- Joined
- Jul 17, 2020
- Messages
- 35,221
- Reaction score
- 15,260
- Location
- Springfield MO
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Liberal
Wow, a 2XCO2 ECS of 1.64 C, a little lower than I was thinking, but in the same ballpark.Using 1859–1882 for the base period and 1995–2011 for the final period, thus avoiding major volcanic activity,
median estimates are derived for ECS of 1.64 K and for TCR of 1.33 K. ECS 17–83 and 5–95 % uncertainty ranges are 1.25–2.45 and 1.05–4.05 K;
the corresponding TCR ranges are 1.05–1.80 and 0.90–2.50 K.
Thanks for the link.“
Judith Curry: Well, a lot of it comes from the UN Environmental Program. At the time, there was a push towards world government, socialistic kind of leanings, don’t like capitalism and big oil. A lot of it really comes from that kind of thinking. And the UNEP was one of the sponsoring organizations for the IPCC. And so that really engaged more climate scientists and really brought it more into the mainstream. But in the early days, a lot of scientists didn’t like this at all, they didn’t think that we should be going in this direction. And this was even the World Climate Research program and the World Meteorological Organization, they didn’t want to get involved in man-made climate change under the auspices of the IPCC.
They said, this is just a whole political thing. This is not what we do. We seek to understand all the processes and climate dynamics, we don’t want to go there. And that was really a pretty strong attitude, through, I would say the mid nineties, say 1995. We had the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change at that point, they’re trying to get a big treaty going. And so defenders of the IPCC started pushing the idea that anybody who doubts us or challenges us, they are in the pay of big oil. After that, it became much more difficult to really challenge all that. And certainly by the turn of the century, anybody who was questioning the hockey stick or any of these other things were slammed as deniers and ostracized. And then after Climategate in 2010, the consensus enforcers became very militant. So it’s a combination of politics, and some mediocre scientists trying to protect their careers. And, they saw this whole thing as a way for career advancement, and it gives them a seat at the big table and political power.
All this reinforces pretty shoddy science and overconfidence in their expert judgment, which comprises the IPCC assessment reports. And then at some point you start to get second order belief. I mean, it’s such a big, complex problem. Individual scientists only look at a piece of it, and then they start accepting what the consensus says on the other topics. A scientist working on some aspect of the climate problem may know very little about carbon dioxide, the carbon budget, radiative transfer, all that fundamental science, but they will accept the climate consensus because it’s easy and good for their career. And so it just becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. And now we have way too much confidence in some very dubious climate models and inadequate data sets. And we’re not really framing the problem broadly enough to really understand what’s going on with the climate and to make credible projections about the range of things that we could possibly see in the 21st century.”
Interview: Climate Change – A Different Perspective with Judith Curry
by Judith Curry My recent interview on the Strong and Free podcast.judithcurry.com
We are supposed to see her as an unbiased expert, but she starts the interview with a right-wing biased conspiracy statement: “Judith Curry: Well, a lot of it comes from the UN Environmental Program. At the time, there was a push towards world government, socialistic kind of leanings, don’t like capitalism and big oil. A lot of it really comes from that kind of thinking.”
That sort of conspiratorial mindset casts a pall on everything else that she says and immediately lessens her credibility by making it seem like she actually has a political rather than a scientific agenda.
Yep. It's hard to determine the size of that ballpark too. 1.64 C is pretty high in my opinion. About half that feels better to me.Has ether of you read any of Curry's papers? She is a very real climate scientist, and has published many times.
Judith Curry publications to 2011
In this 2014 peer reviewed publication She finds a much lower ECS than many of the models.
The implications for climate sensitivity of AR5 forcing and heat uptake estimates
Wow, a 2XCO2 ECS of 1.64 C, a little lower than I was thinking, but in the same ballpark.
Thanks for the link.
Excellent interview. I'm sorry your bias keeps you from hearing the message. You should try to understand her viewpoint, instead of immediately dismissing it. You should understand those you disagree with, instead of ignoring what might be valid.
You should ask yourself if her recount of the early UN involvement in the early years might be valid or not. She effectively said they started the agenda to blame big oil, just like you are now. Looks like their propaganda worked!I've read through some of it, and she just keeps touching on HER political bias. That she almost immediately turns it into a political rant (" At the time, there was a push towards world government, socialistic kind of leanings, don’t like capitalism and big oil. A lot of it really comes from that kind of thinking.") degrades any potemtial science that she might mention. If she really wants to be taken seriously, she needs to talk science and not conspiracy theories.
You should ask yourself if her recount of the early UN involvement in the early years might be valid or not. She effectively said they started the agenda to blame big oil, just like you are now. Looks like their propaganda worked!
Good spinnakers writing. What facts were actually in that narrative that mattered?See Visbek's post #2 which shows the early involvement and vast funding of big oil for deniers. "Blame" is a loaded word. They did what they did and Visbek identifies it.
I too am an Engineer of sorts, and always leave a wide margin.Yep. It's hard to determine the size of that ballpark too. 1.64 C is pretty high in my opinion. About half that feels better to me.
I too am an Engineer of sorts, and always leave a wide margin.
There are several unknowns, like how much of the warming in the last century was from the clearing of aerosols?
The increase in greenhouse gasses would account for almost none of the observed warming.
You should ask yourself if her recount of the early UN involvement in the early years might be valid or not. She effectively said they started the agenda to blame big oil, just like you are now. Looks like their propaganda worked!
