User Tag List

+ Reply to Thread
Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 43

Thread: Climate Science’s Myth-Buster

  1. #21
    Points: 3,523, Level: 13
    Level completed: 95%, Points required for next Level: 27
    Overall activity: 3.0%
    Achievements:
    1000 Experience Points1 year registered
    mamooth's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    315
    Join Date
    Jun 2018
    Posts
    1,089
    Points
    3,523
    Level
    13
    Thanks Given
    3
    Thanked 306x in 224 Posts
    Mentioned
    22 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Chris View Post
    She was the same before when she was in academia with a government-funded job.
    True dat. She was just as bad with her science while in academia.

    In 2013, Curry predicted, publicly and effectively immediately, flat temperatures for at least the next decade. That was immediately followed by record warming in 2014, 2015 and 2016. She failed with her prediction as badly as it's possible to fail.

    Rather than explain why her theory failed so spectacularly, she declared all the other scientists were conspiring against her. She then quit academia and took a job spreading propaganda in return for that sweet fossil fuel cash.

    Naturally, that made conservatives love her. Curry represents failure, victimhood and corruption, all those things that conservatives worship.
    "The federal government has absolute power" -- President Trump 04/13/2020

  2. #22
    Points: 482,508, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 96.0%
    Achievements:
    SocialRecommendation Second ClassYour first GroupOverdrive50000 Experience PointsTagger First ClassVeteran
    Awards:
    Discussion Ender
    Chris's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    400525
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    155,242
    Points
    482,508
    Level
    100
    Thanks Given
    16,815
    Thanked 48,100x in 35,212 Posts
    Mentioned
    1757 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by mamooth View Post
    True dat. She was just as bad with her science while in academia.

    In 2013, Curry predicted, publicly and effectively immediately, flat temperatures for at least the next decade. That was immediately followed by record warming in 2014, 2015 and 2016. She failed with her prediction as badly as it's possible to fail.

    Rather than explain why her theory failed so spectacularly, she declared all the other scientists were conspiring against her. She then quit academia and took a job spreading propaganda in return for that sweet fossil fuel cash.

    Naturally, that made conservatives love her. Curry represents failure, victimhood and corruption, all those things that conservatives worship.

    The temp hiatus lasted 16-17 years.

    The rest of your post is pure, made up, flame-baiting trash talk.
    Edmund Burke: "In vain you tell me that Artificial Government is good, but that I fall out only with the Abuse. The Thing! the Thing itself is the Abuse!"

  3. #23
    Points: 3,523, Level: 13
    Level completed: 95%, Points required for next Level: 27
    Overall activity: 3.0%
    Achievements:
    1000 Experience Points1 year registered
    mamooth's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    315
    Join Date
    Jun 2018
    Posts
    1,089
    Points
    3,523
    Level
    13
    Thanks Given
    3
    Thanked 306x in 224 Posts
    Mentioned
    22 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quotes by Curry on this topic:

    https://judithcurry.com/2019/01/23/e...lobal-warming/

    A careful look at the early 20th century global warming, which is almost as large as the warming since 1950.
    A big whopper on the part of Curry. Late 20th century warming is about 2.5 times as much as early 20th century warming.

    Until we can explain the early 20th century warming, I have little confidence IPCC and NCA4 attribution statements regarding the cause of the recent warming.
    We can explain it. It's the sun.

    Prior to 1970, temperature tracked solar activity closely, with some cooling due to pollution aerosols. After 1970, the growing CO2 effect came to dominate over the solar effect and the aerosol effect. So, we see strong warming even with a cooling sun.

    The ironic thing is how it's deniers who will claim that scientists don't look at the sun, and then they'll deliberately refuse to look at the sun.
    Water vapor is a greenhouse gas. THe energy it holds in wildly outweighs the heat needed to vaporize it
    "The federal government has absolute power" -- President Trump 04/13/2020

  4. #24
    Points: 482,508, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 96.0%
    Achievements:
    SocialRecommendation Second ClassYour first GroupOverdrive50000 Experience PointsTagger First ClassVeteran
    Awards:
    Discussion Ender
    Chris's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    400525
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    155,242
    Points
    482,508
    Level
    100
    Thanks Given
    16,815
    Thanked 48,100x in 35,212 Posts
    Mentioned
    1757 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by mamooth View Post
    Quotes by Curry on this topic:

    https://judithcurry.com/2019/01/23/e...lobal-warming/



    A big whopper on the part of Curry. Late 20th century warming is about 2.5 times as much as early 20th century warming.



