Curry Quotes

Bits of wisdom and denialist chum from Judith Curry

Curry on unsettled science, cranks and deniers

leave a comment »

It is now agreed by both “sides” that “the science is settled” is a bad thing to say. […] If the science isn’t settled, then this is a step towards getting rid of the “denier” accusation, taking a more careful look at the uncertainties, and maybe then stop using the argument from consensus to try to convince people. Getting rid of “the science is settled” is the first step.
– Judith Curry

If the science isn’t settled, why are they so busy calling people deniers? The deniers are denying unsettled science? A consensus by a certain group of scientists (who forgot to pay much attention to uncertainty and ignorance)?
– Judith Curry

Earlier:

[W]hether atmospheric gases such as CO2 (and H20, CH4, and others) warm the planet is not an issue where skepticism is plausible.
– Judith Curry

My comments were also colored by spending 3 decades working with atmospheric radiative transfer, including observations, models, and theory. All of this says that there is overwhelming evidence for the existence of infrared radiative emission by CO2 and H20, some of which travels back in the direction of the earth’s surface, and so warms the surface (relative to the situation if there was no CO2 or H20 in the atmosphere). There are many things to be skeptical about, IMO this isn’t one of them.
– Judith Curry

If you deny the existence of downwelling infrared radiative flux from CO2 (I still haven’t gotten a straight answer from you on this, in spite of asking the question multiple times), and claim that your mathematical analysis is correct, which is in contradiction to these observations, then the observations need to be incorrect and much of 20th century physics needs to be correct.
– Judith Curry

Do you dispute that if you put an infrared radiometer on the surface of the earth and point it upwards, that it will measure an IR radiance or irradiance (depending on how the instrument is configured)? […] If you say yes, well this is what people are calling back radiation (a term that I don’t use myself). If you say no, then I will call you a crank – all your manipulations of Maxwell’s equation will not make this downwelling IR flux from the atmosphere go away.
– Judith Curry

Claes, i read what you wrote, and it makes no sense to me (nor did this section of your article). Tell me, does your theory explain the observation that if you point a radiometer upwards at a cloudless sky, that it will measure a radiation flux of say 200-400 W m-2 (depending on ambient atmospheric temperature, humidity, etc). Can you put the atmospheric profile of temperature and gases into your equations and calculate the flux that is observed? If not, and you continue to insist that your theory is correct, then you get to wear the crank label.
– Judith Curry

[T]he reason I am focusing on this is trying to get rid of all the noise surrounding the debate on radiative transfer, so that everyone can focus on the real issues associated with the complex chaotic thermodynamic/dynamic climate system. Looks like this issue isn’t going away, but hopefully the efforts here are further marginalizing those who insist on pursuing incorrect theories of radiative transfer, and alienating them from the more serious skeptics/deniers.
– Judith Curry

Advertisements

Written by cquo

February 7, 2011 at 6:22 pm

Posted in Uncategorized

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: