Dr Judith Curry: The manufactured "consensus".

[flacaltenn]

Well, Judith Curry says it will happen, so take it up with her and her groupies here. She's just trying to figure out how to "falsify" what she now accepts as good science.

Bullshit --- never happened.. Because you didn't grasp the significance of making policy decisions on what's possible versus what's plausible. And furthermore, the term "falsification" has a definite meaning in scientific process and you mangled that as well.

 

[mamooth]

I'll take that as your official disagreement with Curry's trashing of your beliefs.

Anyways, you deniers will have to fight it out. The rational people understand what's at stake, and unlike Curry, won't try to "falsify" something purely for political and financial convenience. A 7C temperature rise makes portions of the eastern USA, among other places in the world, lethally hot for some days each year. The good possibility of large portions of the inhabited world being rendered uninhabitable should be of a concern, as there's been no similar threat in all of the previous history of humanity.

 

[jc456]

Poor jc. He's sworn that Dr. Curry is his deity, but Dr. Curry just said a prediction of massive warming was the best report ever. Hence, jc's little head is now exploding.

Curry is kind of schizophrenic these days. She'll say certain science is good, but then the other voice in her head will take over and have her scream how it's her mission to falsify the good science.

So again you still don't know how to read. You should reread what you posted and then think about it because what you said she said is false.

 

[mamooth]

The fun thing about talking about Curry is that since she tries to have it both ways -- embracing both rational points and denier nonsense -- I can argue both ways and flummox her poor acolytes.

 

[jc456]

The fun thing about talking about Curry is that since she tries to have it both ways -- embracing both rational points and denier nonsense -- I can argue both ways and flummox her poor acolytes.

But you should be accurate to the point and you're not. You missed the point of Curry's blog, but again is not unusual.

 

[flacaltenn]

I'll take that as your official disagreement with Curry's trashing of your beliefs.

Anyways, you deniers will have to fight it out. The rational people understand what's at stake, and unlike Curry, won't try to "falsify" something purely for political and financial convenience. A 7C temperature rise makes portions of the eastern USA, among other places in the world, lethally hot for some days each year. The good possibility of large portions of the inhabited world being rendered uninhabitable should be of a concern, as there's been no similar threat in all of the previous history of humanity.

You're still misusing the term falsify as it applies to scientific method. That alone should tell anyone with a modicum of work in science that you have no idea what you're reading...

And the latest consensus of your high priests on their bullshit ECS and other climate sensitivity constructs SUPPORTS everything she said. It is not plausible that your GW "magic multipliers" are strong voodoo enough to get 7degC by 2100... Or by 2150 for that matter..

 

[skookerasbil]

I'll take that as your official disagreement with Curry's trashing of your beliefs.

Anyways, you deniers will have to fight it out. The rational people understand what's at stake, and unlike Curry, won't try to "falsify" something purely for political and financial convenience. A 7C temperature rise makes portions of the eastern USA, among other places in the world, lethally hot for some days each year. The good possibility of large portions of the inhabited world being rendered uninhabitable should be of a concern, as there's been no similar threat in all of the previous history of humanity.

s0n.........another thread where you take the knobby in the pooper.


[URL=http://s42.photobucket.com/user/baldaltima/media/cucumber.jpg.html][/URL]



Anybody with half a brain can see that when you always throw anybody you don't agree with under the bus, it means you are a religion. Curry stopped being hysterical about global warming so you dolts went serial on her!!!


ghey

 

[skookerasbil]

worth a bump..........one of the best threads Ive ever started in here so........yeah..........

 

[skookerasbil]

The fun thing about talking about Curry is that since she tries to have it both ways -- embracing both rational points and denier nonsense -- I can argue both ways and flummox her poor acolytes.

Again........Dr Curry was a darling in here for a long, long time. Referenced many times by Old Rocks in the early days on here. The alarmists threw her the fuck under the bus when she stopped being a bomb thrower. That simple.

Her basic point is........we still dont know shit about shit for certain about what impacts the climate while the nutters have made up their minds that its human activity = doesn't pass the smell test.

 

[Old Rocks]

However, a gap remains in terms of explaining the actual physical mechanisms. Yes, these sites give good explanations of the basic physics of radiative transfer and the Earth’s radiative energy balance, and provide empirical evidence for the existence of the greenhouse effect. But a good mechanistic explanation of the physical processes occurring seems absent, including an explanation of how local thermodynamic equilibrium is established in response to the absorption of infrared radiation by a small number of molecules. I don’t have a full understanding of what the actual issues are with the greenhouse effect skeptics (I suspect that Roy Spencer is painfully aware), but I have just received a copy of Slaying the Greenhouse Dragon, which I will read this weekend.

