Toronto Escorts

Here's One Global Warming Study Nobody Wants You To See

canada-man

Well-known member
Jun 16, 2007
31,094
2,592
113
Toronto, Ontario
canadianmale.wordpress.com
Settled Science: A new study published in a peer-reviewed journal finds that climate models exaggerate the global warming from CO2 emissions by as much as 45%. If these findings hold true, it's huge news. No wonder the mainstream press is ignoring it

In the study, authors Nic Lewis and Judith Curry looked at actual temperature records and compared them with climate change computer models. What they found is that the planet has shown itself to be far less sensitive to increases in CO2 than the climate models say. As a result, they say, the planet will warm less than the models predict, even if we continue pumping CO2 into the atmosphere.
As Lewis explains: "Our results imply that, for any future emissions scenario, future warming is likely to be substantially lower than the central computer model-simulated level projected by the (United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), and highly unlikely to exceed that level.
How much lower? Lewis and Curry say that their findings show temperature increases will be 30%-45% lower than the climate models say. If they are right, then there's little to worry about, even if we don't drastically reduce CO2 emissions.
The planet will warm from human activity, but not nearly enough to cause the sort of end-of-the-world calamities we keep hearing about. In fact, the resulting warming would be below the target set at the Paris agreement.
This would be tremendously good news.


The fact that the Lewis and Curry study appears in the peer-reviewed American Meteorological Society's Journal of Climate lends credibility to their findings. This is the same journal, after all, that recently published widely covered studies saying the Sahara has been growing and the climate boundary in central U.S. has shifted 140 miles to the east because of global warming.
The Lewis and Curry findings come after another study, published in the prestigious journal Nature, that found the long-held view that a doubling of CO2 would boost global temperatures as much as 4.5 degrees Celsius was wrong. The most temperatures would likely climb is 3.4 degrees.
It also follows a study published in Science, which found that rocks contain vast amounts of nitrogen that plants could use to grow and absorb more CO2, potentially offsetting at least some of the effects of CO2 emissions and reducing future temperature increases.
Given that environmentalists want the U.S., along with the rest of the world, to spend trillions of dollars trying to cut down on CO2 emissions — based entirely on doom-and-gloom climate model forecasts — these findings are profoundly important.
But instead of taking Lewis and Curry's findings seriously, environmentalists and others in the "settled science" community simply dismiss them — or anyone else who fails to toe the climate line — as "deniers."
Lewis even has his own entry on a "Climate Denier List" web page, and Mother Jones labeled Curry a denier when she testified before Congress last year. (When IBD wrote about the nitrogen findings earlier this month, various climate scientists accused us of being misleading, not scientifically credible, and derogatory.)
Slapping a scarlet D on anyone who veers from environmentalist dogma is not science. It's a strong-arm tactic meant to squelch debate and impose scientific conformity.
The question now is: What will it take for the "settled science" crowd to stop trying to silence dissent and admit that maybe, just maybe, the science on global warming isn't so settled after all?

https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/global-warming-computer-models-co2-emissions/
 

Big Sleazy

Active member
Sep 13, 2004
3,535
8
38
Just raise the carbon tax. It's like our deficits. It will take care of itself. Why ? Justin said so.
 

bver_hunter

Well-known member
Nov 5, 2005
27,331
5,556
113
I will go with this article from Dr. Ploy Achakulwisut is a Postdoctoral Scientist at the George Washington University Milken Institute School of Public Health. She has a PhD in Atmospheric Science from Harvard University:

https://www.theguardian.com/environ...-missing-maths-the-human-cost-of-fossil-fuels

Obviously 97% of the Scientists and I mean credible scientists - not ex tobacco, or fossil fuel scientists agree with Global warming. Even the Lewis and Curry so called findings now agree that temperatures could rise by 3.4 C, although they think it will have "no impact" on the climate change. At one time it was just no global warming at all.

