CO2 sensitivity range and why it was changed. Not aware that only one dataset, the recent pause buster, doesn't show the pause. Not aware that the highest tech datasets all show the pause. For the US not aware that the newest and best dataset, the USCRN, designed for climate change is not incorporated into the land/ocean dataset.

Well, go figure, when you rely on the alarmist Guardian, what would you expect.

 

And not aware that all of the alarmism pushed is based on the high end of that range which is not happening and won't.

 

But, but ... Michael (Hockey Shtick) Mann "feels" that it could be 5 !!

 

<Mod Edit-rule 2>

.....the actual scientific facts, affirmed by virtually the entire world scientific community.

All you have are your bogus anti-science myths and fraudulent denier cult dogmas that have nothing to do with the real world.

And that is exactly what the climate models do, in fact, do quite successfully.