I don’t think the issue of not or mis- understanding the greenhouse effect is salient just for the public and a few seemingly confused scientists. I have to wonder how many scientists on the PNAS list that supports the consensus (including the biologists and economics) actually have a good understanding of the physical processes and have taken a graduate course in atmospheric radiative transfer.

We need to raise the level of our game in terms of explaining the planetary warming by infrared absorption of CO2 etc. The missing area of understanding seems to be the actual physical mechanism. Lets target an explanation at an audience that has taken 1 year each of undergraduate physics and chemistry, plus calculus. Once we have something that is convincing at this level, we can work on how to communicate this to the interested public (i.e. those that hang out in the climate blogosphere). Willis Eschenbach’s help is needed in translating this for the WUWT crowd.

Thoughts on how to approach this? An excellent start was made on this thread.See Chris Colose’s take here, which explains it in a way that I haven’t seen before.

http://judithcurry.com/2010/11/30/physics-of-the-atmospheric-greenhouse-effect/

 

[Old Rocks]

I still referance Dr. Curry. Just as I referance Dr. Spencer. I disagree with her vehemently on the existance of the consensus, and her insistance that scientists should not endorse or disagree with policy. After all, they too, have children and grandchildren that will inherit the world that we create.

 

[jc456]

I still referance Dr. Curry. Just as I referance Dr. Spencer. I disagree with her vehemently on the existance of the consensus, and her insistance that scientists should not endorse or disagree with policy. After all, they too, have children and grandchildren that will inherit the world that we create.

Huh?

 

[Old Rocks]

It wasn't written for third graders, Mr. jc, don't let it bother your little head.

 

[skookerasbil]

I still referance Dr. Curry. Just as I referance Dr. Spencer. I disagree with her vehemently on the existance of the consensus, and her insistance that scientists should not endorse or disagree with policy. After all, they too, have children and grandchildren that will inherit the world that we create.

Heres what Im not getting Ray? Dr Curry is despised in the climate change community because she does not concur with the whole "science is settled" nonsense. Meanwhile the alarmist position has had zero impact on the public consciousness in terms of the public taking climate change seriously. To most people, Dr Currys position seems far more reasonable......this is quite obvious. The whole 97% mantra is a relic of a former era......maybe not to the people heavily into climate change but at some point, the true believers have to realize they are currently looking like the naked guy in the middle of Siberia in January screaming "FIRE!!".........to the public at large. There are literally a couple of dozen other issues that the public us far more concerned about. Too......it is exceedingly telling when scientists like Curry point out that there is zero consensus amongst scientists on the "dangers" posed by climate change.......so the public smells a rat. Bottom line is.......the 20 year bomb throwing campaign is not working.

Also.......the "solutions" proposed by alarmists are both impractical and illogical and everybody gets that.......plus, most people dont think we can do dick about it anyway.......that's a problem because most people know for a fact there is zero evidence anything we do can reverse anything so even if we accept the theory, then the HUGE question becomes, "AT WHAT COST?".

Trust me...........that matters.

 

[jc456]

It wasn't written for third graders, Mr. jc, don't let it bother your little head.

The 'huh' was in respect to what is meant by consensus. What is your definition of consensus?

 

[skookerasbil]

In case anybody missed this thread gem..........important as more and more scientists jump off the alarmist bandwagon and start presenting climate science in a far more reasonable and coherent manner!!!

 

[IanC]

However, a gap remains in terms of explaining the actual physical mechanisms. Yes, these sites give good explanations of the basic physics of radiative transfer and the Earth’s radiative energy balance, and provide empirical evidence for the existence of the greenhouse effect. But a good mechanistic explanation of the physical processes occurring seems absent, including an explanation of how local thermodynamic equilibrium is established in response to the absorption of infrared radiation by a small number of molecules. I don’t have a full understanding of what the actual issues are with the greenhouse effect skeptics (I suspect that Roy Spencer is painfully aware), but I have just received a copy of Slaying the Greenhouse Dragon, which I will read this weekend.

I don’t think the issue of not or mis- understanding the greenhouse effect is salient just for the public and a few seemingly confused scientists. I have to wonder how many scientists on the PNAS list that supports the consensus (including the biologists and economics) actually have a good understanding of the physical processes and have taken a graduate course in atmospheric radiative transfer.

We need to raise the level of our game in terms of explaining the planetary warming by infrared absorption of CO2 etc. The missing area of understanding seems to be the actual physical mechanism. Lets target an explanation at an audience that has taken 1 year each of undergraduate physics and chemistry, plus calculus. Once we have something that is convincing at this level, we can work on how to communicate this to the interested public (i.e. those that hang out in the climate blogosphere). Willis Eschenbach’s help is needed in translating this for the WUWT crowd.