Even America's top scientists are standing up to Trump:

https://www.theguardian.com/environ...ientists-stood-up-to-the-trump-administration

Another person that knows that America is going in the wrong direction is George W. Bush’s former EPA administrator Christine Todd Whitman:

https://www.theguardian.com/environ...-will-value-their-profits-over-american-lives

So the 97% of the Climate Scinetific Experts are "wrong" and the 3% of the Privately Funded Sceptics are what we are supposed to believe??
 

canada-man

Well-known member
Jun 16, 2007
31,094
2,592
113
Toronto, Ontario
canadianmale.wordpress.com
I will go with this article from Dr. Ploy Achakulwisut is a Postdoctoral Scientist at the George Washington University Milken Institute School of Public Health. She has a PhD in Atmospheric Science from Harvard University:

https://www.theguardian.com/environ...-missing-maths-the-human-cost-of-fossil-fuels

Obviously 97% of the Scientists and I mean credible scientists - not ex tobacco, or fossil fuel scientists agree with Global warming. Even the Lewis and Curry so called findings now agree that temperatures could rise by 3.4 C, although they think it will have "no impact" on the climate change. At one time it was just no global warming at all.

Even America's top scientists are standing up to Trump:

https://www.theguardian.com/environ...ientists-stood-up-to-the-trump-administration

Another person that knows that America is going in the wrong direction is George W. Bush’s former EPA administrator Christine Todd Whitman:

https://www.theguardian.com/environ...-will-value-their-profits-over-american-lives

So the 97% of the Climate Scinetific Experts are "wrong" and the 3% of the Privately Funded Sceptics are what we are supposed to believe??
how many times are you going to use the fossil fuel argument before you realize that is a logical fallacy?
 

Charlemagne

Well-known member
Jul 19, 2017
15,451
2,483
113
Response..

New Lewis & Curry Study Concludes Climate Sensitivity is Low

Global warming “problem” cut by 50%

As readers here are aware, I don’t usually critique published climate papers unless they are especially important to the climate debate. Too many papers are either not that important, or not that convincing to me.

The holy grail of the climate debate is equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS): just how much warming (and thus associated climate change) will occur in response to an eventual doubling of the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere?

Yesterday’s early online release of a new paper by Nicholas Lewis and Judith Curry (“The impact of recent forcing and ocean heat uptake data on estimates of climate sensitivity“, Journal of Climate) represents one of those seminal papers.

It is an extension of a previously published paper by Lewis & Curry, adding more data, and addressing criticisms of their earlier work. Its methodology isn’t entirely original, since previous (but somewhat preliminary) work along the same lines (Otto et al., 2013) has resulted in observational estimates of relatively low climate sensitivity compared to the IPCC climate models.

But what is notable to me is (1) the comprehensive extent to which methodological and data uncertainties have been addressed, and (2) the fact it was published in the relatively mainstream and consensus-defending Journal of Climate.

Basically, the paper concludes that the amount of surface and deep-ocean warming that has occurred since the mid- to late-1800s is consistent with low equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS) to an assumed doubling of atmospheric CO2. They get a median estimate of 1.66 deg. C (1.50 deg. C without uncertain infilled Arctic data), which is only about half of the average of the IPCC climate models. It is just within the oft-quoted range of 1.5 to 4.5 deg. C that the IPCC has high confidence ECS should occupy.

The last I knew, Lewis’s belief is that the biggest uncertainty in the ECS calculation is how accurate the assumed forcings are that must be used to make the ECS computation (over the last ~130 years, the climate system has stored a certain amount of extra energy in the ocean, and shed a certain amount of energy to space from increased surface temperatures, in response to assumed changes in radiative forcing…. a big uncertainty in which is assumed anthropogenic aerosol-related cooling).

I’d like to additionally emphasize overlooked (and possibly unquantifiable) uncertainties: (1) the assumption in studies like this that the climate system was in energy balance in the late 1800s in terms of deep ocean temperatures; and (2) that we know the change in radiative forcing that has occurred since the late 1800s, which would mean we would have to know the extent to which the system was in energy balance back then.

