IPCC Sea Level Rise Estimates

[IanC]

From Denier hero Judith Curry
Understanding adjustments to temperature data Climate Etc.
Dr Curry says "Having worked with many of the scientists in question, I can say with certainty that there is no grand conspiracy to artificially warm the earth; rather, scientists are doing their best to interpret large datasets with numerous biases such as station moves, instrument changes, time of observation changes, urban heat island biases, and other so-called inhomogenities that have occurred over the last 150 years."

why are you lying? that quote is not from Curry.

Mea culpa, mea culpa. That statement is not from Curry, it is from Zeke Hausfather on Curry's website. That is, Curry chose it and published it. It is an extensive and thorough explanation of a great deal of the justification behind adjustments to the temperature record. I went a long ways into the comments, searching for "curryja" and while she doesn't make a great many comments, what she did say about Hausfather was complimentary and I saw not one word from her in disagreement with the man. Do you believe that she disagrees with his commentary? If so, can you provide a quote in which she voices such opinions?

Curry is a scientist and she behaves like one. when you ask someone to explain their side on your blog you dont turn around and slag them, otherwise no one will come in the first place. when the whole fiasco erupted with Goddard and the Texas 'adjustments', she and others were trying to get to the bottom of things.

JC comments

As Wayne Eskridge writes, this issue is a political hot potato. I hope that the NCDC scientists are taking this more seriously than is reflected by the statement from the Press Office. I hope that NCDC comes forward with a more meaningful statement in response to the concerns that have been raised.

I’m hoping that we can see a more thorough evaluation of the impact of individual modifications to the raw data for individual stations and regions, and a detailed comparison of Berkeley Earth with the NOAA USHCN data sets. We can look forward to some posts by Zeke Hausfather on this topic.

A new paper has been published by the NOAA group that is unfortunately behind paywall: Improved Historical Temperature and Precipitation Time Series for U.S. Climate Divisions (you can read the abstract on the link). The bottom line is that the results from v2 are much different from v1. Presumably v2 is better than v1, but this large difference reflects the underlying structural uncertainty associated with models to produce fields of surface temperature. When the adjustments are of the same magnitude of the trend you are trying to detect, then the structural uncertainty inspires little confidence in the trends.

NOAA needs to clean up these data sets. Most importantly, better estimates of uncertainty in these data are needed, including the structural uncertainty associated with different methods (past and present) for producing the temperature fields. NCDC responds to concerns about surface temperature data set Climate Etc.

Curry is trying to get information to evaluate the problem. so far as I know, NOAA and the NCDC have not responded with the full and transparent explanation that was promised. which is SOP for agencies around the world.

 

[Crick]

So where is Curry's evaluation?

 

[IanC]

So where is Curry's evaluation?

evaluation of what, specifically?

 

[Crick]

In general, adjustments to the temperature record, but more specifically, to the case presented by Hausfather.

 

[IanC]

In general, adjustments to the temperature record, but more specifically, to the case presented by Hausfather.

did you even read the Curry quote I posted for you? the bolded part?

When the adjustments are of the same magnitude of the trend you are trying to detect, then the structural uncertainty inspires little confidence in the trends.

she put up Zeke's post so that her readers would have insight into that side of the discussion. apparently you looked and couldnt find her accessing it. why do you think I should? if you want a place to start perhaps you should go back in time and see what she said when see took her name off of Muller's BEST paper.

 

[SSDD]

In general, adjustments to the temperature record, but more specifically, to the case presented by Hausfather.

CRN puts the lie to the temperature adjustments being done in the US and by proxy, the rest of the world. Climate science is showing flat to slight warming since the warming stopped back at the turn of the century...CRN shows that for that period, the temperatures in the US have been declining at a significant pace....the adjustment method indicating anything other than cooling is clearly wrong when a network that requires no adjustment shows cooling.

 

[Crick]

In general, adjustments to the temperature record, but more specifically, to the case presented by Hausfather.

did you even read the Curry quote I posted for you? the bolded part?

When the adjustments are of the same magnitude of the trend you are trying to detect, then the structural uncertainty inspires little confidence in the trends.

she put up Zeke's post so that her readers would have insight into that side of the discussion. apparently you looked and couldnt find her accessing it. why do you think I should? if you want a place to start perhaps you should go back in time and see what she said when see took her name off of Muller's BEST paper.

I wasn't asking you to find something from Curry that I couldn't. But I assumed when you said "Curry is trying to get information to evaluate the problem" that she had made use of some of the extensive information in Hausfather's three posts to make such an evaluation and that you were familiar with it and its location. I see I was wrong.

 

[mamooth]

Deniers are funny when they're trying to work through their cognitive dissonance.