Curry Quotes

Bits of wisdom and denialist chum from Judith Curry

Archive for February 2011

Curry on bloggers with no apparent understanding of the subject

leave a comment »

On the previous thread, Gavin brought up the Webster et al. (2005) Hurricane paper, in the context of an argument about how it would be equally easy to make the same criticism of the main Webster et al. figure that was made of the hide the decline figure.
[…]
This paper ignited a major #$%^storm, as intense as anything seen in the hockey stick debate. There was one big difference from the get go: we published the data set on our website upon publication of the paper. In addition to the climate change debate on this topic, meteorologists all over the world were digging into the data set, comparing ours with other data sets, identifying discrepancies, etc. Things got really really heated, with the full debate and controversy taking place in full glare of the media, we were fighting both the AGW skeptics and meteorologists who were questioning the data. The conflict peaked about 6 months after it started, with the “brain fossilization” crisis, which resulted in the combatants agreeing to disagree with more civility and to work together to sort this out. 10 months after the initiation of this tempest, scientists on both sides got together and made this joint statement.
– Judith Curry

That’s cool story Judy and I’mma let you finish, but does this mean the graphs in Webster et al (2005) aren’t misleading? What a relief.

(There is no question that the diagrams and accompanying text in Webster et al are misleading. I was misled. Upon considering the material presented in this paper, it did not occur to me that how long satellites have been making measurements in the infrared.)
– ds

The issues surrounding the data and appropriate caveats were described in the paper
– Judith Curry

But the graph is still misleading! And it’s misleading, because I was misled! How dishonest of Webster et al!
– ds

If anonymous bloggers with no apparent understanding of the subject are misled, it is not my problem but your problem
– Judith Curry

How can you betray so many loyal followers!?
– Michael

context

Written by cquo

February 28, 2011 at 2:19 pm

Posted in Uncategorized

Curry on climate sensitivity

leave a comment »

Climate sensitivity is somewhere between 1.5 C and 4.5 C for a doubling of carbon dioxide, due to feedbacks (primarily water vapor) in the climate system.
– Zeke Hausfather

I think we can bound this between 1 and 6C at a likely level, I don’t think we can justify narrowing this further.
– Judith Curry

JC On what basis do you set these upper and lower bounds?
[…]
When some models give results way above your 6C upper found and several researchers publish sensitivities half your 1 C lower bound, what are we to make of your bounds?
– David L. Hagen

That there is a 33% probability that that actual sensitivity could be higher or lower than my bounds. To bound at a 90% level, I would say the bounds need to be 0-10C.
– Judith Curry

0-10C at 90%? I’d say that makes you more of an alarmist than anyone I’ve ever read. Hansen is Pollyanna in comparison. That looks like a 50% chance of the end of civilization.
– Jeffrey Davis

Written by cquo

February 28, 2011 at 2:05 pm

Posted in Uncategorized

Curry on trolling

with 3 comments

Judith,
Did you expect to get so much reaction to this post.?It’s incredible.
– John Ritson

no i did not expect this much reaction. Gavin showing up here sort of insured the reaction.
– Judith Curry

So, you going over to WUWT and advertising that Gavin had commented had nothing to do with it???

Sheesh Judith.
– Michael

You advertised the comment yourself and this is reflected in the fact that there is now a full post at WUWT in relation your comment there and Gavin’s comments here.

To then claim Gavin is responsible for the attention when you yourself advertised it on sites known to be hostile to his position is astounding.
– sharper00

I can’t predict in advance when a thread will generate a lot of activity; I’m learning that anything with “climategate” in it is likely to have a lot of traffic.
– Judith Curry, a few months earlier

Written by cquo

February 23, 2011 at 2:22 pm

Posted in Uncategorized

Curry on building bridges, again

leave a comment »

You seem to think it is primary importance for bridges to be build to scientists involved in the CRU emails. As a climate scientist concerned about the integrity of the climate science, I find it of primary importance to build bridges with the broader community of scientists (including skeptics), the public, and policy makers. I stopped bothering with the RC crowd in summer 2007, when i received an unpleasant email from Mike Mann chastising me over congratulating Steve McIntyre on winning the 2008 Science Webblog Award. It was at that point that I stopped having anything to do with RC (other than my driveby comments about Montford’s book last summer). So I have built a bridge in the form of a platform for dialogue, they can meet me half way or not (pretty much not, the prefer the circling wagons strategy). But that is not the bridge that I am particularly interested in.
– Judith Curry

Judith,
For it to be a bridge to some outside world, the bridge should remain grounded at the original place as well.

Your strong and broadbrush accusations towards your professional peers, and the lack of criticism towards empty talking points and conspiratorial thinking make you lose that grounding imho. You’re pushing herself away it seems. It’s your choice of course, but I can’t square it with your stated objective.
– Bart Verheggen

Bart, if this stuff hadn’t already been going on for 15 months, with absolutely no efforts by the people who wrote the emails to correct the record and work towards addressing the underlying problems, I would be more sympathetic to your approach. In the meantime, the public credibility of climate science remains in tatters.
– Judith Curry

Some time ago:

Are any of you tired of the endless debate over who is hero and who is villain in the scenario unfolded in the CRU emails? Even if we were to get rid of all of the “objectionable” characters on both sides of this, would climate science be fixed? Would we have sensible energy policies? No and no. And we can’t frame/narrate/communicate our way out of this either.
[…]
I’m surprised that people thought I was attacking climate scientists in my original post. Climate scientists have been pawns in all this; some have been victims and others have benefitted. If anyone can be labeled as a “villain” in all this, it would arguably be the UNEP/UNFCCC; but in a way that begs the question of how all this started and who started it.
– Judith Curry