We have no good reason to assume the climate system is ever in energy balance, although it is constantly readjusting to seek that balance. For example, the historical temperature (and proxy) record suggests the climate system was still emerging from the Little Ice Age in the late 1800s. The oceans are a nonlinear dynamical system, capable of their own unforced chaotic changes on century to millennial time scales, that can in turn alter atmospheric circulation patterns, thus clouds, thus the global energy balance. For some reason, modelers sweep this possibility under the rug (partly because they don’t know how to model unknowns).

But just because we don’t know the extent to which this has occurred in the past doesn’t mean we can go ahead and assume it never occurs.

Or at least if modelers assume it doesn’t occur, they should state that up front.

If indeed some of the warming since the late 1800s was natural, the ECS would be even lower.

Now the question is: At what point will the IPCC (or, maybe I should say climate modelers) start recognizing that their models are probably too sensitive? Remember, the sensitivity of their models is NOT the result of basic physics, as some folks claim… it’s the result of very uncertain parameterizations (e.g. clouds) and assumptions (e.g. precipitation efficiency effects on the atmospheric water vapor profile and thus feedback). The models are adjusted to produce warming estimates that “look about right” to the modelers. Yes, *some* amount of warming from increasing CO2 is reasonable from basic physics. But just how much warming is open to manipulation within the uncertain portions of the models.

Maybe it’s time for the modelers to change their opinion of how much warming “looks about right”.

http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/04/new-lewis-curry-study-concludes-climate-sensitivity-is-low/
 

Frankfooter

dangling member
Apr 10, 2015
79,744
17,570
113
Response..

New Lewis & Curry Study Concludes Climate Sensitivity is Low
Curry again.
Its not worth paying attention.

“I do receive some funding from the fossil fuel industry. My company…does [short-term] hurricane forecasting…for an oil company, since 2007. During this period I have been both a strong advocate for the IPCC, and more recently a critic of the IPCC, there is no correlation of this funding with my public statements.”
 

oldjones

CanBarelyRe Member
Aug 18, 2001
24,495
11
38
Just raise the carbon tax. It's like our deficits. It will take care of itself. Why ? Justin said so.
For once you are dead right: Taxes do take care of deficits.

Nothing else does.
 

basketcase

Well-known member
Dec 29, 2005
59,732
6,289
113
I love the claim that "Nobody Wants You To See" a paper that was already published by the very powers you claim are trying to suppress it.
 

Frankfooter

dangling member
Apr 10, 2015
79,744
17,570
113
Says the man who misrepresents himself
Your criticism is the equivalent of Donald trump calling someone a pathological liar
larue, the man who said it would be the greatest crime in history to not take action on climate change if its correct.
Curry is not a legit source, her work is not good.

If you want the science, just go to the source.
IPCC.
 

JohnLarue

Well-known member
Jan 19, 2005
16,157
2,150
113
larue, the man who said it would be the greatest crime in history to not take action on climate change if its correct.
Curry is not a legit source, her work is not good.

If you want the science, just go to the source.
IPCC.
You know nothing of science other than what you troll for & fits your twisted propaganda
Yet you have the balls to tag a scientist as "Not Legit " Someone who has forgotten more than you will ever know.

Again
What is the value of your opinion when you have misrepresented yourself ?


One only needs to follow your posts for a day or two to realize what a bullshit artist you are & that your agenda is far more valued to you than common sense, sound judgement, integrity and the TRUTH
Do you honestly think you have convinced anyone with your clown act ?

Do not see what a fool you have made of yourself ?
 

Frankfooter

dangling member
Apr 10, 2015
79,744
17,570
113
You know nothing of science other than what you troll for & fits your twisted propaganda
I know enough to be able to tell real science from fossil fuel funded propaganda.

To be able to note that this site:
http://www.ipcc.ch/
Contains links to studies and raw data to back up their claims.

You are still a 'denier', you can't actually come up with a cogent theory that explains the present climate.
Curry doesn't have a believable theory that accounts for our present situation, so she uses shoddy 'journals' to publish her lobbying work.
 

