You mean the fact that she has received funding from the fossil fuel industry? Oh yeah, it was for "hurricane forecasting". Sure.
Twisting facts. Fabricating data. Taking quotes out of context. Welcome to the 1.5 trillion dollar world of the climate cabal who will stop at nothing to drive their twisted political agenda.
I mean it man, I am really worried about this John Casey theory about sunspots. Messes up my whole plan for the next 30 years. I was betting heavily on global warming. I live in the safest place on earth (as long as the Earth keeps warming) but if it starts gettting cooler I'm screwed. Please tell me man made co2 will keep the earth warm, otherwise I have no hope.
Read your Curry quote again. Note that she does not say there has been no warming. And she does not say there has been. THIS is what she says: [underlining is mine, of course.] “Recent data and research supports the importance of natural climate variability and calls into question the conclusion that humans are the dominant cause of recent climate change: The hiatus in global warming since 1998 Reduced estimates of the sensitivity of climate to carbon dioxide Climate models predict much more warming than has been observed in the early 21st century” The first part of the quote is her opinion based on the bullet points that follow. If you think her opinion wrong, than you are obligated to address those bullet points, and tell which if any are wrong and why. From what I can read, it seems there is widespread agreement in the climatology/meteorology/atmospheric physics communities that each of these bullet points is correct. Notice that she doesn't even say that humans have no effect on climate, she is merely pointing out that that recent data and research suggests humans may not be the dominate cause of recent climate change.
you still debating global warming? The rest of us have moved on and are worried about global cooling due to less sunspot activity. But if you have any polyester pants suits (especially if they were ever owned by Hillary) there is a website on ebay that can sell them for you for top dollar. Go to Global warming Nostalgia or AGW vintage.
What reduced estimates? Based on the cherry picked el nino year of '98? The only way one can say they over-predicted warming is by ... 1) Using 98 as a starting year and ignoring long term averages and trends. 2) Ignoring the constant heat build up in the oceans, which is surprising considering that her training in geophysics should have informed her that 90% of the earth's climatologically active heat is in the oceans and that they have tremendous and variable influence on climate and weather. Maybe she just forgot. 3) There is no pause, whatsoever, not even a little, in the rate of heat gain of the earth. In short, while she may have some credible points regarding the avoidance of "groupthink" it seems that she is a bit of an attention whore, is fishing for petro-dollars and is essentially wrong when she says that there has been a pause in global warming and that the models have been wrong or over-predict the effects of increasing CO2. And let's not forget, she is just one voice in a huge chorus. She gets outsized attention because she is singing a tune that appeals to a certain very interested minority.
man, it's getting cold out here where I live, and my days of burning fossils just for the hell of it are about over. I need some young kids to start creating co2, cause Lord knows the sun aint going to keep us warm much longer. If I had known how cold it was going to get I would have saved some of those fosssils to burn later when we really needed it.
What you are saying, apparently, is that even though the the satellite remote sensing data shows no mean temperature gain since 1998, that the heat content of the oceans has gone up. Don't you find it a bit odd that the oceans heat content should rise without the water temperature rising as well, in which case remote sensing would have picked that up. But we know the heat capacity of the oceans is unimaginably large, So of course a huge amount of heat could have flowed into the oceans, and the land mass too, and only produced a statistically insignificant rise in mean temperature. But if the temperature rise in the oceans is statistically insignificant. how is it that we know all this missing heat is hiding in the oceans? Oh, I get it, the oceans are boiling the land is frozen solid, and on average there is no change as shown by remote sensing. You do see what the problem here is don't you? CO2 content is more or less uniform over the entire globe because of atmospheric mixing. Yes it is not uniform at any one time, but observed over time it tends to be uniform. Would you agree? If you do, then you must realize that if CO2 is the dominate factor, and it is continuing to rise everywhere, as our measurements show it is, then we should see a rise in temperature over time that is approximately uniform over the entire globe. Would you agree? Or perhaps CO2 has stopped rising? Is there any data that shows that? Or perhaps CO2 is the dominate factor for a while and then something else is? If you can explain the sum total of the data in a way that makes sense to those studying climate than you can become quite famous.
Somewhere I have an orange polyester necktie from the early 1970s that is made from fabric only slightly thinner than today's average car upholstery. A Windsor, tie knot in this tie is broader than they average 25 year-old neck, and that is why I had to stop wearing it. It is unquestionably the most durable tie I ever owned. I recall now that I also had a long-ago-lost orange, polyester sport coat to accompany that beautiful necktie. The sport coat was at least as durable as any "Welcome" door mat. Its fabric was a very fashionable, lovely Autumn burnt orange, and approximately 1/2 inch thick. I shudder to think what the jacket and tie, as a beautiful marching pair, would now bring on EBay. Oh, sigh, if only I'd had the foresight to hang on to both.