You're constantly struggling to find a couple individuals that agree with you. Climatology touches numerous areas of expertise and is studied by scientists the world over. There is NO possibility that it is a conspiracy against the two people you so desperately cling to.
Dr Lindaen has been discredited many times over and is not publishing or even attempting any science to back up his denial. He is now being paid by a propaganda arm of the fossil fuel energy to wag his chin, and that is the sum total of his recent contributions to science.
Currently from Dr. Curry the world renown climate expert https://judithcurry.com/2018/07/14/week-in-review-science-edition-83/#more-24233 Week in review – science edition Posted on July 14, 2018 by curryja | 2 Comments by Judith Curry A few things that caught my eye this past week. North American mega droughts in the Common Era [link] Ice sheets interact with the atmosphere, ocean, lithosphere, sea ice, and biosphere. How does it all work? Via @AGU_Eos [link] A fresh take on ancient climate change in the North Pacific [link] New Science Affirms Arctic Region Was 6°C Warmer Than Now 9000 Years Ago [link] Evaluating the accuracy of seasonal forecast predictions [link] Collection of Nature papers on forests and climate [link] The impact of stratospheric circulation extremes on minimum arctic sea ice extent [link] John Kennedy blog post on sea surface temperature measurements [link]
PLEASE for maybe the 100th time. Stop speaking of deniers. First we do not deny climate. We do not deny climate changes. We do not deny climate is very complex. We do not deny that Earth has a cover called clouds. We do not deny one has a extreme hard time predicting the presence of clouds. I will go you one better. We do not deny that but for climate change, NY City still would be covered by a glacier. We do not deny the reason you see the Great lakes is due to climate change. Further, we have the wonderful Yosemite Valley. Carved out of the granite due to climate change. 3 times in the past, changing climate hit the valley 3 times in all carving it out. The way you folks put this, man is doing this. The way i put it is hold your horses. Science is based on predictability. Experiments confirm or reject things claimed. I see no proven experiments that blame humans. i hear things said. I hear how bad Carbon Dioxide is. Funny i do not hear the alarmists telling me what they plan to do to stop climate change. I tell them if they control climate, get going. Maybe they plan to plant millions more trees and cut down the dead trees? Can't say since they never tell us. What they say is negative. Give me positive. If you believe you and other men change climate, get going. Change it. That is not denying anything. Again challenge to you is take full charge of climate and cool things off. Will you deny or tell me you will? Bowerbird needs to cool off Australia. What can she do?
Every topic you touch where you touch me includes your claims i am stuggling! and not a few times, all the time. Why don't you quit struggling? I get a kick the way you talk down to me. Do you think i come to this topic with no history of studying climate? Funny thing happened during my course approved by the FAA on weather is that not one word was mentioned about climate change? Why not, climate has changed for millions of years. What was FAA thinking when they forgot to lecture us that man rules climate? I have even posted videos of lectures by all kinds of Ph D types. And I get told the Democrats and supporters refuse to watch videos. I can feed them for a short time at that rate.
Current material from Dr. Judith Curry ... 08/11/2018 https://judithcurry.com/2018/08/08/hothouse-earth/#more-24250
Really, then by all means as the authority here, discredit Dr. Lindzen. I have plenty of time for you to succeed.
While admit, i have no idea what the term "proven experiment" means, scientists have indeed reached consensus that it is almost certainly mankind's actions driving the current, rapid warming trend. This is, indeed, supported by a lot of evidence. (That's how they arrived at the consensus) If you haven't seen any of this evidence,it means you either have not looked, or you don't understand the evidence when you see it. Yes, you are a denier. You just denied the existence of this evidence. And no, saying you haven't seen it does not give you a pass.
Dr. Lindzen has already discredited himself many times over. And anyway, considering the absurdity of what you are doing...rejecting the scientific consensus, and yet deferring to a scientist. If the authority of scientists mattered to you, you would accept the consensus. So I'm not sure who you think you are fooling with this dog and pony show
You mean Democrats consensus. Which I challenge often. Such a smear of Dr Lindzen. I encounter this from Democrats.
Tell you what. QUIT doing it. STOP. Tell me how you took charge of climate. I want to know how that is done.
No,i I mean the consensus of the global scientific community,endorsed by every majority scientific society in the world across every field of science. Get it right.
You want to know the most basic, fundamental ideas of anthropogenic climate change? And your next move is to ask a stranger on the internet to spoonfeed this to you? Nobody here is your mommy. You should not even be attempting to discuss this topic, if you are not in possession of the most basic of facts regarding it. Look this up for yourself.
But you do deny the abundance of evidence that shows that the cause of the warming we observe today is the net effect of all physical process both natural AND anthroprogenic. No?
Nobody would pay the retired former head of climate at the highly ranked MIT what he earned were he as lousy as you allege. Think his bosses were stupid?
