# Global warming v weather shift **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [August 20, 2012, 1:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-v-weather-shift/632050 "2012-08-20T13:14:21Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 6
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [August 27, 2012, 11:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-v-weather-shift/632050/101 "2012-08-27T23:37:21Z")
> [@JoelUpchurch](#): > > And he switched to politics before the ink was dry on his PhD. That he is working as a paid blogger for a political action group is not a recommendation. It is like I used a employee of the Heartland Institution as a reference. > > Do you actually think that other people don’t know this. Piffle, the reality is that you claimed that he was just a hack and that he did not had any applicable knowledge on the subject, **you do not want other people to know**. ---
**Author:** ![JoelUpchurch](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/f05b48/32.png) [@JoelUpchurch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JoelUpchurch)\ **Post date:** [August 28, 2012, 12:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-v-weather-shift/632050/102 "2012-08-28T00:59:30Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > Nope, even the scientists already have her number: The best you could do is find Gavin Schmidt is some semantics argument about the meaning of the word ‘most’? No peer reviewed literature at all? ---
**Author:** ![JoelUpchurch](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/f05b48/32.png) [@JoelUpchurch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JoelUpchurch)\ **Post date:** [August 28, 2012, 1:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-v-weather-shift/632050/103 "2012-08-28T01:21:34Z")
> [@Michael63129](#): > > How is that? When one considers how much CO2 has Try doing it on recent data that we can measure directly. Remember if it is actual science it has to work all the time. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [August 28, 2012, 1:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-v-weather-shift/632050/104 "2012-08-28T01:23:22Z")
> [@JoelUpchurch](#): > > The best you could do is find Gavin Schmidt is some semantics argument about the meaning of the word ‘most’? > > No peer reviewed literature at all? That is Gavin Smith, > **[RealClimate: Gavin A. Schmidt](https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/gavin-schmidt/)** > > RealClimate: Gavin Schmidt is a climate modeller at the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies and Earth Institute at Columbia University in New York and is interested in modeling past, present and future climate. He works on developing and... > [@](#): > > He received a BA (Hons) in Mathematics from Oxford University, a PhD in Applied Mathematics from University College London and was a NOAA Postdoctoral Fellow in Climate and Global Change Research. He is a co-chair of the CLIVAR/PAGES Intersection Panel and is an Associate Editor for the Journal of Climate. He was cited by Scientific American as one of the 50 Research Leaders of 2004, and has worked on Education and Outreach with the American Museum of Natural History, the College de France and the New York Academy of Sciences. He has over 90 peer-reviewed publications and is the co-author with Josh Wolfe of “Climate Change: Picturing the Science” (W. W. Norton, 2009), a collaboration between climate scientists and photographers. He was awarded the inaugural AGU Climate Communications Prize in 2011. And I forgot the link to the previous cite: > **[RealClimate: The AR4 attribution statement](https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2012/01/the-ar4-attribution-statement/)** > > RealClimate: What the IPCC AR4 attribution statement meant for the anthropogenic contribution to recent global warming. The point remains, the issue with Curry is that she is pushing for an equivalency that is not there, even with “lukewarmers” compared to what most of the evidence and researchers are reporting that is going on with the climate. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [August 28, 2012, 1:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-v-weather-shift/632050/105 "2012-08-28T01:32:13Z")
BTW, in the link > **[RealClimate: The AR4 attribution statement](https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2012/01/the-ar4-attribution-statement/)** > > RealClimate: What the IPCC AR4 attribution statement meant for the anthropogenic contribution to recent global warming. One can find in the peer review science that there were already comments against what Curry said. > [@](#): > > G. Hegerl, P. Stott, S. Solomon, and F. Zwiers, “Comment on “Climate Science and the Uncertainty Monster” J. A. Curry and P. J. Webster”, Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, vol. 92, pp. 1683-1685, 2011. [http://dx.doi.org/10.1175/BAMS-D-11-00191.1](http://dx.doi.org/10.1175/BAMS-D-11-00191.1) Gavin is referring to that and other published papers on his criticism of Curry. ---
