Judith Curry slams the AGW cult in the ground

[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FV (2012) cited in the introduction of this article is fatally flawed, incorrect and should be withdrawn by the authors.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.



.

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..

The more I read and watched the more disturbing the AGW cult has become...



It's becoming sicking actually


.

 

[Billy_Bob]

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.

John is what I like to call a luke-warmer. He believes that man has an impact but that impact is very slight and within the MOE of any scientific study done today. In other words, mans influence is indistinguishable from noise in our climatic system. John is not alone in his belief's.

HIS work with UAH and satellites shows just how insignificant mans impact is. That is why they hate him.. Facts are his hallmark..Empirical evidence just kills the alarmists and Christy is a scientist not a political whore.

 

[usmbguest5318]

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.

The quote you cited from Dr. Pielke came from his March 2017 testimony before a House Congressional committee. What else did he say?

• While the legislative process can be extremely effective in highlighting partisan differences on policy, it is not well suited to provide an accurate characterization of the state of scientific understandings.
  
• Sometimes debates over science serves as a proxy for debates about policy preferences or political orientation. When members of Congress participate in such proxy debates, it contributes to the pathological politicization of science.
  
• Climate science is a particularly politicized research area, meaning that careful attention should be paid to how assessments are organized and who leads and participates in them. Consequently, oversight of the integrity of [scientific] assessments is an important and appropriate role for Congressional committees, among others.

Well, if that isn't thematically consistent with having a hound riding gentleman farmer hold sway over the lives of the "fox and the chicken," I don't know what is. I assure you, however, neither the fox nor the foul's long term futures are aided by his presence. Moreover, I cannot imagine how that can make any sense to do insofar as few members of Congress are scientists.

• How many members of Congress have deep natural science credentials, experience and backgrounds?
  • Dec 2016 -- One physicist, one microbiologist, one chemist, and eight engineers. There were also 18 physicians, though it's not clear whether they were practicing or research doctors.

What makes Congress, a body comprised of individuals chosen for their ability to garner widespread popular opinion and not for their being particularly knowledgeable about anything other than politics, suited to being the overseers of scientific research's integrity? If Congressional Republicans' views on evolution are proportionately representative of the broader GOP memberships views on evolution, some 40%+ of Congresspersons deny one of the central elements of rigorous scientific inquiry and analysis: falsifiability. And then there's former Congressman Mike Pence's having of the Theory of Evolution said this: "It's just a theory." To say that may well be the ultimate indicator of one's being as "science-ignorant" as are the rocks some scientists study. (See also: "Just a Theory": 7 Misused Science Words)

While I'll accord Dr. Pielke legitimacy as goes his scientific findings, he really needs to abstain from proposing modalities of public policy oversight. Proposing Congress be the overseers of science's integrity, lo the integrity of most things, is just absurd, for U.S. Congress is the penultimate body wherein what is so only capriciously determines what they vote to do or not do.

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.

What else did Dr. Pielke say? Well, in clarifying his remarks to the Committee he said:

• That human activities have led to changes in the earth system is broadly accepted. So too is the possibility that such changes could lead to undesirable outcomes in the future. For those wanting to know more—much more—about aspects of climate science, the report of Working Group I of the IPCC is an excellent place to start further investigations, even as aspects of that report continue to be contested.
  
• Carbon policy is not a comprehensive climate policy. It is possible that the world could successfully address accumulating concentrations of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and still have to deal with a significant issue of human influences on the climate system.

What updates to his prior testimony did Dr. Pielke offer in his testimony?

• It is likely that since 1951 there have been statistically significant increases in the number of heavy precipitation events in more regions than there have been decreases.

Apparently there is "scant evidence" that hurricanes are more frequent, while at the same time there is "statistically significant" evidence that they are more frequent in more places than they are not.
What was the central question on which his testimony focused? Is Pielke a Republican? He sure talks like one: out of both sides of his mouth. or more precisely, in his March 2017 prepared remarks he delivered remarks of that nature.

• Have disasters in the U.S. or globally become more costly because of human-caused climate change?

Why is that important to know? Because Dr. Pielke's answer to that question -- no -- necessarily means that he accepts the notion of human caused climate change.


As an aside:

Why do you not provide links to the content and remarks of others that you cite?

• Re: Pielke --> You quoted the man and gave no source for the quote.
• Re: Klien --> You named a study she purportedly performed and provided no link to it and I can't find the study anywhere on Google or Google Scholar.

Do you simply not believe in full disclosure? I don't care so much about whether you do or don't, but I am here politely and specifically asking you not to quote me or participate in my threads if, for whatever reason, you are not of a mind to do so. That's just a kind request. I know I cannot stop you from posting.

I don't mind that you differ with me and my points; I mind that you (1) don't facilitate having a mature discussion by openly sharing your source/reference material so that anyone who might care to amplify upon or refute your comments can easily do so, or (2) present your own original strong and well developed argument that stands without needing citations because its premises, inferences and conclusions rely on uncontested facts and the original argument you develop for the conclusions in the argument.​

 

[Wyatt earp]

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.

The quote you cited from Dr. Pielke came from his March 2017 testimony before a House Congressional committee. What else did he say?

• While the legislative process can be extremely effective in highlighting partisan differences on policy, it is not well suited to provide an accurate characterization of the state of scientific understandings.
  
• Sometimes debates over science serves as a proxy for debates about policy preferences or political orientation. When members of Congress participate in such proxy debates, it contributes to the pathological politicization of science.
  
• Climate science is a particularly politicized research area, meaning that careful attention should be paid to how assessments are organized and who leads and participates in them. Consequently, oversight of the integrity of [scientific] assessments is an important and appropriate role for Congressional committees, among others.

Well, if that isn't thematically consistent with having a hound riding gentleman farmer hold sway over the lives of the "fox and the chicken," I don't know what is. I assure you, however, neither the fox nor the foul's long term futures are aided by his presence. Moreover, I cannot imagine how that can make any sense to do insofar as few members of Congress are scientists.

• How many members of Congress have deep natural science credentials, experience and backgrounds?
  • Dec 2016 -- One physicist, one microbiologist, one chemist, and eight engineers. There were also 18 physicians, though it's not clear whether they were practicing or research doctors.

What makes Congress, a body comprised of individuals chosen for their ability to garner widespread popular opinion and not for their being particularly knowledgeable about anything other than politics, suited to being the overseers of scientific research's integrity? If Congressional Republicans' views on evolution are proportionately representative of the broader GOP memberships views on evolution, some 40%+ of Congresspersons deny one of the central elements of rigorous scientific inquiry and analysis: falsifiability. And then there's former Congressman Mike Pence's having of the Theory of Evolution said this: "It's just a theory." To say that may well be the ultimate indicator of one's being as "science-ignorant" as are the rocks some scientists study. (See also: "Just a Theory": 7 Misused Science Words)

While I'll accord Dr. Pielke legitimacy as goes his scientific findings, he really needs to abstain from proposing modalities of public policy oversight. Proposing Congress be the overseers of science's integrity, lo the integrity of most things, is just absurd, for U.S. Congress is the penultimate body wherein what is so only capriciously determines what they vote to do or not do.

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.

What else did Dr. Pielke say? Well, in clarifying his remarks to the Committee he said:

• That human activities have led to changes in the earth system is broadly accepted. So too is the possibility that such changes could lead to undesirable outcomes in the future. For those wanting to know more—much more—about aspects of climate science, the report of Working Group I of the IPCC is an excellent place to start further investigations, even as aspects of that report continue to be contested.
  
• Carbon policy is not a comprehensive climate policy. It is possible that the world could successfully address accumulating concentrations of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and still have to deal with a significant issue of human influences on the climate system.

What updates to his prior testimony did Dr. Pielke offer in his testimony?

• It is likely that since 1951 there have been statistically significant increases in the number of heavy precipitation events in more regions than there have been decreases.

Apparently there is "scant evidence" that hurricanes are more frequent, while at the same time there is "statistically significant" evidence that they are more frequent in more places than they are not.
What was the central question on which his testimony focused? Is Pielke a Republican? He sure talks like one: out of both sides of his mouth. or more precisely, in his March 2017 prepared remarks he delivered remarks of that nature.