OK to keep you abreast of the Curry going ons, this came to me this day, 8/14/2018 I urge the scientific curious check her work using her link. https://judithcurry.com/2018/08/14/nature-unbound-x-the-next-glaciation/ Nature Unbound X – The next glaciation Note this is not by Dr. Curry yet she posted other experts work. Posted on August 14, 2018 by curryja | 15 Comments by Javier Summary: The IPCC expresses virtual certainty that a glaciation is not possible for the next 50 Kyr if CO2levels remain above 300 ppm. It is the long interglacial hypothesis. Analysis of interglacials of the past 800 Kyr shows they depend on obliquity-linked summer energy, ice-volume, and eccentricity, and they end at glacial inception after ~ 6000 years of Neoglaciation-type temperature decline. The lag between orbital forcing and ice volume change indicates the orbital threshold for glacial inception is crossed thousands of years before glacial inception, and the Holocene went through that threshold long ago. In the absence of sufficient anthropogenic forcing glacial inception should take place in 1500-2500 years. The long interglacial hypothesis rests on the wrong astronomical parameter, high-equilibrium climate sensitivity to CO2, and uncertain model predictions of very long-tailed CO2decay. It is not possible to determine at present if a glacial inception will take place over the next millennia. The precautionary principle indicates we should prepare for that eventuality as it would constitute the worst catastrophe humankind has ever faced. Introduction The expected timeframe for the next glaciation is so far in the future that traditionally it has only attracted academic interest. There was a small peak of popular interest in the early 1970’s at the end of the mid-20th century cooling period. In January 1972, geologists George Kukla and Robert Matthews organized a meeting on the end of the present interglacial, and afterwards they wrote president Richard Nixon calling for federal action on the observed climate deterioration that had the potential to lead to the next glaciation. Ironically, concerns over the end of the interglacial led to the creation of NOAA’s Climate Analysis Center in 1979 (Reeves & Gemmill, 2004), that would substantially contribute to global warming research. Some popular magazines reported about a coming ice age at times of harsh winter weather during the early 1970’s. Current academic consensus is that a return to glacial conditions is not possible under any realistic condition for tens of thousands of years, and the IPCC expresses virtual certainty that a new glacial inception is not possible for the next 50 Kyr if CO2levels remain above 300 ppm (IPCC, AR5, 5.8.3, page 435, 2013). This claim expressed on so certain terms is in stark contrast with the lack of precedent for any interglacial spanning over two obliquity oscillations. In this final article, we are going to examine the soundness of these claims. Interglacial evolution Each interglacial is different. They all have different astronomical signatures, different initial conditions, different evolution, and are subjected to non-linear chaotic climate unpredictability. But they all take place during a single obliquity oscillation. Over the Pleistocene’s 2.6 million years 104 marine isotope stages (MIS) have been identified, half of them corresponding to warm periods. On average there is one every 50,000 years, almost corresponding to the obliquity frequency (41 Kyr). The match is not exact because some obliquity oscillations have failed to produce an interglacial. For the last 800 Kyr, after the Mid-Pleistocene Transition (Figure 129), the planet has become so cold, and the ice-sheets grown so large, that to produce an interglacial outside the periods of high eccentricity requires the simultaneous concert of high obliquity, high northern summer insolation, and very large unstable ice sheets. This has had the effect of spacing interglacials from an obliquity-linked 41-Kyr cycle to its multiples 82 or 123 Kyr, whose average has been incorrectly termed the 100-Kyr cycle. A side effect is that after one or more obliquity oscillations without an interglacial the planet gets colder, and when an interglacial is finally produced, it reaches a warmer state. The climate of the planet has become more unstable in the Mid and Late Pleistocene, rapidly transitioning from more extreme cold to more extreme warm, and back, contributing to numerous species extinctions, and perhaps to the evolution of our species. Figure 129. Geological subdivisions of the Middle and Late Pleistocene according to selected criteria. The past 800 Kyr correspond to the Middle and Late Pleistocene, when interglacials have become more spaced and climate oscillations larger. Source: International Commission on Stratigraphy. The majority of interglacials of the past 800 Kyr are the product of very similar orbital and ice-volume conditions and present a common pattern (figure 130). The Holocene interglacial is the result of similar conditions, and belongs to this group. Nearly all exceptions can be explained in terms of particular orbital and ice volume conditions that do not apply to the Holocene (see The Glacial Cycle). Figure 130. Average of six of the past ten interglacials. An average ....
I'm sure you'll want to retract that second paragraph, as it is about as clear a statement as possible that you don't have a CLUE what you're talking about.
With all the bounces both up and down of our past, I still am extremely hesitant to claim humans control climate. Once you accept the problem is with humans, you put humans in charge of climate. The alarmists want us to chill off Earth and that means Man controls climate. To accomplish, not using science, but politics they intend to control activities of humans. Let them start over in China.
Compare you to me As you claim to be the expert Me. Studied engineering 2 years, did not get degree in 1957-9 Passed license course of FAA on weather.I have been a licensed pilot since 1980. Weather is always a major component of flying aircraft. Since Clinton was president, spoken thousands of times on climate Studied all the pro and cons Now you.
You are a software Engineer. While that is wonderful, this is not about computers. It is about complex Earth and the thousands upon thousands of climates.
