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).
 |
| Green-Eyed Uncertainty Monster |
Now let's wait and see how she argues that the scientific consensus on the dangers of tobacco led to everyone taking up smoking. Or that no President (or Surgeon General) in the USA should have indicated that there is such a scientific consensus.
David Appell challenges Judith:
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.
"Climate model apostles"? Who is she talking about? It can't be Dr Ben Santer and colleagues. Their paper has in the conclusion (my bold):
... 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.
Judith is an apologist for science deniers. It's what she does and who she is and what she wants. She's pretty well given up on getting any professional respect so she curries favour with the denialati.
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 [2009]). 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.
"Could Judy possibly be trying to argue that the world shifts to a warmer state by magic? "
ReplyDeleteOne wonders what caused the world to shift from the warmer state of the medieval warm period and into the cooling state of the little ice age. Further, one wonders what caused the world to shift from the cooler state of the little ice age to the warming state of the 19th and 20th centuries.
If CO2 is the control knob, one wonders what caused it to vary enough change the global temperatures before BMWs became cool.
Indeed - more mysterious, one might speculate on the causes of the rapid temperature changes associated with Dansgaard–Oeschger events.
Irrespective of the causes of all of these pre late 20th century temperature regime changes, we know that the late 20th century warming is mostly due to anthropogenic CO2 with only a tiny natural variability bit. Cook tells us all the cool scientists believe this to be true.
One wonders what caused the world to shift from the warmer state of the medieval warm period and into the cooling state of the little ice age. Further, one wonders what caused the world to shift from the cooler state of the little ice age to the warming state of the 19th and 20th centuries.
DeleteChanges in forcings caused the changes in climate behaviour.
If CO2 is the control knob, one wonders what caused it to vary enough change the global temperatures before BMWs became cool.
Changes in forcings cause the changes in climate behaviour. Either you don't understand the basics at all or you are deliberately constructing an extremely crude strawman. Which is it?
Indeed - more mysterious, one might speculate on the causes of the rapid temperature changes associated with Dansgaard–Oeschger events.
I think you should stay away from paleoclimate behaviour. Remember what happened last time.
If you are interested in DO events and other abrupt climate change during the last glacial, Clement & Peterson (2008) provides a good overview.
"Changes in forcings cause the changes in climate behaviour." Agreed. And this explanation has the same explanatory power as "Magic cause the changes in climate behaviour."
DeleteSo gee, one wonders what causes the changes in forcing? Might we be in the midst of a hitherto unpredicted change in forcing now? If yes, might that unpredicted forcing mechanism have been present in the other direction in the late 20th century thereby explaining a portion of the warming hitherto attributed to anthropogenic CO2?
Changes in forcing with no amplifying detail is a catch all that is equivalent to "cause unknown."
"Changes in forcings cause the changes in climate behaviour." Agreed. And this explanation has the same explanatory power as "Magic cause the changes in climate behaviour."
DeleteThat is a ridiculous assertion.
So gee, one wonders what causes the changes in forcing? Might we be in the midst of a hitherto unpredicted change in forcing now?
Yes. It looks like this.
GAT (surface) annual means are shown at the top (green). The three lower curves are coherently-scaled forcings. Well-mixed GHGs (blue) and solar (yellow; bottom) bracket the total net forcing (red).
If yes, might that unpredicted forcing mechanism have been present in the other direction in the late 20th century thereby explaining a portion of the warming hitherto attributed to anthropogenic CO2?
No, unless it's *magic* invisible and unmeasurable forcing from nowhere. You are being very silly indeed now.
Changes in forcing with no amplifying detail is a catch all that is equivalent to "cause unknown."
MWP and LIA: solar, volcanic aerosols, possibly ice-albedo and persistent changes in ocean circulation. Do your own homework rather than accusing me of making things up. It's lazy and it's offensive.
If CO2 is the control knob, one wonders what caused it to vary enough change the global temperatures before BMWs became cool.
DeleteChanges in forcings cause the changes in climate behaviour. Either you don't understand the basics at all or you are deliberately constructing an extremely crude strawman. Which is it?
Please answer the question.
"MWP and LIA: solar, volcanic aerosols, possibly ice-albedo and persistent changes in ocean circulation. Do your own homework rather than accusing me of making things up. It's lazy and it's offensive."
DeleteI did not accuse you of making things up. You keep attributing ideas to me I did not state nor believe.
My point remains that "change in forcing" which could be any of a list has no explanatory power as to the cause.
For example, if the transition from the MWP to the LIA is attributed to a change in solar forcing which led to a persistent change in ocean circulation, then we have an potentially testable explanation.