• Have disasters in the U.S. or globally become more costly because of human-caused climate change?

Why is that important to know? Because Dr. Pielke's answer to that question -- no -- necessarily means that he accepts the notion of human caused climate change.


As an aside:

Why do you not provide links to the content and remarks of others that you cite?

• Re: Pielke --> You quoted the man and gave no source for the quote.
• Re: Klien --> You named a study she purportedly performed and provided no link to it and I can't find the study anywhere on Google or Google Scholar.

Do you simply not believe in full disclosure? I don't care so much about whether you do or don't, but I am here politely and specifically asking you not to quote me or participate in my threads if, for whatever reason, you are not of a mind to do so. That's just a kind request. I know I cannot stop you from posting.

I don't mind that you differ with me and my points; I mind that you (1) don't facilitate having a mature discussion by openly sharing your source/reference material so that anyone who might care to amplify upon or refute your comments can easily do so, or (2) present your own original strong and well developed argument that stands without needing citations because its premises, inferences and conclusions rely on uncontested facts and the original argument you develop for the conclusions in the argument.​

You still upset that you don't have a clue what the 97% means huh?

 

[flacaltenn]

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.

Yep, one has to make shit up and throw darts at the wall to disagree with the green house effect.

I'm CERTAIN Dr. Curry understands and accepts the GH effect. It's YOU that has an issue understanding the myriad of unsettled claims made as "settled science". When there is CONSIDERABLE disagreement on most ALL of the doom and disaster portions of your CC/GW religious faith..

 

[flacaltenn]

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.

She nailed it above. Every assertion provable. She's an ACTUAL non-activist expert in the field.

You have to get out of a science with such a shameful reputation --- if you have a REPUTATION to protect...
And she does...

 

[flacaltenn]

There is a lot more money pandering to you whacked out rightwingnuts than there is in scientific research. And Curry was failing as a scientist, so I don't blame her for taking a gig that requires no brains.

Nobody is "pandering to skeptics". They are all skeptics because of the obvious misrepresentations of science made as part of the GW movement. Outside of Heartland and a few others -- there is NO concerted big money efforts to ORGANIZE or direct the skeptics. In fact, they can't organize themselves. As the 1000 page disagreements in this forum demonstrates. Some skeptics are kooks. Others are not. Both sides have their baggage..

Curry was not "failing as a scientist". Her work and colleagues were one of FEW GROUPS actually working on the mechanics of thermodynamics in the Climate System. Not controversial AT ALL. She left -- because she was attacked for HERESY.. And for correcting the misrepresentations to the media, the public and the politicians about consensus and settled science bullshit..

Don't make me post her awards and credentials again. Or her IPCC contributions.

 

[flacaltenn]

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.

The quote you cited from Dr. Pielke came from his March 2017 testimony before a House Congressional committee. What else did he say?

• While the legislative process can be extremely effective in highlighting partisan differences on policy, it is not well suited to provide an accurate characterization of the state of scientific understandings.
  
• Sometimes debates over science serves as a proxy for debates about policy preferences or political orientation. When members of Congress participate in such proxy debates, it contributes to the pathological politicization of science.
  
• Climate science is a particularly politicized research area, meaning that careful attention should be paid to how assessments are organized and who leads and participates in them. Consequently, oversight of the integrity of [scientific] assessments is an important and appropriate role for Congressional committees, among others.

Well, if that isn't thematically consistent with having a hound riding gentleman farmer hold sway over the lives of the "fox and the chicken," I don't know what is. I assure you, however, neither the fox nor the foul's long term futures are aided by his presence. Moreover, I cannot imagine how that can make any sense to do insofar as few members of Congress are scientists.

• How many members of Congress have deep natural science credentials, experience and backgrounds?
  • Dec 2016 -- One physicist, one microbiologist, one chemist, and eight engineers. There were also 18 physicians, though it's not clear whether they were practicing or research doctors.

