mini ice age could be on the way and it’s going to get very, very cold

No citations to back allegations I see

 

I now reply in keeping with the standard set

No you research I no research

After all why should I waste my precious time with people unprepared to listen to facts ?

 

Well, the medical sciences work "for the most part". I'd be willing to wager that you'd bet your life on that discipline of science anyway.

Likewise, general relativity and quantum mechanics work "for the most part". Yet between the two they make what is often called the most embarrassing and worst prediction in all of science regarding the cosmological constant. And again I'd be willing to wager that you agree with the societal changes that resulted from the utilization of these theories.

Can you show me a list of the predictions made by the scientific consensus that did not come true and which you believe adequately makes the case that AGW is an abject failure?

You'll be doubly convincing if you can then show me which theory does an even better job at explaining both past and present climate.

Good luck!

I've done this many times. Is there a point you're trying to make?

Here's what I think your beef boils down to. You think because a theory isn't perfect that it shouldn't be used to make transformational societal changes. But you haven't fully thought out the fact that all of science is imperfect and yet we still make transformational societal changes based on these imperfect scientific theories all the time. I'd be willing to bet that you'll happily make transformational changes in your own personal life based on the medical sciences which is even more non-deterministic and fuzzy than the climate sciences. Am I right?

 

These people do not really matter in this. Think of it as discussing economics with an autistic 4 year old. You are pretty much talking to yourself and any reply they have is pointless.

 

Yes but they're ejected into the atmosphere in massive quantities all at once.

Normally particulates of that size and density would not normally get that high into the atmosphere.

The huge increase in sulfur is the main culprit, as it's released in huge quantities all at once.

 

We are constantly going through transformational societal changes. Some are good some are bad. If you hold on to the past though you WILL left behind

We will wave to you in the rear view mirror

 

Yeah you are so much smarter than Judith Curry

 

Yes and the AGW hoax is bad

 

You know I am getting to the point of feeling sorry for people so ignorant of basic science that they have to fill the world with conspiracies

 

And I'm very tired of people that have to fill the world with boogeyman so they have someone or something to fear and hate.

 

Who happens to acknowledge that the Earth is warming and the man has a significant contribution to that warming. She also believes that the climate sensitivity to a doubling of CO2 lies in the official IPCC range, albeit on the low side.

She made a recent statement regarding a upcoming special IPCC report about the ocean and cryosphere. Here is what she said and I quote, "I will obviously not make any public comments on the IPCC draft, other than to say I was fairly impressed with what I read."

 

Judith Curry doesn't think AGW is a hoax.

 

Then quit making them up.

 

And here are her views in context without your usual cherry picking. She believes like most of us "deniers" that the AGW cult blows man made warming out of all proportion which makes it a hoax to us.

"Judith Curry, one of climate science's most vocal critics, is leaving academe because of what she calls the poisonous nature of the scientific discussion around human-caused global warming.

Curry, 63, is retiring from her tenured position as a professor at the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology. She's instead going to focus on growing her private business, Climate Forecast Applications Network, which provides insights into climate and weather risks for agriculture and energy companies.

The climatologist, who distinguished herself in the field decades ago with research into the Arctic and the causes of the climate feedback that have shaped the region, writes a blog called Climate Etc. It is by turns academic and inflammatory.

There she occasionally mocks what she calls "climate alarmists" who say time is almost out unless humanity weans itself off fossil fuels. In her blog and on Twitter, she has also criticized some of the scientists, including Pennsylvania State University climatologist Michael Mann and Harvard University climate historian Naomi Oreskes, who have become leading voices for climate action. She has testified in front of Congress, boosted by politicians who use her work to argue that environmental regulations and a scaling down of fossil fuel use will be ineffective. Her work is frequently invoked by climate skeptics and denialists. Congressional Democrats, displeased with her conclusions, have investigated the source of her funding.