My other point is that prior temperature regime changes occurred with no apparent CO2 forcing. It is not the "control knob". It is just another input.
"No, unless it's *magic* invisible and unmeasurable forcing from nowhere. You are being very silly indeed now."
Naturally, I disagree :-). Changes in ocean heat uptake are a recent hot topic. If ocean heat uptake dynamics contributed to the late 20th century warming it would have been essentially undetectable since this period is before the Argo era. The next few years are going to be very interesting in this regard.
My point remains that "change in forcing" which could be any of a list has no explanatory power as to the cause.
DeleteMy point is that you are volubly ill-informed.
Diaz et al. (2011).
I scanned Tsonis 2009 then did a search for 2020. I did not find the source for your assertion: "suggest that surface temperature may not rise much before 2020". The closest I could get was the 5-7 year interval for coupling detection and the 7 year filter on Figure 2.
ReplyDeleteThere conclusion (the end of which you quoted) opens with: "If as suggested here, a dynamically driven climate shift has occurred, the duration of similar shifts during the 20th century suggests the new global mean temperature trend may persist for several decades."
So your comment "Of course, that's not what Swanson and Tsonis are saying." appears to be contradicted by the conclusion of Tsonis 2009.
Dr. Curry is most certainly not "an apologist for science deniers". She is the best sort of scientist. One who understands the uncertainty in our current knowledge of climate and is not afraid to tell alarmists their certainty is misplaced. One who is esteemed enough to be routinely published in the peer reviewed literature including her paper on climate science uncertainty. This despite relentless attacks from folks like you and a large number of alarmist climate scientist who wish she would go away.
Yes I missed that bit about "for several decades" Robert. The 2020 was from Swanson's article about the paper that he wrote for realclimate.org, which I linked to in the article above. In there he wrote:
DeleteWhat’s our perspective on how the climate will behave in the near future? The HadCRUT3 global mean temperature to the right shows the post-1980 warming, along with the “plateau” in global mean temperature post-1998. Also shown is a linear trend using temperatures over the period 1979-1997 (no cherry picking here; pick any trend that doesn’t include the period 1998-2008). We hypothesize that the established pre-1998 trend is the true forced warming signal, and that the climate system effectively overshot this signal in response to the 1997/98 El Niño. This overshoot is in the process of radiatively dissipating, and the climate will return to its earlier defined, greenhouse gas-forced warming signal. If this hypothesis is correct, the era of consistent record-breaking global mean temperatures will not resume until roughly 2020.
So there is an inconsistency there. Neither "several decades" nor "a few decades" is anything like 2020, which is only seven years away - and just over one decade away from when they wrote their paper. It's sloppy writing on their part at best. The only explanation I can think of for their inconsistency is their writing: "the shifts described here are presumably superimposed upon a long term warming trend due to anthropogenic forcing". But I won't attempt to read their minds any further - all I can refer to is what they write.
As for the rest, I do know that I am not alone in disagreeing with you about Dr Curry's behaviour. I don't care whether she "goes away" or stays. She's made herself a minor player at best and chosen politics over science. Her choice. She fills a niche for deniers. She manages to keep them amused and/or as irate as they variously choose to be about what they regard as the giant climate hoax that all the other thousands of scientists (and mother nature) are secretly conspiring, to the exclusion of Curry, Spencer, Delingpole, Christy, Watts, Morano, Jesse whatsit, prisonplanet and infowars.
As long as there are humans, there will always be Curry's and other doubtmongers and disinformers and people who are attracted to them.
Maybe reread her 2009 articles on why she started down this path:
Deletehttp://climateaudit.org/2009/11/22/curry-on-the-credibility-of-climate-research/
http://curry.eas.gatech.edu/climate/towards_rebuilding_trust.html
Let's not forget the essential context here. The supposed distrust of "climate scientists" by the public is a contrarian meme. The attempt to create mistrust is also a contrarian strategy. Since there is no scientific counter-argument against the scientific consensus on AGW, those who would deny it, from the fossil fuel industry on down - have resorted to smearing climate scientists.
DeleteFrom what I gleaned from her writings at the time, Curry "went down this path" because she was envious of the attention scientists like Mann were getting. (At one stage I even suspected she had the hots for Michael Mann and was rejected - she couldn't stop writing about him in a very unscientific way.)
DeleteBack in early 2010, Judith was already full of smear and innuendo at everything and everyone climate science (including individuals and the IPCC) while admitting she knew nothing about any of it and had no knowledge of or experience with the IPCC processes. She even stuck up for Wegman in that infamous thread on Keith Kloor's blog. And that was after he'd been outed for plagiarising and making up stuff.
