tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post5907972248985141109..comments2024-03-25T05:30:23.847+11:00Comments on HotWhopper: Judith Curry picks a cherry in her motivated recycled denialSouhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.comBlogger46125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-51822974289151265202014-09-26T23:02:38.120+10:002014-09-26T23:02:38.120+10:00Very Tall Guy, over at ATTP, has answered my quest...Very Tall Guy, over at ATTP, has answered my question I asked in this thread, so I'm going to repost my response to him here:<br /><br />=================================<br /><br />VTG –<br /><br />== > <i> "TCR %Anthro warming (GHG only)<br />1.05 49%<br />1.33 62%<br />1.80 84%<br /><br />So her own analysis contradicts her statement that there is a “vigorous debate” about “whether the warming since 1950 has been dominated by human causes” – it turns out she actually agrees with everyone else that it has been!"</i><br /><br />===========<br /><br />Thanks for that. I didn’t know how to work out the math – but I asked for the answer from Judith and her “denizens” in one of her threads –<br /><br />“I would appreciate it if someone could tell me what sensitivity figure would equate to 50% of warming over the past 5 or 6 decades if projected to a centennial scale.<br /><br />Would the resulting number be included in Nic Lewis’ 90% CI that goes up to 3.0°C per doubling?”<br /><br />Crickets.<br /><br />So Judith said she would be “fooling [her]self” to think that ACO2 “dominates” (corrected from “influences”) on decadal or centennial scales..even when the paper she was in the process of getting published indicates that ACO2 dominated climate on a decadal scale over the past 6 decades or so.<br /><br />It seems clear to me that in public appearances, Judith has made a number of statements that don’t live up to scientific scrutiny.<br /><br />That, to me, is the kind of ‘advocacy” that should be avoided.<br /><br />That is, assuming your math is correct.Joshuahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08058404311263880189noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-8735792567335048922014-09-22T08:58:55.028+10:002014-09-22T08:58:55.028+10:00Much of the warming since 1860 has been due to a d...Much of the warming since 1860 has been due to a dramatic reduction in vulcanism. The period from 1783 to (I think) 1908 was very active and made the period relatively cold. The change from that to the very quiet 20th and 21st centuries (so far) led to warming. Climate adjusted to it by the mid-1930's, and it's had nothing to do with the warming since.<br /><br />Natural variation requires a natural cause; one natural cause of early 20thCE warming was that reduction in vulcanism. When one knows of causes one should account for them as much as possible.<br /><br />The warming since the Cugelnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-49234493473585913732014-09-22T07:18:03.549+10:002014-09-22T07:18:03.549+10:00Wally Broecker on CO2: "We’re moving, but the...<a href="http://www.climatesnack.com/2014/02/17/captain-climate-talking-to-wally-broecker-part-ii-co2-and-global-warming/" rel="nofollow">Wally Broecker on CO2</a>: "We’re moving, but the goal is receding, so the gap is getting wider. We are learning, but one thing we are learning is that the climate system turns out to be a hell lot more complicated than we initially thought. […] We are going to learn all these things by experiment. […] On the time scale that this is all going to happen, we will not be able to make really good predictions. It is just too complicated.<br /><br />We use the atmosphere as a garbage dock, but we cannot do that. [..] There ought to be a way to retrieve the CO2 and put it away. […] But it is hard for a single nation to create a task that everybody accepts. […] We have to cut the fossil fuel emissions by a factor of ten to stop the CO2 from rising!”Kevin O'Neillhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06692943768484857724noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-83347951616038300042014-09-22T05:20:46.878+10:002014-09-22T05:20:46.878+10:00I am hoping this gentleman was making coherent arg...I am hoping this gentleman was making coherent arguments.<br />"...roughly half the overall warming since 1860 occurred before carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from human activities had reached significant levels."<br />“...we can state with some confidence that natural Holocene temperature fluctuations have been on the same scale as the human-caused effects estimated to result from greenhouse gases. Hence, we cannot assume that in the absence of human intervention, Earth’s temperatures would have remained stable.” <br />- Wallace S. Broecker, 2001<br />See the context here:<br />http://www.naturalhistorymag.com/htmlsite/master.html?http://www.naturalhistorymag.com/htmlsite/1001/1001_feature.html<br />His work on abrupt climate change was good. It would be fair to ask, what does he think some 13 years later? I'd say he was with the consensus then and now. SkS has an interesting graph:<br />http://www.skepticalscience.com/lessons-from-past-climate-predictions-broecker.html<br />Figure 1. About a 1.0 C rise over the last century of warming. His prediction seems to be diverging in recent years.<br /><br />My first version of the above is in the HotWhoppery. I misread the context of what I read at some other website. I am sorry about that, and thanks for pointing that out.Ragnaarhttp://chaosaccounting.wordpress.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-38112765978186146162014-09-21T15:15:40.856+10:002014-09-21T15:15:40.856+10:00I'll repeat what I suggested in my response to...I'll repeat what I suggested in my response to you, which you might have missed. It's also in the comment policy.<br /><br />>But you can always use an archived version...<br /><br />Links to places to archive are in the comment policy.Souhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-84617118861269781732014-09-21T15:12:16.971+10:002014-09-21T15:12:16.971+10:00I'd link to Curry's website where Tung wro...I'd link to Curry's website where Tung wrote what I quoted but I fear that would be an anti-science site and then my reply would be removed. Tung's comment was given highlighted status by Curry and was in response to confusion over what they said and how it was widely reported.<br />Their paper, I am not saying it's not in the oceans, but so far by a number of measures, it's not in the atmosphere. Perhaps a bit, but very hard to be sure given imperfect measurements.<br />I'd agree in general with both the papers you linked., but we're still trying to understand the causes of the decadal scales. <br />I'll use Kyle Swanson's name writing at RealClimate:<br />http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/07/warminginterrupted-much-ado-about-natural-variability/<br />His first graph. Eyeballing it shows about a 1.1 C rise per century.<br />I am agreement with that graph, for what our working number is.Ragnaarhttp://chaosaccounting.wordpress.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-54680865769180789552014-09-21T15:12:03.638+10:002014-09-21T15:12:03.638+10:00Ragnaar, welcome to HotWhopper.
I appreciate tha...Ragnaar, welcome to HotWhopper. <br /><br />I appreciate that it's almost impossible for people not familiar with climate science to separate the dross from the meaningful at Curry's place. It's a veritable gish gallop that Judith loves and encourages, because it confuses people.<br /><br />If you are going to continue to comment here, I ask a few things:<br /><br />Read the comment policy and comply.<br /><br />Do your own research from reliable sources before making statements that are wrong. Cite the sources and make sure they are reliable. Avoid unsupported claims and claims based on denialist blogs.<br /><br />Don't cut and paste rubbish from denier blogs. I run out of patience and, more particularly time - and you risk some of your comments not even making it to the HotWhoppery.<br /><br />Recognise that there is a key difference between HotWhopper and Judith's blog. Judith's blog is for promoting disinformation and FUD and confusing stray readers. HotWhopper exists to demolish disinformation.<br /><br />Recognise all that and act accordingly, and your comments may survive and even be welcomed.Souhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-81189254307530341982014-09-21T15:04:12.712+10:002014-09-21T15:04:12.712+10:00>I don't think the 97% was asked this can w...>I don't think the 97% was asked this can we afford it, etc. question and I am not sure if they have, their answer was, We can afford it and it will make a material difference<br /><br /><a href="http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-06-10/americans-by-2-to-1-would-pay-more-to-curb-climate-change.html" rel="nofollow">Americans by 2 to 1 Would Pay More to Curb Climate Change</a>Souhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-4685818370885614392014-09-21T14:41:08.851+10:002014-09-21T14:41:08.851+10:00“Notice how she slips in a policy dot point at the...“Notice how she slips in a policy dot point at the bottom, too. An issue that is not just for physical scientists but for economists and others to address...”<br /><br />Whether we can afford to radically reduce CO2 emissions, and whether reduction will improve the climate<br /><br />And taxpayers as well who in some ways will pay for the reductions would think of it as their issue. Curry is qualified to ask the question and note it's a subject that is not agreed upon. Curry has a lot of experience in front of the public and if she is moving to the science-policy interface I'd say she's qualified. As noted, she's cautioned about the perils of this. Possibly her message was intended for young Scientists. I don't think the 97% was asked this can we afford it, etc. question and I am not sure if they have, their answer was, We can afford it and it will make a material difference. Her other three points of disagreement on that graphic are still being studied.