E158 Judith Curry on "wicked science" and the uncertainties of climate change.
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 3 окт 2023
- Climatologist Dr. Judith Curry is president of the Climate Forecast Application Network and the host of the blog, Climate Etc (judithcurry.com/). She is a professor emerita at the Georgia Institute of Technology. Her blog provides a forum for climate researchers, academics and technical experts from other fields as well as citizen scientists to discuss topics related to climate science and policy.
Her research interests include hurricanes, remote sensing, atmospheric modeling, polar climates, air-sea interactions, climate models, and the use of unmanned aerial vehicles for atmospheric research. She was a member of the National Research Council's Climate Research Committee, and has published more than 180 scientific papers.
In scientific circles, she is known as a contrarian for pointing out the uncertainties and deficiencies of climate modeling. In 2017, she resigned from her tenured position at Georgia Tech partly because of the poisonous nature of the scientific discussion around human-caused global warming.
Her book “Climate Change and Uncertainty: Rethinking our Response,” is available now. It offers a new way to think about climate change, the risks we face, and how we might respond.
Full shownotes: www.ihmc.us/stemtalk/episode-...
Dr. Curry is amazing !
good one
I like how the “preindustrial era” is held up as a golden age for climate. A great video to watch is “Little Ice Age, Big Chill” from the History Channel. It gives you a better perspective on “warming.”
True, and the Little Ice Age is definitely not the time in history that we desire to emulate! The Medieval warming period was a much better time for mankind when compared the hard years of the Little Ice age!
Or the terrible events of 530/40s. Accompanied by famine and plague.
Dr. Curry is a real scientist who challangers her own work. Compare this with too many so called scientists.
Curry told us in 1995 that global warming was over. She was wrong. She said the same thing in 1998. She was wrong. She then tried again in 2002, 2007 and 2010. Wrong, wrong, and wrong. Instead of hitting the pause button, she doubled down and then predicted that we would very likely be cooling through the 2010s all the way through the 2020s to 2030. So far she's batting .000. Is this someone we should give our trust to, when she not only has been consistently wrong but when the scientfic consensus disagrees with her?
@swiftlytiltingplanet8481 you could say the same on scientist predictions WRONG WRONG WRONG Get the picture
I appreciate the honesty of Dr. Curry. I would like her to elaborate more in her statement that mitigation has little impact in the climate of the 21st century. The why doesn't have impact in the future climate.
One of the host mention a journal of medicine and the death associated with heat waves
In the CDN Nexus Climate Discussion they point out the graph used to describe the death toll from heat waves, compared to death by cold weather, had use a scale that is ten times smaller. So it seems in the graph they are equal. The death by cold is ten time higher than the death by heat. It will make sense to provide heating to people rather than to provide air conditioning to people. Reducing the price of electricity will help people use more A/C and prevent death by heat. But all the policies are going in the wrong direction making electricity more expensive, not cheaper.
Sounds like she was fed the questions in advance and prepared written responses which she then read. I don't think there's an ethical problem with this. But it does take me out of it a bit.
25minutes… then what about the whole idea of wet bulb temperatures and human intolerance of heat over ??45C or so..being fatal if prolonged exposure…thought that was an established fact. NO?
What's going on here? Is she reading a script? It sounds very unnatural 🤔
It's her talking style. She might be non-neurotypical. See other interviews with her and you will understand
@@MarkusKasanmascheff I have listened to several of her interviews and I agree that she has a distinct style in her delivery of answers but to my ear, both the questions and answers in this interview sound pre-prepared and read from text rather than asked and answered in a normal conversational way. None of that is to say that the interview wasn't good...
@@MarkusKasanmascheff I did check and this is not her talking style. This "interview" seems totally pre-planned and read from a script.
The best thing to do is buy her book. We need to support her work and her voice.
There is a lot of bull💩 out there. Dr. Curry is a straight shooter, which is why they chased her out of academia.
It's that AI CGI. I definitely saw 2 of the Beatles pop in and out of the shot, and one of them was John.
I do get the feeling you don't argue about climate change either agree or shut up SAD
If you're fully informed you should by all means debate climate change. The problem too often, though, is that many of us are informed by fossil fuel industry propaganda and conspiracy nonsense and fail to grasp the gravitas of a 99.9% consensus among publishing climate scientists.
