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.
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.
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:
Thus, the large changes in the past few million years between glacial and interglacial periods, which is pretty evident here, 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).
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.
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.
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.
I have two main concerns with paleoclimate studies.
There is no way to measure all the variables that can effect climate. In the Pielke article I just cited said:
T
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.
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:
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. **
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.
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.
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.
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.
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!)