Curry actually believes, along with the vast majority of climate scientists, that humans are warming the planet, and was even an outspoken advocate of the issue during the George W. Bush years. She was among the first to connect global warming to hurricanes, for example, publishing an influential study in Science in 2006. But where she breaks with the majority opinion is over just how much humans are actually causing global temperatures to rise."

 

In other words she does not think AGW is a hoax, just as stated, but thinks some people have taken things too far when suggesting fixes.

 

[QUOTE="tecoyah, post: 1069954134, member: 5145"]In other words she does not think AGW is a hoax, just as stated, but thinks some people have taken things too far when suggesting fixes.[/QUOTE]


Those would be your words, here are Judith's words.

"Recent data and research supports the importance of natural climate variability and calls into question the conclusion that humans are the dominant cause of recent climate change:

• The hiatus in global warming since 1998
• Reduced estimates of the sensitivity of climate to carbon dioxide
• Climate models predict much more warming than has been observed in the early 21st century”

 

The thing that always gets in the way, is the extent to which you believe . There are those who limit their conversations to just the facts. And there are those who understand the dots and not simply the data.

We know the climate has warmed. And most of it happened well before modern industrial man could have ever effected the climate around him. It is oft unremembered that the seas rose hundreds of feet subsequent to the end of the last full glacial age. Today, we quibble about millimeters of difference. Same thing goes for global average temperatures. We argue over tenths, or hundredths of a degree which come with a "certainty" value that extends well beyond the expressed changes.

Those are the facts. The question becomes, if the planet warms, is that a bad thing? Or does it simply happen and because it happens, the population of species on our planet are forced to adapt to it. What does the reawakening of the ring of fire portend for us?

Unfortunately, there are no real answers. We have inferred answers for sure. Those who spend prodigious hours investigating methods to interpolate the records of the geologic history of our planet can provide at least a hypothesis of what is has happened. After that, the assertion is that these things provide a window to predict from. Really? This year has seen some of the absolute worst predictive reliability I can remember. And that is always the problem with predictions. The very never are entirely right, and yet, they also may be somewhat right. Which leads to some attributing faith in them.

And that's where we are today. Yes, from the historically observed data, my location has warmed. Slightly. The current year is going to be a pretty good negative hit to that aggregate number. Will that mean that it isn't still warmer than observations from the late 1800s, no. But the current year is also under the average for the duration of the data set. Is that significant? Depends on how you input that into a model. The models all said this couldn't happen, that an underaverage year couldn't "within the area of confidence" be likely to happen. And yet, it has. My location has experienced several lowest absolute high temperatures over the preceding year. What does that tell us? We set one or maybe two record high temperatures in the same year. But those absolute low high temps far outweigh the absolute highs. How, again, is that possible?

The answer is that predictive value of the models is based on well meaning assumptions that clearly are unable to include enough of the cyclic causalities to be very accurate in their predictions. The means, the data management, and interpolation of that data is flawed, and very unlikely to be useful outside of the esoteric contemplation of how model making can be made better.

For the rest of us, the real question is how much of our comfort level, our sustainability are we willing to forgo (because do not ever forget that this is the action required by those who are the oracles of AGW) in order to "stop" the dataset trend line that we're so afraid of that we're willing to "deeply transform" (UNIPCC director's quote) the economies of the world to "improve" our climate.

Now, notice a couple of things in that. Deep transformation. and "improvement". What are those things? Are they eliminating cheap and reliable energy from the populations of the world? Are we to depopulate as so many of the Malthusian faithful would require of us? What are those things that the UN will find it necessary to require of us? Those, clearly are the questions of the political side of this conversation. Which goes back to the idea that folks live in their bubbles. I suppose that there are many in the scientific community that never truly gave up on their loyalty to Eugenics. And perhaps not in the way NAZI eugenics was experimented or carried out, but in a more elitist way defining future durability via shared belief, or association with those who believe in their fundamental "rightness".

Those are the questions here. I'm a conservative person. I try to live lightly on the land. I encourage others to do the same. And yet, many feel that my skepticism (their word) isn't indicative of sufficient belief for me to be one of the saved. I find that troubling. Of the folks I know, we all tend to live lightly. And yet, the faithful AGW acolytes all seem to believe that we are the problem. As if....