**Author:** ![Michael63129](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/3da27b/32.png) [@Michael63129](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Michael63129)\ **Post date:** [August 28, 2012, 1:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-v-weather-shift/632050/106 "2012-08-28T01:58:19Z")
> [@JoelUpchurch](#): > > Try doing it on recent data that we can measure directly. Remember if it is actual science it has to work all the time. No, how do you explain past climate change? There is no reason why the Earth’s climate sensitivity has changed drastically in the past century, much less much longer periods of time until you reach periods when continents and the like were different from today. Or, maybe you are correct and we will only see a degree of warming in the next century. But, and here is the catch, the climate is far more sensitive to temperature changes, thus explaining past climate changes. There was even a [study that claimed just that](http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2011/11/27/376197/media-flawed-study-climate-sensitivity/): > [@](#): > > Its key finding is that the so-called “fast-feedbacks sensitivity” of the climate (to a doubling of CO2 levels) is on the low side. This finding is likely wrong, according to many leading climatologists (see below)… > > …The study finds that small changes in Earth’s temperature can have huge impacts on the land — that’s why it finds a low sensitivity! Then there is [this](http://www.nsf.gov/news/news_summ.jsp?cntn_id=124393): > [@](#): > > The research shows that, in the last five million years, changes in ocean circulation allowed Earth’s climate to become more closely coupled to changes in carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere… > > …“This study highlights the importance of ocean circulation in determining climate conditions,” says Ravelo. “It tells us that the Earth’s climate system has evolved, and that climate sensitivity is possibly at an all-time high.” Thus, the large changes in the past few million years between glacial and interglacial periods, which is pretty evident [here](http://www.google.com/imgres?hl=en&client=firefox-a&hs=L8B&sa=X&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&biw=1009&bih=622&tbm=isch&prmd=imvns&tbnid=WW3JPJ7L5_bobM:&imgrefurl=http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/hansen_15/&imgurl=http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/hansen_15/fig1.gif&w=709&h=366&ei=5iI8UMbfGInSqQHCloDoDg&zoom=1&iact=hc&vpx=525&vpy=309&dur=1200&hovh=161&hovw=313&tx=202&ty=83&sig=108158042263569158783&page=1&tbnh=93&tbnw=180&start=0&ndsp=15&ved=1t:429,r:8,s:0,i:101), with variability increasing as one comes to the present day (note also that just 1 degree of warming is enough to take us to the Pliocene). ---
**Author:** ![JoelUpchurch](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/f05b48/32.png) [@JoelUpchurch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JoelUpchurch)\ **Post date:** [August 28, 2012, 6:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-v-weather-shift/632050/107 "2012-08-28T18:10:29Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > Piffle, the reality is that you claimed that he was just a hack and that he did not had any applicable knowledge on the subject, **you do not want other people to know**. Romm is a hack and everybody but you knows he is a hack. Is your position that anyone with a physics degree can be quoted as a source, even though they have no climate science experience or even worked as a scientist? ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [August 28, 2012, 6:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-v-weather-shift/632050/108 "2012-08-28T18:14:01Z")
> [@JoelUpchurch](#): > > Romm is a hack and everybody but you knows he is a hack. Is your position that anyone with a physics degree can be quoted as a source, even though they have no climate science experience or even worked as a scientist? Nope, he is in reality just a messenger with a related title on the subject, what everybody knows is that you are just relying on the “killing the messenger” fallacy. ---
