The Curry corner

Climate issues do not look like Science to me, they look precisely like politics looks.

 

Have you read the ipcc reports?

 

Duly noted even though it was glaringly obvious.

 

I have read much of the important parts. I started reading the IPCC reports many years ago.

 

So obvious you can't explain how man controls climate.

 

Confirmation bias

 

Not the topic

Diffusion is. And the himarious fact it is missing from your " theories"

 

If you actually studied physics in college then you should be familiar with diffusion

 

Your explanation shows Carbon dioxide falls until dissolved into the ocean. Exactly what i have said.

And the Carbon dioxide was placed into higher levels by aircraft and perhaps even high flying birds.

 

Bowerbird, it is a cheap shot to speak as if i am lying about my college years where i studied physics.

How many years of physics courses have you credits for?

 

Not until you started chatting it up, trying to prove you are smart. But you got it from some publication.

What exactly are my theories?

Why when i discuss science, it is possible to not attack any poster yet when i read replies, they focus on me?

 

Funny how that is what happens in replies back to me. Someone coached them to say that so they say it to me.

 

No. That's not correct. Well, I mean, they contribute, but that's not why CO2 concentration isn't that much different at 300mb (flight level) as it is at 1000 mb (near surface).

You tell us. I honestly thought you were saying that CO2 pools near the surface. I take it that's not what you're claiming?

 

Wonderful.

Derideo_Te and Bowerbird and you have figured out what was not said in the text you quoted.

Can you try to put your collective mind together and figure out what was said?

 

If I am mistaken in some way, I don't see it.

I think you are going to have to clarify.

 

OMG failure to understand that this is a DIAGRAM!

You still have not bothered to look up diffusion

 

He has claimed this before including that this is why the CO2 measurements are wrong

 

If I am attacking you why ar my posts not deleted?

BTW look,up diffusion

 

Then why are you not familiar with basic atmospheric physics?

 

I just love these guys who suggest scientists the world over forgot about gravity or whatever!

 

I know

So many denialists operate from " well if I don't know about it then it has not been researched or studied or even thought about!

But the CO2 being at different concentrations in an active atmosphere like ours is on a par with the person who posted that climate change was happening because the Earth had moved into a "warm patch" in space

 

Curry made accusations of fraud against fellow scientists without a shred of evidence to back them up, and has never retracted those slurs or apologized for them. That makes her extremely unethical. If you're going to make such sleazy accusations, you damn well better be able to back them up. She won't.

Her science stinks. In 2013, she predicted immediate cooling. That was followed by 2014, 2015 and 2016 all breaking new global high temperature records, with no sign of any global cooling in sight. She failed in her science as badly as it's possible to fail.

So, did she stick around and explain why her theory failed, like an ethical person would have done? No. After all, that would have taken guts and honesty, not to mention hard work to understand why her theory failed. Instead, she fled the field of science completely, after declaring that all the other scientists were frauds who were persecuting her.

Now, she makes a living as a paid shill for the denier political cult. Technically, she runs a "Forecasting company", but it never publishes what its forecasts are, or who the clients are. Given her track record of getting forecasts totally wrong, it's hard to imagine anyone paying her money for a forecast. It's easy to imagine various political interests paying her money in return for friendly testimony to congress, while pretending that they're paying for forecasts.

 

There are simple solutions and no one wants to do their part. It doesn't mean anything will change immediately. It took a while to get to this point. I lived through times when DDT was used! WE almost lost our nations symbol! I think we will make it through this. A little bit from everyone will help a great deal. Giving money to anyone will do less to help the environment and more to line the pockets of politicians and businessmen who employ scientists who really can't be sure of anything, but have some equations they can prove they did correctly. Planting flowers helps and beautifies. Anything growing will help immensely. You don't have to panic and do it all in one year. It won't work that way. It doesn't. Never has. Besides, the earth goes through cycles like sine waveforms. Do what you can for yourself and be happy. Egregious violations like China polluting their rivers and the air quality in Hong Kong should be worked on. The rest of us business is doing their part. Keep an eye on them. Regular folks can do theirs at home and in their lives. It's the most effective way to make changes. It catches on when you smile about it rather than punishing people with it and forcing things.

 

Did anybody answer you?

 

More from the Curry Corner

Part I – Introduction

Week in review – science edition
Posted on January 19, 2018 | 4 Comments
by Judith Curry

A few things that caught my eye this past week.


The folks at the @metoffice put together an excellent explainer on 2017 temperatures. Differences between groups largely arise from how they deal with interpolation in polar regions. [link] …

Jim Hansen: explainer for 2017 global temperatures. Baselines, anomalies, data sources, and conclusions in context w/previous El Nino & prediction for next decade (hiatus) [link] …

“Emergent constraint on equilibrium climate sensitivity from global temperature variability” Cox et al 2018 [link] …

Methodology for estimating equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS) from the 20th-century historical record: [link]

On the emergent constraints of climate sensitivity [link]

Piers Forster: A compelling analysis suggests that we can rule out high estimates of this sensitivity [link]

Why clouds hold the key to better climate models [link]

Large Antarctic snowfall increases could counter sea level rise, scientists say [link] …

“Are the impacts of land use on warming underestimated in climate policy?” [link] …
Jet stream response to #Arctic temperature swings [link]

Why are Arctic linkages to extreme weather still up in the air? [link]

Good overview by Carbon Brief: What are climate models and how do they work? [link] …

A Princeton glaciologist says a mega-engineering project may avert cataclysmic sea-level rise, [link]

Estimating the SST observing method from the observations and diurnal cycle, [link] …

Wonder how meteorologists can come up with 1-in-250 year probability estimates with only 137 years of data? It involves complex stats, but NOAA’s @TDiLiberto explains the math and science well here: [link] …

Drivers of 2016 record Arctic warmth assessed using climate simulations subjected to Factual and Counterfactual forcing [link] …

Sources of intermodel spread in the lapse rate and water vapor feedbacks [link]

Host Of Studies Show No Drought/Forest Fire Trend [link]

Causes of glacier melt extremes in the Alps since 1949 [link]

The ocean has lost a lot of oxygen in recent decades — “in amounts tightly related to ocean warming.” The effects will get worse, but are difficult to predict. [link] …

Warming and Cooling – The Medieval Climate Anomaly in Africa and Arabia [link]

“Cheruy et al. [2017] demonstrate a noteworthy negative nocturnal feedback between soil moisture and temperature that is particularly strong in so-called “hot-spot” regions of land-atmosphere coupling.” Wet soils elevate night time temperatures. [link]

Thriving on our changing planet: A decadal strategy for Earth Observation from Space [link]

Coastal waves drive Antarctic ocean warming, [link]

New data from ice cores show that mean ocean temperature from the Last Glacial Maximum to the early Holocene. Rose about 2.5 ℃ over this period. [link]

Improved spectral comparisons of paleoclimate models and observations via proxy system modeling: Implications for multi-decadal variability [link]

Hausfather: new “hybrid” sea surface temperature estimate using island and coastal land stations to correct for biases in ocean records due to changing instrumentation.[link]

Policy and Social Sciences

Impacts of nationally determined contributions on 2030 global greenhouse gas emissions: uncertainty analysis and distribution of emissions [link]

The @theAGU has just issued a new position paper on geoengineering – though it’s now called “climate intervention”. Says “may be a need for climate interventions to help reduce or offset some of the effects of climate change” & research should continue: [link]

After one year of the Trump administration, here’s what has actually happened (and NOT happened!) to science. It’s not really a “war on science.” [link] …

Joe Duarte: Checking the Fact Checkers. AP Fact Check is going to amaze you. And Google too:[link]

Are the New York City and various California lawsuits that seek compensation from oil companies to offset climate damages warranted? [link]

Experimental evidence that online incivility increases political polarization [link] Legal: Is global warming a ‘public nuisance’? [link]

Mark Lynas – a tentative 7-point plan for a peace treaty between anti and pro-GMO warriors. [link] …

Why China is freezing [link]

About science and scientists

“In medicine, the term “evidence-based” causes more arguments than you might expect. And that’s quite apart from the recent political controversy over why certain words were avoided in Centers for Disease Control and Prevention budget documents.” [link]

Would you please pay attention to the Clouds section? I have long believed this is the key to climate. But Clouds are not well understood yet.