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.
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.
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?
judithcurry.com
