Judith Curry: The climate ‘crisis’ isn’t what it used to be

Primavera said:
.
This is pretty much what I've been saying for many years, it's good to see that finally the world is waking up and dismissing the alarmist's dire forecasts.
Click to expand...


th



Haw, haw...................................haw.
 
maggot;
This is pretty much what I've been saying for many years, it's good to see that finally the world is waking up and dismissing the alarmist's dire forecasts.
Click to expand...


th



Haw, haw........................................haw.
 
maggot;
This is pretty much what I've been saying for many years, it's good to see that finally the world is waking up and dismissing the alarmist's dire forecasts.
Click to expand...



3b6188a531b218bfb2bf38bd438c0249


Haw, haw.........................................haw.
 
maggot
This is pretty much what I've been saying for many years, it's good to see that finally the world is waking up and dismissing the alarmist's dire forecasts.
Click to expand...



th




Haw, haw...................................haw.
 
Primavera said:
Bjorn Stevens is a top flight climate scientist who is internationally respected. Naturally the morons here have never heard of him.
Click to expand...

Post #30, folks. Seems Primo's climate change denying heroes contradict each other.....on top of not being able to answer a simple question honestly and directly. Classic.
 
.
This thread has certainly collected quite a few of dimmest dolts ever. Moving swiftly on let's hear from somebody who actually knows what he talking about rather than pompous Progressive poltroons.

Over at Judith Curry’s website Nic Lewis has posted an English translation of an interview with prominent German climatologist Bjorn Stevens and we encourage you to read the whole thing. Stevens is a leader in his field who pulls no punches when it comes to criticizing the alarmist bias of so many of his colleagues (“If you look closely, the most alarming stories often don’t stand up to scientific scrutiny... According to the simulations, the higher temperatures are mainly caused by a change in the clouds. We consider this effect to be overestimated today.”) We especially draw attention to his opening description of why climate models get clouds wrong, and indeed why climatologists themselves misunderstand clouds. It is that “In my field, most people think of a cloud as these compact white objects in the blue sky.” But they are no such thing.

Lewis introduces Stevens as “Director at the Max Planck Institute for Meteorology, the principal German climate science research and modeling centre” and “joint lead co-ordinator of the World Climate Research Programme’s Grand Challenge on Clouds, Circulation and Climate Sensitivity.” So let’s not hear anyone attempt to dismiss him as “not a climate scientist” even after he remarks “Clouds are tricksters. Even if the contours are sharp, the cloud structure is more like that of puff pastry. Nevertheless, many scientists use the children’s book clouds as a guide because they are easier to simulate. This makes the climate models less accurate.”

We could go further. To use modeling techniques you know are inaccurate, or should know are inaccurate, because they make modeling easier really is the joke about the guy who dropped his key by the door but is looking for it under the lamppost because the light is better. Except he didn’t then say “Ha, found it” then claim to have opened the lamppost and gone in.

The interview contains a lot of other valuable material including surprises like a cloud the size of a building only holds a litre of water and that in consequence “If you distributed all the condensed water in the atmosphere evenly around the globe, you would get a water film that is only two tenths of a millimeter thick.” And some pointed observations about the unsettled nature of climate science. So again we recommend that you check it out.

https://climatediscussionnexus.com/2022/11/02/interview-with-climatologist-bjorn-stevens/
 
Last edited:
While you young ones are figuring out how to live in Waterworld, I'll be comfortably in my urn not giving a fat fuck.
 
Primavera said:
.
This thread has certainly collected quite a few of dimmest dolts ever. Moving swiftly on let's hear from somebody who actually knows what he talking about rather than pompous Progressive poltroons.

Over at Judith Curry’s website Nic Lewis has posted an English translation of an interview with prominent German climatologist Bjorn Stevens and we encourage you to read the whole thing. Stevens is a leader in his field who pulls no punches when it comes to criticizing the alarmist bias of so many of his colleagues (“If you look closely, the most alarming stories often don’t stand up to scientific scrutiny... According to the simulations, the higher temperatures are mainly caused by a change in the clouds. We consider this effect to be overestimated today.”) We especially draw attention to his opening description of why climate models get clouds wrong, and indeed why climatologists themselves misunderstand clouds. It is that “In my field, most people think of a cloud as these compact white objects in the blue sky.” But they are no such thing.

Lewis introduces Stevens as “Director at the Max Planck Institute for Meteorology, the principal German climate science research and modeling centre” and “joint lead co-ordinator of the World Climate Research Programme’s Grand Challenge on Clouds, Circulation and Climate Sensitivity.” So let’s not hear anyone attempt to dismiss him as “not a climate scientist” even after he remarks “Clouds are tricksters. Even if the contours are sharp, the cloud structure is more like that of puff pastry. Nevertheless, many scientists use the children’s book clouds as a guide because they are easier to simulate. This makes the climate models less accurate.”

