Judith Curry slams the AGW cult in the ground

[Wyatt earp]

John Christy is also part of the 97% consensus and another one your cult labels a denier....

The 97% is made up of those who say the warming is human-caused. Christy says it's probably natural. Hence, denier.

You're just flailing.

So, I assume Lindzen is next? There are precious few scientists on your side, and he's about the only one left.

My side? These guys are on your side part of the 97% ...





Wow impressive resume and you call him a denier




About John:

Dr. John R. Christy is the Distinguished Professor of Atmospheric Science and Director of the Earth System Science Center at the University of Alabama in Huntsville where he began studying global climate issues in 1987. Since November 2000 he has been Alabama's State Climatologist. In 1989 Dr. Roy W. Spencer (then a NASA/Marshall scientist and now a Principle Research Scientist at UAH) and Christy developed a global temperature data set from microwave data observed from satellites beginning in 1979. For this achievement, the Spencer-Christy team was awarded NASA's Medal for Exceptional Scientific Achievement in 1991. In 1996, they were selected to receive a Special Award by the American Meteorological Society "for developing a global, precise record of earth's temperature from operational polar-orbiting satellites, fundamentally advancing our ability to monitor climate." In January 2002 Christy was inducted as a Fellow of the American Meteorological Society.

a high-quality data set for studying global climate change. He has served on five National Research Council panels or committees and has performed research funded by NASA, NOAA, DOE, DOT and the State of Alabama and has published many articles including studies appearing in Science, Nature, Journal of Climate and The Journal of Geophysical Research. Dr. Christy has provided testimony to several congressional committees.

Dr. Christy received the M.S. and Ph.D. degrees in Atmospheric Sciences from the University of Illinois (1984, 1987). Prior to this career path he had graduated from the California State University in Fresno (B.A. Mathematics, 1973, Distinguished Alumnus 2007) and taught Physics and Chemistry as a missionary teacher in Nyeri, Kenya for two years. After earning a Master of Divinity degree from Golden Gate Baptist Seminary (1978) he served four years as a bivocational mission-pastor in Vermillion, South Dakota where he also taught college math. He was featured in the February 2001 issue of Discover magazine and in a National Public Radio profile in 2004 in which his diverse background was highlighted.

 

[mamooth]

Wow impressive resume and you call him a denier

Yes, because he denies warming is human caused. The fraud and bad science also ID's him as a denier.

Words mean what they mean, little snowflake, no matter how badly they trigger you.

 

[Wyatt earp]

Wow impressive resume and you call him a denier

Yes, because he denies warming is human caused. The fraud and bad science also ID's him as a denier.

Words mean what they mean, little snowflake, no matter how badly they trigger you.

Yes, because he denies warming is human caused.




Which one of these scientist said that?

Give me a link..

Little liar...




.

 

[Wyatt earp]

Wow impressive resume and you call him a denier

Yes, because he denies warming is human caused. The fraud and bad science also ID's him as a denier.

Words mean what they mean, little snowflake, no matter how badly they trigger you.

Yes, because he denies warming is human caused.




Which one of these scientist said that?

Give me a link..

Little liar...




.

Again all the scientist I named are part of the 97%

 

[Wyatt earp]

Wow impressive resume and you call him a denier

Yes, because he denies warming is human caused. The fraud and bad science also ID's him as a denier.

Words mean what they mean, little snowflake, no matter how badly they trigger you.

Let's see the real reason your cult is upset with Dr. Christy, mamooth.


Could it be this?


I'm sure the majority (but not all) of myIPCC colleagues cringe when I say this, but I see neither the developing catastrophe nor the smoking gun proving that human activity is to blame for most of the warming we see.”

Oh the horror, god damn mamooth, he is using science here and it upsets you?




.

 

[usmbguest5318]

Yet you label him also a denier again why is that?

When and where did I do that?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Wow impressive resume and you call him a denier

Yes, because he denies warming is human caused. The fraud and bad science also ID's him as a denier.

Words mean what they mean, little snowflake, no matter how badly they trigger you.

What did humans do 14,000 years ago to melt the North American ice sheet that extended down to Ohio?

 

[Wyatt earp]

Yes, Micheal Mann, whose initial study has been supported by over a dozen independent studies from all over the world by scientists using different proxies.

Figure 2. Comparison of northern hemisphere and global temperature reconstructions. Northern hemisphere instrumental temperature records shown for comparison (CRUTEM land only, and HADCRUT land/ocean).

It's worth noting that all the reconstructions show the Medieval Warm Period, the Little Ice Age, and 20th-century warming (though Loehle 2008 only runs through 1935).

