The improved Curry Corner

Discussion in 'Science' started by Robert, Mar 9, 2018.

  1. Robert

    Robert Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2014
    Messages:
    68,085
    Likes Received:
    17,134
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I suppose this link is just junk too?

    From her report.

    https://www.nature.com/articles/s41561-018-0256-8

    The relative contribution and physical drivers of internal variability in recent Arctic sea ice loss remain open questions, leaving up for debate whether global climate models used for climate projection lack sufficient sensitivity in the Arctic to climate forcing. Here, through analysis of large ensembles of fully coupled climate model simulations with historical radiative forcing, we present an important internal mechanism arising from low-frequency Arctic atmospheric variability in models that can cause substantial summer sea ice melting in addition to that due to anthropogenic forcing. This simulated internal variability shows a strong similarity to the observed Arctic atmospheric change in the past 37 years. Through a fingerprint pattern matching method, we estimate that this internal variability contributes to about 40–50% of observed multi-decadal decline in Arctic sea ice. Our study also suggests that global climate models may not actually underestimate sea ice sensitivities in the Arctic, but have trouble fully replicating an observed linkage between the Arctic and lower latitudes in recent decades. Further improvements in simulating the observed Arctic–global linkage are thus necessary before the Arctic’s sensitivity to global warming in models can be quantified with confidence.
     
    Last edited: Nov 10, 2018
  2. Mamasaid

    Mamasaid Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2018
    Messages:
    3,754
    Likes Received:
    1,218
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    As opposed to people with greater credentials who are actually doing science, not discredited and relegated to the corner to naysay and pout, like Curry.

    But thanks for asking!
     
    Last edited: Nov 10, 2018
  3. Mamasaid

    Mamasaid Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2018
    Messages:
    3,754
    Likes Received:
    1,218
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Could you summarize thw main points in your own words, please? Surely you wouldn't ask people to waste their time reading an article you never read and don't understand.
     
  4. Robert

    Robert Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2014
    Messages:
    68,085
    Likes Received:
    17,134
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    You would be wise to quit insulting me.
     
  5. Robert

    Robert Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2014
    Messages:
    68,085
    Likes Received:
    17,134
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    So your argument is that you are superior to Curry? I want to ensure I am accurate.

    And the science you allege you do pertains to global climate studies? In what capacity?
     
  6. tecoyah

    tecoyah Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 15, 2008
    Messages:
    28,370
    Likes Received:
    9,297
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    As seems somewhat standard you have placed your own words into the mouth of others, this gets very annoying. This is actually the second time just on this page you have done so and your argument is based upon this dishonest approach to discussion, rendering the whole thing pointless.
     
  7. Mamasaid

    Mamasaid Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2018
    Messages:
    3,754
    Likes Received:
    1,218
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Yes, he is a big fan of that. Which raises the question: Why even visit a message board, if you are going to simply replace others' comments and thoughts with ones of your own design, then argue against them? A mirror would suffice for that.
     
  8. tecoyah

    tecoyah Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 15, 2008
    Messages:
    28,370
    Likes Received:
    9,297
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Likely the mirror is disappointing enough already.
     
  9. Robert

    Robert Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2014
    Messages:
    68,085
    Likes Received:
    17,134
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    One time, I shall coach you on the question mark. I never put words into anybody's mouth. Those were questions.

    Second he lies about me all the time. I am sick of his lies.
     
  10. Robert

    Robert Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2014
    Messages:
    68,085
    Likes Received:
    17,134
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Look at you complaining when you call me a liar and tell the forum I have not read things I post here. That takes guts to cry foul after what you do to me.
     
  11. Mamasaid

    Mamasaid Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2018
    Messages:
    3,754
    Likes Received:
    1,218
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Correct, and i based that on evidence. You can't ever summarize a single point from a single article you have ever linked here.

    And I wasn't crying foul. It was just a description of your tactics.
     
  12. FivepointFive

    FivepointFive Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2017
    Messages:
    2,754
    Likes Received:
    684
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
  13. Robert

    Robert Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2014
    Messages:
    68,085
    Likes Received:
    17,134
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    You lied about me in your second sentence. Give up lying and deal with the evidence I bring to this thread.

    For a rather odd reason you refuse to explain i am to be your token boy to help you understand others scientific works. i ask for your qualification and you try to project by accusing me.
     
  14. FivepointFive

    FivepointFive Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2017
    Messages:
    2,754
    Likes Received:
    684
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
  15. Robert

    Robert Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2014
    Messages:
    68,085
    Likes Received:
    17,134
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Not from Curry this time.

    Climate Scientists Discover Error in Major Ocean-Warming Study

     
  16. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    59,488
    Likes Received:
    16,351
    Trophy Points:
    113
    No, the issue is that you keep quoting from one single source while ignoring what every climate scientist throughout the world is saying.

    "Every"? Yes - if you poll the universe of climatologists, you just won't find those who tout Curry's nay-saying views on anthropogenic warming.

    What you are doing is one of the methods of desperately clinging to preconceived beliefs.
     
    Cosmo likes this.
  17. Robert

    Robert Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2014
    Messages:
    68,085
    Likes Received:
    17,134
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    You have not read a word of what I have submitted. Not a single word.

    Then you pass judgment on me.
     
    Last edited: Nov 15, 2018
  18. Robert

    Robert Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2014
    Messages:
    68,085
    Likes Received:
    17,134
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Researchers walk back major ocean warming result

    https://earthsky.org/earth/ocean-warming-60-greater-error-correction

    I quote Nic Lewis quite often but my detractors think it comes from Judith Curry, but look at the gross error he discovered.


    This is good news. It is less certain today that Earth’s oceans are 60 percent warmer than we thought (although they may still be that warm). As reported in the Los Angeles Times on November 14, 2018, researchers with University of California San Diego’s Scripps Institution of Oceanography and Princeton University have had to walk back a widely reported scientific result – based on a paper published in Nature last month – that showed Earth’s oceans were heating up dramatically faster than previously thought as a result of climate change.

    The October 31 paper in Nature stated the oceans had warmed 60 percent more than outlined by the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). On November 6, mathematician Nic Lewis posted his criticisms of the paper at Judith Curry’s blog. Both Lewis and Curry are critics of the scientific consensus that global warming is ongoing and human-caused.

    In his November 6 blog post, Lewis pointed out flaws in the October 31 paper. The authors of the October 31 paper now say they’ve redone their calculations, and – although they find the ocean is still likely warmer than the estimate used by the IPCC – they agree that they “muffed” the range of probability. They can no longer support the earlier statement of a heat increase 60 percent greater than indicated. They now say there is a larger range of probability, between 10 percent and 70 percent, as other studies have already found.


    A correction has been submitted to Nature.

    The Los Angeles Times reported that one of the co-author’s on the paper – Ralph Keeling at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography – “took full blame” and thanked Lewis for alerting him to the mistake. Keeling told the Los Angeles Times:

     
  19. Robert

    Robert Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2014
    Messages:
    68,085
    Likes Received:
    17,134
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Global Warming

    [​IMG]

    “Global warming” refers to the global-average temperature increase that has been observed over the last one hundred years or more. But to many politicians and the public, the term carries the implication that mankind is responsible for that warming. This website describes evidence from my group’s government-funded research that suggests global warming is mostly natural, and that the climate system is quite insensitive to humanity’s greenhouse gas emissions and aerosol pollution.

    Believe it or not, very little research has ever been funded to search for natural mechanisms of warming…it has simply been assumed that global warming is manmade. This assumption is rather easy for scientists since we do not have enough accurate global data for a long enough period of time to see whether there are natural warming mechanisms at work.

    The United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) claims that the only way they can get their computerized climate models to produce the observed warming is with anthropogenic (human-caused) pollution. But they’re not going to find something if they don’t search for it. More than one scientist has asked me, “What else COULD it be?” Well, the answer to that takes a little digging… and as I show, one doesn’t have to dig very far.

    But first let’s examine the basics of why so many scientists think global warming is manmade. Earth’s atmosphere contains natural greenhouse gases (mostly water vapor, carbon dioxide, and methane) which act to keep the lower layers of the atmosphere warmer than they otherwise would be without those gases. Greenhouse gases trap infrared radiation — the radiant heat energy that the Earth naturally emits to outer space in response to solar heating. Mankind’s burning of fossil fuels (mostly coal, petroleum, and natural gas) releases carbon dioxide into the atmosphere and this is believed to be enhancing the Earth’s natural greenhouse effect. As of 2008, the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere was about 40% to 45% higher than it was before the start of the industrial revolution in the 1800’s.

    It is interesting to note that, even though carbon dioxide is necessary for life on Earth to exist, there is precious little of it in Earth’s atmosphere. As of 2008, only 39 out of every 100,000 molecules of air were CO2, and it will take mankind’s CO2 emissions 5 more years to increase that number by 1, to 40.

    The “Holy Grail”: Climate Sensitivity Figuring out how much past warming is due to mankind, and how much more we can expect in the future, depends upon something called “climate sensitivity”. This is the temperature response of the Earth to a given amount of ‘radiative forcing’, of which there are two kinds: a change in either the amount of sunlight absorbed by the Earth, or in the infrared energy the Earth emits to outer space.