Thoughts on how to approach this? An excellent start was made on this thread.See Chris Colose’s take here, which explains it in a way that I haven’t seen before.

http://judithcurry.com/2010/11/30/physics-of-the-atmospheric-greenhouse-effect/

I couldn't understand why Old Rocks was sounding reasonable until I found out the whole comment was a cut and paste.

It has been interesting to see Curry's movement from consensus to skeptical over the last decade. It happened because every time she investigated a topic the evidence was weak and certainty claimed was exaggerated. She has done a fine job of investigating, and publicizing the results. The comments on her blog often are more informative than the original article.

 

[skookerasbil]

However, a gap remains in terms of explaining the actual physical mechanisms. Yes, these sites give good explanations of the basic physics of radiative transfer and the Earth’s radiative energy balance, and provide empirical evidence for the existence of the greenhouse effect. But a good mechanistic explanation of the physical processes occurring seems absent, including an explanation of how local thermodynamic equilibrium is established in response to the absorption of infrared radiation by a small number of molecules. I don’t have a full understanding of what the actual issues are with the greenhouse effect skeptics (I suspect that Roy Spencer is painfully aware), but I have just received a copy of Slaying the Greenhouse Dragon, which I will read this weekend.

I don’t think the issue of not or mis- understanding the greenhouse effect is salient just for the public and a few seemingly confused scientists. I have to wonder how many scientists on the PNAS list that supports the consensus (including the biologists and economics) actually have a good understanding of the physical processes and have taken a graduate course in atmospheric radiative transfer.

We need to raise the level of our game in terms of explaining the planetary warming by infrared absorption of CO2 etc. The missing area of understanding seems to be the actual physical mechanism. Lets target an explanation at an audience that has taken 1 year each of undergraduate physics and chemistry, plus calculus. Once we have something that is convincing at this level, we can work on how to communicate this to the interested public (i.e. those that hang out in the climate blogosphere). Willis Eschenbach’s help is needed in translating this for the WUWT crowd.

Thoughts on how to approach this? An excellent start was made on this thread.See Chris Colose’s take here, which explains it in a way that I haven’t seen before.

http://judithcurry.com/2010/11/30/physics-of-the-atmospheric-greenhouse-effect/

I couldn't understand why Old Rocks was sounding reasonable until I found out the whole comment was a cut and paste.

It has been interesting to see Curry's movement from consensus to skeptical over the last decade. It happened because every time she investigated a topic the evidence was weak and certainty claimed was exaggerated. She has done a fine job of investigating, and publicizing the results. The comments on her blog often are more informative than the original article.

The woman is a dead straight shooter.......not a touch of phony in her. Now in here, ALL of the climate crusader alarmists have been caught pulling fake/fraud stuff, most notably regarding Dr Curry. All of these bozo's in here used to post up vids and links of Dr Curry because back in the day, she was a hard core alarmist. They LOVED her. Then came Climategate which had a profound impact on Dr Curry...........when she stepped back and concluded that there were far more variables associated with the climate than JUST C02, every single alarmist nut shitcanned her ass!!!


Fucking phonies have as much character as a small soap dish.........................ghey

 

[flacaltenn]

I still referance Dr. Curry. Just as I referance Dr. Spencer. I disagree with her vehemently on the existance of the consensus, and her insistance that scientists should not endorse or disagree with policy. After all, they too, have children and grandchildren that will inherit the world that we create.

So hold your horses there.. You just endorsed enviro-activism as a Virtue or a Duty for Climate Scientists --- and YET -- you don't see how many of the scientific leaders of the movement are influenced to OVERSTATE and give cover to the resultant propaganda from the media and the politicos??

Sounds a bit dishonest right now. Wanna explain whether all those UNVETTED endorsements of catastrophic CC by those Science organizations (that is your exhibit A) are also a Virtue or a Duty??

 

[mamooth]

So hold your horses there.. You just endorsed enviro-activism as a Virtue or a Duty for Climate Scientists --- and YET -- you don't see how many of the scientific leaders of the movement are influenced to OVERSTATE and give cover to the resultant propaganda from the media and the politicos??

No. I think you've been reading too many denier blogs.

Sounds a bit dishonest right now. Wanna explain whether all those UNVETTED endorsements of catastrophic CC by those Science organizations (that is your exhibit A) are also a Virtue or a Duty??

Yep. WUWT overdose. Use of the term "catastrophic" always gives it away.

The easiest way to see a less hysterical world is to step away from any denier blogs, as they're the main source of the hysteria.