Report by Judith Curry

[Robert W]

Judith Curry is well known as a genuine climate expert. If she warns me, I pay attention.

Read the entire article if you have an interest.

NETZERO is impeding progress on UN Sustainable Development Goals

by Judith Curry “Working in global energy and development, I often hear people say, ‘Because of climate, we just can’t afford for everyone to live our lifestyles.’ That viewpoint is worse than patro…

judithcurry.com

I earlier this day 12/7/23, mentioned Bidens harm to Africa. She focuses in on this too.

"NETZERO is impeding progress on UN Sustainable Development Goals
Posted on December 5, 2023 by curryja | 53 Comments
by Judith Curry
“Working in global energy and development, I often hear people say, ‘Because of climate, we just can’t afford for everyone to live our lifestyles.’ That viewpoint is worse than patronizing. It’s a form of racism, and it’s creating a two-tier global energy system, with energy abundance for the rich and tiny solar lamps for Africans.” – Kenyan activist and materials scientist Rose Mutiso
“To deny the developing world access to the very infrastructure that has propelled us forward, all in the name of an uncertain future, is not environmentalism, but neocolonialism masquerading as virtue.” – Earth Scientist Matthew Wielicki"

 

[frigidweirdo]

Judith Curry is well known as a genuine climate expert. If she warns me, I pay attention.

Read the entire article if you have an interest.

NETZERO is impeding progress on UN Sustainable Development Goals

by Judith Curry “Working in global energy and development, I often hear people say, ‘Because of climate, we just can’t afford for everyone to live our lifestyles.’ That viewpoint is worse than patro…

judithcurry.com

I earlier this day 12/7/23, mentioned Bidens harm to Africa. She focuses in on this too.

"NETZERO is impeding progress on UN Sustainable Development Goals
Posted on December 5, 2023 by curryja | 53 Comments
by Judith Curry
“Working in global energy and development, I often hear people say, ‘Because of climate, we just can’t afford for everyone to live our lifestyles.’ That viewpoint is worse than patronizing. It’s a form of racism, and it’s creating a two-tier global energy system, with energy abundance for the rich and tiny solar lamps for Africans.” – Kenyan activist and materials scientist Rose Mutiso
“To deny the developing world access to the very infrastructure that has propelled us forward, all in the name of an uncertain future, is not environmentalism, but neocolonialism masquerading as virtue.” – Earth Scientist Matthew Wielicki"

Judith Curry - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

"Curry has become known for hosting a blog which is part of the climate change denial blogosphere, despite having published research confirming anthropogenic effects on climate.[3] Social scientists who have studied Curry's position on climate change have described it as "neo-skepticism", in that her current position includes certain features of denialism; on the one hand, she accepts that the planet is warming, that human-generated greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide cause warming, and that the plausible worst-case scenario is potentially catastrophic, but on the other hand she also proposes that the rate of warming is slower than climate models have projected, emphasizes her evaluation of the uncertainty in the climate projection models, and questions whether climate change mitigation is affordable.[4]"

Seems like she's kind of sensible, she's gotten out of academia, out of the need to earn her money from people pushing a narrative and has gone out on her own.

 

[Robert W]

Judith Curry - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

"Curry has become known for hosting a blog which is part of the climate change denial blogosphere, despite having published research confirming anthropogenic effects on climate.[3] Social scientists who have studied Curry's position on climate change have described it as "neo-skepticism", in that her current position includes certain features of denialism; on the one hand, she accepts that the planet is warming, that human-generated greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide cause warming, and that the plausible worst-case scenario is potentially catastrophic, but on the other hand she also proposes that the rate of warming is slower than climate models have projected, emphasizes her evaluation of the uncertainty in the climate projection models, and questions whether climate change mitigation is affordable.[4]"

Seems like she's kind of sensible, she's gotten out of academia, out of the need to earn her money from people pushing a narrative and has gone out on her own.

There is damned good money to be made if only one sells the idea the earth will burn up unless we get batteries to power the EV cars and perhaps many more things as well.
Al Gore for instance went from ordinary income to becoming very wealthy by selling his cockeyed ideas.