She also pretty well admitted she'd had a taste of fame when she published a paper some years back on hurricanes and missed being a minor celebrity. I guess she figured she wouldn't get the sort of fame she was after if she stuck to science. It would only come if she was controversial. And being controversial (ie anti-science) matched her ideology, so it was a no-brainer for her.
She'll end up sidelined like Lindzen but without the benefit of Lindzen's MIT status. Georgia Tech isn't in the same league.
Dr. Curry is married. I doubt your suspicions of spurned romance are true.
DeleteI think the fame angle is more on target. Her blog's audience provides positive reinforcement whenever she makes contrarian statements.
But I remember reading an article a few years back where she basically said that she took her position because many people in politically conservative Georgia share it. I found this frank admission very startling, but can't find that article anymore. Has anyone else seen it? If so, could you please provide a link?
Not sure that being married has anything to do with such matters :D But you're no doubt correct. Still, her comments reeked of jealousy / being spurned, which was what prompted the idle thought to pop into my imaginative head. But it was probably the professional kind rather than the romantic kind.
DeleteThere's a similarly infamous thread at realclimate, starting comment 168, where she is taken down a few notches by Gavin. Shocking reading really. And this is a thread on a non-infamous blog :-)
DeleteDr. Curry was very disturbed by climategate. It is absolutely clear from her writings at the time. It appears that much of the attack material on Dr. Curry comes from her venture into discussing Treenometers, a subject she stated (below) she wanted to avoid. These were central to climategate.
DeleteShe just wants to make a difference for the better. I think she has.
That is what I am trying to do here. It is what I try to do those times I fact check over at WUWT. Plus it keeps me sharp, BBD's accusations notwithstanding.
Disturbed by climategate? BS. She revelled in it and took advantage of all the misrepresentations of deniers and promoted them further. She saw it as an opportunity to build a fan base among fake sceptics and grabbed it with both hands. (She euphemistically called it "bridge building".)
DeleteShe just wants to make a difference for the better. I think she has.
BS to both. She couldn't give a damn about "better". Her business is the creation of doubt and uncertainty not advancing knowledge. The "difference" she is after has nothing to do with climate science. Her primary aim is to prevent action to shift to clean energy and reduce CO2 emissions.
Nah, her aim is probably to fit in with her southern conservative family and colleagues, listen to the cheers on her blog whenever she attacks the scientific consensus, and see her name in the media as often as possible.
DeleteIt's probably just a side effect that her actions are helping to delay the transition to a clean energy economy.
> ...have become either ‘pause’ deniers...
ReplyDeleteInteresting to see JC OK'ing the use of the "denier" terminology. So many of the deniers reject this terminology as inappropriate, because of its connotations. Its refreshing to see that JC has no such worries.
"Interesting to see JC OK'ing the use of the "denier" terminology. "
ReplyDeleteIt's all in the modifier. Denier without modifier leaves too much to the imagination. So, in my cause, you could label me a "catastrophic anthropogenic global warming (CAGW) denier" and be much closer to an accurate description of my position than "denier".
You are a physics denier.
DeleteCurry became a laughing stock many years ago. The peanuts who populate her website offer little more than the WUWT types. She is a denier. No modifier needed.
ReplyDeleteIt is hard to run down everything. A Google search for Dr. Judith Curry laughing stock was unproductive. I tried Dr. "Judith Curry errors of fact" and found this article from the very short return list:
Deletehttp://thinkprogress.org/climate/2010/02/24/205554/my-response-to-dr-judith-currys-unconstructive-essay/ which claims errors. One factual error it highlights is Dr. Curry's assertion: "Big oil funding for contrary views mostly dried up .." claiming this article rebuts her statement: http://politicalcorrection.org/factcheck/200912080001. The article talks about contributions going back to 2001- several years before Dr. Curry's statement. So, digging deeper, I find Exxon Mobile's list of contributions here: bridgeproject.com/?organization&id=253653.
Scanning that list, my impression is that while the Exxon Mobile hit piece is correct going back to 2001, going back to, say 2007 tells a very different story. Based on this list, Dr. Curry is correct. Someone with more time might want to try to rebut my impression.
I happen to be a bigger fan of Dr. Curry than I am of Steve McIntyre. So if anyone has any other so called errors of fact or examples where she has made a laughing stock of herself, I am happy to help the readers of HotWhopper by doing a bit of in depth fact checking from time to time.
