Judy Curry on the Consensus

[Old Rocks]

The problem here is that the intensive study of climate did not really begin until the mid 70's. Yes, the models have been inaccurate. And there are an enormous amount of factors in modeling climate.

However, what the denialists continue to ignore, it that the models predictions have been far to conservative. The melting of the cryosphere is far ahead of the predictions, the kind of melt we are seeing now should not have happened until after 2050.

In 1981, Dr. James Hansen made some definate predictions, and they were spot on, perhaps just a bit conservative. Here is a pdf of that article;

http://www.atmos.washington.edu/~davidc/ATMS211/articles_optional/Hansen81_CO2_Impact.pdf

And for those that don't want to, or don't understand that level of scientific discourse, here is an article concerning the predictions made in that paper;

Really Sciency: What Hansen et al got right decades ago.

At that time, if any attention was paid to the paper at all, it was to point out how alarmist it was. Yet every prediciton in the paper has happened, sooner than later.

Up until about 2000, following the lead of an obese junkie on the radio, the denialists were denying the existance of any increase in warming at all. Then, as it became evident to everyone that there was a warming, they changed their tune to it's just natural cycles. Now, as the general public is becoming aware of the science behind the warming, they are once again changing their tune to 'well, it's just too expensive too address'. Without ever addressing what the increasing GHGs in our atmosphere may trigger in the permafrost and ocean clathrates.

This is very similiar to the problems at Fukushima. The whole of the nuclear industry stated that there was no way that we could have the problems that we are now facing there. The potential is there for a catastrophe that could poison the whole of Northern Japan. This was supposed to be an impossibility. Just as major affects from the increasing GHGs in the atmosphere are supposed to be an impossibility according to the denialists.

Judith Curry may feel that scientists should just present their results, and then let the politicians decide what to do with them, but scientists have children and grand-children. And they understand the potential for the warming to create a very differant and difficult world for those children and grand-children. And very few politicians have even a minimal understanding of science, and really aren't qualified to make decisions concerning science.

 

[mamooth]

Steve McIntyre is one of the most influential skeptics in the world

And he gets paid very well for doing that work. He's chairman of a geologist's group, "advisor" on several boards, which gives him a nice salary for doing nothing.

The "you can trust him because he takes a loss for blogging" line is just nonsense. The opposite is true. He draws a salary from the fossil fuel industry, hence that makes him less trustworthy.

 

[mamooth]

I can see that you dont know anything about Judy Curry.

She admits to being part of the cult of McIntyre. What more do you want? If someone is sucking up to McIntyre, they've gone off the rails, embracing a personality cult instead of good science.

Gavin Schmidt, a man the denialists are required to demonize (because the cult has ordered it) put it best in this conversation with Curry.

Hockey Stick fight at the RC Corral | ThinkProgress

""In future I will simply assume you are a conduit for untrue statements rather than their originator."

Which is to say, as the conversation in the link shows, she tends to just parrot denialist dogma now, instead of doing science.

I know Tamino and ClimateProgress were also involved in that link, meaning an aneurysm for any member of the cult of McIntyre. That was the point, to get a bunch of the cult-of-McIntyre's demons in one spot, just for fun. Too bad I couldn't work Deltoid and SkepticalScience in.

 

[IanC]

Steve McIntyre is one of the most influential skeptics in the world

And he gets paid very well for doing that work. He's chairman of a geologist's group, "advisor" on several boards, which gives him a nice salary for doing nothing.

The "you can trust him because he takes a loss for blogging" line is just nonsense. The opposite is true. He draws a salary from the fossil fuel industry, hence that makes him less trustworthy.

how bizarre! you think he got those appointments because he is a skeptic rather than because of his credentials?

SkS's Dana also draws a salary from the 'fossil fuel industry'. should I ignore his rantings because of that? (rather than because they are illogical rantings as I do now, but I still read them even though they seldom make sense and often seem to be outright lies rather than just the usual distortion from SkS)

 

[IanC]

I can see that you dont know anything about Judy Curry.

She admits to being part of the cult of McIntyre. What more do you want? If someone is sucking up to McIntyre, they've gone off the rails, embracing a personality cult instead of good science.

Gavin Schmidt, a man the denialists are required to demonize (because the cult has ordered it) put it best in this conversation with Curry.

Hockey Stick fight at the RC Corral | ThinkProgress

""In future I will simply assume you are a conduit for untrue statements rather than their originator."

Which is to say, as the conversation in the link shows, she tends to just parrot denialist dogma now, instead of doing science.

I know Tamino and ClimateProgress were also involved in that link, meaning an aneurysm for any member of the cult of McIntyre. That was the point, to get a bunch of the cult-of-McIntyre's demons in one spot, just for fun. Too bad I couldn't work Deltoid and SkepticalScience in.

ya know, of all the major players on The Team, I think I like Gavin the best. he still skirts around the truth out of loyalty to his comrades but when push comes to shove he seldom lies.