 

[frigidweirdo]

There is damned good money to be made if only one sells the idea the earth will burn up unless we get batteries to power the EV cars and perhaps many more things as well.
Al Gore for instance went from ordinary income to becoming very wealthy by selling his cockeyed ideas.

Sure, because for some reason there are people willing to throw money around to force the square peg in the round hole.

There's also a lot of money to be made saying there is no problem with oil....

Two narratives on either side, both wrong, both pushing themselves on people, causing all kinds of ignorance.

 

[ding]

There's also a lot of money to be made saying there is no problem with oil....

That's a pretty broad statement. Everything has problems. Some just more than others. What I would say is that based on the theoretical GHG of CO2 1C per doubling of CO2 doesn't seem like much of a problem.

 

[Robert W]

Sure, because for some reason there are people willing to throw money around to force the square peg in the round hole.

There's also a lot of money to be made saying there is no problem with oil....

Two narratives on either side, both wrong, both pushing themselves on people, causing all kinds of ignorance.

What is the problem with oil???

 

[flacaltenn]

Judith Curry is well known as a genuine climate expert. If she warns me, I pay attention.

Read the entire article if you have an interest.

NETZERO is impeding progress on UN Sustainable Development Goals

by Judith Curry “Working in global energy and development, I often hear people say, ‘Because of climate, we just can’t afford for everyone to live our lifestyles.’ That viewpoint is worse than patro…

judithcurry.com

I earlier this day 12/7/23, mentioned Bidens harm to Africa. She focuses in on this too.

"NETZERO is impeding progress on UN Sustainable Development Goals
Posted on December 5, 2023 by curryja | 53 Comments
by Judith Curry
“Working in global energy and development, I often hear people say, ‘Because of climate, we just can’t afford for everyone to live our lifestyles.’ That viewpoint is worse than patronizing. It’s a form of racism, and it’s creating a two-tier global energy system, with energy abundance for the rich and tiny solar lamps for Africans.” – Kenyan activist and materials scientist Rose Mutiso
“To deny the developing world access to the very infrastructure that has propelled us forward, all in the name of an uncertain future, is not environmentalism, but neocolonialism masquerading as virtue.” – Earth Scientist Matthew Wielicki"

Dr. Curry's best credential on GW has been her consistency. While other "leaders" in the field have spent a lot of time retracting, revising, and proposing excuses for their "hair on fire" catastrophic projections -- Dr. Curry has ALWAYS predicted that the surface temperature rise would never be much more than the natural and innate power of CO2 BY ITSELF to warm the atmosphere. This RULES out almost all of the fear porn about accelerated warming, trigger temperatures and all the other bullshit theories that got newspaper headlines for almost 30 years prior to today.

What's LEFT after the "existential crisis" and extinction of our junker of a planet due to CATASTROPHIC theories is shredded is something like a total anomaly of 2DegC by 2100. That's the power of CO2 to warm the atmos -- absent all the hype of CATASTROPHIC theories that haven't had a shred of evidence in 40 years.

SO -- this is also what I've been saying all along. There will be mild warming. Children shouldn't be afraid to grow up and live their lives and PROBABLY there will still be ample snow in winter in the Northern Hemi. Beachside villas or NYC or Miami will NOT look like underwater Atlantis and natural selection of species will still be driven more by NATURAL VARIANCE in temperature than by GW.

Here's the NEW nugget in the Curry book of GW sanity.

And all this has occurred during a period where the global temperatures have increased by about 1oC. The UN has dropped the extreme emissions scenarios (RCP8.5 and SSP5-8.5) from use in policy making, and the UNFCCC COP27 worked from an estimated 2100 warming of 2.5ºC.[1] The 2023 IEA Roadmap to NetZero Stated Policies Scenario (STEPS) projects a rise in average global temperature of 2.4ºC by 2100.[2] When plausible scenarios of natural climate variability and values of climate sensitivity on the lower end of the IPCC range are accounted for, the expected warming could be significantly lower.

So our current best estimates of global warming by 2100 indicate that we will likely be close to, or within, the 2ºC target by 2100, based on our current understanding. So we are looking at an additional 0.8 to 1.2oC warming over the remainder of the 21st century, according to our current understanding. Natural climate variability is of course a wild card that can cut both ways, but the portion of the 21st century warming that the UN is hoping to control is order of 1oC.

Most all of the important constants and variables used in earlier faulty climate projections have been RADICALLY decreasing over time -- like the 2 kinds of Climate Sensitivity constants that are ultra important in converting CO2 temperature FORCING to a Surface Temperature. But the hardest one to REVISE was to DITCH the high end "future emission scenarios" that CAUSES the panic and GW fear porn. We can observe these easier than measuring GMAST (Global Mean Anomaly Surface Temperature). And the earlier HYPED carbon emissions at the HIGH END were laughably ridiculous.

By the way -- Curry was BLACK-BALLED for her views. Couldn't get a chair position at a conference. Faced all kinds of venomous retribution for her views. She just did not "decide" to focus on energy issues... A side-show to other "ClimateGate" atrocities on the field of science.

 

[Robert W]

Dr. Curry's best credential on GW has been her consistency. While other "leaders" in the field have spent a lot of time retracting, revising, and proposing excuses for their "hair on fire" catastrophic projections -- Dr. Curry has ALWAYS predicted that the surface temperature rise would never be much more than the natural and innate power of CO2 BY ITSELF to warm the atmosphere. This RULES out almost all of the fear porn about accelerated warming, trigger temperatures and all the other bullshit theories that got newspaper headlines for almost 30 years prior to today.

What's LEFT after the "existential crisis" and extinction of our junker of a planet due to CATASTROPHIC theories is shredded is something like a total anomaly of 2DegC by 2100. That's the power of CO2 to warm the atmos -- absent all the hype of CATASTROPHIC theories that haven't had a shred of evidence in 40 years.

SO -- this is also what I've been saying all along. There will be mild warming. Children shouldn't be afraid to grow up and live their lives and PROBABLY there will still be ample snow in winter in the Northern Hemi. Beachside villas or NYC or Miami will NOT look like underwater Atlantis and natural selection of species will still be driven more by NATURAL VARIANCE in temperature than by GW.

Here's the NEW nugget in the Curry book of GW sanity.



Most all of the important constants and variables used in earlier faulty climate projections have been RADICALLY decreasing over time -- like the 2 kinds of Climate Sensitivity constants that are ultra important in converting CO2 temperature FORCING to a Surface Temperature. But the hardest one to REVISE was to DITCH the high end "future emission scenarios" that CAUSES the panic and GW fear porn. We can observe these easier than measuring GMAST (Global Mean Anomaly Surface Temperature). And the earlier HYPED carbon emissions at the HIGH END were laughably ridiculous.

By the way -- Curry was BLACK-BALLED for her views. Couldn't get a chair position at a conference. Faced all kinds of venomous retribution for her views. She just did not "decide" to focus on energy issues... A side-show to other "ClimateGate" atrocities on the field of science.

She brings truth to the politics of outright lying.

 

[frigidweirdo]

What is the problem with oil???

Wrong question.

We're not talking about whether there's a problem with oil, we're talking about narratives from different sides.

What's wrong with oil? It pollutes, it causes a ton of problems like health problems. Cities with huge amounts of dirty cars end up with huge amounts of smog. Go to Delhi or somewhere and you can actually see it.

 

[Crick]

Dr. Curry's best credential on GW has been her consistency. While other "leaders" in the field have spent a lot of time retracting, revising, and proposing excuses for their "hair on fire" catastrophic projections -- Dr. Curry has ALWAYS predicted that the surface temperature rise would never be much more than the natural and innate power of CO2 BY ITSELF to warm the atmosphere. This RULES out almost all of the fear porn about accelerated warming, trigger temperatures and all the other bullshit theories that got newspaper headlines for almost 30 years prior to today.

