Interview with Judith Curry
https://youtu.be/YBdmppcfixM
Curry's blog
https://judithcurry.com/
Curry's upcoming book
https://anthempress.com/climate-uncertainty-and-risk-hb
A climate scientist who left her academic ivory tower to tackle climate "alarmism" insists that there is no global warming emergency but that, even if there were, there isn't much to be done about it now.
In a wide-ranging 35-minute interview with BizNewsTV [https:biznews.com], Judith A. Curry, who as a professor specialized in extreme weather events, argues that too fast a transition from fossil to renewable energy is far more dangerous to humanity than any risk of human-induced global warming or global climate change, which she sees as slight.
Yet the warming that the earth is experiencing, aside from being within normal bounds, is on the whole better for people than not, the scientist says. [Story continues below.]
Now as a consultant to federal agencies, insurance companies and energy companies, Curry brings her extensive background to bear on the climate debate, challenging "manufactured consensus," some scientists who "exaggerate" climate issues and a movement of UN-linked socialists who, she says, are using climate fears as a wedge issue -- even to the point of generating very bad psychological effects among the world's children.
Yet, she insists, there is little if any scientific evidence to support the claims of the "doom and gloom" crowd. Yes, Curry says, there is no dispute that global warming has been happening, and there is legitimate, honest disagreement among scientists as to the causes. From her perspective however Mother Nature is the prime mover of climate, which has always been variable. Shifts in the sun's radiation, volcanic events and ocean warming and current oscillations are among the biggest factors. She regards carbon from fossil fuels as having only a "miniscule" effect on climate, but even if the effect were quite large, the "climate is going to do what it is going to do" and ideas for climate modification are fantasies.
Curry, when she was chairwoman of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology, focused her research on 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, published more than a hundred scientific papers, and co-edited several major works. Curry left academia in 2017.
Curry argues that developed nations have done very well from fossil fuels, while undeveloped nations pay harsh penalties for being denied access to them by "the powers that be" behind international lending programs. She cites Bangla Desh as a place that, under good political leadership, avoided fossil fuel extremism and went from being an international "basket case" to a thriving nation. Because immediate survival concerns have been alleviated by a superior energy supply and rational economics, the nation's birth rate has plummeted from fantastically high to a rate comparable to those of developed nations, she says. [That is, poor people no longer feel the need to have plenty of children to counter high childhood mortality and for other poverty-tied reasons.]
Curry says that warming in the United States of the 1930s was worse than it is now, with extremes of forest fires, droughts and floods. But the warming trend has been mainly tracked from the 1970s, meaning there is little realization that the trend signals nothing unusual.
Curry notes that the alarmists have gone from focusing on warming to extreme weather events because of "trying to figure out how to get attention." Warming isn't nearly so compelling as big floods and hurricanes, she asserts. There may be a "minimal component from global warming" in extreme weather events "but it's very difficult to tease out from natural variability." There is "no objective way" to determine the validity of such a claim. [When your local weather person reports that yesterday broke a temperature record, this does not necessarily imply anything unusual. No specific day is likely to hit the average on the nose; there is always statistical variation around the mean or average.]
She blames some of the concern about such extremes as a consequence of a hyper-wired world of internet communications.
The 63-year-old argues that "people's world views, their politics, career investments" are behind what she sees as unsupportable claims. In particular, academics are under great pressure to conform to the carbon-emissions line or face losses of grants and career sidelining. [Even private universities are highly dependent on federal science grants. Organizations such as the colossal Blackrock investment fund have used their extensive influence in business, finance, media and politics to promote what Blackrock chief Laurence D. Fink sees as a world-saving green agenda.]
The former educator asserts that the Greta Thunberg phenomenon has had a devastating impact on the world's children, who lack the critical thinking filters needed to assess doom talk. "It's very hard to counter this," with the result that depression and suicidal thinking among children are on the increase. She fears that the world won't generate enough engineers and other professionals as children lose heart in educational attainment (tho she spoke only generally on this point, not citing any research).
The scientist argues that a rushed transition from fossil fuel to non-fossil energy will actually "take a lot of fossil fuel" in terms of mines and manufacturing. While the goal of non-fossil fuels may be laudable, an extreme approach can only make matters much worse, she says. The suffering caused by lack of access to energy is much higher on the scale than any suffering likely to come from additional CO2 in the atmosphere, she asserts. In general, modern humans in energy-consuming lands are much better off than their forebears, she says.
The scientist argues that the goal of "net zero" emissions is of dubious value, arguing that "we will cycle out" of the current warming trend within five or 10 years, as happened innumerable times in the past. "Even if we went to net zero, we would still have extreme weather events." [Net zero refers to the balance between the amount of greenhouse gas produced and the amount removed from the atmosphere. We reach net zero when the amount we add is no more than the amount taken.]
She points out that northern hemisphere weather at the end of pre-industrial times wasn't ideal. The world was coming out of the Little Ice Age, she says, with consequent problems of crop failure and famine.
As long as disastrously hasty energy transitions are avoided, by the end of this century "we are all going to be better off -- even with some minor environmental damage from warming," she insists. Decades are required for development of ultra-clean renewables, she argues. That point needs to be borne in mind by policymakers, the scientist says.
The biggest consequence of warming is rise in sea level. As projections put this at inches per year, it is something humans can deal with. Only if there were a sudden collapse of the arctic ice sheet would global catastrophe ensue, she says, asserting that such an event is more likely to come in response to some undersea volcanic-seismic event.
Those who see "the earth as fragile" and in peril from carbon emissions hold a "world view that doesn't align with reality."