Realize that an error does not disqualify a person from contributing to the science or the discourse. For example, Dr. Hansen famously predicted portions of New York would be under water by now. That failed prediction does not effect my opinion of him as an honorable scientist who sincerely believes his alarming conclusions and whose work merits serious consideration. I try to read all of his material.
For example, Dr. Hansen famously predicted portions of New York would be under water by now.
DeleteOh not this again.
You are rebroadcasting debunked contrarian lies from WUWT. Please don't.
I try to read all of his material.
Based on our previous exchange, this is obviously a falsehood.
You are doing yourself no favours at all.
I stand corrected. I even recall reading your link, Not surprisingly, you miss my point.
DeleteYour point was to smear Hansen. You aren't going to get away with that here.
DeleteCurry *is* regarded with bemusement if not worse by numerous of her peers. She *does* provide a platform for contrarian misinformation and nonsense on her blog. She *should* know better and her behaviour is pretty much incomprehensible.
"I happen to be a bigger fan of Dr. Curry than I am of Steve McIntyre. So if anyone has any other so called errors of fact or examples where she has made a laughing stock of herself, I am happy to help the readers of HotWhopper by doing a bit of in depth fact checking from time to time."
DeleteOkay, there's the time she regurgitated McIntyre's nonsense second-hand, or the time she accused Mann of hiding uncertainty because she got her graph from a contrarian blog instead of the IPCC, or the time she deleted Tamino's question about her obviously wrong claims, et cetera.
Or, rather, deleted her response to Tamino's question, and simply ignored it. Presumably because a few seconds of analysis shows that Dr. Curry was flat-out wrong about the dataset she supposedly helped create.
DeleteRobertinaz,
DeleteHere are a few:
http://curryquotes.wordpress.com/2011/12/15/curry-on-model-tuning-part-ii/
Note that Curry had made a similar claim before, was corrected by Gavin Schmidt, but then decided it was a nice narrative anyway
See also:
http://curryquotes.wordpress.com/2011/10/28/curry-on-model-tuning/
Then there's her defense of Wegman, prior to Wegman falling of his pedestal due to repeated plagiarism. Oh, and her running away from the topic. A few choice quotes here:
http://curryquotes.wordpress.com/2010/11/20/curry-gets-baited-into-defending-wegman/
This one is outright hilarious:
http://curryquotes.wordpress.com/2011/02/28/curry-on-climate-sensitivity/
(thaaaaat's right, Judith Curry proposes a climate sensitivity that may be above 10 degrees per doubling!)
This one:
http://curryquotes.wordpress.com/2011/02/23/curry-on-average-temperature-anomalies/
is of interest now, as there never has been a post in which Judith Curry justified her claims on this issue. This, notably, is a consistent pattern with Curry. She makes loads of noise, but when asked to substantiate, she runs away.
See for example:
http://curryquotes.wordpress.com/2011/01/03/curry-on-anecdotal-evidence/
Or when she does try to substantiate
http://curryquotes.wordpress.com/2011/01/03/curry-gets-branded-again/
the evidence is not there...
Or take this wonderful contradiction:
http://curryquotes.wordpress.com/2011/01/31/curry-on-debunking-cranks/
Yes, climate scientists have to respond to every little comment by the so-called skeptics...well, but not Judith Curry herself, she's too busy to rebut the silliness of the Sky Dragons...
And finally, just a hilarious comment she made:
http://curryquotes.wordpress.com/2010/11/20/why-curry-thinks-shes-right/
Plenty there to question the sanity of Judith Curry.
And all this excludes her Italian flag idiocy.
Marco
"This one is outright hilarious:
Deletehttp://curryquotes.wordpress.com/2011/02/28/curry-on-climate-sensitivity/
(thaaaaat's right, Judith Curry proposes a climate sensitivity that may be above 10 degrees per doubling!)"
What an odd thing to find hilarious. 30 months ago she put a 6 degree centigrade upper bound on climate sensitivity. She still has a 1 degree lower bound. Completely non-controversial.
"This one:
http://curryquotes.wordpress.com/2011/02/23/curry-on-average-temperature-anomalies/
is of interest now, as there never has been a post in which Judith Curry justified her claims on this issue. This, notably, is a consistent pattern with Curry. She makes loads of noise, but when asked to substantiate, she runs away."
