Monthly Archives: November 2015

Dr Judith Curry Is No Longer A Member Of the Warmer Tribe.

Dr Judith Curry believes that CO2 is warming the Earth. But she thinks that the forecasts of temperature rise by the IPCC and other warmers are vastly curryUnknownoverstated. Thus she is labeled a lukewarmer. Because most skeptics are in some sense lukewarmers, she is readily accepted by the Skeptics. But warmers do not tolerate those who don’t strictly follow their religious like beliefs that allow no deviation from their catastrophic views.   She says she has been tossed out of the warmer tribe of which she was once a welcome member.

Her credentials are solid gold. Wikipedia cites her publications as follows:

Curry is the co-author of Thermodynamics of Atmospheres and Oceans (1999), and co-editor of Encyclopedia of Atmospheric Sciences (2002). Curry has published over 130 scientific peer reviewed papers. Among her awards is the Henry G. Houghton Research Award from the American Meteorological Society in 1992.

She (Curry) wrote: “I have a total of 12,000 citations of my publications (since my first publication in 1983).

The posted “I was tossed out of the tribe’: climate scientist Judith Curry interviewed”. This is how it happened:

“Curry’s independence has cost her dear. She began to be reviled after the 2009 ‘Climategate’ scandal, when leaked emails revealed that some scientists were fighting to suppress sceptical views. ‘I started saying that scientists should be more accountable, and I began to engage with sceptic bloggers. I thought that would calm the waters. Instead I was tossed out of the tribe. There’s no way I would have done this if I hadn’t been a tenured professor, fairly near the end of my career. If I were seeking a new job in the US academy, I’d be pretty much unemployable. I can still publish in the peer-reviewed journals. But there’s no way I could get a government research grant to do the research I want to do. Since then, I’ve stopped judging my career by these metrics. I’m doing what I do to stand up for science and to do the right thing.’”

Curry says that the COP 21 will be driven by the warmer’s belief that global temperature rise is a direct function of the atmospheric CO2 concentration.   She says there is no such relationship:

“This debate will be conducted on the basis that there is a known, mechanistic relationship between the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and how world average temperatures will rise. Any such projection is meaningless, unless it accounts for natural variability and gives a value for ‘climate sensitivity’ —i.e., how much hotter the world will get if the level of CO2 doubles. Until 2007, the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) gave a ‘best estimate’ of 3°C. But in its latest, 2013 report, the IPCC abandoned this, because the uncertainties are so great. Its ‘likely’ range is now vast — 1.5°C to 4.5°C.

Curry says that reaching 2°C is likely much farther away than the warmers think because the recent research shows a climate sensitivity of around 2°C rise per doubling of the CO2 in the atmosphere versus the 3°C rise.  See Recent “Research Papers Show That IPCC Climate Sensitivity Is Too High”

 Curry also believes the warmers need to look at natural sources that cause the climate to change. She says:

“Meanwhile, the obsessive focus on CO2 as the driver of climate change means other research on natural climate variability is being neglected. For example, solar experts believe we could be heading towards a ‘grand solar minimum’ — a reduction in solar output (and, ergo, a period of global cooling) similar to that which once saw ice fairs on the Thames. ‘The work to establish the solar-climate connection is lagging.’”

Curry closes her interview by the David Rose of the New Spectator UK with this:

She remains optimistic that science will recover its equilibrium, and that the quasi-McCarthyite tide will recede: ‘I think that by 2030, temperatures will not have increased all that much. Maybe then there will be the funding to do the kind of research on natural variability that we need, to get the climate community motivated to look at things like the solar-climate connection.’ She even hopes that rational argument will find a place in the UN: ‘Maybe, too, there will be a closer interaction between the scientists, the economists and policymakers. Wouldn’t that be great?’


(I previously post the Spectator interview on my Facebook sans my comments.)



COP 21 President Obama Wants Money To Pay Reparations

What will come from the COP21?   An agreement? Perhaps,  but what will it amount to?   President Obama wants to commit the US to a combination of gwbiggestthreatCartoon54reduced CO2 emissions and billions of dollars for reparation (wealth redistribution plan) payments. The US Congress has said they wont approve any money expenditure for reparations unless they have a treaty to vote on. A treaty would require approval of 67 members of the Senate voting in favor of the treaty, so this probably means there wont be any money. Congress has signaled both the President and the rest of the world that will not be spending any money. Obama and his crew know a treaty would not make it through the Senate so they have been trying to come up with some other scheme that will not require the Senate’s approval. Obama has promised to make a $3billion down payment to the UN’s Green Climate Fund at the COP21 meeting.

He and the Congressional Democrats could try to force Congress to give the money to the UN by threatening a Government Shutdown. This has worked in the past, but I doubt that global warming is a winning issue with the voters. The most recent poll by Fox News shows that only 3% believe that global warming is something they need to worry about. This result is consistent would other news organizations polling.

Continue reading

COP21: Dreams From My (Father?) Climate Computer Models

Data dominates the skeptic’s view of the state of the globe’s temperature and where that temperature may be heading. The climate computer models dominate the warmers view. Temperature is at the heart of the global warming issue in that just about every other indicator is a function of the temperature. For example, sea level change is the product of melting ice at the South Pole and Greenland along with the lesser masses of ice in the high elevations of the mountain ranges. Rainfall, and its shadow drought are said to be forced by changes in the temperature. Higher ocean temperatures, we are assured, breed the hurricanes and typhoons. So this posting will focus on global temperatures.

