So I wonder how the GW true believers explain the high sea ice extent this year. It is already higher than the last 4 years and 6 of the last 14 years and the season isn't over yet. The melting paused is alive and well and it started the year Al Gore said Arctic sea ice was doomed. Go figure.
Your criticism applies to every word you wrote too. Are you Curry's peer? And i see nothing proving you are the peer of the man who published his video on you tube. What papers have you paid to have peer reviewed?
On top of that, they ignore the inconvenient science papers published by peer review. The usual narrative is they are paid by big oil, another false narrative.
Also the massive cold wave over the north american continent does not remotely match their predictions of gloom and doom. I recall a vast cold wave over Europe in 1962 and we have seen such an event return. We recall them from a long time ago in the USA and just when the Alarmists assure us it is hot, we get hit with extreme cold. Yes, go figure.
You are free to try to rebut anything I said. Unlike your video dude, I'm right here. And, you will remember that I have pointed out that Curry has some strong points. So, your claims of some sort of indiscriminate rejection has clearly never been the case. I DID address flaws in your idiotic internet video. And, if you have scientists who have reviewed that video, then CITE them.
I read an article the other day that claims the wavy jet stream happens during cold periods. Also, the warmer it is, the less violent weather we have because the temperature gradients are smaller.
My so called internet dude is available on youtube. We can comment on his video and tell him what you want to tell him. But you choose to rant against me. You even rant against Curry never disclosing at any time why you are to be believed. All you are to me is a person that uses willreadmore as his sn.
As criticism, you're raising a question that you can't even verify is an issue? That kind of logic should fail in middle school. Curry again? I haven't "badgered" Curry. In fact, I've CITED her work in pointing to problems you have had.
I have recently started watching the Chinese Government TV for some added news content. They end the broadcast showing the Earth and it's gradients of very cold to hot. It sure is interesting and a good snapshot of the whole earth.
The argument is NOT that I'm a peer to ANY scientist. I have NEVER implied that. I've said many times that I'm an engineer - not a scientist, let alone a climatologist. As nonscientists, we have to learn how to be informed by science. That means we need to take results from the best sources we can, and we should have a gigantic preference for (if not absolutely require) sources where those results have been reviewed by a wide range of scientists. When some internet video states something like "clouds reflect the light" as a refutation of the multiplier effect of CO2, there needs to be a scientific review of that claim. It's one of the strongest claims in that ENTIRE VIDEO! The catch is that won't happen with an internet video. And, anyone who has read the results of multiple climatologists on water vapor, it's clear the guy who did this video is failing to tell the whole truth. Plus, when we read something that includes argument by innuendo (like "government scientist", etc.) there is no possibility of considering the work as a legitimate representation of science.
Youtube == internet. I comment on you only in that you should not accept this kind of content as being science - an argument I've backed up in posts concerning this specific video. I don't ask that anyone believes ME on climatology. My comments on climate are carefully restricted to pointing to what well reviewed experts are saying.
I see, You only internet = great Professional created a video making him = not great You, no credentials, must be believed He also may have none, but must be shunned. I see. Science as I use it is a tool. Science as you use it sounds to me like a religion.
I did not complete my engineering education but got a good head start. I saw a video by a former NASA engineer who did work in climate. And his case was that mathematically he proved the alarmists are not correct. We have had a few good engineers present on this forum and they concurred with my view. And you claim now you agree with Curry? If that is true, that is a move forward for you.
You talk about credentials, but the guy in the video is an electrical engineer who for a time helped Australia model carbon in plants and agricultural products. I don't have to have credentials in climatology, as I don't project results - I point to issues regarding what we need to do to be properly informed by science, with climatology being one example. In this case, I've pointed out that the vast majority of scientists disagree with this guy on both specific and general points of climatology, that the medium he is choosing is not reviewed (thus we'll never see an independent scientific review of this video), that he says nothing about who he works for, that he uses innuendo as an argument to make scientific points. These are bad signs.
I appreciate all of your points. What galls me is no matter what I drop on the Curry Corner, you show up to attack it. Would you enjoy the peer reviewed climate research done by Dr. Lindzen?
So, you have a really, really good anecdote?!?! A lot of what Curry says is backed by the majority of scientists. Some is not. I like her points about such things as: - water will be an issue regardless of how much of climate change is attributable to humans. (Remember she agrees that earth is warming.) She notes that it's an incredibly important issue that needs significant advances in international law. There is strong broad agreement in the science community about this. Our DoD agrees that water is a rising national security issue. - today it's difficult to get contrarian views published, because there are too few reviewers willing to spend time on work that is, frankly, unlikely to be real. However, it remains an issue, as there can be good ideas lost in the garbage. Some method of encouraging reviews of minority work might be an improvement. This might include supporting specific journals that focus on this stuff.
