Dr Judith Curry believes that CO2 is warming the Earth. But she thinks that the forecasts of temperature rise by the IPCC and other warmers are vastly overstated. Thus she is labeled a lukewarmer. Because most skeptics are in some sense lukewarmers, she is readily accepted by the Skeptics. But warmers do not tolerate those who don’t strictly follow their religious like beliefs that allow no deviation from their catastrophic views. She says she has been tossed out of the warmer tribe of which she was once a welcome member.
Her credentials are solid gold. Wikipedia cites her publications as follows:
Curry is the co-author of Thermodynamics of Atmospheres and Oceans (1999), and co-editor of Encyclopedia of Atmospheric Sciences (2002). Curry has published over 130 scientific peer reviewed papers. Among her awards is the Henry G. Houghton Research Award from the American Meteorological Society in 1992.
She (Curry) wrote: “I have a total of 12,000 citations of my publications (since my first publication in 1983).
The new.spectator.com.uk posted “I was tossed out of the tribe’: climate scientist Judith Curry interviewed”. This is how it happened:
“Curry’s independence has cost her dear. She began to be reviled after the 2009 ‘Climategate’ scandal, when leaked emails revealed that some scientists were fighting to suppress sceptical views. ‘I started saying that scientists should be more accountable, and I began to engage with sceptic bloggers. I thought that would calm the waters. Instead I was tossed out of the tribe. There’s no way I would have done this if I hadn’t been a tenured professor, fairly near the end of my career. If I were seeking a new job in the US academy, I’d be pretty much unemployable. I can still publish in the peer-reviewed journals. But there’s no way I could get a government research grant to do the research I want to do. Since then, I’ve stopped judging my career by these metrics. I’m doing what I do to stand up for science and to do the right thing.’”
Curry says that the COP 21 will be driven by the warmer’s belief that global temperature rise is a direct function of the atmospheric CO2 concentration. She says there is no such relationship:
“This debate will be conducted on the basis that there is a known, mechanistic relationship between the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and how world average temperatures will rise. Any such projection is meaningless, unless it accounts for natural variability and gives a value for ‘climate sensitivity’ —i.e., how much hotter the world will get if the level of CO2 doubles. Until 2007, the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) gave a ‘best estimate’ of 3°C. But in its latest, 2013 report, the IPCC abandoned this, because the uncertainties are so great. Its ‘likely’ range is now vast — 1.5°C to 4.5°C.
Curry says that reaching 2°C is likely much farther away than the warmers think because the recent research shows a climate sensitivity of around 2°C rise per doubling of the CO2 in the atmosphere versus the 3°C rise. See Recent “Research Papers Show That IPCC Climate Sensitivity Is Too High”
Curry also believes the warmers need to look at natural sources that cause the climate to change. She says:
“Meanwhile, the obsessive focus on CO2 as the driver of climate change means other research on natural climate variability is being neglected. For example, solar experts believe we could be heading towards a ‘grand solar minimum’ — a reduction in solar output (and, ergo, a period of global cooling) similar to that which once saw ice fairs on the Thames. ‘The work to establish the solar-climate connection is lagging.’”
Curry closes her interview by the David Rose of the New Spectator UK with this:
She remains optimistic that science will recover its equilibrium, and that the quasi-McCarthyite tide will recede: ‘I think that by 2030, temperatures will not have increased all that much. Maybe then there will be the funding to do the kind of research on natural variability that we need, to get the climate community motivated to look at things like the solar-climate connection.’ She even hopes that rational argument will find a place in the UN: ‘Maybe, too, there will be a closer interaction between the scientists, the economists and policymakers. Wouldn’t that be great?’
(I previously post the Spectator interview on my Facebook sans my comments.)