First it would be well to try to understand the past. Ice core analyses from the Antarctica were used to reconstruct global temperatures for the last 420,000 years. Figure 2 below, from illustrates the temperature for that period of time:

VostokTemp0-420000 BP-2

Fig.2. Reconstructed global temperature over the past 420,000 years based on the Vostok ice core from the Antarctica (Petit et al. 2001). The record spans over four glacial periods and five interglacials, including the present. The horizontal line indicates the modern temperature.

From comes the following discussion: “The present interglacial period (the Holocene) is seen to the right (red square). The preceding four interglacials are seen at about 125,000, 280,000, 325,000 and 415,000 years before now, with the longer glacial periods in between. All four previous interglacials are seen to be warmer (1-3°C) than the present. The typical length of a glacial period is about 100,000 years, while an interglacial period typical lasts for about 10-15,000 years. The present interglacial period has now lasted about 11,600 years.

Continue reading

COP21: Renewables Will Not Be Able To Replace Fossil Fuels

A posting on WUWT by Willis Eschenbach titled “Thirty-Eight Years Of Subsidiesdemonstrates the failure of solar and wind energy to become  viable replacements for fossil fuels. Noting this failure is important because the COP 21 envisions reducing fossil fuel to only 20% of the globe’s energy supply by 2050. In some quarters, there are demands for completely eliminating fossil fuel use by that date. Could this really happen?

Continue reading

COP 21: All Pain, No Gain

For the upcoming Paris COP 21, every nation was asked to make known an Intended Nationally Determined Contributions (INDC) of their reduction of CO2 emissions by the year 2030. The Paris meeting is intended to begin a process that will keep the global temperature rise less than 2C. It is also intended to provide 3rd world nations reparations for the “damage” done by the industrialized nations.

As of November 5, most of the nations having a significant level of CO2 emissions had submitted their INDC. The major sources of the CO2 emissions are from the US, China and the EU. Using  the forecast CO2 reduction commitments, computer runs find that the calculated global temperature reduction by 2100 as result of their INDCs will  only be 0.132C. Adding the temperature reduction from the other nations’ INDCs, the new total global temperature reduction change is 0.168C. These temperature reductions are probably too small to even be measured. And they are certainly nearly that of measurement error.

This minuscule effect on the global temperature will be accompanied by skyrocketing prices for energy, disruption of many nations economies and more hardships for the really poor peoples of this world. No gain but lots of Pain

Continue reading

COP 21 Pope Francis’ Encyclical Is Of Little Help For The Poor

The UN Conference of Parties annual Climate Action Meeting Scheduled to begin on 30 November in Paris has the objective of preventing global temperature from rising as a direct result of carbon dioxide ((CO2) emissions. One would think the science supporting the contention that CO2 would be center stage, but it wont. Instead, the real drivers of this movement are politics and culture.

Perhaps Pope Francis’ recent Encyclical “Laudado Si” would be a good way to begin. While the Encyclical covered a range of topics, the part that dealt with the supposed threat of global warming drew the most attention. Despite the Pope having repeatedly said that discussion with all parties is necessary to find the proper solutions not a single skeptical scientist was allowed to participate. His advisors, with or without the Pope’s knowledge, made a conscious decision to exclude skeptical scientists. The Pope’s advisors however, did included in the discussion,  atheists, anti-capitalists, population limiting advocates, scientists with works so poor the even their fellow warmers have reputiated them and others that believe skeptics should be imprisoned.

The “books were cooked” so to speak. The conclusions, foregone.






Cartoon by Ramirez

Continue reading

COP 21 “…make-or-break Paris conference on climate change”

Beginning 30 November through 11 December, the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCC) will hold the 21st Conference of Parties (COP 21) in COP21imagesParis. As usual this one like the preceding annual COP meeting is being described as the last chance to save planet Earth from the ravages of carbon dioxide (CO2).

COP attendees from all over the world will attempt, once again, to agree on the reduction of the amount of CO2 emitted into the atmosphere and settle on compensation payments to the 3rd world countries that have emitted little CO2. Each of the 146 nations that emit 90% of the global CO2 emissions are being asked to submit the amount of CO2 emissions they will reduce by 2030 based away from the amount emitted in 2005 by that nation. They believe this is necessary to keep global temperature growth to two degrees Celsius.

The compensation side is contentious as those getting the compensation want more than those expected to provide it are willing to part with. For example, India says they will reduce their emissions by 33 to 35% but they need $2.5 trillion to accomplish that goal. Even China, the world’s largest emitter of CO2 is one of the nations expecting compensation.   What a deal—-they have recently achieved an agreement with President Obama that lets them continue increasing their emissions until 2030 at which time their emissions should be three times those of the US.

Of course the concept of emission reductions and compensation that the COP wishes to accomplish ignores the data that shows that this is probably not necessary.   CO2 is the life blood of the plant world. Without it there would be no plant life and that means of the end of humankind. Studies show that the increased CO2 in the atmosphere have had a beneficial effect on food production world-wide.   Further the CO2 effect on the global temperatures appears to be secondary to natural forces.  And fossil fuel use by the underpowered nations is a better answer to their needs than sending compensation to some dictator who will just pocket it and the people will receive no benefit.  Subsequent postings will enlarge on these observations.

Continue reading