    The ‘consensus’ of opinion is that the Earth’s climate sensitivity is quite high, and so warming of about 0.25 deg. C to 0.5 deg. C (about 0.5 deg. F to 0.9 deg. F) every 10 years can be expected for as long as mankind continues to use fossil fuels as our primary source of energy. NASA’s James Hansen claims that climate sensitivity is very high, and that we have already put too much extra CO2 in the atmosphere. Presumably this is why he and Al Gore are campaigning for a moratorium on the construction of any more coal-fired power plants in the U.S.

    You would think that we’d know the Earth’s ‘climate sensitivity’ by now, but it has been surprisingly difficult to determine. How atmospheric processes like clouds and precipitation systems respond to warming is critical, as they are either amplifying the warming, or reducing it. This website currently concentrates on the response of clouds to warming, an issue which I am now convinced the scientific community has totally misinterpreted when they have measured natural, year-to-year fluctuations in the climate system. As a result of that confusion, they have the mistaken belief that climate sensitivity is high, when in fact the satellite evidence suggests climate sensitivity is low.

    The case for natural climate change I also present an analysis of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation which shows that most climate change might well be the result of….the climate system itself! Because small, chaotic fluctuations in atmospheric and oceanic circulation systems can cause small changes in global average cloudiness, this is all that is necessary to cause climate change. You don’t need the sun, or any other ‘external’ influence (although these are also possible…but for now I’ll let others work on that). It is simply what the climate system does. This is actually quite easy for meteorologists to believe, since we understand how complex weather processes are. Your local TV meteorologist is probably a closet ‘skeptic’ regarding mankind’s influence on climate.

    Climate change — it happens, with or without our help.
     
  20. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    59,488
    Likes Received:
    16,351
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The error was in the range of probability of the result.

    The scientists behind the paper and those who found the error (including Curry, I think) don't dispute that the oceans are WARMER than the numbers used by the IPCC.

    This is another case of the IPCC being conservative - understating the seriousness of anthropogenic climate change today.
     
    iamanonman and Robert like this.
  21. Robert

    Robert Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2014
    Messages:
    68,085
    Likes Received:
    17,134
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Remove the term anthropogenic and maybe then we can engage in a decent dialogue.
     
  22. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    59,488
    Likes Received:
    16,351
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Spencer clearly has a strongly religious view on nature, signing on to a proclamation that Earth including its climate is God-created, and thus are resilient, self regulating and self correcting.

    He's a proponent of "Intelligent Design". He's proposed calling those who accept climate change science as "global warming Nazis", as such people will kill more than the Nazis ever did.

    For such a person, it would be quite logical to believe Earth was constructed by God to be the ideal environment for humans and that God, through his design, is taking care of us.

    He wrote, "I finally became convinced that the theory of creation actually had a much better scientific basis than the theory of evolution, for the creation model was actually better able to explain the physical and biological complexity in the world. [...] Science has startled us with its many discoveries and advances, but it has hit a brick wall in its attempt to rid itself of the need for a creator and designer."
     
    Cosmo likes this.
  23. iamanonman

    iamanonman Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2016
    Messages:
    4,826
    Likes Received:
    1,576
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Yeah. Exactly. The error wasn't with their result. The error was their quantification of the error bars. So instead of the IPCC underestimating the warming by 60% it is now a range of 10% to 70%. Even taking the most conservative position the IPCC is still underestimating the warming.

    It's not unlike how the IPCC foolishly sticks with this lower bound 1.5C of warming even though everybody including Judith Curry say it's too low. Why is the IPCC holding onto this unrealistic lower bound anyway? Not even skeptics buy it anymore.
     
  24. iamanonman

    iamanonman Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2016
    Messages:
    4,826
    Likes Received:
    1,576
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I don't really have a problem with that actually. Afterall neither natural nor anthroprogenic are causes of climate change. They are just categories in which various causes can land in. Some physical processes can coexist in both categories. CO2 is a perfect example.
     
    Robert likes this.
  25. Robert

    Robert Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2014
    Messages:
    68,085
    Likes Received:
    17,134
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    What do you mean by religion?

    I believe GOD created the universe as something in the works. But it changes a lot over time. I believe the universe once did not exist. As you believe man once did not exist. As you believe plants once did not exist. But Earth was placed just right for man to eventually show up.

    As to religion? Do you mean you must pray or read the bible or what?

    I think he thinks of this as I do. So I get him.
     

Share This Page