JohnLarue

Well-known member
Jan 19, 2005
16,157
2,150
113
I know enough to be able to tell real science from fossil fuel funded propaganda.
You are nothing more than a bullshit artist & your agenda is far more valued to you than common sense, sound judgement, integrity and the TRUTH

You are still a 'denier', you can't actually come up with a cogent theory that explains the present climate.
Oh shut up!
The planets climate has been changing for 4.5 Billion years and will continue to change

Curry doesn't have a believable theory that accounts for our present situation, so she uses shoddy 'journals' to publish her lobbying work.
Again you are in no position to question anyone's integrity Groggy/ Frankfooter. You had zero integrity to begin with and misrepresenting yourself cemented your status as supreme bullshit artist an untrustworthy propaganda spewer.
She has forgotten more than you will ever possibly understand
she is smart, you are not
 

Frankfooter

dangling member
Apr 10, 2015
79,744
17,570
113
Oh shut up!
The planets climate has been changing for 4.5 Billion years and will continue to change
Humanity has come into existence during a geologically rare and stable climate.
What we've done is to tip it back into faster and much more dramatic change then since the last ice age.

Oh, and the 'bullshit artist' research that I base my understanding comes from places like this.
https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/
http://whatweknow.aaas.org/

Where do you base your ever-so-informed opinions and non-bullshit ideas from?
 

basketcase

Well-known member
Dec 29, 2005
59,732
6,289
113
You know nothing of science other than what you troll for & fits your twisted propaganda...
And you do?

You do realize that the authors have admitted to being funded by the oil industry right? While not making their science wrong, it does make it important to examine their bias.
 

HungSowel

Well-known member
Mar 3, 2017
2,691
1,600
113
The paper seems to state explicitly what the IPCC states implicitly (later IPCC climate models are more conservative in the predicted temperature rise). I do not see the controversy.
 

JohnLarue

Well-known member
Jan 19, 2005
16,157
2,150
113
And you do?
More so than the propaganda machine Groggy / Frankfooter

You do realize that the authors have admitted to being funded by the oil industry right? While not making their science wrong, it does make it important to examine their bias.
And research by envior warriors has no bias?
How many pipeline protesters are funded from south of the boarder?

My position has been that It would be the biggest sin mankind ever committed if we cause our own extinction
However, the planet and its climate have been evolving for 4.5 B years & the amount of recorded data relative to that historicity is insignificant, so the complete understanding of man's impact upon climate is not iron clad and not absolute
So when a scientist puts forward a study and it is automatically dismissed by an idiot who has a long history of being wrong and misrepresenting himself, I say "hold on, not so fast"

Similarly when enviro warriors take the position "We need to stop using fossil fuels and switch to solar & wind immediately" I question their overall judgement as that is simply an unrealistic demand
The world used 100 million barrels of oil a day & that is growing
Renewable's are not going to displace that. certainly not immediately or within several generations
By all means develop economically viable renewables, but oil is not going away. Like it or not that is a simple and absolute fact
so why block a pipeline and ensure the transport of oil is accomplished by far less enviro friendly rail ?

When such a complete lack of judgement is displayed I tend not to buy into their claim that a scientist's view should be ignored

It is one thing to criticize and question a scientist's work, challenging their hypothesis, data collection, testing methods and any assumptions made
It is quite another to dismiss their conclusion because it opposes your view and start to look for dirt on them. ie. Frankfooter

Originally Posted Here's One Global Warming Study Nobody Wants You To See

Slapping a scarlet D on anyone who veers from environmentalist dogma is not science. It's a strong-arm tactic meant to squelch debate and impose scientific conformity.
 

K Douglas

Half Man Half Amazing
Jan 5, 2005
26,135
6,344
113
Room 112
And you do?

You do realize that the authors have admitted to being funded by the oil industry right? While not making their science wrong, it does make it important to examine their bias.
Sorry but that argument is nothing but a red herring. Judith Curry is about as honest a broker on this subject as anyone on the planet. Great blog https://judithcurry.com/
 
Ashley Madison
Toronto Escorts