The study that long got the 10 W m-2 was a study of just one data set from Germany and is in no way representative of the entire planet. Actually, the study states that it, at most, may be representative of Europe. The study also does not say that the increase was more than that.There are several unknowns, like how much of the warming in the last century was from the clearing of aerosols?
It looks like the energy reaching the ground decreased by 10 W m-2, and then increased by a little more than that since just 1950.
We do not know how long it have been decreasing, but a swing of 10 W m-2 down and up in 65 years,
is enormous compared to the supposed forcing increase of about 2 W m-2 from the increase in greenhouse gasses.
As far as I am aware there are no serious climate scientists who think that the net effect of aerosols is anywhere near zero.If the net effect of the swings in energy from aerosols is near zero, then the 1.64C could be accurate.
This is nothing but speculation as there is very little data to say what aerosols levels were in 1900.If on the other hand the energy reaching the ground today is 3 or 4 W m-2 greater than in 1900,
The increase in greenhouse gasses would account for almost none of the observed warming.
And this is where long dishonestly turns a negative forcing into a positive forcing.To me it looks like the aerosol clearing could account for about .2C of the observed warming,
.3C from natural warming is just another longview exaggeration.Natural warming, another .3C, so .5 C out of about 1.1C of total observed warming.
the remaining .6C would line up well with the the supposed CO2 forcing for an increase from 280 ppm to 415 ppm.
5.35 X ln(415/280) X .3= .63C.
And this is total BS that goes against most of climate science.What this would mean is that CO2 forcing has no net feedback!
The "margin", is your own risk margin, and yes it is quite a bit based of how the researcher feels about the reliability of the data.Do you think the "margins" are just based on how the researcher "feels"?
We do not know how long it had been dimming, or what the actual levels of insolation were before we were emitting massive aerosols.We have a reasonable idea of that from the Mid Century Cooling which was likely due to sulfate aerosols.
Sorry, the entire sentence read,It must be very frustrating when the vast majority of the earth's experts disagree.
There are quite a few studies and they show the aerosol dimming and brightening, mostly in the Northern Hemisphere.Oh God... not this denialist BS again!
The study that long got the 10 W m-2 was a study of just one data set from Germany and is in no way representative of the entire planet. Actually, the study states that it, at most, may be representative of Europe. The study also does not say that the increase was more than that.
And this is total BS that goes against most of climate science.
And we know the brightening began in 1985, and was still happening in 2015.Over the period covered so far by BSRN (1992 to 2001), the decrease in earth reflectance corresponds to an increase of 6 W m-2
in absorbed solar radiation by the globe (22)
As far as I am aware there are no serious climate scientists who think that the net effect of aerosols is anywhere near zero.
This is nothing but speculation as there is very little data to say what aerosols levels were in 1900.
And this is where long dishonestly turns a negative forcing into a positive forcing.
NASA Earthoberrvatory.3C from natural warming is just another longview exaggeration.
Half of .6C sure sound like .3C to me!Many researchers believe the steady rise in sunspots and faculae since the late seventeenth century may be responsible for as
much as half of the 0.6 degrees of global warming over the last 110 years (IPCC, 2001).
Well, let's look at my entire statement,And this is total BS that goes against most of climate science.
The "margin", is your own risk margin, and yes it is quite a bit based of how the researcher feels about the reliability of the data.
"
Throughout the video, Stossel focuses the climate change debate around the impacts, asking “is [climate change] dangerous? Is it gonna harm people?” He argues that “a few degrees [of] warming might be good.” and that “cold waves kill many more people than heat waves.” Michaels, an established climate denier with longstanding financial ties to fossil fuel interests, supports Stossel in this line of argument. He ties the warming climate to the increasing life expectancy in certain parts of the world; “[w]e don’t really care whether it warms a degree in the next 60 years. It warmed a degree in the last hundred years. Life expectancy doubled!”
Michaels goes on to portray the “climate alarmists” as people pushing issues to “compete with each other… for your money.” He argues that in contrast to previous “environmental catastrophes” like the population bomb or global cooling, “the global warming scare has longer legs ‘cause it’s got more money.”
Gee, have you ever heard any of his before????? *L*
2017 Green Tyranny: “The Truth About Climate Change” - Climate Files
Part of the climate denialist "Green Tyranny" video series hosted by John Stossel of the Koch-funded Reason Foundation, featuring prominent deniers.www.climatefiles.com
I am guessing that you do not do these type of risks assessments in what you do for a living.That isn't how statistical analysis of data works.
I am guessing that you do not do these type of risks assessments in what you do for a living.
I do, and quite a bit of it comes down to decades of experience looking at the available data.
It is always safer to leave a wide margin!
John Stossel videos about climate change:
"Are We Doomed?"
"The Climate Censors"
"The Truth About Climate Change"
"The Climate Hustlers"
How hilarious is it that he terms OTHERS as "hustlers" when he has made a career of doing so.
And this is the person whom Longview inserts into the climate discussion. *L*
P.S. I just realized that I made these posts in the wrong thread, but the narrative remains the same.
I have to be a lot more careful than that! I personally set the margins much wider.I have done plenty of statistical analyses of data in my time. And, no, it isn't based on your "feels". The distribution drives the confidence intervals.
You don't get to decide where the 95% CI on the mean is. That's driven by the data. Not you.
But in dealing with so many variables and assumptions, the margin is an assumed margin. Not a genuine statistical margin.That isn't how statistical analysis of data works.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?