What makes Congress, a body comprised of individuals chosen for their ability to garner widespread popular opinion and not for their being particularly knowledgeable about anything other than politics, suited to being the overseers of scientific research's integrity? If Congressional Republicans' views on evolution are proportionately representative of the broader GOP memberships views on evolution, some 40%+ of Congresspersons deny one of the central elements of rigorous scientific inquiry and analysis: falsifiability. And then there's former Congressman Mike Pence's having of the Theory of Evolution said this: "It's just a theory." To say that may well be the ultimate indicator of one's being as "science-ignorant" as are the rocks some scientists study. (See also: "Just a Theory": 7 Misused Science Words)

While I'll accord Dr. Pielke legitimacy as goes his scientific findings, he really needs to abstain from proposing modalities of public policy oversight. Proposing Congress be the overseers of science's integrity, lo the integrity of most things, is just absurd, for U.S. Congress is the penultimate body wherein what is so only capriciously determines what they vote to do or not do.

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.

What else did Dr. Pielke say? Well, in clarifying his remarks to the Committee he said:

• That human activities have led to changes in the earth system is broadly accepted. So too is the possibility that such changes could lead to undesirable outcomes in the future. For those wanting to know more—much more—about aspects of climate science, the report of Working Group I of the IPCC is an excellent place to start further investigations, even as aspects of that report continue to be contested.
  
• Carbon policy is not a comprehensive climate policy. It is possible that the world could successfully address accumulating concentrations of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and still have to deal with a significant issue of human influences on the climate system.

What updates to his prior testimony did Dr. Pielke offer in his testimony?

• It is likely that since 1951 there have been statistically significant increases in the number of heavy precipitation events in more regions than there have been decreases.

Apparently there is "scant evidence" that hurricanes are more frequent, while at the same time there is "statistically significant" evidence that they are more frequent in more places than they are not.
What was the central question on which his testimony focused? Is Pielke a Republican? He sure talks like one: out of both sides of his mouth. or more precisely, in his March 2017 prepared remarks he delivered remarks of that nature.

• Have disasters in the U.S. or globally become more costly because of human-caused climate change?

Why is that important to know? Because Dr. Pielke's answer to that question -- no -- necessarily means that he accepts the notion of human caused climate change.


As an aside:

Why do you not provide links to the content and remarks of others that you cite?

• Re: Pielke --> You quoted the man and gave no source for the quote.
• Re: Klien --> You named a study she purportedly performed and provided no link to it and I can't find the study anywhere on Google or Google Scholar.

Do you simply not believe in full disclosure? I don't care so much about whether you do or don't, but I am here politely and specifically asking you not to quote me or participate in my threads if, for whatever reason, you are not of a mind to do so. That's just a kind request. I know I cannot stop you from posting.

I don't mind that you differ with me and my points; I mind that you (1) don't facilitate having a mature discussion by openly sharing your source/reference material so that anyone who might care to amplify upon or refute your comments can easily do so, or (2) present your own original strong and well developed argument that stands without needing citations because its premises, inferences and conclusions rely on uncontested facts and the original argument you develop for the conclusions in the argument.​

You took a well-presented and very nuanced statement by Dr. Pielke and reduced it to the talking points that you desired to be aired. Using HIM as confirmation of the weirder and more CATASTROPHIC consequences of CO2 theory of GW is a very risky deal. Especially if you think that CONGRESS can't coax a correct policy out of a scientific dispute..

 

[flacaltenn]

Rodger Pielke is also part of the 97% consensus.

He's not a scientist, so he's not part of anything.

Obviously, taking denier money to say "Warming is wonderful!" makes someone a denier, as "Warming is wonderful!" is a denier position. Only the most desperate shills pretend otherwise.

I posted the link's to Pielke's dumbassery here.

ALL extreme weather at record lows or declining!!! So much for wilder and wider swings!! :-)

Yeah -- Because an emminent METEOROLOGIST wouldn't know anything about wild swings in weather.

That IS his field. Not Climate Science.

 

[SSDD]

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.

Can you show us a single piece of observed, measured, quantified evidence that supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability?...can you quantify the percentage of warming caused by humans? Can you point to some observed, measured, quantified evidence that supports that number?