    We can explain it. It's the sun.

    Prior to 1970, temperature tracked solar activity closely, with some cooling due to pollution aerosols. After 1970, the growing CO2 effect came to dominate over the solar effect and the aerosol effect. So, we see strong warming even with a cooling sun.

    The ironic thing is how it's deniers who will claim that scientists don't look at the sun, and then they'll deliberately refuse to look at the sun.
    Water vapor is a greenhouse gas. THe energy it holds in wildly outweighs the heat needed to vaporize it

    SkepticalMike produced studies to show what Curry said is disputed, but that's the point of the OP, that there is no consensus but a political one.

    Prior to 1970, temperature tracked solar activity closely, with some cooling due to pollution aerosols. After 1970, the growing CO2 effect came to dominate...
    Thanks for supporting Curry's claim.
    Edmund Burke: "In vain you tell me that Artificial Government is good, but that I fall out only with the Abuse. The Thing! the Thing itself is the Abuse!"

  5. #25
    Points: 3,523, Level: 13
    Level completed: 95%, Points required for next Level: 27
    Overall activity: 3.0%
    Achievements:
    1000 Experience Points1 year registered
    mamooth's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    315
    Join Date
    Jun 2018
    Posts
    1,089
    Points
    3,523
    Level
    13
    Thanks Given
    3
    Thanked 306x in 224 Posts
    Mentioned
    22 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Chris View Post
    The temp hiatus lasted 16-17 years.
    The temp hiatus was a denier fiction. A slight slowdown in the rate of warming is natural variability, not a "hiatus".

    The rest of your post is pure, made up, flame-baiting trash talk.
    So, the usual. It destroyed your position, and you couldn't address it, so you went into troll mode.

    It's not debatable that Curry predicted flat temperatures for the decade after 2013. It's on her blog.

    http://archive.is/hvQNK
    ---
    Implications for the future: II. View emphasizing natural internal variability
    The ‘hiatus’ will continue at least another decade
    ---

    It's also not debatable that 2014, 2015 and 2016 set successive new warm temperature records.


    It's not debatable that Curry quit academia while trash-talking all other scientists, even though they never trash-talked her. Your OP demonstrates that.


    The only thing debatable is whether she's being bribed to be a shill. That's just a reasonable conclusion, based on the evidence. She stinks at forecasting, none of what she offers is any different from what NOAA offers for free, yet supposedly people (all of them unnamed) now pay her for forecasting. The reasonable conclusion is that her "forecasting" company is a front for taking bribe money.
    "The federal government has absolute power" -- President Trump 04/13/2020

  6. #26
    Points: 3,523, Level: 13
    Level completed: 95%, Points required for next Level: 27
    Overall activity: 3.0%
    Achievements:
    1000 Experience Points1 year registered
    mamooth's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    315
    Join Date
    Jun 2018
    Posts
    1,089
    Points
    3,523
    Level
    13
    Thanks Given
    3
    Thanked 306x in 224 Posts
    Mentioned
    22 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Chris View Post
    SkepticalMike produced studies to show what Curry said is disputed, but that's the point of the OP, that there is no consensus but a political one.
    Consensus doesn't require 100% agreement. A few cranks still claim relativity is all a fraud. A few still claim the round earth is a fraud. A few claim global warming is a fraud.

    There are always stupid old fossilized scientists. Science advances one funeral at a time.
    "The federal government has absolute power" -- President Trump 04/13/2020

  7. #27
    Points: 482,508, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 96.0%
    Achievements:
    SocialRecommendation Second ClassYour first GroupOverdrive50000 Experience PointsTagger First ClassVeteran
    Awards:
    Discussion Ender
    Chris's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    400525
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    155,242
    Points
    482,508
    Level
    100
    Thanks Given
    16,815
    Thanked 48,100x in 35,212 Posts
    Mentioned
    1757 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by mamooth View Post
    Consensus doesn't require 100% agreement. A few cranks still claim relativity is all a fraud. A few still claim the round earth is a fraud. A few claim global warming is a fraud.