We could go further. To use modeling techniques you know are inaccurate, or should know are inaccurate, because they make modeling easier really is the joke about the guy who dropped his key by the door but is looking for it under the lamppost because the light is better. Except he didn’t then say “Ha, found it” then claim to have opened the lamppost and gone in.

The interview contains a lot of other valuable material including surprises like a cloud the size of a building only holds a litre of water and that in consequence “If you distributed all the condensed water in the atmosphere evenly around the globe, you would get a water film that is only two tenths of a millimeter thick.” And some pointed observations about the unsettled nature of climate science. So again we recommend that you check it out.

https://climatediscussionnexus.com/2022/11/02/interview-with-climatologist-bjorn-stevens/
Click to expand...

Post #30, folks. Seems Primo's climate change denying heroes contradict each other.....on top of not being able to answer a simple question honestly and directly. So Primo just keeps braying variations of the SOS in hopes it will erase all contrary information and critical analysis. Classic.
 
America said:
Wait. We both agree on where babies come from. Now imagine if someone claimed that babies come from stork delivery companies (we'll call these people "stork advocates") and such a stork advocate is posting pages of copypasta on political forums.

Would you really care to waste your time "debating" such nonsense?

Sure, the stork advocate might call me a "coward" for not wanting to "debate" his nonsense, but so what? He might even throw all kinds of random numbers at me in an attempt to "debunk" reproductive science, but so what?

If the entire scientific community is in agreement that babies come from sex and not from storks delivering them to new parents, then I'm going to agree with scientific consensus on the issue.
Click to expand...

Science has no voting bloc. It does not use consensus. Consensus is only used in governments and religions.
 
America said:
I'm not a troll. If you have a valid hypothesis backed by evidence, then the proper action is to submit to a journal for peer review. The fact that no climate denier has done this says a lot.
Click to expand...

You are just ignoring the 1st law of thermodynamics again. No gas or vapor has the capability to warm the Earth.
 
Primavera said:
.
Clearly that fool doesn't know that Judith Curry is a well respected climatologist who has published many papers. Here is just one co-published with Nick Lewis.

The Impact of Recent Forcing and Ocean Heat Uptake Data on Estimates of Climate Sensitivity

Abstract
Energy budget estimates of equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS) and transient climate response (TCR) are derived based on the best estimates and uncertainty ranges for forcing provided in the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report (AR5). Recent revisions to greenhouse gas forcing and post-1990 ozone and aerosol forcing estimates are incorporated and the forcing data extended from 2011 to 2016. Reflecting recent evidence against strong aerosol forcing, its AR5 uncertainty lower bound is increased slightly. Using an 1869–82 base period and a 2007–16 final period, which are well matched for volcanic activity and influence from internal variability, medians are derived for ECS of 1.50 K (5%–95% range: 1.05–2.45 K) and for TCR of 1.20 K (5%–95% range: 0.9–1.7 K). These estimates both have much lower upper bounds than those from a predecessor study using AR5 data ending in 2011. Using infilled, globally complete temperature data give slightly higher estimates: a median of 1.66 K for ECS (5%–95% range: 1.15–2.7 K) and 1.33 K for TCR (5%–95% range: 1.0–1.9 K). These ECS estimates reflect climate feedbacks over the historical period, assumed to be time invariant. Allowing for possible time-varying climate feedbacks increases the median ECS estimate to 1.76 K (5%–95% range: 1.2–3.1 K), using infilled temperature data. Possible biases from non–unit forcing efficacy, temperature estimation issues, and variability in sea surface temperature change patterns are examined and found to be minor when using globally complete temperature data. These results imply that high ECS and TCR values derived from a majority of CMIP5 climate models are inconsistent with observed warming during the historical period.

https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/clim/31/15/jcli-d-17-0667.1.xml
Click to expand...

There is no such thing as 'forcing' here. There is no temperature data.
 
America said:
I don't care who she is. Scientific consensus is that global warming is real and it's man-made.
Click to expand...

Science does not use consensus. Only governments and religions do. There is no voting bloc in science.
No gas or vapor is capable of warming the Earth. You are still ignoring the 1st law of thermodynamics. You can't create energy out of nothing.
There is no data. It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth.
 
NiftyNiblick said:
The effort to save the planet was never made, and soon the planet will be lost to life forms.

We can just live however we want, now, but nobody should procreate from this point on.
You're condemning your offspring to hell.
Click to expand...

No, you don't get to tell people not to reproduce. You are not God.
 
Taichiliberal said:
translation: another corporate flunky who can't logically or factually refute or disprove contrary.
Click to expand...
Negative proof fallacy.
Taichiliberal said:
Answer me this, bunky: are you and your like minded ilk stating that a few centuries of massive deforestation,
Click to expand...
What massive deforestation????
Taichiliberal said:
urbanization,
Click to expand...
What ubanization????!?
Taichiliberal said:
increasing industrial pollutants
Click to expand...
Define 'industrial pollutant'. Buzzword fallacy.
Taichiliberal said:
and the like have only minimal effect on the environment?
Click to expand...
Define 'effect on the environment'. Buzzword fallacy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top