I read your link last night and it struck me as a lot of diversion, more like answering questions that he wished were asked rather than the statements Curry posted.

here is a link to the timeline for Wahl and Ammand's papers that were used in the IPCC report even though they missed all of the deadlines and pulled a bait and switch that couldnt even get through pal review until a new editor was brought in to facilitate the matter. - Bishop Hill blog - Caspar and the Jesus*paper

I am not asking anyone to believe me. I am asking people to look at the sources themselves and make up their own minds.

Montfort's book 'The Hockey Stick Illusion' was already written when climategate broke. the emails went a long way to back up some of the more contentious claims, like interference in peer review. I highly recommend the book because it is a timeline, a history of many of the major fiascos of climate science, like the NAS inquiry where Mann baldfacedly lied to the panel.

 

[Abraham3]

Ian, do you believe that a majority of active climate scientists accept AGW? Yes or no.

 

[IanC]

Ian, do you believe that a majority of active climate scientists accept AGW? Yes or no.

Abe- do you believe that most skeptics accept that global temps have gone up over the last 150 years and that increased CO2 must have had some influence on that warming? yes or no


what skeptics disagree with are the exaggerated conclusions and doomsday scenarios that are attached to those two conditions but are not supported by science in any falsifiable way.

 

[flacaltenn]

Ian, do you believe that a majority of active climate scientists accept AGW? Yes or no.

Who IS a climate scientist? Is it an ice core driller? Is it a dendrochronologist?
Is it the guys who design space-borne instrumentation?

To answer the question of whether the IPCC fairytale version is correct -- you need "systems level" analysts with a "big picture" view of the findings and data.

Most of these polls are bogus. Because if a paper states that "the vast majority of scientists believe that the recent warming trend is caused by human activity .... " ----- then that paper and ALL ITS authors is counted in the PRO column.. That toss-off line is NOT a statement of scientific truth, a vote, or even an assertion --- it's merely an observation...

You don't even know if ALL the authors AGREE with that statement --- do ya ???

 

[skookerasbil]

only the hyper nutters believe in the hockey stick graph anymore......your perceptions have to be really off the charts to consider virtual straight lines to look like hockey sticks







Ummm.....duh

 

[IanC]

why do you think the skeptical side is driven by bad intentions and paid for by Big Oil?

Because of a few things:

1) An overwhelming majority of the experts accept AGW. That tells me there is very little evidentiary justification for opposing it.
2) The level of opposition and the close alignment between political viewpoints and AGW viewpoints tell me that the opposition is not motivated by the evidence.
3) The considerable, physical evidence that the fossil fuel industry IS financing a disinformation campaign and has been doing so for many years.

I think if I had to say, I'd say that the "bad intentions" of the denialist camp is a result of their political outlook on the world. Republicans are not, generally, humanitarians. They see bad in others whether or not such views are justified.

Steve McIntyre is one of the most influential skeptics in the world.

That's not saying much. He caused one paper to be adjusted but the adjustment had NO effect on the paper's conclusion.



He is free to apply for research grants. If he is as successful and influential as you suggest, companies should be lining up to finance his work.

1. the vast majority of both skeptics and warmers agree that there has been warming and that manmade CO2 has had some influence. the difference between the two groups occurs when wild conclusions of doom are propigated by the warmers and the skeptics scoff at the unsupported poppycock.

2. scientific ideas stand on their own merit, not by the political position of those speaking them.

3. the warmers' side probably outspends the skeptic side 1000 to one. methinks that someone on your side should investigate how to get more bang for the buck.



McIntyre exposed Mannian statistical methods for the absolute crap that they are, although they still live on in some circle at least they dont contaminate climate science to the extent they once did. if you dont think climate science has had to clean up its act since SM started pointing out the problems then you have your eyes tightly closed.

I dont know which which paper you were referencing but McIntyre has been influential in many areas and many studies. Was it the decade long battle with Briffa to get his data released and to stop cherry picking that you meant? Briffa13 looks indistinguishable from what McIntyre said it should look like 5 years ago. yet another hockeystick broken.


whistleblowers dont get grants and accolades, but McIntyre has certainly gotten results.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Here's what you need to know

"The fatal flaw in the climate models seems to come from one repeated assumption. The assumption is that positive feedbacks from greenhouse effects can exceed negative feedbacks. While this situation might actually exist over a given time period (and reflect temperature increases during that time period as a result) the average over the long term must net to zero. If it doesn't, then everything we have learned about physics over the last 1000 years is wrong, and perpetual motion is possible. If a climatologist and a physicist were to discuss the matter, the conversation might be as follows:

Climatologist: I have a system of undetermined complexity and undetermined composition, floating and spinning in space. It has a few internal but steady state and minor energy sources. An external energy source radiates 1365 watts per meter squared at it on a constant basis. What will happen?

Physicist: The system will arrive at a steady state temperature which radiates heat to space that equals the total of the energy inputs. Complexity of the system being unknown, and the body spinning in space versus the radiated energy source, there will be cyclic variations in temperature, but the long term average will not change.

Climatologist: Well what if I change the composition of the system?