Since you can't produce any of that evidence as it does not exist, can you tell us why you really believe in AGW?

 

[SSDD]

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...

michael mann's hockey schtick runs afoul of the gold standard in temperature reconstructions...Ice cores are the best we can hope for and reconstructions from both the Arctic and the Antarctic, which both show the same temperature increases and decreases, indicating that the changes were greater than anything we have seen in magnitude and speed were global...These gold standard reconstructions say that mann's reconstruction is bullshit....couple that with the amount of money he has spent in an effort to hide his data and methodology and you are left with only the stupidest people on earth still believing it is evidence of anything other than the fact that michael mann should be run out of the field of science on a rail.

 

[skookerasbil]

From the UNIVERSITY OF QUEENSLAND and the “climate change is not just a recent phenomeno

Ms Korpanty worked aboard the JOIDES in 2015 as a sedimentologist alongside scientists from 29 different international institutes and with expertise across paleontology, sedimentology, and physical geological properties.

The results of the expedition, and the data published in the paper, provided an unprecedented climate record for western Australia, capturing when and how Antarctic climate changes affected Australian climate conditions.

Dr Groeneveld said the new study had the enormous advantage of using a complete and thus continuous sediment record which had not been influenced by potential drilling disturbances.

“Global climate during the Miocene era was much warmer than today, and at the end of the middle Miocene a large part of Antarctica became glaciated and continued to cool the Southern Ocean into the late Miocene.”


The findings are published in Science Advances (doi: 10.1126/sciadv.1602567).


Study reveals climate shifts through the eons




[URL=http://s42.photobucket.com/user/baldaltima/media/Alaska%20in%20Jan.png.html][/URL]

 

[skookerasbil]

Dr Curry.......I remember the days when she was part of the k00k establishment and you hear her provide testimony now.......... so damn impressive, particularly when compared to that idiot in the video.

 

[usmbguest5318]

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.

The quote you cited from Dr. Pielke came from his March 2017 testimony before a House Congressional committee. What else did he say?

• While the legislative process can be extremely effective in highlighting partisan differences on policy, it is not well suited to provide an accurate characterization of the state of scientific understandings.
  
• Sometimes debates over science serves as a proxy for debates about policy preferences or political orientation. When members of Congress participate in such proxy debates, it contributes to the pathological politicization of science.
  
• Climate science is a particularly politicized research area, meaning that careful attention should be paid to how assessments are organized and who leads and participates in them. Consequently, oversight of the integrity of [scientific] assessments is an important and appropriate role for Congressional committees, among others.

Well, if that isn't thematically consistent with having a hound riding gentleman farmer hold sway over the lives of the "fox and the chicken," I don't know what is. I assure you, however, neither the fox nor the foul's long term futures are aided by his presence. Moreover, I cannot imagine how that can make any sense to do insofar as few members of Congress are scientists.

• How many members of Congress have deep natural science credentials, experience and backgrounds?
  • Dec 2016 -- One physicist, one microbiologist, one chemist, and eight engineers. There were also 18 physicians, though it's not clear whether they were practicing or research doctors.

What makes Congress, a body comprised of individuals chosen for their ability to garner widespread popular opinion and not for their being particularly knowledgeable about anything other than politics, suited to being the overseers of scientific research's integrity? If Congressional Republicans' views on evolution are proportionately representative of the broader GOP memberships views on evolution, some 40%+ of Congresspersons deny one of the central elements of rigorous scientific inquiry and analysis: falsifiability. And then there's former Congressman Mike Pence's having of the Theory of Evolution said this: "It's just a theory." To say that may well be the ultimate indicator of one's being as "science-ignorant" as are the rocks some scientists study. (See also: "Just a Theory": 7 Misused Science Words)

While I'll accord Dr. Pielke legitimacy as goes his scientific findings, he really needs to abstain from proposing modalities of public policy oversight. Proposing Congress be the overseers of science's integrity, lo the integrity of most things, is just absurd, for U.S. Congress is the penultimate body wherein what is so only capriciously determines what they vote to do or not do.

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.