**Author:** ![JoelUpchurch](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/f05b48/32.png) [@JoelUpchurch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JoelUpchurch)\ **Post date:** [August 28, 2012, 6:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-v-weather-shift/632050/109 "2012-08-28T18:22:31Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > That is Gavin Smith, > > [RealClimate: Gavin A. Schmidt](http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/gavin-schmidt/) > And I forgot the link to the previous cite: > > [RealClimate: The AR4 attribution statement](http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2012/01/the-ar4-attribution-statement/) > > The point remains, the issue with Curry is that she is pushing for an equivalency that is not there, even with “lukewarmers” compared to what most of the evidence and researchers are reporting that is going on with the climate. I know who Gavin **Schmidt** is, you are the one who can’t spell his name right. I didn’t ask for his CV. I asked for a **peer-reviewed** rebuttal of her work. If it doesn’t need to be peer-reviewed, then here is a article written by an actual climate scientist, that rebuts the article Schmidt wrote. [http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2012/01/30/comment-on-gavin-schmidts-post-on-his-weblog-real-climate-regarding-the-dominate-role-of-anthropogenic-greenhouse-gas-concentrations-on-the-global-average-temperature-trends/](http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2012/01/30/comment-on-gavin-schmidts-post-on-his-weblog-real-climate-regarding-the-dominate-role-of-anthropogenic-greenhouse-gas-concentrations-on-the-global-average-temperature-trends/) ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [August 28, 2012, 6:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-v-weather-shift/632050/110 "2012-08-28T18:22:49Z")
And… when I shot down your hacks it is based on pointed criticism of what they say and how indeed everybody in the scientific community sees those hacks. The “everybody” you are referring to is really just the false skeptics echo chamber. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [August 28, 2012, 6:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-v-weather-shift/632050/111 "2012-08-28T18:42:50Z")
> [@JoelUpchurch](#): > > I asked for a **peer-reviewed** rebuttal of her work. If it doesn’t need to be peer-reviewed, then here is a article written by an actual climate scientist, that rebuts the article Schmidt wrote. > > [http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2012/01/30/comment-on-gavin-schmidts-post-on-his-weblog-real-climate-regarding-the-dominate-role-of-anthropogenic-greenhouse-gas-concentrations-on-the-global-average-temperature-trends/](http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2012/01/30/comment-on-gavin-schmidts-post-on-his-weblog-real-climate-regarding-the-dominate-role-of-anthropogenic-greenhouse-gas-concentrations-on-the-global-average-temperature-trends/) As pointed before there are no easy pickings left, Roger Pielke Sr. is not well respected. > **[RealClimate: OHC Model/Obs Comparison Errata](https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2012/05/ohc-modelobs-comparison-errata/)** > > RealClimate: This is just a brief note to point out that a few graphs that I have put together showing Ocean Heat Content changes in recent decades had an incorrect scaling for the GISS model data. My error was in assuming that the model output... Here I do think that this comment from a poster in Realclimate does show most of what is going on: After a comment from Gavin showing how off the mark Pielke was: > [@](#): > > Thanks for the update. Sad to see that Roger Pielke Sr. seems more interested in scoring points than getting the science right. SkepticalScience has a great post on the OHC issue. > > It is unfortunate that Roger Pielke Sr. is only to happy to throw stones from afar from a blog that does not permit comments. Roger is also only too happy to highlight other people’s errors and advising various people to update their sites. It is thus ironic that Roger has still not updated his own error made in this June,14 post on his blog, where it still incorrectly states (to this day) that the oceans accumulated accumulated zero Joules of energy between 2003 and May 2011. He has been aware of that error since at least October 1, 2011 when Dana brought it to his attention. > > More of Pielke’s errors are highlighted in the first SkepticalScience post linked to above– but I doubt he will fix them given that he has thus far failed to update his 2011 post. > > It is bad enough that Pielke Sr. is misleading reader’s of his blog, but that he seems to have no problem with misleading school students is especially egregious. > > … > > Earlier I noted that Pielke Senior was more interested in trying to score (PR) points instead of getting the science right. His latest update on his dictator-style blog (i.e., **no scientific critique or challenges permitted** ) beautifully reinforces that point. So thank you Roger! 🙂 That he is misleading students is indeed a deal breaker to me: > **[Pielke Sr. Misinforms High School Students](https://skepticalscience.com/pielke-sr-misinforms-high-school-students.html)** > > On his blog, Dr. Roger Pielke Sr. recently wrote proudly of a question and answer session he held with local high school students in Colorado.  Educating students about climate science would indeed be a laudable enterprise, if done well. ... ---