<br /><br />To introduce myself, I am Ragnaar who will post occasionally at Curry's blog. As others are, I am still trying to make sense of it all. Some interesting stops along this journey are abrupt changes, regime changes, Tsonis, sea ice as a negative feedback, a sped up hydrological cycle, Sornette's dragon kings, Ghil, Robert Sapolsky, line by line radiative transfer models, and lake ice as regime changes in Minnesota.Ragnaarhttp://chaosaccounting.wordpress.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-19226809249592207652014-09-21T14:23:01.917+10:002014-09-21T14:23:01.917+10:00In explaining one "mistake", Judith admi...In explaining one "mistake", Judith admitted to another mistake.<br /><br />Also, if you are going to quote Chen and Tung, please provide a link to the paper itself. At the very least, a link to <a href="http://www.sciencemag.org/content/345/6199/897.full" rel="nofollow">the paper in the journal</a> (subs req'd) or better still, <a href="http://www.sisal.unam.mx/labeco/LAB_ECOLOGIA/OF_files/heat%20sink%20led%20to%20global-warming%20slowdown.pdf" rel="nofollow">a link to the full paper</a> (pdf). When I read the paper I couldn't find any suggestion that CO2 warming does not dominate. What the paper is proposing is that the extra heat is been absorbed by the ocean.<br /><br />In the most recent paper, Chen and Tung state:<br /><br /><i>During the current hiatus, radiative forcing at the TOA by the increasing greenhouse-gas concentration in the atmosphere produces additional warming in deeper and deeper ocean layers. This deepening warming is seen in Fig. 1A, calculated by using the in situ Ishii data (10), as an increasing fanning out of the OHC curves (integrated from the surface to different depths) after 1999. Globally, an additional 0.69× 1023 J has been sequestered since 1999 in the 300- to 1500-m layer by 2012 (Fig. 1A), which, if absent, would have made the upper 300 m warm as fast as the upper 1500 m since 1999. Because the latter has an uninterrupted positive trend, there would have been no slowdown of the warming of the surface or the upper layers. Therefore, the enhanced ocean heat sink is the main cause for the current slowing in surface warming. </i><br /><br />And in the conclusion:<br /><br /><i>The fact that the global-mean temperature, along with that of every major ocean basin, has not increased for the past 15 years, as they should in the presence of continuing radiative forcing, requires a planetary sink for the excess heat. Although the tropical Pacific is the source of large interannual fluctuations caused by the exchange of heat in its shallow tropical layer (3), the current slowdown is in addition associated with larger decadal changes in the deeper layers of the Atlantic and the Southern oceans. The next El Niño, when it occurs in a year or so, may temporarily interrupt the hiatus, but, because the planetary heat sinks in the Atlantic and the Southern Oceans remain intact, the hiatus should continue on a decadal time scale. When the internal variability that is responsible for the current hiatus switches sign, as it inevitably will, another episode of accelerated global warming should ensue.</i><br /><br /><br />So it is more likely you are <a href="http://www.pnas.org/content/110/6/2058.abstract" rel="nofollow">referring to this paper</a>, which is different.In the earlier paper by Tung and Zhao, they state:<br /><br /><i>Superimposed on the secular trend is a natural multidecadal oscillation of an average period of 70 y with significant amplitude of 0.3–0.4 °C peak to peak, which can explain many historical episodes of warming and cooling and accounts for 40% of the observed warming since the mid-20th century and for 50% of the previously attributed anthropogenic warming trend (55). </i><br /><br />That paper doesn't make a lot of sense to me. If they can attribute so much warming to natural variability then why hasn't the earth cooled down to 1960s temperatures or close to?<br /><br />BTW, I understand why you didn't supply a link to the email quote, because it may have infringed the comment policy. But you can always use <a href="https://archive.today/pOR4y#selection-523.0-523.410" rel="nofollow">an archived version, like this</a>.<br /><br />Regardless, any notion that CO2 isn't the dominant cause of the rapid rise in global temperature and won't be, on multi-decadal and centennial scales, is contrarian science verging on denialism. About the only thing that could change the current warming trend would be a rapid reduction in CO2 emissions, multiple eruptions of super volcanoes. Or maybe a large asteroid striking the earth, or possibly an all out nuclear war.Souhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-76790336447054901002014-09-21T13:58:13.379+10:002014-09-21T13:58:13.379+10:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.Ragnaarhttp://chaosaccounting.wordpress.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-41893309725710948792014-09-21T13:34:13.891+10:002014-09-21T13:34:13.891+10:00As noted, Judith Curry explained her mistake in a ...As noted, Judith Curry explained her mistake in a reply at her blog. When someone asked about it there, I thought she had made a mistake. To many dominates looks like > 50%. The recent paper by Chen and Tung highlighted at Curry's blog: 'Cause of hiatus found deep in the Atlantic Ocean' is close to not disagreeing with Curry's modified statement. As Tung commented, “The argument on the roughly 50-50 attribution of the forced vs unforced warming for the last two and half decades of the 20th century is actually quite simple. If one is blaming internal variability for canceling out the anthropogenically forced warming during the current hiatus, one must admit that the former is not negligible compared to the latter, and the two are probably roughly of the same magnitude.” Tung is implying it's about 50%.Ragnaarhttp://chaosaccounting.wordpress.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-36609185304063805642014-09-21T11:17:40.948+10:002014-09-21T11:17:40.948+10:00Greg Laden has a new article up that's relevan...Greg Laden <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2014/09/20/humans-have-caused-more-than-100-of-climate-change-over-last-50-years/" rel="nofollow">has a new article up</a> that's relevant here. Contrast the science with Judith Curry's ridiculous claims.Souhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-5155876882307385032014-09-21T09:48:59.372+10:002014-09-21T09:48:59.372+10:00Thanks, Joshua. I've updated the article.
It...Thanks, Joshua. I've <a href="http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2014/09/judith-curry-picks-cherry-in-her.html#update2" rel="nofollow">updated the article</a>. <br /><br />It's still an absurd statement to make. <br /><br />She has also said elsewhere that some time over the next few months she's going to try to come up with a response to Gavin Schmidt's article. Will it be as ridiculous as her current claims I wonder, or will she back-peddle?<br /><br />She'd better get a move on before the next hike in surface temperature makes her more irrelevant than she is today, except to the denialist speaking circuit she seems to favour these days. Which I guess is the real point to her rejection of science.Souhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-55540633591278279742014-09-21T08:53:26.468+10:002014-09-21T08:53:26.468+10:00Fernando : Curry means CO2 isn't causing much,...Fernando : Curry means CO2 isn't causing much, if any, of the current global warming. No more, no less. It's her schtick.<br /><br />Even if we stabilise at 600ppm that CO2 isn't just going to go away, and a future ice-age (if we have another) is tens of thousands of years away. The former is an issue, the latter isn't.Cugelnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-53576370605531720052014-09-21T08:40:22.646+10:002014-09-21T08:40:22.646+10:00Judith has clarified the comment that Lars picked ...Judith has clarified the comment that Lars picked up on:<br /><br />http://judithcurry.com/2014/09/19/week-in-review-27/#comment-630839<br /><br />So it seems that Judith is significantly less uncertain than she used to be. <br /><br />I don't know exactly what the sensitivity figure would work out to if you calculated backwards from 50% of warming over the past 5 decades to determine a centennial rate (I'll leave it to the math-capable to work that out for themselves) - but my guess is that Judith used to think that there was at least a non-negligible possibility that a reasonable confidence interval for likely warming would include a sensitivity rate large enough to equal more than 50% of recent warming if projected on to a century scale.<br /><br />But now she thinks that it is "foolish" to consider that possibility. Mr. Uncertain T. Monster seems to be getting awfully small in Judith's eyes.<br /><br />Joshuahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08058404311263880189noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-6610097671256667602014-09-21T08:05:11.485+10:002014-09-21T08:05:11.485+10:00Lottharson, maybe she meant CO2 hasn't been i...Lottharson, maybe she meant CO2 hasn't been influencing the climate over centennial time periods in the past. As far as I can see the Pleistocene climate has had co2 functioning as a weak feedback (relatively speaking, of course). I recently estimated the peak co2 concentration attributable to the total reserves included in the BP world fact book. The value seems to be between 620 and 630 ppm. This tells me the kick we are giving the climate will be rather short lived. By 2500 human population will be much lower and we may be more worried about the lack of energy sources to keep us warm in a future ice age (I guess you can tell I'm not too keen on nuclear power). Fernando Leanmehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16085680730729620836noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-9130072957763580722014-09-20T21:59:15.004+10:002014-09-20T21:59:15.004+10:00I don't think John NG does "over the top&...I don't think John NG does "over the top".<br /><br />Judith herself was so far "over the top" you could say she was stratospherically so. Especially given that what she said was poles apart from what she knows.<br /><br />I was mild by comparison.