It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Curry is a Professor and former Chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology; she held the latter position from 2002 to 2013.[6] Curry serves on NASA Advisory Council Earth Science Subcommittee whose mission is to provide advice and recommendations to NASA on issues of program priorities and policy. She is a recent member of the NOAA Climate Working Group[6][7] and a former member of the National Academies Space Studies Board and Climate Research Group.[6][8]
Curry is a former professor of Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences at the University of Colorado-Boulder and has held faculty positions at Penn State University, Purdue, and the University of Wisconsin-Madison.[6][8] Curry has been active in researching possible connections between hurricane intensity and global warming.[9][10] Her research group has also done research linking the size of hurricanes and resulting damage that showed that, among other things, the size of the hurricanes was an important factor in determining the number of tornadoes spawned by the system.[11]
Curry is the co-author of Thermodynamics of Atmospheres and Oceans (1999),[12] and co-editor of Encyclopedia of Atmospheric Sciences (2002).[13] Curry has published over 130 scientific peer reviewed papers.[14] Among her awards is the Henry G. Houghton Research Award from the American Meteorological Society in 1992.[14]
In a recent post on her blog, climate scientist Judith Curry made some rather extreme comments regarding the IPCC and "hiding the decline" (emphasis added)
Thus the Luckwarmer case also generally depends on the impacts associated with that climate change being relatively benign. Contrarian climate scientist Judith Curry recently made this case in testimony to the House Committee on Science, Space and Technology:
The concern about inaction comes from concern about passing the 2°C ‘danger’ threshold, possibly by mid-century. This concern relies on a very weak assessment that 2°C of warming is actually ‘dangerous’ and that we can believe the climate models (which seem to be running too hot).
Former NASA climate scientist James Hansen recently outlined the scientific evidence behind why even 2°C warming is very dangerous for our long-term future.
Not sure I agree ,but am sure that population and CO2 levels do track each other very well . The majority of "over population" usually happens in economically suppressed countries where most people are dirt poor .China as well as India seem to be moving up a bit in the ladder economically ,but at the same time the rate of population increase seems to have peeked . China recently started moving away from it's one child policy and is probably because of the large demographic next in line for the grave .....
The other thing humans could do is to stop overbreeding.
originally posted by: the2ofusr1
a reply to: Shiloh7
Not sure I agree ,but am sure that population and CO2 levels do track each other very well . The majority of "over population" usually happens in economically suppressed countries where most people are dirt poor .China as well as India seem to be moving up a bit in the ladder economically ,but at the same time the rate of population increase seems to have peeked . China recently started moving away from it's one child policy and is probably because of the large demographic next in line for the grave .....
The other thing humans could do is to stop overbreeding.
originally posted by: Asktheanimals
Climate science owes it's existence to multiple disciplines which puts it far out or reach of understanding for the common person. This also makes it the perfect vehicle to disseminate lies about climate change (meanwhile hijacking the environmental movement) for political purposes.
Allowing India and China to spew all the CO2 they want makes everything else a moot point.
I'm a denier, disbeliever, whatever.
This is science being bent to the will of politicians.
although all of the evidence is too big of a subject for the regular Joe to take in and understand . Heck most learned people on the subject keep it to their own compartment which only make a small amount of the whole story . Just sitting down with 400,000 years of Ice core data on a graph shows a natural cycle that makes today's warming by comparison a mere midget . The pro-AGW side will always hide the bigger pictures while magnifying a 1/100th of a degree to claim the sky is falling . When I was a kid we rounded off the thermometer and I assume so did the data collectors . That alone leaves a very big gap in the accuracy of the past data . At least when it comes to fractions of a degree .
and hopefully that leaves room for skepticism if they were actually presented with all of the evidence concerning climate change.
originally posted by: Asktheanimals
a reply to: uncommitted
Love how the new limits are clearing up the air in Beijing.
You can almost see past your own hand now:
originally posted by: Asktheanimals
a reply to: uncommitted
Yes, they signed the treaty.
There is no enforcement mechanism and it entirely up to its members to implement.
You think China is going to implode their economy to satisfy some climate change panel?
originally posted by: jrod
a reply to: Asktheanimals
What don't you believe about ckimate science?
We are observing a sharp rise in CO2 levels as a direct result of our addiction to burning coal and petroleum for energy, this can not be denied, nor in my humble opinion ignored.
Do you not agree with the concept of radiative forcing, particularly radiative forcing of CO2?(the greenhouse effect)
I feel strongly that those who do not believe in climate science, rarely if ever address the actual science. Instead they turn it into a political debate which acomplishes nothing but muddying what the scientists and actual science is telling us.
originally posted by: uncommitted
That graphic kind of shows the effect of pollution very clearly, but nevermind, you blame it on politicians.
originally posted by: jrod
I feel strongly that those who do not believe in climate science, rarely if ever address the actual science. Instead they turn it into a political debate which acomplishes nothing but muddying what some of the scientists and actual science is telling us.