Loehle's Medieval Warm Period is both warmer and earlier than the rest (and, as noted above, Loehle recognizes that his early peak circa AD 850 is probably incorrect). Loehle also shows a much colder Little Ice Age. All of the reconstructions diverge more in the period before AD 800, with Moberg being the coolest, Loehle the warmest, and Mann and Ljungqvist being in the middle of the pack.

When comparing Ljungqvist 2010 to Loehle 2008, it's important to remember that Ljungqvist's reconstruction is for the mid- and high-latitude Northern Hemisphere only, while Loehle's was supposed to be global. In this light, the presence of relatively extreme temperatures in Loehle's reconstruction during both the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age ought to be viewed somewhat skeptically. Whether or not these episodes were truly "global", they were certainly strongest in the Northern Hemisphere, particularly in the North Atlantic region. Ljungqvist 2010 suggests that his own reconstruction may have underestimated the magnitude of Northern Hemisphere cooling during the Little Ice Age, but Loehle's still appears to be an outlier if it is considered as a global reconstruction.

Finally, it's worth noting that comparison to the instrumental record suggests that modern temperatures are significantly warmer than those during the height of the Medieval Warm Period. Additional projected 21st Century warming will produce a climate unlike anything experienced in the history of human civilization.

New temperature reconstruction vindicates ...

RECONSTRUCTION!!! dude too special. RECONSTRUCTION. not actual temperature records, all made up manipulation. Yeppers.

Michael Mann:

RECONSTRUCTION!!! dude too special. RECONSTRUCTION. not actual temperature records, all made up manipulation. Yeppers.

I don't think you fully understand what "temperature reconstructions" are and how they are arrived at.

• Assessing global temperature reconstructions
• More errors identified in contrarian climate scientists' temperature estimates

I suppose it's not surprising that you and others disbelieve the 97% consensus among climate scientists if it's true that you view the matter as political rather than scientific. (Click the link and read the content to discover ways in which you've been duped.) It is, however disconcerting that you haven't challenged your political stance by determining objectively whether it "holds water" rather than focusing on finding information that supports it.

Judith Curry is part of the 97% consensus but she is labeled a denier



Why is that?


I will wait.


.

Rodger Pielke is also part of the 97% consensus..

Yet you label him also a denier again why is that?


Roger A. Pielke - Wikipedia


2007 Pielke said that he was not a "sceptical scientist" about climate change, having stated that carbon dioxide, while important, is not the predominant forcing of global warming:[3][4]

As I have summarized on the Climate Science weblog, humans activities do significantly alter the heat content of the climate system, although, based on the latest understanding, the radiative effect of CO2 has contributed, at most, only about 28% to the human-caused warming up to the present. The other 72% is still a result of human activities!
Pielke has criticized the IPCC for its conclusions regarding CO2 and global warming and accused it of selectively choosing data to support a selective view of the science.[5]

In 2010 Pielke revisited a question provided by Andrew Revkin[5] "Is most of the observed warming over the last 50 years likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gasconcentrations", Pielke stated that "the 2010 answer ... remains NO", and that "The added greenhouse gases from human activity clearly have a role in increasing the heat content of the climate system from what it otherwise would be", but "there are other equally or even more important significant humanclimate forcings"

Let's look and see why the AGW cult is so upset with Pielke

What could it be?

This....



“I believe climate change is real and that human emissions of greenhouse gases risk justifying action, including a carbon tax. But my research led me to a conclusion that many climate campaigners find unacceptable: There is scant evidence to indicate that hurricanes, floods, tornadoes or drought have become more frequent or intense in the U.S. or globally. In fact we are in an era of good fortune when it comes to extreme weather. This is a topic I’ve studied and published on as much as anyone over two decades. My conclusion might be wrong, but I think I’ve earned the right to share this research without risk to my career.”



OMG another one that's not a sheep and is using science?

The horror.

 

[Old Rocks]

His conclusion was wrong, and Jennifer Francis's research has demonstrated why.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

His conclusion was wrong, and Jennifer Francis's research has demonstrated why.

can you give us your own summary of this "research" without posting a 2 hour video

 

[Wyatt earp]

"Paid shill shills for fossil fuel companies. Film at 11."

Deniers take bribes.

Scientists reject bribes.

Deniers get all the science wrong.

Scientists get all the science right.

Golly, which side is more credible?

So you want to ignore my question?

Again Judith is part of the 97% but you all consider her a denier..




Again why is that?

.
.

Is it because she said this?




The main problem is we are putting the policy cart before the scientific horse.”

[…]



Mamooth your cult is sounding more like spoiled children every day..



No science anymore..



.