They got more than newspaper headlines. They got the concurrence of the world's climate scientists. ECS in AR6 is 3 (2.5 - 4[likely] 2.0-5.0[very likely])C. And that is NOT the result of emergent parametrization from GCMs.

What's LEFT after the "existential crisis" and extinction of our junker of a planet due to CATASTROPHIC theories is shredded is something like a total anomaly of 2DegC by 2100. That's the power of CO2 to warm the atmos -- absent all the hype of CATASTROPHIC theories that haven't had a shred of evidence in 40 years.

I suggest you look over Chapter 3 in the Technical Summary of AR6's "The Physical Science Basis" before you claim there is no evidence supporting higher sensitivity.

SO -- this is also what I've been saying all along. There will be mild warming. Children shouldn't be afraid to grow up and live their lives and PROBABLY there will still be ample snow in winter in the Northern Hemi. Beachside villas or NYC or Miami will NOT look like underwater Atlantis and natural selection of species will still be driven more by NATURAL VARIANCE in temperature than by GW.

When you manufacture extreme fantasy projections that no serious participant ever suggested, you have committed a strawman fallacy and you are well aware of it.

Here's the NEW nugget in the Curry book of GW sanity.

Most all of the important constants and variables used in earlier faulty climate projections have been RADICALLY decreasing over time -- like the 2 kinds of Climate Sensitivity constants that are ultra important in converting CO2 temperature FORCING to a Surface Temperature.

Really? If Curry said that then Curry lied.

https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/downloads/figures/IPCC_AR6_WGI_TS_Figure_16.png

The only thing that has decreased is the uncertainty.

But the hardest one to REVISE was to DITCH the high end "future emission scenarios" that CAUSES the panic and GW fear porn. We can observe these easier than measuring GMAST (Global Mean Anomaly Surface Temperature). And the earlier HYPED carbon emissions at the HIGH END were laughably ridiculous.

Just to begin with an informed and level playing field

Emissions Scenarios and Their Purposes​

Scenarios are images of the future, or alternative futures. Theyare neither predictions nor forecasts. Rather, each scenario is one alternative image of how the future might unfold (see Chapters 1 and 4 for more detail). As such they enhance our understanding of how systems behave, evolve and interact. They are useful tools for scientific assessments, learning about complex systems behavior and for policymaking and assist in climate change analysis, including climate modeling and the assessment of impacts, adaptation and mitigation.​

​

Future levels of global GHG emissions are a product of very complex, ill-understood dynamic systems, driven by forces such as population growth, socio-economic development, and technological progress among others, thus making long-term predictions about emissions virtually impossible. However, near-term policies may have profound long-term climate impacts. Consequently, policy makers need a summary of what is understood about possible future GHG emissions, and given the uncertainties in both emissions models and our understanding of key driving forces, scenarios are an appropriate tool for summarizing both current understanding and current uncertainties.​

​

GHG emissions scenarios are usually based on an internally consistent and reproducible set of assumptions about the key relationships and driving forces of change, which are derived from our understanding of both history and the current situation. Often these scenarios are formulated with the help of formal models. Sometimes GHG emissions scenarios are less quantitative and more descriptive, and in a few cases they do not involve any formal analysis and are expressed in qualitative terms. The SRES scenarios involve both qualitative and quantitative components; they have a narrative part called"storylines" and a number of corresponding quantitative scenarios for each storyline. SRES scenarios can be viewed as a linking tool that integrates qualitative narratives or stories about the future and quantitative formulations based on different formal modeling approaches. Although no scenarios are value free, the SRES scenarios are descriptive and are not intended to be desirable or undesirable in their own right. They have been built as descriptions of plausible alternative futures, rather than preferred developments.​