Physicist: See above.

Climatologist: Perhaps you don't understand my question. The system has an unknown quantity of CO2 in the atmosphere that absorbs energy in the same spectrum as the system is radiating. There are also quantities of carbon and oxygen that are combining to create more CO2 which absorbs more energy. Would this not raise the temperature of the system?

Physicist: There would be a temporary fluctuation in temperature caused by changes in how energy flows through the system, but for the long term average... See above.

Climatologist: But the CO2 would cause a small rise in temperature, which even if it was temporary would cause a huge rise in water vapour which would absorb even more of the energy being radiated by the system. This would have to raise the temperature of the system.

Physicist: There would be a temporary fluctuation in the temperature caused by changes in how energy flows through the system, but for the long term average... see above."

The Physicist and the Climatologist; FOLLOW THE MONEY!, by David M. Hoffer

 

[mamooth]

But the physicist usually _is_ the climatologist.

Not to mention that the "physicist" is dead wrong in the above exchange, stating nonsense that violates basic thermodynamics. More insulation means more delta_T is necessary to drive the same heat flow.

 

[flacaltenn]

But the physicist usual _is_ the climatologist.

Not to mention that the "physicist" is dead wrong in the above exchange, stating nonsense that violates basic thermodynamics. More insulation means more delta_T is necessary to drive the same heat flow.

Actually -- the climatologist is also dead wrong also when they evoke "a solar constant".. You only NEED a 0.15% variation in that solar forcing to account for the observed warming and the sun HAS INDEED shown close to that over the past 300 yr climb UP in intensity.

We need better scientists...

 

[mamooth]

Actually -- the climatologist is also dead wrong also when they evoke "a solar constant".. You only NEED a 0.15% variation in that solar forcing to account for the observed warming and the sun HAS INDEED shown close to that over the past 300 yr climb UP in intensity.

So you're back to your "energy magically hiding for centuries" theory, the one rejected for violating reality.

Good luck with that.

 

[flacaltenn]

Actually -- the climatologist is also dead wrong also when they evoke "a solar constant".. You only NEED a 0.15% variation in that solar forcing to account for the observed warming and the sun HAS INDEED shown close to that over the past 300 yr climb UP in intensity.

So you're back to your "energy magically hiding for centuries" theory, the one rejected for violating reality.

Good luck with that.

Not so fast....

How long is the "newfound heat" hiding deep in the ocean gonna linger there -- before it rejoins the atmos. exchange layer??? Need an answer here smartass...

How stupid do you have to be to assume that a PLANET reaches a new temperature equilibrium IMMEDIATELY after some change in a input energy forcing???

Pretty stupid.. Thermal Inertia of a complex system like the Earth climate is likely to be DECADES.. That's EXACTLY the implication of the newest Trenberth "study".. Do try to keep up with "the excuses" for the initial failures of AGW science...

Climate Science is JUST NOW beginning to understand that we SHOULDN'T be expecting to see temp. immediately tracking CO2 or the Sun or any other change in stimulus..

 

[westwall]

The problem here is that the intensive study of climate did not really begin until the mid 70's. Yes, the models have been inaccurate. And there are an enormous amount of factors in modeling climate.

However, what the denialists continue to ignore, it that the models predictions have been far to conservative. The melting of the cryosphere is far ahead of the predictions, the kind of melt we are seeing now should not have happened until after 2050.

In 1981, Dr. James Hansen made some definate predictions, and they were spot on, perhaps just a bit conservative. Here is a pdf of that article;

http://www.atmos.washington.edu/~davidc/ATMS211/articles_optional/Hansen81_CO2_Impact.pdf

And for those that don't want to, or don't understand that level of scientific discourse, here is an article concerning the predictions made in that paper;

Really Sciency: What Hansen et al got right decades ago.

At that time, if any attention was paid to the paper at all, it was to point out how alarmist it was. Yet every prediciton in the paper has happened, sooner than later.

Up until about 2000, following the lead of an obese junkie on the radio, the denialists were denying the existance of any increase in warming at all. Then, as it became evident to everyone that there was a warming, they changed their tune to it's just natural cycles. Now, as the general public is becoming aware of the science behind the warming, they are once again changing their tune to 'well, it's just too expensive too address'. Without ever addressing what the increasing GHGs in our atmosphere may trigger in the permafrost and ocean clathrates.

This is very similiar to the problems at Fukushima. The whole of the nuclear industry stated that there was no way that we could have the problems that we are now facing there. The potential is there for a catastrophe that could poison the whole of Northern Japan. This was supposed to be an impossibility. Just as major affects from the increasing GHGs in the atmosphere are supposed to be an impossibility according to the denialists.

Judith Curry may feel that scientists should just present their results, and then let the politicians decide what to do with them, but scientists have children and grand-children. And they understand the potential for the warming to create a very differant and difficult world for those children and grand-children. And very few politicians have even a minimal understanding of science, and really aren't qualified to make decisions concerning science.

300% off is "spot on".... And you asshats wonder why you're losing!