 

[usmbguest5318]

John Christy is also part of the 97% consensus andanother one your cult labels a denier....

John Christy is also part of the 97% consensus andanother one your cult labels a denier....

Do you know what the 97% figure refers to with regard to scientists and anthropomorphically caused climate change? Quite simply, one cannot be both a denier of anthropomorphically caused climate change and among the 97%.

 

[Wyatt earp]

His conclusion was wrong, and Jennifer Francis's research has demonstrated why.

Wow you guys are that nasty....damn.



Roger Pielke Jr, an environmental studies professor at the University Of Colorado, called himself a ‘climate change heretic’ in an opinion piece for the Wall Street Journal Wednesday. Pielke Jr believes climate change is real but his research has concluded that there is little evidence that extreme weather events, such as hurricanes, flood and droughts, have increased in the United States or across the world.

That position, which he admits might be wrong, prompted ‘an intense media campaign’ to have him fired from his position as a writer for Nate Silver’s FiveThirtyEight, Pielke Jr wrote. He said he was demoted from staff writer to freelancer and quit when it became ‘obvious’ that the website wouldn’t publish his work anymore.

Pielke Jr’s name came up in an email published by Wikileaks as part of its release of messages received by Hillary Clinton’s campaign chairman John Podesta. The email showed how the editor of a news blog funded by the Center For American Progress, a liberal think tank founded by Podesta, rejoiced at the thought that the blog had helped silence Pielke Jr.



.

 

[Wyatt earp]

John Christy is also part of the 97% consensus andanother one your cult labels a denier....

John Christy is also part of the 97% consensus andanother one your cult labels a denier....

Do you know what the 97% figure refers to with regard to scientists and anthropomorphically caused climate change? Quite simply, one cannot be both a denier of anthropomorphically caused climate change and among the 97%.

LMFAO..


Tell me another funny story


.

 

[Wyatt earp]

John Christy is also part of the 97% consensus andanother one your cult labels a denier....

John Christy is also part of the 97% consensus andanother one your cult labels a denier....

Do you know what the 97% figure refers to with regard to scientists and anthropomorphically caused climate change? Quite simply, one cannot be both a denier of anthropomorphically caused climate change and among the 97%.

LMFAO..


Tell me another funny story


.

You don't have a clue what that number means and that's one of the points I was making



.

 

[Wyatt earp]

His conclusion was wrong, and Jennifer Francis's research has demonstrated why.

Wow you guys are that nasty....damn.



Roger Pielke Jr, an environmental studies professor at the University Of Colorado, called himself a ‘climate change heretic’ in an opinion piece for the Wall Street Journal Wednesday. Pielke Jr believes climate change is real but his research has concluded that there is little evidence that extreme weather events, such as hurricanes, flood and droughts, have increased in the United States or across the world.

That position, which he admits might be wrong, prompted ‘an intense media campaign’ to have him fired from his position as a writer for Nate Silver’s FiveThirtyEight, Pielke Jr wrote. He said he was demoted from staff writer to freelancer and quit when it became ‘obvious’ that the website wouldn’t publish his work anymore.

Pielke Jr’s name came up in an email published by Wikileaks as part of its release of messages received by Hillary Clinton’s campaign chairman John Podesta. The email showed how the editor of a news blog funded by the Center For American Progress, a liberal think tank founded by Podesta, rejoiced at the thought that the blog had helped silence Pielke Jr.



.

Center For American Progress, a liberal think tank founded by Podesta, rejoiced at the thought that the blog had helped silence Pielke Jr.


Jesus Christ....splains a lot

 

[Wyatt earp]

His conclusion was wrong, and Jennifer Francis's research has demonstrated why.

Oh yeah?

Meteorologist Trashes Jennifer Francis’ Extreme Weather Theory


CONCLUSIONS

FV (2012) cited in the introduction of this article is fatally flawed, incorrect and should be withdrawn by the authors. As shown here, there is no theoretical basis in which to ground FV (2012). Using the proper Rossby wave physics as illustrated here, these atmospheric waves (or commonly called planetary atmospheric waves that generate low and high pressure systems that create our weather, severe and otherwise) behave in the opposite fashion as claimed in FV (2012).

A warming Arctic that is supposed to be weakening the westerly wind belt across the northern hemisphere would create an entirely different effect on the earth’s weather as FV (2012) claims. If FV (2012) claims were true, the physics governing these waves would require them to flatten in amplitude and migrate to a higher latitude, causing a much weakened effect on the Northern Hemisphere’s weather patterns.