**Author:** ![JoelUpchurch](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/f05b48/32.png) [@JoelUpchurch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JoelUpchurch)\ **Post date:** [August 28, 2012, 7:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-v-weather-shift/632050/112 "2012-08-28T19:02:18Z")
> [@Michael63129](#): > > No, how do you explain past climate change? There is no reason why the Earth’s climate sensitivity has changed drastically in the past century, much less much longer periods of time until you reach periods when continents and the like were different from today. > > Or, maybe you are correct and we will only see a degree of warming in the next century. But, and here is the catch, the climate is far more sensitive to temperature changes, thus explaining past climate changes. There was even a [study that claimed just that](http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2011/11/27/376197/media-flawed-study-climate-sensitivity/): > > Then there is [this](http://www.nsf.gov/news/news_summ.jsp?cntn_id=124393): > > Thus, the large changes in the past few million years between glacial and interglacial periods, which is pretty evident [here](http://www.google.com/imgres?hl=en&client=firefox-a&hs=L8B&sa=X&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&biw=1009&bih=622&tbm=isch&prmd=imvns&tbnid=WW3JPJ7L5_bobM:&imgrefurl=http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/hansen_15/&imgurl=http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/hansen_15/fig1.gif&w=709&h=366&ei=5iI8UMbfGInSqQHCloDoDg&zoom=1&iact=hc&vpx=525&vpy=309&dur=1200&hovh=161&hovw=313&tx=202&ty=83&sig=108158042263569158783&page=1&tbnh=93&tbnw=180&start=0&ndsp=15&ved=1t:429,r:8,s:0,i:101), with variability increasing as one comes to the present day (note also that just 1 degree of warming is enough to take us to the Pliocene). I have two main concerns with paleoclimate studies. 1. There is no way to measure all the variables that can effect climate. In the Pielke article I just cited said: T > [@](#): > > he lower tropospheric ~global annual average lower tropospheric temperatures have been essentially flat for at least 10 years, presumably due to other human climate forcings, solar forcing, decadal and longer natural variability and/or radiative feedbacks. The important thing is that there are important variables we can’t measure for paleoclimate. Too many studies measure a couple of variables and assume the stuff they can’t measure is unimportant. 1. Causality. It is difficult to establish the exact order of events in paleoclimate. The uncertainity of the timelines are often thousands of years. Many studies just assume that CO2 causes warming, but they can’t really prove the order of events. We may have that warming actually produces C02 or both are caused by other events. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [August 28, 2012, 7:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-v-weather-shift/632050/113 "2012-08-28T19:42:26Z")
> [@JoelUpchurch](#): > > I have two main concerns with paleoclimate studies. > > 1. There is no way to measure all the variables that can effect climate. In the Pielke article I just cited said: He is still wrong. > **[Continued Lower Atmosphere Warming](https://skepticalscience.com/news.php?n=1005)** > > We recently discussed Santer et al. (2011), which compared the observed trends in the temperature of the lower troposphere (TLT) with those predicted by climate models.  The paper also examined claims by John Christy in testimony to US Congress that... > [@](#): > > Summary > > In his blog post, both the data set and start date Dr. Pielke chose minimized the short-term TLT trend. Pielke was well aware of the strong El Niño in 1998, noting it in his post, and yet he chose this year as the start date of his analysis anyway. > > It’s also unclear why Dr. Pielke chose to make this ‘no trend in 13 years’ argument in a post commenting on Santer et al. (2011) to begin with, since the paper demonstrates that at least 17 years of data are necessary to evaluate the human influence on the TLT trend. Dr. Pielke also didn’t examine why the short-term TLT trend has slowed over the past decade, as was done in Kaufmann (2011), for example. > > The main take-home point here is that analysing short periods of data is fraught with challenges due to the short-term noise. It’s entirely expected that over periods on the order of a decade, there will be times of little warming in surface temperatures, as Santer et