Curry says that the climate change agenda goes back to a UN treaty in 1992, before there was any sign of global warming. The United States had just been coming out of a decades-long cooling trend, she observed.
https://youtu.be/YBdmppcfixM
Curry's blog
https://judithcurry.com/
Curry's upcoming book
https://anthempress.com/climate-uncertainty-and-risk-hb
A climate scientist who left her academic ivory tower to tackle climate "alarmism" insists that there is no global warming emergency but that, even if there were, there isn't much to be done about it now.
In a wide-ranging 35-minute interview with BizNewsTV [https:biznews.com], Judith A. Curry, who as a professor specialized in extreme weather events, argues that too fast a transition from fossil to renewable energy is far more dangerous to humanity than any risk of human-induced global warming or global climate change, which she sees as slight.
Yet the warming that the earth is experiencing, aside from being within normal bounds, is on the whole better for people than not, the scientist says. [Story continues below.]
Now as a consultant to federal agencies, insurance companies and energy companies, Curry brings her extensive background to bear on the climate debate, challenging "manufactured consensus," some scientists who "exaggerate" climate issues and a movement of UN-linked socialists who, she says, are using climate fears as a wedge issue -- even to the point of generating very bad psychological effects among the world's children.
Yet, she insists, there is little if any scientific evidence to support the claims of the "doom and gloom" crowd. Yes, Curry says, there is no dispute that global warming has been happening, and there is legitimate, honest disagreement among scientists as to the causes. From her perspective however Mother Nature is the prime mover of climate, which has always been variable. Shifts in the sun's radiation, volcanic events and ocean warming and current oscillations are among the biggest factors. She regards carbon from fossil fuels as having only a "miniscule" effect on climate, but even if the effect were quite large, the "climate is going to do what it is going to do" and ideas for climate modification are fantasies.
Curry, when she was chairwoman of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology, focused her research on 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, published more than a hundred scientific papers, and co-edited several major works. Curry left academia in 2017.
Curry argues that developed nations have done very well from fossil fuels, while undeveloped nations pay harsh penalties for being denied access to them by "the powers that be" behind international lending programs. She cites Bangla Desh as a place that, under good political leadership, avoided fossil fuel extremism and went from being an international "basket case" to a thriving nation. Because immediate survival concerns have been alleviated by a superior energy supply and rational economics, the nation's birth rate has plummeted from fantastically high to a rate comparable to those of developed nations, she says. [That is, poor people no longer feel the need to have plenty of children to counter high childhood mortality and for other poverty-tied reasons.]
Curry says that warming in the United States of the 1930s was worse than it is now, with extremes of forest fires, droughts and floods. But the warming trend has been mainly tracked from the 1970s, meaning there is little realization that the trend signals nothing unusual.
Curry notes that the alarmists have gone from focusing on warming to extreme weather events because of "trying to figure out how to get attention." Warming isn't nearly so compelling as big floods and hurricanes, she asserts. There may be a "minimal component from global warming" in extreme weather events "but it's very difficult to tease out from natural variability." There is "no objective way" to determine the validity of such a claim. [When your local weather person reports that yesterday broke a temperature record, this does not necessarily imply anything unusual. No specific day is likely to hit the average on the nose; there is always statistical variation around the mean or average.]
She blames some of the concern about such extremes as a consequence of a hyper-wired world of internet communications.
The 63-year-old argues that "people's world views, their politics, career investments" are behind what she sees as unsupportable claims. In particular, academics are under great pressure to conform to the carbon-emissions line or face losses of grants and career sidelining. [Even private universities are highly dependent on federal science grants. Organizations such as the colossal Blackrock investment fund have used their extensive influence in business, finance, media and politics to promote what Blackrock chief Laurence D. Fink sees as a world-saving green agenda.]
The former educator asserts that the Greta Thunberg phenomenon has had a devastating impact on the world's children, who lack the critical thinking filters needed to assess doom talk. "It's very hard to counter this," with the result that depression and suicidal thinking among children are on the increase. She fears that the world won't generate enough engineers and other professionals as children lose heart in educational attainment (tho she spoke only generally on this point, not citing any research).
The scientist argues that a rushed transition from fossil fuel to non-fossil energy will actually "take a lot of fossil fuel" in terms of mines and manufacturing. While the goal of non-fossil fuels may be laudable, an extreme approach can only make matters much worse, she says. The suffering caused by lack of access to energy is much higher on the scale than any suffering likely to come from additional CO2 in the atmosphere, she asserts. In general, modern humans in energy-consuming lands are much better off than their forebears, she says.
The scientist argues that the goal of "net zero" emissions is of dubious value, arguing that "we will cycle out" of the current warming trend within five or 10 years, as happened innumerable times in the past. "Even if we went to net zero, we would still have extreme weather events." [Net zero refers to the balance between the amount of greenhouse gas produced and the amount removed from the atmosphere. We reach net zero when the amount we add is no more than the amount taken.]
She points out that northern hemisphere weather at the end of pre-industrial times wasn't ideal. The world was coming out of the Little Ice Age, she says, with consequent problems of crop failure and famine.
As long as disastrously hasty energy transitions are avoided, by the end of this century "we are all going to be better off -- even with some minor environmental damage from warming," she insists. Decades are required for development of ultra-clean renewables, she argues. That point needs to be borne in mind by policymakers, the scientist says.
The biggest consequence of warming is rise in sea level. As projections put this at inches per year, it is something humans can deal with. Only if there were a sudden collapse of the arctic ice sheet would global catastrophe ensue, she says, asserting that such an event is more likely to come in response to some undersea volcanic-seismic event.
Those who see "the earth as fragile" and in peril from carbon emissions hold a "world view that doesn't align with reality."
Curry says that the climate change agenda goes back to a UN treaty in 1992, before there was any sign of global warming. The United States had just been coming out of a decades-long cooling trend, she observed.
No comments:
Post a Comment