If FV (2012) claims were true, precipitation systems would weaken and migrate northward with the migrating jet stream. Storms, severe and otherwise would become far less common than today and would be replaced with problematic drought and much higher surface absolute and relative humidities. This increased low level moisture would lead to sporadic showers and thunderstorms in an ever expanding maritime tropical airmass environment, but not enough precipitation to forestall severe droughts.

By severe droughts, I don’t mean regional droughts such as those experienced recently in California. But rather, droughts that would expand into a worldwide regime. Present-day droughts are nothing more than cyclical changes in the earth’s climate system that have very definitive and repetitive cycles.

What is particularly disturbing about FV (2012) is not only is it incorrect and flawed, but it passed peer review. Now, after publication, FV (2012) has been lapped up by media, touted and referenced in their severe weather stories that report on hurricanes, tornadoes, severe thunderstorms, heat, cold, drought and any other weather calamity as “proof” their paper is correct. Nothing could be further from the truth.

The reader needs to understand that anytime we experience severe weather, it is proof that adequate COLD in the high latitudes and Arctic has been generated by the normal radiational cooling process by the earth that creates the adequate potential energy across the latitude lines to cause amplification of the jet stream waves and speeds that pushes this colder air southward to warmer latitudes that then creates the necessary temperature gradients to liberate that energy, creating storms as well as high pressure systems.

If the occurrence of severe weather is increasing worldwide, it is not a sign of a warming earth. It is the opposite of what climate hysteria claims, and an indication of a cooling, not warming earth.



.

 

[Billy_Bob]

LOL Dr. Curry has lost almost all credibility among other scientists. She has routinely been wrong on her opinions, and has said many stupid things about the people who are presently doing real research, which she seems to have abandoned.

Only in your pea brain and fantasy world..

Judith is highly respected and regarded by those who are real scientists and not government paid activist shills.

 

[Billy_Bob]

His conclusion was wrong, and Jennifer Francis's research has demonstrated why.

Oh yeah?

Meteorologist Trashes Jennifer Francis’ Extreme Weather Theory


CONCLUSIONS

FV (2012) cited in the introduction of this article is fatally flawed, incorrect and should be withdrawn by the authors. As shown here, there is no theoretical basis in which to ground FV (2012). Using the proper Rossby wave physics as illustrated here, these atmospheric waves (or commonly called planetary atmospheric waves that generate low and high pressure systems that create our weather, severe and otherwise) behave in the opposite fashion as claimed in FV (2012).

A warming Arctic that is supposed to be weakening the westerly wind belt across the northern hemisphere would create an entirely different effect on the earth’s weather as FV (2012) claims. If FV (2012) claims were true, the physics governing these waves would require them to flatten in amplitude and migrate to a higher latitude, causing a much weakened effect on the Northern Hemisphere’s weather patterns.

If FV (2012) claims were true, precipitation systems would weaken and migrate northward with the migrating jet stream. Storms, severe and otherwise would become far less common than today and would be replaced with problematic drought and much higher surface absolute and relative humidities. This increased low level moisture would lead to sporadic showers and thunderstorms in an ever expanding maritime tropical airmass environment, but not enough precipitation to forestall severe droughts.

By severe droughts, I don’t mean regional droughts such as those experienced recently in California. But rather, droughts that would expand into a worldwide regime. Present-day droughts are nothing more than cyclical changes in the earth’s climate system that have very definitive and repetitive cycles.

What is particularly disturbing about FV (2012) is not only is it incorrect and flawed, but it passed peer review. Now, after publication, FV (2012) has been lapped up by media, touted and referenced in their severe weather stories that report on hurricanes, tornadoes, severe thunderstorms, heat, cold, drought and any other weather calamity as “proof” their paper is correct. Nothing could be further from the truth.

The reader needs to understand that anytime we experience severe weather, it is proof that adequate COLD in the high latitudes and Arctic has been generated by the normal radiational cooling process by the earth that creates the adequate potential energy across the latitude lines to cause amplification of the jet stream waves and speeds that pushes this colder air southward to warmer latitudes that then creates the necessary temperature gradients to liberate that energy, creating storms as well as high pressure systems.

If the occurrence of severe weather is increasing worldwide, it is not a sign of a warming earth. It is the opposite of what climate hysteria claims, and an indication of a cooling, not warming earth.



.

I learned about the earths paradoxical presentations in the short term a very long time ago. Its called a chaotic response to keep equilibrium. To bad the psudeo idiots cant grasp the concept..

 

[Billy_Bob]

His conclusion was wrong, and Jennifer Francis's research has demonstrated why.

can you give us your own summary of this "research" without posting a 2 hour video

You know hes a one trick pony cutandpaste is all he is capable of. Jennifer Francis's research has been shown fraud and incomplete.. bad third rate wacko science..