Well, the thing is what you drop. In my opinion, we need to find results from science where there has been substantial review. That almost never comes from internet videos, personal stories, or some poster that claims to be an incontrovertible source. Dr. Lindzen has been prominent enough to have received review. So, at least there is that. However, numerous scientists see Dr. Lindzen as wrong on a good number of issues. Also, he seems to focus on the possibility or cost of doing anything about it. I do not like that, because it is unrelated to the change we see happening today. We need to understand the current circumstance without mixing in what we might do to improve that circumstance. Put another way, we can't allow the cost of medicine to lead to a misdiagnosis of the disease. "It costs too much" is not an argument against the results of climatology.
I was confident you would not like the number 1 globally climate expert. And you of course went right to the attack Lindzen mode that Democrats do a lot. Are you a democrat? Did you support Hillary Clinton or a different Democrat?
I served on the board of directors of the then SACBOR ... a very large board of Realtors. Today I still am a dues paying member and it is now called Bay East Board of Realtors. It was perhaps in 1988 that I presented to my board my comments on the problems with water. I told them then water is a major problem for CA and until we solve the problem, it will remain a major problem. I think it is safe to say I agree with Curry on water. Curry is not willing to run about with her hair on fire screaming the damned earth is too hot. She takes a far more reasoned view of climate as does Dr. Lindzen.
There is no excuse for bringing up politics when evaluating science. I'd be shocked if you could get even a tiny fraction of climate scientists to promote Lindzen as number one of anything at all. When he joined Cato, his stated focus would be on the interaction of science and policymakers - a topic I take VERY seriously, due to the shrinking opportunity for science to inform policy today. Yet, his statements since then do not appear to have anything to do with improving communication between policymakers and scientists. For instance, I have NEVER heard of him lobbying for congressional committees to more strongly consider what science has to say on ANY topic, as science plays a declining role in our policy decisions. There are simply far too many who disagree with his strong and seriously contrarian statements about climate change.
Do you agree that we need strong international law on water as a national security issue? No, Lindzen actively attacks the very idea that human activity affects our climate in any meaningful way. And, he runs around saying that loudly. Please judge his coiffure on your own.
FACTS from Curry https://judithcurry.com/2019/03/04/...recent-u-s-landfalling-hurricanes/#more-24786 Hurricanes & climate change: recent U.S. landfalling hurricanes Posted on March 4, 2019 by curryja | 11 Comments by Judith Curry An assessment of whether any of the impacts of recent U.S. landfalling hurricanes were exacerbated by global warming. 6. Attribution: Recent U.S. landfalling hurricanes During the past decade, the following continental U.S. landfalling hurricanes rank in the top 5 historical hurricanes in terms of damage: Hurricane Harvey (2017) Hurricane Sandy (2012) Hurricane Irma (2017) Hurricane Michael ranks in the top 5 strongest continental U.S. landfalling hurricanes (Table 6.1). Table 6.1 Strongest U.S. landfalling hurricanes. Source:Scientists have argued (in journal publications and media interviews) that at least some aspect of each of these storms was made worse by human-caused global warming: track, intensity, size, rainfall. Here we assess the arguments for claiming a contribution from global warming for each of these four impactful storms. 6.1 Detection and attribution of extreme weather events Given the challenges to actually detecting a change in extreme weather events owing to the large impact of natural variability, the detection step is often skipped and attribution arguments are made, independent of detection. There are two general types of extreme event attribution methods that do not rely on detection: physical reasoning and fraction of attributable risk (NCA4, 2017),
No I do not. LAW is a last resort, not the first option. Recall how the Salem Witch trials happened. Recall the Civil War where per Democrats of today, allege Abe had a law he followed. They fail to mention his 38 percent voter support nor do they appear to be upset at the electoral college. Lindzen is a rational top rank climatologist. He refuses to set his hair on fire and scream bloody murder. I appreciate a scientist like him. I was pleased he wrote back to me some years in the past. He was the second scientist at MIT to actually communicate with me. First was the famous professor Charles Taylor. Charles led me down the path of solid engineering on the internal combustion engine. I own his first book. Last was Richard Lindzen world acclaimed climatologist. Keep this one thing in mind when you forget all else. We do not deny climate changes. All we say is we do not put man in charge of climate so how can man get the blame?
