I noticed a few visitors here from Judith Curry's blog and discovered HotWhopper got an honorable mention in the comments. So I'll return the favour. It also gives me a chance to show David Appell up in a good light to make up for my being hard on him a few weeks ago.
I'll provide part of an exchange for all those who are like me and, in order to stay sane, don't usually waste time at Curry's place.
It all started with Judith Curry posting a diatribe against the Cook et al study, which is the latest in several studies that have demonstrated the scientific consensus that humans are causing global warming. Judith doesn't like the fact that there is a scientific consensus and seeks to undermine it every chance she gets.
JC comment: Too many defenders of the consensus have become either ‘pause’ deniers or ‘pause’ dismissers. A while back, I recommended that they ‘own’ the pause, and work on explaining it. Belatedly, we see a little bit of this happening, but of course it does not lead them to challenge the main IPCC conclusion on 20th century attribution.Judy "recommended"! (Snort!) As if any self-respecting scientist would take any notice of what Dr Curry orders them to do.
JC summary: It is really good to see this discussion about the role of consensus in the public debate on climate change and the problems this has caused for the science, the policy, and increasingly for the proponents of consensus. It is however dismaying to see that continued influence that the existence of a ‘consensus’ has on the politics (especially President Obama’s citing of the Cook et al. study).
July 27, 2013 at 8:10 pm JC wrote: A while back, I recommended that they ‘own’ the pause, and work on explaining it.
It has been explained ad nauseum. It in now way undermines AGW, which many many scientists have now said. The Earth still has a clear energy imbalance, and the AGW problem is still here.
The “pause” is absolutely no reason to take AGW any less seriously. Surface warming will resume — physics says it has to.
What will be the excuse then?
Judith replied that anyone who spoke of a pause was called a denier. But it's her next comment that really shows her up as a disinformation propagandist. And she's one for building strawmen, too:
curryja | July 27, 2013 at 8:44 pm I understand that 15 years is too short, but the climate model apostles told us not to expect a pause longer than 10 years, then 15 years, then 17 years. Looks like this one might go another two decades.
The 1945 – 1975 pause was not caused by aerosols. People who have argued that the 1945-1975 pause was caused by multidecadal ocean oscillations are called deniers, this is one of the main ‘denier’ arguments.
... In summary, because of the effects of natural internal climate variability,we do not expect each year to be inexorably warmer than the preceding year, or each decade to be warmer than the last decade, even in the presence of strong anthropogenic forcing of the climate system. The clear message from our signal-to-noise analysis is that multi-decadal records are required for identifying human effects on tropospheric temperature. Minimal warming over a single decade does not disprove the existence of a slowly-evolving anthropogenic warming signal.
Curry predicts no more warming for "the next few decades"
Enough of her prevarication. Here is Judith Curry's prediction. A flat temperature trend for the next few decades. Now that will be one to watch if there is anyone left in the world who gives tuppence for what Judith Curry thinks.
curryja | July 27, 2013 at 11:22 pm | ...A year earlier, Jan 2011, I made it pretty clear that I supported Tsonis’ argument regarding climate shifts and a flat temperature trend for the next few decades...
How many is a "few"? I would take it that she predicts no warming till at least 2050. I wonder if she'll take a bet on that.
Of course, that's not what Swanson and Tsonis are saying. (Not that Curry would care.) In their 2007 paper and their 2009 paper, Swanson and Tsonis were putting up a hypothesis that the climate goes through "shifts". In the 2009 paper, Swanson and Tsonis suggest that surface temperature may not rise much before 2020, which is a lot sooner than a "few decades" away. And they are well aware that what they put forward is somewhat contentious and speculative. The last para in their 2009 paper might upset Curry's denier fans if any of them took the time to read a scientific paper:
Finally, it is vital to note that there is no comfort to be gained by having a climate with a signiﬁcant degree of internal variability, even if it results in a near-term cessation of global warming. It is straightforward to argue that a climate with signiﬁcant internal variability is a climate that is very sensitive to applied anthropogenic radiative anomalies (c.f. Roe ). If the role of internal variability in the climate system is as large as this analysis would seem to suggest, warming over the 21st century may well be larger than that predicted by the current generation of models, given the propensity of those models to underestimate climate internal variability [Kravtsov and Spannagle 2008].Here is an article about their 2009 paper at Desmogblog, and another at realclimate.org by Swanson, who is the lead author.
Compare this with how Judith dismisses their conclusion that anthropogenic warming may be more sensitive rather than less - when she wrote in her 2011 blog piece about a "mandatory genuflexion to orthodox AGW":
Of course as the fact of being chaotic doesn’t imply that the GHG play no role (just that they play some role), he proceeds with the mandatory genuflexion to orthodox AGW by saying that “… the climate shifted after the 1970 event in another warmer state which may be superimposed on an anthropogenic warming trend.” This certainly allows him to avoid inflammatory articles by the usual suspects in the newspapers.Could Judy possibly be trying to argue that the world shifts to a warmer state by magic? Just like Bob Tisdale and other deniers at WUWT?
Judith Curry is happy to misrepresent the work of other scientists. She isn't much interested in science itself, she's too caught up in denying it.