Climate change science resources

NASA is not science... It is a government organization.

 

Apparently, an anonymous deep-pocketed sponsor is funding Mann's disgraceful barratry, not Penn State.

 

A rare serious and respectful discussion:
A climate of dialogue
Posted on February 12, 2021 by curryja | 86 comments
by Judith Curry

A pacated dialogue between two serious thinkers who disagree about climate change.

Continue reading →

". . . Two authors contend here about the urgency of the challenge posed by climate change, and about the different roles of science, policy, media and society in debating how to cope.

One contendent argues that science’s epistemic authority is today staked on a sense of urgency of impending climatic catastrophe, which he sees as irresponsible; the other considers climatic action urgent in view of our responsibility to future generations. While one contendent considers that an accelerated exit from a fossil fuel dominated energy mix is both unfeasible and undesirable, the other sees it as an objective to pursue with renewed political determination. . . . "

 

New Study Finds 25-45% Of The Instrumental Warming Since The 1950s Is Due To Urbanization, Not CO2
By Kenneth Richard on 15. February 2021

Share this...
Why have sea surface temperatures and proxy temperature reconstructions so strongly diverged from the instrumental land record in recent decades? Because “0.36 ± 0.04 °C” of non-climatic warming from roofs, asphalt, machines, vehicles…artificially enhances the post-1950s global temperature trend.
A new analysis (Scafetta, 2021) suggests:

• Urban Heat Island (UHI) effects can raise city temperatures 6-9°C above the temperatures in surrounding rural areas. These significant biases are not sufficiently removed from instrumental records.

• Sea surface temperatures and land temperatures showed matching variations and amplitudes from 1900 to 1980. After 1980, the land surface temperatures rose substantially more, suggesting nearly half of the land temperature increase is non-climatic.

• Tree ring temperature reconstructions showed a strikingly similar pattern of amplitude and oscillation prior to the 1980s. After the 1980s, the instrumental record claims more than twice as much warming as the proxy records.

• Between 25-45% of the warming from 1940-’60 to 2000-’20 appears to be artificial, or non-climatic.

• Climate models overestimate the 1940-’60 to 2000-’20 climatic warming by about 40% in hindcasts. . . .

 

The IPCC on Risk, Part 2: Framing the Framework
Posted on 19 Feb 21 by JOHN RIDGWAY • 4 Comments


In part 1 of this series of articles I argued that the recent preoccupation with extreme weather events owed more to the IPCC’s desire to create a perception of risk that was amenable to implementation of its climate change policies than it did to any enabling developments in causal analysis or cognitive science. In this … Continue reading →


The IPCC on Risk, Part 1: New Developments?
Posted on 18 Feb 21 by JOHN RIDGWAY • 11 Comments
There can be no doubt that those who consider anthropogenic global warming (AGW) to be a problem worthy of the epithet ‘emergency’ have increasingly invoked extreme weather events in support of that view. It is not my intention here to argue whether or not such events confirm the critical level of risk posited for AGW. … Continue reading →

 

Jack, respectfully these are not climate change resources but rather climate change conspiracy resources. Since you've got multiple other threads going, why don't you just pop them in there. Nobody wants to read this stuff here.

 

Your claim of "conspiracy" is laughable. These are attempts to stimulate and carry on an actual discussion. Your fear of that is not a problem I'm obliged to address. The posts are exactly where they belong.

 

Good to know you have a voice. They aren't really science resources, just a wall of text. I haven't thoroughly investigated all your threads, but you seem to post enormous articles, not really science-based, but have nothing to say about them. I don't see how that's stimulating.

I will occasionally pop my head in your threads and have a look but I don't expect much to surprise me.

 

I see no reason to manually retype what has already been well presented. Since a majority of the climate articles are based on (and linked to) peer-reviewed research, I suspect you haven't really looked.

 

I suspect one or two more posts and I'll do the same. I remember painstakingly trying to argue with sceptics and shrills over a decade ago. Things were a bit more uncertain back then, many projections, far less data. However, the warming models have been thoroughly vindicated. By my best account we are slightly above average for the warming projections and there have been a bunch of extreme weather events that support the notion of broad changes in climate beyond "just" warming.

The main reason I don't argue now is even if you painstakingly refute their arguments, or agree with some aspects (it's not all roses) there is little satisfaction. This is exacerbated by the fact that they all seem to be a bit weird and creepy in the end. It's a tricky thing to pinpoint, but you get the feeling that you're talking to (and developing an unavoidable relationship with) at the very least, an odd kind of a person. I find this to be a dehumanising experience. But I'll give them a chance to begin with.

 

Svensmark's most recent publications. These relate to his hypothesized solar/climate feedback mechanism.