    There are always stupid old fossilized scientists. Science advances one funeral at a time.

    Science doesn't operate by consensus. You sound like Bo who elsewhere today talked about science as if it's about democratic opinion.

    science advances by mens of falsification, not by confirming bias as you do.
    Edmund Burke: "In vain you tell me that Artificial Government is good, but that I fall out only with the Abuse. The Thing! the Thing itself is the Abuse!"

  8. #28
    Points: 482,508, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 96.0%
    Achievements:
    SocialRecommendation Second ClassYour first GroupOverdrive50000 Experience PointsTagger First ClassVeteran
    Awards:
    Discussion Ender
    Chris's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    400525
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    155,242
    Points
    482,508
    Level
    100
    Thanks Given
    16,815
    Thanked 48,100x in 35,212 Posts
    Mentioned
    1757 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by mamooth View Post
    The temp hiatus was a denier fiction. A slight slowdown in the rate of warming is natural variability, not a "hiatus".



    So, the usual. It destroyed your position, and you couldn't address it, so you went into troll mode.

    It's not debatable that Curry predicted flat temperatures for the decade after 2013. It's on her blog.

    http://archive.is/hvQNK
    ---
    Implications for the future: II. View emphasizing natural internal variability
    The ‘hiatus’ will continue at least another decade
    ---

    It's also not debatable that 2014, 2015 and 2016 set successive new warm temperature records.


    It's not debatable that Curry quit academia while trash-talking all other scientists, even though they never trash-talked her. Your OP demonstrates that.


    The only thing debatable is whether she's being bribed to be a shill. That's just a reasonable conclusion, based on the evidence. She stinks at forecasting, none of what she offers is any different from what NOAA offers for free, yet supposedly people (all of them unnamed) now pay her for forecasting. The reasonable conclusion is that her "forecasting" company is a front for taking bribe money.

    The temp hiatus was a denier fiction.


    The data don't lie like you do.
    Edmund Burke: "In vain you tell me that Artificial Government is good, but that I fall out only with the Abuse. The Thing! the Thing itself is the Abuse!"

  9. #29
    Points: 1,578, Level: 9
    Level completed: 10%, Points required for next Level: 272
    Overall activity: 0%
    Achievements:
    Tagger Second Class1000 Experience Points1 year registered
    skepticalmike's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    56
    Join Date
    Nov 2018
    Posts
    267
    Points
    1,578
    Level
    9
    Thanks Given
    17
    Thanked 46x in 39 Posts
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Chris View Post


    The data don't lie like you do.
    Sometimes the data is wrong. That is especially true for remote sensing data that often has to be corrected for errors. The information below is from Think Progress, March 2, 2016. It is dangerous to rely only on satellite data when making claims about the extent of global warming.

    https://thinkprogress.org/climate-de...-838eb198e246/

    So only hard-core climate science deniers should be surprised to learn that the new study in the Journal of Climate by members of the RSS team finds that the … wait for it … the RSS data had been low-balling recent global warming because of a flawed diurnal cycle drift correction. That study, aptly titled, “Sensitivity of satellite-derived tropospheric temperature trends to the diurnal cycle adjustment,” concluded, “Previous versions of the RSS dataset have used a diurnal climatology derived from general circulation model output to remove the effects of drifting local measurement time. In this paper, we present evidence that this previous method is not sufficiently accurate, and present several alternative methods to optimize these adjustments using information from the satellite measurements themselves.”
    The researchers then use an improved and optimized adjustments methodology and report:
    The new dataset shows substantially increased global-scale warming relative to the previous version of the dataset, particularly after 1998. The new dataset shows more warming than most other middle tropospheric data records constructed from the same set of satellites. We also show that the new dataset is consistent with long-term changes in total column water vapor over the tropical oceans, lending support to its long-term accuracy.