What else did Dr. Pielke say? Well, in clarifying his remarks to the Committee he said:

• That human activities have led to changes in the earth system is broadly accepted. So too is the possibility that such changes could lead to undesirable outcomes in the future. For those wanting to know more—much more—about aspects of climate science, the report of Working Group I of the IPCC is an excellent place to start further investigations, even as aspects of that report continue to be contested.
  
• Carbon policy is not a comprehensive climate policy. It is possible that the world could successfully address accumulating concentrations of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and still have to deal with a significant issue of human influences on the climate system.

What updates to his prior testimony did Dr. Pielke offer in his testimony?

• It is likely that since 1951 there have been statistically significant increases in the number of heavy precipitation events in more regions than there have been decreases.

Apparently there is "scant evidence" that hurricanes are more frequent, while at the same time there is "statistically significant" evidence that they are more frequent in more places than they are not.
What was the central question on which his testimony focused? Is Pielke a Republican? He sure talks like one: out of both sides of his mouth. or more precisely, in his March 2017 prepared remarks he delivered remarks of that nature.

• Have disasters in the U.S. or globally become more costly because of human-caused climate change?

Why is that important to know? Because Dr. Pielke's answer to that question -- no -- necessarily means that he accepts the notion of human caused climate change.


As an aside:

Why do you not provide links to the content and remarks of others that you cite?

• Re: Pielke --> You quoted the man and gave no source for the quote.
• Re: Klien --> You named a study she purportedly performed and provided no link to it and I can't find the study anywhere on Google or Google Scholar.

Do you simply not believe in full disclosure? I don't care so much about whether you do or don't, but I am here politely and specifically asking you not to quote me or participate in my threads if, for whatever reason, you are not of a mind to do so. That's just a kind request. I know I cannot stop you from posting.

I don't mind that you differ with me and my points; I mind that you (1) don't facilitate having a mature discussion by openly sharing your source/reference material so that anyone who might care to amplify upon or refute your comments can easily do so, or (2) present your own original strong and well developed argument that stands without needing citations because its premises, inferences and conclusions rely on uncontested facts and the original argument you develop for the conclusions in the argument.​

You still upset that you don't have a clue what the 97% means huh?

You obviously didn't click on the link I provided regarding that.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Why is that important to know? Because Dr. Pielke's answer to that question -- no -- necessarily means that he accepts the notion of human caused climate change.

Your making wild ass assumptions about what Pieke believes or does not believe without facts.

 

[mamooth]

Can you show us a single piece of observed, measured, quantified evidence that supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability?

Yes, of course. That's why we've done so, over and over.

Here's an idea. Instead of continuing your failed lying online campaign online, you deniers should carve your own version of Mt. Rushmore, with the faces of Stalin, Goebbels and Alinksy, your three ideological mentors. It would be like a denier mecca, and you could all pray towards it several times a day.

Or maybe just use that mountain in Georgia with the slavers carved into it. For your type, one authoritarian is probably as good as another.

 

[SSDD]

Can you show us a single piece of observed, measured, quantified evidence that supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability?

Yes, of course. That's why we've done so, over and over.

Sorry, but you haven't...you have provided evidence that the climate is changing and assumptions that man is causing it...that is about as good as it gets for you wackos. It has been interesting to see what feeble "evidence" convinced you so thoroughly though...

 

[Crick]

You are a bald-faced liar.

 

[skookerasbil]

Look........a huge % of world scientists agree with the evidence presented by Curry. That's all you have to know. Only the relatively few "climate" scientists disagree with Curry and in fact, all call her a total fraud..........which kinds tells us something!!

Curry saw clearly back around 2009 that what she was part of was pure fakery and stepped out. Its called character. That the "climate" science community freaked out when it happened also tells us something.

 

[Old Rocks]

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

Sure. Because the warming of the Arctic creates a lesser temperature gradient, south to north, there is a lesser flow of air from the south to the north. Therefore, a less strong jet stream. And one that has deeper north to south waves. And these waves move slower west to east.

That results in 'stuck' weather patterns, so instead of a day or two of cold weather, you get a couple of weeks of it. Same for hot weather.