I think this is one of the issues getting your information from attack sites such as curryquotes is the picture is limited. For example, I cam to HotWhopper based on a comment at ClimateAudit about unfair attacks. A characterization I echoed after reading the post. So, here goes: the C> Etc. article opens with:
http://judithcurry.com/2011/02/22/hiding-the-decline/
"To date, I’ve kept Climate Etc. a “tree ring free zone,” since the issues surrounding the hockey stick are a black hole for conflict and pretty much a tar baby, IMO. Further, paleoproxies are outside the arena of my personal research expertise, and I find my eyes glaze over when I start reading about bristlecones, etc. However, two things this week have changed my mind, and I have decided to take on one aspect of this issue: the infamous “hide the decline.”"
There were then 4 follow up articles (one for comments only) to this original thread.
In terms of statistical models:
http://judithcurry.com/page/4/?s=statistical+models
Robertinaz, did you even read the threads linked to in curryquotes? I have, since I do not just rely on that site. Judith Curry has put the climate sensitivity range from 0-10 degrees with 90% probability. That 1-6 degrees was her 66% probability. That *is* hilarious; I know of no research, not of herself either, that comes even close to that.
DeleteAs far as I can see your examples do not provide a substantiation by Curry of her own claims on the global temperature anomalies and statistical methods. The one specific example you cite is yet another good example of Judith Curry's evasion tactics when asked for substantiation: she refers to others. She has made large claims that something is such-and-such, and then uses a he says-she says in which her original large claim is significantly diluted into a "well, I am just not certain"-type of position.
Marco
Oh please, you may not like her opinion, but her fat tail concern is well reasoned and shared by others.
Deletehttp://judithcurry.com/2011/01/24/probabilistic-estimates-of-climate-sensitivity/
Recent findings have greatly reduced the probability of a fat tail. http://www.google.com/#sclient=psy-ab&q=climate+sensitivity+fat+tail&oq=climate+sensitivity+fat+tail.
See especially the Skeptical Science article. She has also discussed this in the last year.
Is there any number of these drive by Dr. Curry attacks I can research that would change your opinion? Am I wasting my time?
> you may not like her opinion
DeleteIt's her "facts" that are the problem
> Am I wasting my time?
Probably. We know too much around here
Robertinaz, I refer to the probabilities she attached to that range. She may have all the concerns she can think of about the tail, but putting 10% probability on climate sensitivity below zero or above 10 is a lot different from any published paper. She never substantiated that, unless you consider what she believes a substantiation.
DeleteMarco
One more
ReplyDeletehttp://curryquotes.wordpress.com/2011/12/15/curry-on-model-tuning-part-ii/
With Gavin, you have to "watch the pea." Given's response essentially repeats the point in Dr. Curry's criticism using very different language and then he asserts: "such inverse estimates are an output of attribution analyses not an input, and thus the claim of ‘circular reasoning’ is wrong".
See for instance this 2013 article.
http://judithcurry.com/2013/07/09/climate-model-tuning/
"JC comment: This paper is indeed a very welcome addition to the climate modeling literature. The existence of this paper highlights the failure of climate modeling groups to adequately document their tuning/calibration and to adequately confront the issues of introducing subjective bias into the models through the tuning process.
Tuning/calibration is unavoidable in a complex nonlinear coupled modeling system. The key is to document the tuning, both the goals and actual calibration process, in the manner in which the German climate modeling group has done."
I also see you decided to misrepresent Gavin's response to Curry. It is clear to anyone he does *not* repeat her point, but makes it clear she's got things the wrong way around. Hegerl et al also made it clear in their response she's got it wrong in the same way.
DeleteThat recent post is just a red herring, since that paper does *not* discuss the issues she had claimed in her uncertainty monster paper.
"I tell you, Gavin's last name is Schmitt!" followed up by
"There, didn't I tell you Gavin has a last name?"
Curry in a nutshell.
Marco
I'm sorry - your and Gavin's insight that the aerosol contribution to a particular GCM is not tuned to the modeled CO2 forcing must be correct.
DeleteI am sure my naive concept in no way approaches the sophisticated and subtle reasoning that goes into tuning a GCM.
I stand corrected.
/sarc
Robertinaz, both Gavin and Hegerl (et al) have explained how Curry's claim is wrong; both have considerable GCM experience, having written GCMs. That Judith Curry, who has never did anything like that, or you, with the same absence of ever having written a GCM (right? be honest!), get it wrong is therefore unsurprising. Even less surprising is your arrogance in maintaining she is right and Gavin is wrong. After all, those who have never worked with GCMs know all about it, while those that work with it on a regular basis know bugger-all. Everyone in the alternative universe know this to be true...(/sarc).
DeleteMarco
So. Robertinaz - categorically confused, ill-informed and in denial - is a "big fan" of Curry.
ReplyDeleteThis is what she is actively enabling with her blog.