​

However, developing scenarios for a period of one hundred years is a relatively new field. This is not only because of large scientific uncertainties and data inadequacies. For example,within the 2 P'century technological discontinuities should beexpected, and possibly major shifts in societal values and in thebalance of geopolitical power. The study of past trends oversuch long periods is hampered by the fact that most databasesare incomplete if we go back much further than 50 years. Giventhese gaps in our data, methods, and understanding, scenariosare the best way to integrate demographic, economic, societal,and technological knowledge with our understanding of ecological systems to evaluate sources and sinks of GH Gemissions. Scenarios as an integration tool in the assessment of climate change allow a role for intuition, analysis, and synthesis, and thus we turn to scenarios in this report to take advantage of those features to aid the assessment of future climate change, impacts, vulnerabilities, adaptation, and mitigation. Since the scenarios focus on the century time scale, tools have been used that have been developed for this purpose.These tools are less suitable for analysis of near-term developments and this report does not intend to provide reliable projections for the near term.​

https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/03/emissions_scenarios-1.pdf

Some key new topics assessed by WGI include the global response to new illustrative emissions scenarios, physical climate storylines, low-likelihood, high-impact outcomes, and physical climate conditions that affect society and/or ecosystems (defined as climatic impact-drivers).​

AR6, WGI, Preface

So, nothing was "ditched". The scenarios were updated and the update was not driven by any failure of the central thesis. As stated, scenarios are not predictions but simply tools to allow for the range of possibilities within the complex space the Earth's climate develops.

By the way -- Curry was BLACK-BALLED for her views.

What do you mean when you say "black-balled (IN CAPS) and what evidence do you have to support that meaning?

Couldn't get a chair position at a conference.

Neither could I. Have I been BLACK-BALLED?

Faced all kinds of venomous retribution for her views.

Anything like the venomous retribution faced by Michael Mann, Keith Briffa or Phil Jones? Did anyone threaten her life?

She just did not "decide" to focus on energy issues... A side-show to other "ClimateGate" atrocities on the field of science.

Given that she has convinced no one beyond Ding and Robert W, I'd say she has made her own bed. And of what "atrocities" do you speak FTC? Was there an email admitting to grabbing pussies?

 

[ding]

They got more than newspaper headlines. They got the concurrence of the world's climate scientists. ECS in AR6 is 3 (2.5 - 4[likely] 2.0-5.0[very likely])C. And that is NOT the result of emergent parametrization from GCMs.

ECS is bullshit. Real world data shows that convective air currents carry excess heat away from the surface of the planet, cooling it well below its full theoretical greenhouse gas effect value.

 

[ding]

I suggest you look over Chapter 3 in the Technical Summary of AR6's "The Physical Science Basis" before you claim there is no evidence supporting higher sensitivity.

"...GCMs are not sufficiently reliable to distinguish between natural and man-made causes of the temperature increase in the 20th century. Some of the predictions from GCMs are accompanied by standard errors, as in statistical analysis. But since the GCMs are deterministic models one cannot interpret these standard errors in the same way as in statistics. GCMs are typically evaluated applying the same observations used to calibrate the model parameters. In an article in Science, Voosen (2016) writes; “Indeed, whether climate scientists like to admit it or not, nearly every model has been calibrated precisely to the 20th century climate records – otherwise it would have ended up in the trash”. Unfortunately,models that match 20th century data as a result of calibration using the same 20th century data are of dubious quality for determining the causes of the 20th century temperature variability. The problem is that some of the variables representing sources of climate variability other than greenhouse gases are not properly controlled for during the calibrations. The resulting calibration of the climate sensitivity may therefore be biased. Further critical evaluations are given by several authors, such as Essex (2022)..."

"...climate can also change owing to internal processes within the climate system even without any variations in external forcings (chaos). In the GCMs the source of chaos is the nonlinearity of the Navier-Stokes equations. If the initial conditions are not known exactly for a dynamic model based on the Navier-Stokes relations the forecast trajectory will diverge from the actual one, and it is not necessarily the case that small perturbations have small effects. In fact, slightly different initial conditions can yield wildly different outputs..."

"...In order to assess the uncertainty due to internal variability, researchers use so-called ICE (Initial Condition Ensembles) simulations. This means that outputs of GCMs are simulated starting from slightly different initial conditions. As the climate system is chaotic, slightly different initial conditions lead to different trajectories..."