 

We know the reasons for that past warming, and they don't apply now. The earth had been slowly cooling for the past 8000 years. It was going to keep on cooling into the next ice age, but humans suddenly changed the trend to "very fast warming".

Also, we directly measure the stratospheric cooling, the increase in backradiation, and the decrease in outgoing longwave radiation in the GHG bands. There is no "it's natural!" theory that explains such evidence .

So, your "It's natural!" theory is contradicted by the hard evidence. Therefore, that theory is wrong.

There's no evidence for such a claim.

That you're relying on a cherrypicking fallacy. Your backyard is not the world.

Globally, new record highs outnumber new record lows by about 2:1. That's because global average temperature is warming strongly, exactly as the models predicted. The models have been excellent. Of course, the success of the models is just icing on the cake. Models aren't even necessary, as all the directly observed data proves global warming.

Strange conspiracy theories on your part. Your cult has ordered you to parrot a bucket load of conspiracy theories, and you don't dare disobey.

 

And the cause of the warming from the end of the LIA is no longer in play. We've gone over this already.

It's warmed by 1.0C since 1960. The error margin on this conclusion is ± 0.05C. So yeah, it could be as low as 0.95C. But, it's equally as likely that it is actually 1.05C

What? No, not even remotely close to being true. We haven't had a below average (defined as the mean from 1951-1980) since 1976. 41 of the last 41 years have all been above this average. Plus, no one is suggesting that a below average is impossible.

Because your backyard is not the same thing as the entire Earth. Nevermind that a single year is meaningless in the context of climate anyway.

 

So, just this. Actually, new absolute low high temps for exceed record high temps. Something like 3:1. I know, you didn't know it, or look. It doesn't matter what absolute low temp are, just what the inability to ever reach an average high indicates. Similarly, creating estimated temps that then become record highs is sophistry. It happens everywhere around the globe now as we choose not to actually collect temps but infer them from models...

All of the directly observed data indicates we aren't warming. The only indicators that deviate that are provided by model based inference. Swing and a miss on your part.

 

I know, you just continue to get it wrong. Sorry.

Interesting thing is that the start date also includes a set of data that was significantly lower than average. But hey, it provides the graph with the steepest slope. We get it. As dishonest as it is...

Nice. Define it in a way that packages your assumptions so it's right. It I took other periods of time, your demonstration fails. You know it, I know it. Try being honest once in a while.

I never claimed that it was. But, my backyard as it were is also according to the models "well above" for the year. Which is frankly surprising because the actual observable data absolutely refutes the outputs of the models. Inconvenient? Sure. But true none the less. All I have to do is look out the window and see the state of the deer. They are preparing for a very unusually cold winter. So is my local power grid. At least some of us prepare...

 

You make a fundamental mistake and show gross misunderstanding of the medical sciences and science in general..

The medical sciences address existing issues which are not in doubt. When a person is ill, goes to the doctor and is diagnosed with cancer, its a fact not prediction. And the treatments appropriate to that person are listed and detailed including chances of failure and adverse reactions. In the end, the course of action (or no action) is the patients choice.

Thats the opposite of AGW, in which largely anonymous and people filled with a sense of superiority claim future doom without adequate proof, and demand extreme sacrifice in order to prevent the hypothetical doom. And when the population rejects the AGW claim, the AGW proponents attempt to ram it down the worlds throat and ridicule and denigrate any who do not silently submit.

And general relativity and quantum mechanics dont have near the impact on daily life or upon populations as the medical community. Relativity and quantum mechanics are so far removed from daily life that they are irrelevant.

 

Of course the world changes, thats not even in question. But assuming the past is always bad, and change is always good, is simply stupid.

 

And who exactly would these "bogeymen" be?

 

In this case your boogeyman is AGW which says man is now driving the climate and driving it over a cliff.