Poor old Jem.
Basically just parroting the same junk-science argument against anthropic global warming that was devised to defend tobacco and cigarettes.
The best he can hope for is all the science shit will magically go away.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Where is futurecurrents?
- Thread starter nitro
- Start date
Basically just parroting the same junk-science argument against anthropic global warming that was devised to defend tobacco and cigarettes.
The best he can hope for is all the science shit will magically go away.
Poor old Jem.
Basically just parroting the same junk-science argument against anthropic global warming that was devised to defend tobacco and cigarettes.
The best he can hope for is all the science shit will magically go away.
You do realize that the leaders of climate departments at 5 of the top 10 U.S. science universities don't support AGW including Judith Curry at Georgia Tech.
The Uncertainties mentioned below would apply to IPCC's forecast Only, not to Judith's! Very logical! With any "Proprietary" Scientific approach unknown to other IPCC researchers! ?
Q http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judith_Curry
Regarding climate change, she thinks that the IPCC reports typically neglect what she calls the "Uncertainty Monster"[2] in projecting future climate trends, which she calls a "wicked problem."[3] Curry also hosts a popular science blog in which she writes on topics related to climate science and the science-policy interface.[4]
...
Curry testified before the US House Subcommittee on Environment in 2013,[18] remarking on the many large uncertainties in forecasting future climate.[19]
In October 2014, Curry wrote an op-ed for the Wall Street Journal [20] where she argued that human-caused warming near the end of the 21st century should be less than the 2-degrees-Celsius “danger” level for all but the IPCC’s most extreme emission scenario, which is far later than the IPCC prediction of a 2-degrees-Celsius warming before 2040.
UQ
Q http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judith_Curry
Regarding climate change, she thinks that the IPCC reports typically neglect what she calls the "Uncertainty Monster"[2] in projecting future climate trends, which she calls a "wicked problem."[3] Curry also hosts a popular science blog in which she writes on topics related to climate science and the science-policy interface.[4]
...
Curry testified before the US House Subcommittee on Environment in 2013,[18] remarking on the many large uncertainties in forecasting future climate.[19]
In October 2014, Curry wrote an op-ed for the Wall Street Journal [20] where she argued that human-caused warming near the end of the 21st century should be less than the 2-degrees-Celsius “danger” level for all but the IPCC’s most extreme emission scenario, which is far later than the IPCC prediction of a 2-degrees-Celsius warming before 2040.
UQ
Last edited:
The Uncertainties mentioned below would apply to IPCC's forecast Only, not to Judith's! Very logical! With any "Proprietary" Scientific approach unknown to other IPCC researchers! ?
Q http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judith_Curry
Regarding climate change, she thinks that the IPCC reports typically neglect what she calls the "Uncertainty Monster"[2] in projecting future climate trends, which she calls a "wicked problem."[3] Curry also hosts a popular science blog in which she writes on topics related to climate science and the science-policy interface.[4]
...
Curry testified before the US House Subcommittee on Environment in 2013,[18] remarking on the many large uncertainties in forecasting future climate.[19]
In October 2014, Curry wrote an op-ed for the Wall Street Journal [20] where she argued that human-caused warming near the end of the 21st century should be less than the 2-degrees-Celsius “danger” level for all but the IPCC’s most extreme emission scenario, which is far later than the IPCC prediction of a 2-degrees-Celsius warming before 2040.
UQ
If you want a good perspective on Climate Science then I would urge you to read Judith Curry's blog. She regularly invites scientists who support AGW to guest write on her blog so you get a variety of in-depth commentary and opinions.
http://judithcurry.com/
If you want a good perspective on Climate Science then I would urge you to read Judith Curry's blog. She regularly invites scientists who support AGW to guest write on her blog so you get a variety of in-depth commentary and opinions.
http://judithcurry.com/
OK, thanks!
Just starting (will take much time in scanning it.) with this topic (linked below) that I found interesting and informative, but this whole Climate field is totally beyond me:
http://judithcurry.com/2015/05/06/q...ntribution-to-atmospheric-co2/#comment-703286
Usually researches in universities would not provide practical solutions, as I think. The problem in this field is, whatever new discovery or solutions could not make obvious good money similar to many medical solutions/drugs.
Therefore, carbon trading scheme maybe a good and viable idea that would stimulate big corporations to support further more practical researches in order to gain/save money through reducing carbon. (Just my primitive thought!) During the process, the researchers might incidentally find something unexpectedly new and useful! Hopefully!
If everyone is allowed to have an opinion, then I would think that merely Warning alone could be misleading! I would guess the Volatility of climate could be the real problem. That means the up/high/hot and down/low/cool of temperature as well as the rapid changing cycle time for each volatility cycle would be short and volatile. (However, that could produce more arguments/conflicts between believers and non-believers of climate change)
I don't have any model to support the above guess, but it's based on my personal observation and thoughts during the past years.
As mentioned before, the complex systems model of climate change could be beyond the existing modelling and computing power of our machines/computers. Because too many unknown mega-variables (Anthropogenic factors, geo-/earth factors, ocean-related factors, geothermal factors, planetary factors, etc.) that probably some of them would have never done any research or modelling before regarding particularly the interactions and chain effects among them (and too many uncertainties as well). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/System_dynamics
Perhaps cosmology, with a long established history and knowledge since ancient days, would be an easier topic when comparing to this climate research!
The overall lead-time for understanding/ studying/ investigating this climate problem, before coming up any viable solutions, would be Very Very long from now! My 2 cents!
Last edited:
OK, thanks!
Just starting (will take much time in scanning it.) with this topic that I found interesting and informative, but this whole Climate field is totally beyond me:
http://judithcurry.com/2015/05/06/q...ntribution-to-atmospheric-co2/#comment-703286
Usually researches in universities would not provide practical solutions, as I think. The problem in this field is, whatever new discovery or solutions could not make obvious good money similar to many medical solutions/drugs.
Therefore, carbon trading scheme maybe a good and viable idea that would stimulate big corporations to support further more practical researches in order to gain/save money through reducing carbon. (Just my primitive thought!) During the process, the researchers might incidentally find something unexpectedly new and useful! Hopefully!
If everyone is allowed to have an opinion, then I would think that merely Warning alone could be misleading! I would guess the Volatility of climate could be the real problem. That means the up/high/hot and down/low/cool of temperature as well as the rapid changing cycle time for each volatility cycle would be short and volatile. (However, that could produce more arguments/conflicts between believers and non-believers of climate change)
I don't have any model to support the above guess, but it's based on my personal observation and thoughts during the past years.
As mentioned before, the complex systems model of climate change could be beyond the existing modelling and computing power of our machines/computers. Because too many unknown mega-variables (Anthropogenic factors, geo-/earth factors, ocean-related factors, geothermal factors, planetary factors, etc.) that probably some of them would have never done any research or modelling before regarding particularly the interactions and chain effects among them. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/System_dynamics
Perhaps cosmology, with a long established history and knowledge since ancient days, would be an easier topic when comparing to this climate research!
The overall lead-time for understanding/ studying/ investigating this climate problem, before coming up any viable solutions, would be Very Very long from now! My 2 cents!
Another good article on Judith Curry's blog is by Zeke Hausfather of the BerkelyEarth foundation. He discusses temperature adjustments in detail.
Understanding adjustments to temperature data
http://judithcurry.com/2014/07/07/understanding-adjustments-to-temperature-data/
OK, thanks!
Just starting (will take much time in scanning it.) with this topic (linked below) that I found interesting and informative, but this whole Climate field is totally beyond me:
http://judithcurry.com/2015/05/06/q...ntribution-to-atmospheric-co2/#comment-703286
Usually researches in universities would not provide practical solutions, as I think. The problem in this field is, whatever new discovery or solutions could not make obvious good money similar to many medical solutions/drugs.
Therefore, carbon trading scheme maybe a good and viable idea that would stimulate big corporations to support further more practical researches in order to gain/save money through reducing carbon. (Just my primitive thought!) During the process, the researchers might incidentally find something unexpectedly new and useful! Hopefully!
If everyone is allowed to have an opinion, then I would think that merely Warning alone could be misleading! I would guess the Volatility of climate could be the real problem. That means the up/high/hot and down/low/cool of temperature as well as the rapid changing cycle time for each volatility cycle would be short and volatile. (However, that could produce more arguments/conflicts between believers and non-believers of climate change)
I don't have any model to support the above guess, but it's based on my personal observation and thoughts during the past years.
As mentioned before, the complex systems model of climate change could be beyond the existing modelling and computing power of our machines/computers. Because too many unknown mega-variables (Anthropogenic factors, geo-/earth factors, ocean-related factors, geothermal factors, planetary factors, etc.) that probably some of them would have never done any research or modelling before regarding particularly the interactions and chain effects among them (and too many uncertainties as well). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/System_dynamics
Perhaps cosmology, with a long established history and knowledge since ancient days, would be an easier topic when comparing to this climate research!
The overall lead-time for understanding/ studying/ investigating this climate problem, before coming up any viable solutions, would be Very Very long from now! My 2 cents!
Here are some informative links for you. At the heart of it, man made global warming is pretty simple. CO2 is an important greenhouse gas. Greenhouse gasses keep the earth warm. We have raised levels of CO2 by 40% over the last 150 years. This has caused an increase in the greenhouse effect and resulting warming.
http://www.revisescience.co.uk/2011/images/1000yr_change.jpg
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/lacis_01/
While Judith Curry has some credibility, she is a bit of an attention whore and she's just one one of thousands of climate scientists. Her opinion should be given commensurate weight.
Last edited:
Filling Up the Republican Tank
Dr. Michael Mann, Professor of Meteorology at Penn State University, is not coy in his sentiments for the Republican agenda, nor in discussing where they take it from.
Dr. Mann has been on the forefront of the climate change debate for as long as the idea of a "debate" has been in vogue. He is an expert in climate science, one of the co-authors of the third assessment report for the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), and perhaps most famous for publishing the "hockey stick graph" in 1999, which shows consistent warming throughout the 20th century.
In his interview with Planet Experts, Dr. Mann detailed the hostility and death threats he received for simply presenting the data that greenhouse gas emissions were warming the atmosphere.
"Unfortunately," says Mann, "at the base of this is the fact that a number of very well-heeled private interests – the Koch brothers in particular – have spent tens if not hundreds of millions of dollars poisoning – literally poisoning – our public discourse over climate change by funding professional climate change deniers, creating front groups and funding think tanks that exist to cast doubt on the science of climate change. Funded by the Koch brothers, or in many cases funded by their fossil fuel interests."
http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/28473-why-do-republicans-reject-man-made-climate-change#
Dr. Michael Mann, Professor of Meteorology at Penn State University, is not coy in his sentiments for the Republican agenda, nor in discussing where they take it from.
Dr. Mann has been on the forefront of the climate change debate for as long as the idea of a "debate" has been in vogue. He is an expert in climate science, one of the co-authors of the third assessment report for the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), and perhaps most famous for publishing the "hockey stick graph" in 1999, which shows consistent warming throughout the 20th century.
In his interview with Planet Experts, Dr. Mann detailed the hostility and death threats he received for simply presenting the data that greenhouse gas emissions were warming the atmosphere.
"Unfortunately," says Mann, "at the base of this is the fact that a number of very well-heeled private interests – the Koch brothers in particular – have spent tens if not hundreds of millions of dollars poisoning – literally poisoning – our public discourse over climate change by funding professional climate change deniers, creating front groups and funding think tanks that exist to cast doubt on the science of climate change. Funded by the Koch brothers, or in many cases funded by their fossil fuel interests."
http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/28473-why-do-republicans-reject-man-made-climate-change#
OK thanks, I will take a look at the NASA articles as well.
Seems to me logically the CO2 experiment, if possible and feasible , should be proceeded soonest to see whether of any use. If not, try something else!
Does the world only have CO2 historical data against temperatures? What else ?
Seems to me logically the CO2 experiment, if possible and feasible , should be proceeded soonest to see whether of any use. If not, try something else!
Does the world only have CO2 historical data against temperatures? What else ?
Its pretty simple.
The oceans have been warming since the last ice age.
Co2 levels trail ocean warming and cooling.
The question is therefore shot not be what is causing co2 to go up but what is causing the ocean warming since the last ice age.
By the way... not worked by futurecurrents or stu (obviously paid empty "content creation" trolls except when they misrepresent what I wrote) ... but will get a bit charged when discussing the issue with people with real minds like Nitro.
The oceans have been warming since the last ice age.
Co2 levels trail ocean warming and cooling.
The question is therefore shot not be what is causing co2 to go up but what is causing the ocean warming since the last ice age.
By the way... not worked by futurecurrents or stu (obviously paid empty "content creation" trolls except when they misrepresent what I wrote) ... but will get a bit charged when discussing the issue with people with real minds like Nitro.