    The corrected dataset shows a 0.125°C [0.225°F] rate of warming per decade from 1979 to 2014. The corrected trend is 60 percent higher than the earlier, flawed rate of warming.For those wondering why the satellite trends are slightly lower than the surface temperature trends, which exceed 0.16°C (0.29°F) per decade — and rising: It is always worth remembering that the surface temperature data directly measures the temperature at the surface where we live. The satellites indirectly measure the temperature of the lower atmosphere, where we don’t. Also, given that 2016 is likely to be the hottest year in the satellite record, the satellite trend — like the surface temperature trend — appears to be speeding up.


    This is also covered at the carbonbrief.org.

    A new paper published in the Journal of Climate reveals that the lower part of the Earth’s atmosphere has warmed much faster since 1979 than scientists relying on satellite data had previously thought.

    tps://www.carbonbrief.org/major-correction-to-satellite-data-shows-140-faster-warming-since-1998


    Researchers from Remote Sensing Systems (RSS), based in California, have released a substantially revised version of their lower tropospheric temperature record.


    After correcting for problems caused by the decaying orbit of satellites, as well as other factors, they have produced a new record showing 36% faster warming since 1979 and nearly 140% faster (i.e. 2.4 times larger) warming since 1998. This is in comparison to the previous version 3 of the lower tropospheric temperature (TLT) data published in 2009.
    Climate sceptics have long claimed that satellite data shows global warming to be less pronounced than observational data collected on the Earth’s surface. This new correction to the RSS data substantially undermines that argument. The new data actually shows more warming than has been observed on the surface, though still slightly less than projected in most climate models.


    Both the old record, version 3 in grey, and new record, version 4 in red, are shown in the figure above, along with the difference between the two, in black. The trends since 1998 for both are shown by dashed lines.
    Most of the difference between the old and new record occurs after the year 2000. While the old record showed relatively little warming during the oft-debated post-1998 “hiatus” period, the new record shows warming continuing unabated through to present. Similarly, while the old RSS v3 record showed 2016 only barely edging out 1998 as the warmest year in the satellite record, the new v4 record shows 2016 as exceeding 1998 by a large margin.

    Last edited by skepticalmike; 10-30-2019 at 06:58 PM.

  10. #30
    Points: 1,578, Level: 9
    Level completed: 10%, Points required for next Level: 272
    Overall activity: 0%
    Achievements:
    Tagger Second Class1000 Experience Points1 year registered
    skepticalmike's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    56
    Join Date
    Nov 2018
    Posts
    267
    Points
    1,578
    Level
    9
    Thanks Given
    17
    Thanked 46x in 39 Posts
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by mamooth View Post
    Quotes by Curry on this topic:

    https://judithcurry.com/2019/01/23/e...lobal-warming/



    A big whopper on the part of Curry. Late 20th century warming is about 2.5 times as much as early 20th century warming.



    We can explain it. It's the sun.

    Prior to 1970, temperature tracked solar activity closely, with some cooling due to pollution aerosols. After 1970, the growing CO2 effect came to dominate over the solar effect and the aerosol effect. So, we see strong warming even with a cooling sun.

    The ironic thing is how it's deniers who will claim that scientists don't look at the sun, and then they'll deliberately refuse to look at the sun.
    Water vapor is a greenhouse gas. THe energy it holds in wildly outweighs the heat needed to vaporize it
    "We can explain it. It's the sun"; that is a response to what caused the early 20th century warming. I don't think it is that simple. See the graph at carbonbrief.org website that shows

    a graph of the different components of warming versus time. It indicates that solar forcing and increased greenhouse gases explain most of the warming but there was also some

    slight net warming from 1910 to 1945 coming from greater than normal El Nino effects. Removing the El Nino/Southern Oscillation from the total climate forcings and smoothing

    the graph as shown in the yellow curve on a preceding graph at that carbonbrief.org website reveals a much lower rate of warming from 1910 to 1945 than what we see in the late

    20th century. I calculated 0.066 degrees C. per decade from 1910 to 1945 using the yellow curve and 0.16 degrees per decade from 1970 to 2000 (2.4 times greater warming in the

    late 20th century versus the early 20th century). I was unable to copy these very useful graphs.

    Judith Curry rejects both attribution studies and climate science projections based, in large part, on the inability of climate scientists to explain this early 20th century warming.
    Last edited by skepticalmike; 10-31-2019 at 01:58 AM.

+ Reply to Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts

Single Sign On provided by vBSSO