<br /><br />Of course, it could be a cultural thing. Australians can be blunt. We don't pussy foot around. We say what we think and don't sugar coat it. Or some of us are like that, anyway.Souhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-87978979656674706052014-09-20T21:22:24.014+10:002014-09-20T21:22:24.014+10:00I do think you were over the top and I think this ...I do think you were over the top and I think this makes your rebuttal of Curry less effective. Read John N.G's rebuttal of some of Curry's views on his website for an example of a not over the top critique.<br />tomjtxnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-43666232852580943762014-09-20T19:37:13.769+10:002014-09-20T19:37:13.769+10:00"...one should look at the full quote: ...&qu...<i>"...one should look at the full quote: ..."</i><br /><br />Yes, David at Cal, look at the quote. I looked at it and realised how completely vapid it is. It contradicts itself and in sum says absolutely nothing! How can she say, in one paragraph that, yes, carbon dioxide means warmer and then we are fooling ourselves to think that CO2 really influences climate? Talk about an example of a lack of joined up thinking. And all that waflle about all things being equal or not is just obfuscating padding.<br />Jammy Dodgerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08360437479098314946noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-69832330221089151902014-09-20T15:59:33.590+10:002014-09-20T15:59:33.590+10:00The thing is, given what we know of basic physics ...The thing is, given what we know of basic physics - and can demonstrate in a lab at the drop of a hat - then for Curry to assert that perhaps the "CO2 control knob doesn't really influence climate on these ... scales", she needs to have a decent estimate of how climate would play out with vs without the CO2 influence.<br /><br />And since we only have one earth, that means climate models and/or inferences drawn from historical data, right? That's OK since she's well-known for the touting the validity of models and the reliability of inferences from historical data...<br /><br />...oh, wait.Lotharssonnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-40061261453385629222014-09-20T15:15:15.915+10:002014-09-20T15:15:15.915+10:00I swear I can hear an irritating creaking noise. I...I swear I can hear an irritating creaking noise. It must be a crank turning.<br />GMAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-43570014447933082832014-09-20T14:59:15.226+10:002014-09-20T14:59:15.226+10:00I've seen some people think I was over the top...I've seen some people think I was over the top with this article. I've re-read it and can't see why they would say that. I didn't use terribly snarky language, compared to the general tone of this blog.<br /><br />Judith's speaking tone belied what she actually said. Her speaking tone was soothing "listen to me, I'm a reasonable person". By contrast, the words she actually spoke were riddled with the dumbest of denier slogans. She misrepresented the science multiple times. <br /><br />I figure it's just confirmation bias from her fans. They love Judith. They mistakenly think she encourages "open debate". Just look at her blog roll to see what she really "encourages". Read the sort of rubbish she writes herself and the dumb articles she promotes on her blog. <br /><br />Listen to the words that she speaks, not the tone of her voice.<br /><br />Judith has steered into denialism. As she said in her talk, no longer holding the Chair position has freed her up, or words to that effect. I guess she no longer feels she has any responsibilities to science.<br /><br />And the fact is that not only does she misrepresent science, she felt free to tell lies about the work of other scientists, calling Cook13 "deeply flawed". That to my mind is appalling behaviour from a senior scientist. This needs to be told.<br /><br />I don't apologise. I hope more people speak out.Souhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-28117943029505708972014-09-20T14:28:47.955+10:002014-09-20T14:28:47.955+10:00LOL - I take it this is what passes for a rebuttal...LOL - I take it this is what passes for a rebuttal. Sou, I think you should leave this here simply to show the lack of anything resembling evidence these clowns have. <br /><br />Just once I'd like to see a coherent argument that at least *tries* to account for paleo-climate, the rise in global SSTs over the past 150 years and the rise in OHC during the so called 'pause'. <br /><br />Mind you, I realize there is nothing other than CO2 that can explain all three, but at least if they tried it would show they actually understand the issues. Instead we keep seeing the same old tired one trick ponies. Or in this case nothing but ad hominem invective.Kevin O'Neillhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06692943768484857724noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-38285009620806923582014-09-20T14:11:19.603+10:002014-09-20T14:11:19.603+10:00What a total jackass is the author who penned this...What a total jackass is the author who penned this doggerel. Rude, crude and absurd but goose stepping right along with the True Believer Consensus Clowns.equsnarndhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14941367165612500721noreply@blogger.com