@swiftlytiltingplanet8481 yes the big question is informed Just look at the propaganda by scientists or are they just wrong Some even blame computer models As you can see it really a guess cheers
@@rodmartin-nl8ns No, it's not a guess, my friend. There is a mountain of empirical evidence proving anthropomorphic climate change. ELEVEN separate studies confirm the consensus on that. The consensus itself is publicly endorsed by 80 academies of science and ALL of the world's major scientific institutions, from NASA to NOAA to the World Meteorological Org. to the over 50,000 physicists of the American Physical Society. Even Exxon's own scientists in leaked memos have acknowledged that combusted fossil fuels are warming the planet to a damaging degree.
By contrast, Judith Curry announced that global warming was over in 1995. She was wrong. In 1998, she made the same pronouncement. She was wrong. She tried again in 2002, 2007 and 2010. Wrong every time. Most scientists would give up at that point, but she didn't. She instead doubled down and said that we'd likely be COOLING all the way through 2030. The last ten years, alas, have been the warmest on record.
Super important to be aware that she is part of the 0.1% of climate scientists who reject the 99.9% consensus. If 99 bridge engineers warn me not to cross a rickety bridge for fear of collapse, I'm not sure how much credence I'm going to give the one dissenter who reassures me how safe it is. You, on the other hand, may be a gambler. It's a free country.
Judith Curry has been wrong many times in the past. She told us that warming was over in 1995. She said the same thing in 1998, in 2002, in 2007 and 2010. Then she told us we'd likely be cooling right through the year 2030. Wrong every time. Does anyone here every check her history or seek rebuttals? Clearly not. It's why the context box is so important.
The context box from the UN is a political statement. The UN wants $150 trillion to mitigate climate through socialism. The UN is like a watermelon, green on the outside and red on the inside.
$150 trillion is a lot of clams. Note: clams use calcium carbonate (carbon) to created their shells. The shells accumulate and over millions of years turns into limestone that sequesters the carbon. 99.9 per cent of the earth’s carbon is stored in rock, mostly as limestone.
Judith Curry has not made predictions, you say She is well balanced in her thinking l would say your context box is empty Perhapes your understanding is wrong to give you the benefit of the doubt
@@DelusionalDoug The context box is actually based on the ELEVEN studies that confirm the scientific consensus on climate change. Those studies and the consensus have nothing to do with politics and everything to do with evidence.
It just to show that the climate is going to do what it is designed to do. The notion that we think we can do something to change its mind is sheer lunacy. Do humans have an effect? Of course we do. What's your solution have us die back to 2.8 billion or put an end to war and poverty and figure out how to adapt to change. Taxing carbon, going electric sure isn't going to make a damn bit of difference.
Could you provide the source, please?
Disapointing
Unfortunately though Climatologist Dr. Judith Curry is literally an imbecile because she has stated "If Antarctica starts losing ice it will be because of volcanoes" and a brain that can have deduced that, based on the well-known energy quantities, is LITERALLY an imbecile. Otherwise though she seems very nice and would be chatty at cocktail parties, just the imbecile thing I mentioned is the down side.
I trust that before describing this scientist as an imbecile, you researched - I suggest at least one presentation regarding the influence of sub-sea volcanic activity on the thermohaline circulation - the Tom Nelson YT channel gives several interesting and credible alternative theories to the authoritarian political/MSM agenda.
@@michaelharrison9340 Tom Nelson is famous for spotlighting crackpots and outliers and nobody from the 99.9% consensus. Volcanism under Antarctica has been going on for millions of years. It's nothing new.
@@swiftlytiltingplanet8481 Where does your 99.9% come from? This is the problem with THE SCIENCE - it is sounding just like the Covid debacle when any scientist who disagreed with the agenda was cancelled, but later found to be most likely on the right side of the debate. The "crackpots" you describe appear to be be the more experienced scientists who no longer have to rely on government funding, so can say what they think without losing their shirts when they are cancelled by mainstream. Those following the agenda refuse to discuss the subject, but continue to push the CO2 narrative. This is in spite of the evidence that the climate models used by the IPCC don't fit the empirical data over the last couple of decades, but particularly when back-tested over the warm periods during the previous 8000 yrs. Thus the modelling/underlying theory must surely be wrong.
Great name calling. That’s pretty much science, right?
@@rumbaughsteven5577 Curry has been debunked in the scientific literature. Look it up.