• Stochastic effects in H2SO4-H2O cluster growth
  Köhn, C., Enghoff, M. B. & Svensmark, H., 2020, In : Aerosol Science and Technology. 54, 9, p. 1007-1018
  Research output: Contribution to journal › Journal article › Research › peer-review
  • 
    
• The Ion and Charged Aerosol Growth Enhancement (ION-CAGE) code: a numerical model for the growth of charged and neutral aerosols
  Svensmark, J., Shaviv, N. J., Enghoff, M. B. & Svensmark, H., 2020, In : Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres. 7, 9, 22 p., e2020EA001142.
  Research output: Contribution to journal › Journal article › Research › peer-review
  

 

Cold Snaps Expose Climate Science Fragility
Guest Blogger
Some climate scientists argue CO2 induced “Arctic Amplification” causing warmer polar temperatures which increased the jet stream’s waviness. However, there is no consensus for their hypothesis, and some argue there…


". . . Some climate scientists argue CO2 induced “Arctic Amplification” causing warmer polar temperatures which increased the jet stream’s waviness. However, there is no consensus for their hypothesis, and some argue there is little evidence at all for that effect. Nonetheless there is an excellent, albeit ignored explanation for the warming Arctic/cooling mid‑latitudes paradox. The natural quasi‑permanent Aleutian Low nearly explains it all. . . . "

 

The IPCC on Risk, Part 3: Decisions, Decisions
Posted on 20 Feb 21 by JOHN RIDGWAY • 9 Comments


In the previous article of this series I introduced the IPCC’s views on the landscape for decision making. This landscape was described in terms of climate policy choices, levels at which decisions are taken, and the categories of uncertainty that influence such decisions. Whilst I accepted that the IPCC’s taxonomy appeared fair and unbiased, I … Continue reading →

 

The IPCC on Risk, Part 5: Leaving no Room for Doubt
Posted on 21 Feb 21 by JOHN RIDGWAY • Leave a comment
At the end of Part 4 in this series, I speculated that the authors of AR5, Chapter 2 may have dropped the ball when developing the manifesto for the declaration of a climate emergency. Having argued forcibly that the public perception of climate change risk is based upon unreliable intuitive thinking, the IPCC went on … Continue reading →

The IPCC on Risk, Part 4: Choose Your Weapon
Posted on 21 Feb 21 by JOHN RIDGWAY • 4 Comments
When the IPCC outlined its so-called risk management framework in section 2.3 of AR5, Chapter 2, it drew a distinction between a descriptive analysis of decision making and a normative analysis. The former, subject of Part 3 of this series of articles, makes a great deal of the shortcomings of intuitive thinking when applied to … Continue reading →

 

Name calling with no basis in fact.

More accurately, you do not want to be reminded that the vaunted scientific consensus is a lie.

 

False and absurd.

You misspelled, "any."

 

Ridiculous. They have been unambiguously falsified:

Nope. Jack has posted numerous links showing that is false.

No, that's also false. We are far below the projected warming, and there has been no increase in extreme weather events.

 

Ah yes, the guild hall defense. Regardless, you missed badly on the first one.
Jim Steele is Director emeritus of San Francisco State University’s Sierra Nevada Field Campus, authored Landscapes and Cycles: An Environmentalist’s Journey to Climate Skepticism, and a member of the CO2 Coalition

 

Source...?

 

That would be a big old #10... Seems as if Jack's "#7" has him beat?... hmmmm....

 

What Really Drives The Climate?
Posted on February 24, 2021 by tonyheller
The belief that carbon dioxide controls earth’s temperature is a superstition which has no basis in science. A civilization which bases policy on superstition is doomed to failure.

Video Player


00:00
11:34
Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

 

Correct. The presence of CO2 in Earth's atmosphere does not cause Earth to increase in temperature. It is the Sun that heats the Earth, not CO2.

 

Uncomfortable knowledge
Posted on March 3, 2021 by curryja | 59 comments
by Judith Curry

On the misuse of science and scientific authority.

Continue reading →

". . . Much of the discussion of the “war on science” and our “post-truth” condition, of course, regards not a generalized condition but a specific controversy, the failure of policy makers to heed the recommendations of climate scientists, with many climate advocates claiming that the failure to act is the result of a sustained campaign of media disinformation underwritten by fossil fuel interests.

But in “Unbalanced: How Liberal Elites Have Cued Climate Polarization,” political scientists Eric Merkley and Dominik Stecula argue that there is little evidence to support this claim. Drawing upon a comprehensive study of three decades of news coverage of the issue, Merkley and Stecula find that mainstream media outlets, including conservative outlets like the Wall Street Journal and Fox News, have never given climate skeptics much of a platform. . . . "