"...Subsequently, we have summarized recent work on statistical analyses on the ability ofthe GCMs to track historical temperature data. These studies have demonstrated that the timeseries of the difference between the global temperature and the corresponding hindcast from theGCMs is non-stationary. Thus, these studies raise serious doubts about whether the GCMs are able to distinguish natural variations in temperatures from variations caused by man-made emissions of CO2..."

https://www.ssb.no/en/natur-og-milj...594b9225f9d7dc458b0b70a646baec3339/DP1007.pdf

 

[Crick]

ECS is bullshit.

Is that in a technical sense or and I-don't-know-anything-else-to-say sense?

Real world data shows that convective air currents carry excess heat away from the surface of the planet, cooling it well below its full theoretical greenhouse gas effect value.

And I ask here as I asked in the pinned thread, do you actually think the world's climate scientists and the models they've created ignore convection?

 

[ding]

Is that in a technical sense or and I-don't-know-anything-else-to-say sense?

It was backed up by what you parsed out, you disingenuous cuck.

ECS is bullshit. Real world data shows that convective air currents carry excess heat away from the surface of the planet, cooling it well below its full theoretical greenhouse gas effect value.

 

[ding]

And I ask here as I asked in the pinned thread, do you actually think the world's claimte scientists and the models they've created ignore convection?

And like I said there...

No, I think their models are flawed because real world data shows that the surface temperature of the planet is 56% below its full theoretical greenhouse gas effect value while their models predict that an incrementally small increase of 280 ppm of CO2 will trap 450% of its theoretical greenhouse gas effect value.

Is this magic gas? Did they get this gas from the guy who sold Jack his beans?

 

[ding]

When you manufacture extreme fantasy projections that no serious participant ever suggested, you have committed a strawman fallacy and you are well aware of it.

There's no need to manufacture extreme fantasy projections. The IPCC has done that all on their own by forecasting that an incrementally small increase of 280 ppm of CO2 will trap 450% of its theoretical greenhouse gas effect value.

 

[Crick]

It was backed up by what you parsed out, you disingenuous cuck.

The rest of your comment was quoted in the very next line. And what is a cuck?

That someone in 1964 noted that convection will cool the planet below what a pure SB analysis would show does not refute the assessment of the IPCC or the climate scientists on whose work it is based. They all understand convection and its effects far better than they were understood in 1964. What made you think any different? Because you thought it would bring you closer to the truth or that it would at least seem to support your argument?

Follow the science. It won't take you where you're currently sitting.

 

[ding]

"...like the 2 kinds of Climate Sensitivity constants that are ultra important in converting CO2 temperature FORCING to a Surface Temperature..."

Really? If Curry said that then Curry lied.

The heart of the issue is their ridiculous unsupported predictions of ECS which is responsible for their forecasting that an incrementally small increase of 280 ppm of CO2 will trap 450% of its theoretical greenhouse gas effect value.

So I'm not inclined to believe Curry is the one lying especially since real world data shows that convective air currents carry excess heat away from the surface of the planet, cooling it well below its full theoretical greenhouse gas effect value.

 

[ding]

The rest of your comment was quoted in the very next line. And what is a cuck?

That someone in 1964 noted that convection will cool the planet below what a pure SB analysis would show does not refute the assessment of the IPCC or the climate scientists on whose work it is based. They all understand convection and its effects far better than they were understood in 1964. What made you think any different? Because you thought it would bring you closer to the truth or that it would at least seem to support your argument?

Follow the science. It won't take you where you're currently sitting.

Their models are flawed and biased. See post #12 for the details. I am showing you that real world data shows that the GHG effect of the atmosphere never fully materializes at the surface of the planet let alone 450% of its full GHG effect like they predict 280 ppm of CO2 will accomplish.

It is conclusive proof their models are flawed.

 

[ding]

The rest of your comment was quoted in the very next line.

Which made your comment moot but you still made it anyway. Thanks for wasting my time on this.