al. (2011) demonstrated. We are currently in the midst of one of those periods. Over the past decade, solar activity has been low, anthropogenic aerosol emissions have risen, and ENSO has been primarily in its negative phase. Thus it’s not unexpected that surface temperature warming has slowed, and when we account for these factors, we see that the underlying long-term warming trend continues. As tamino noted when analysing all the main surface temperature and TLT data sets (emphasis added): > > ``` > "None of the [most recent] 10-year trends is “statistically significant” but that’s only because the uncertainties are so large — 10 years isn’t long enough to determine the warming trend with sufficient precision. Note that for each data set, the full-sample (about 30 years) trend is within the confidence interval of the 10-year trend — so there’s no evidence, from any of the data sets, that the trend over the last decade is different from the modern global warming trend." > > ``` > [@JoelUpchurch](#): > > The important thing is that there are important variables we can’t measure for paleoclimate. Too many studies measure a couple of variables and assume the stuff they can’t measure is unimportant. > > 1. Causality. It is difficult to establish the exact order of events in paleoclimate. The uncertainity of the timelines are often thousands of years. Many studies just assume that CO2 causes warming, but they can’t really prove the order of events. We may have that warming actually produces C02 or both are caused by other events. The evidence so far is that the timelines of the CO2 effects in the paleoclimate are more related than ever. As Richard Alley reported to the American Geophysical Union: > **[Richard Alley on Today's CO2 Levels](https://skepticalscience.com/richard-alley-todays-co2-levels.html)** > > Another re-post from Climate Crocks - videos from Earth, the Operator's Manual and Peter Sinclair featuring Richard Alley discussing today's high CO2 levels. When he started investigating as a student and young professor, there were many places that reported on the discrepancies on the relation of CO2 with temperature in the paleoclimate record, \*\*but during all those years he was studying the issue, he found that almost all those discrepancies are gone. \*\* ---
**Author:** ![JoelUpchurch](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/f05b48/32.png) [@JoelUpchurch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JoelUpchurch)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2012, 5:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-v-weather-shift/632050/114 "2012-08-29T17:39:05Z")
So to summarize. You still can’t find a peer reviewed source that discredits any of Curry’s work and all you do is find comments in blogs. You continually demonstrate your ignorance about climate science. All you can do is link to blog posts you don’t understand. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2012, 6:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-v-weather-shift/632050/115 "2012-08-29T18:03:53Z")
> [@JoelUpchurch](#): > > So to summarize. You still can’t find a peer reviewed source that discredits any of Curry’s work and all you do is find comments in blogs. You continually demonstrate your ignorance about climate science. All you can do is link to blog posts you don’t understand. Once again there were already criticisms of Curry in peer review, and once again if you want to claim that other related in the field scientists are not peers, then the problem is with your attempts at ignoring what they say. As I mentioned before, (and mentioned also in the last short video) one doesn’t need to be an expert on this, only to check with what the experts like Richard Alley are reporting (And virtually all experts and peer reviewed science agrees). And when no peer reviewed science is posted by you to counter what they say, (the last efforts you posted were from blogs) that is plenty of evidence that you are not capable of identifying good sources from bad ones. ---
**Author:** ![JoelUpchurch](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/f05b48/32.png) [@JoelUpchurch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JoelUpchurch)\ **Post date:** [August 30, 2012, 1:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-v-weather-shift/632050/116 "2012-08-30T01:57:23Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > Once again there were already criticisms of Curry in peer review, and once again if you want to claim that other related in the field scientists are not peers, then the problem is with your attempts at ignoring what they say. As I mentioned before, (and mentioned also in the last short video) one doesn’t need to be an expert on this, only to check with what the experts like Richard Alley are reporting (And virtually all experts and peer reviewed science agrees). And when no peer reviewed science is posted by you to counter what they say, (the last efforts you posted were from blogs) that is plenty of evidence that you are not capable of identifying good sources from bad ones. You still have actually cited a peer reviewed criticism of Curry. You simply assert they exist. Apparently you can’t read an actual scientific article. I have decided that this it is a waste of time. I already have an account in Skeptical Science and decided to post there. At least they actually don’t spend their time citing themselves. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [August 30, 2012, 2:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-v-weather-shift/632050/117 "2012-08-30T02:20:04Z")
> [@JoelUpchurch](#): > > You still have actually cited a peer reviewed criticism of Curry. You simply assert they exist. Apparently you can’t read an actual scientific article. I did already, unless you are claiming that the AMA journal is not scientific. > [@JoelUpchurch](#): > > Y > I have decided that this it is a waste of time. I already have an account in Skeptical Science and decided to post there. At least they actually don’t spend their time citing themselves. Good to know, because your sources so far are the pits. Today they are reviewing how silly it is to wait and not do something today. > **[Realistically What Might the Future Climate Look Like?](https://skepticalscience.com/realistically-what-might-future-climate-look-like.html)** > > Robert Watson, former Chair of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), recently made headlines by declaring that it is unlikely we will be able to limit global warming to the 2°C 'danger limit'.  This past April, the International... ---
**Author:** ![JoelUpchurch](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/f05b48/32.png) [@JoelUpchurch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JoelUpchurch)\ **Post date:** [August 30, 2012, 7:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-v-weather-shift/632050/118 "2012-08-30T19:23:33Z")
[quote=“GIGObuster, post:117, topic:632050”] I did already, unless you are claiming that the AMA journal is not scientific. Gavin cited a COMMENT in the AMA journal. Comments are not peer reviewed. As near as I can tell Curry’s original article was discussing the terminology used by the IPCC and not a scientific article in the first place. It would be silly submit a peer reviewed reply to an article this isn’t peer reviewed in the first place. As far as I can tell, you haven’t located any of Curry’s scientific articles at all. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [August 30, 2012, 8:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-v-weather-shift/632050/119 "2012-08-30T20:58:16Z")
Feh, I watched the wall you hit in Skeptical Science, talk about jumping from the frying pan into the fire. The reality is that I \*\*do \*\*pay attention to what the scientists are saying and what is the current state of the evidence out there in academia. Peer review is not the end in itself of science, there is also criticism and new studies to consider and they are also part of the official criticism, and so far Curry is not getting much traction in attracting others to her way of thinking among math propeller heads. > **[Judith Curry Opens Mouth, Inserts Foot](https://tamino.wordpress.com/2011/10/30/judith-curry-opens-mouth-inserts-foot/)** > > NOTE: See the UPDATE at the end of this post. I didn’t expect Judith Curry to embarrass herself more than she did with her fawning over Murry Salby’s folly. But she’s topped (perh… ---
**Author:** ![Trinopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)\ **Post date:** [August 31, 2012, 12:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-v-weather-shift/632050/120 "2012-08-31T00:59:11Z")
Just as a point of human interest – I read the article **GIGObuster** linked to, with the nifty graphs and the discussion of confidence levels. WHY is there that really grotesque data outlier in April of 2010? How did anyone manage to make a measurement that was so remarkably outside of expectations? Did somebody flub, or is it simply an unavoidable result of techniques? (i.e., by pure coincidence, it snowed near eight out of ten measuring stations, the sort of random thing that is just bound to happen?) Just fascinated to see a data point that grabs the eye that way! (If I saw a data outlier like that in the log I keep of my personal weight, I’d assume that the scale had got a bit of grit in it. ETA: I’d also use it as a justification for eating an extra helping of dessert!) [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-v-weather-shift/632050.md?page=5) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-v-weather-shift/632050.md?page=7)