I now understand what caused such a blogospheric fuss over my post. People can’t seem to get away from the narrative of individual scientists, and think the whole climate issue can be boiled down to Mann vs McIntyre. Not even close: this is noise, a symptom of much deeper and more fundamental and more important issues.
– Judith Curry

Written by cquo

February 23, 2011 at 2:08 pm

Posted in Uncategorized

Curry on average temperature anomalies

leave a comment »

John, the more recent reconstructions still suffer from the same problems: uncalibrated proxies, and statistical models that make no sense in terms of calculating hemispheric or global average temperature anomalies.
– Judith Curry

You betray complete ignorance of any of this literature. “Statistical models that make no sense in terms of calculating hemispheric or global average temperature anomalies” – got a cite for that?
– Gavin

Another zinger, I’m dying here.
– Judith Curry

Hey, I just asked for a justification for your sweeping statements. Perhaps you think that the new ‘blog science’ can dispense with old fashioned concepts like references? I obviously have much to learn.
– Gavin

My detailed justification of this statement will be forthcoming at another time, in fact I will make it the subject of a thread at Climate Etc. sometime in the near future.
– Judith Curry

Some might think that justification might *preceed* an attack, or at least be part of it …
– dhogaza

Written by cquo

February 23, 2011 at 9:17 am

Posted in Uncategorized

Curry on unsettled science, cranks and deniers

leave a comment »

It is now agreed by both “sides” that “the science is settled” is a bad thing to say. […] If the science isn’t settled, then this is a step towards getting rid of the “denier” accusation, taking a more careful look at the uncertainties, and maybe then stop using the argument from consensus to try to convince people. Getting rid of “the science is settled” is the first step.
– Judith Curry

If the science isn’t settled, why are they so busy calling people deniers? The deniers are denying unsettled science? A consensus by a certain group of scientists (who forgot to pay much attention to uncertainty and ignorance)?
– Judith Curry

Earlier:

[W]hether atmospheric gases such as CO2 (and H20, CH4, and others) warm the planet is not an issue where skepticism is plausible.
– Judith Curry

My comments were also colored by spending 3 decades working with atmospheric radiative transfer, including observations, models, and theory. All of this says that there is overwhelming evidence for the existence of infrared radiative emission by CO2 and H20, some of which travels back in the direction of the earth’s surface, and so warms the surface (relative to the situation if there was no CO2 or H20 in the atmosphere). There are many things to be skeptical about, IMO this isn’t one of them.
– Judith Curry

If you deny the existence of downwelling infrared radiative flux from CO2 (I still haven’t gotten a straight answer from you on this, in spite of asking the question multiple times), and claim that your mathematical analysis is correct, which is in contradiction to these observations, then the observations need to be incorrect and much of 20th century physics needs to be correct.
– Judith Curry

Do you dispute that if you put an infrared radiometer on the surface of the earth and point it upwards, that it will measure an IR radiance or irradiance (depending on how the instrument is configured)? […] If you say yes, well this is what people are calling back radiation (a term that I don’t use myself). If you say no, then I will call you a crank – all your manipulations of Maxwell’s equation will not make this downwelling IR flux from the atmosphere go away.
– Judith Curry

Claes, i read what you wrote, and it makes no sense to me (nor did this section of your article). Tell me, does your theory explain the observation that if you point a radiometer upwards at a cloudless sky, that it will measure a radiation flux of say 200-400 W m-2 (depending on ambient atmospheric temperature, humidity, etc). Can you put the atmospheric profile of temperature and gases into your equations and calculate the flux that is observed? If not, and you continue to insist that your theory is correct, then you get to wear the crank label.
– Judith Curry

[T]he reason I am focusing on this is trying to get rid of all the noise surrounding the debate on radiative transfer, so that everyone can focus on the real issues associated with the complex chaotic thermodynamic/dynamic climate system. Looks like this issue isn’t going away, but hopefully the efforts here are further marginalizing those who insist on pursuing incorrect theories of radiative transfer, and alienating them from the more serious skeptics/deniers.
– Judith Curry

Written by cquo

February 7, 2011 at 6:22 pm

Posted in Uncategorized

Curry on attacks on credentials, skill and integrity

with 2 comments

Dr. Curry;

I deeply appreciate your attempt to be an honest broker between the AGW advocate scientists and the skeptical scientists.

My personal diety knows that we need one within the ordained climate science establishment.

But I take issue with your reconciliation discussion.

[…]

What we have right now is a bunch of charlatans who insist that their data and methodology are correct, all the while hiding behind the academic establishment and a series of lies to obfuscate the situation and prevent their data and methodology from ever seeing the light of day. If you want to know the reality; go to the FOIA file, ignore the emails and have a look at the code! To call what they’ve done science is an embarassment. Whether the emails and code were stolen or leaked is of some import; but not to science. Further; the claims of verification of results through independent studies is laughable.

[…]

Mann, Hansen, Trenberth, Schmidt, Jones, et. al. need to remove themselves from this debate so that it can continue unobstructed by their opinion and their prior bad acts. That means they need to resign and walk away quietly. Remember this; Hansen has called for the prosecution of people based on their opinions. It strongly appears right now that these fellows engaged in out and out fraud under the guise of science which was publicly funded. That is a prosecutable crime. Some of Hansen and Schmidt’s activities are a crime on their face; use of government office and resources for advocacy purposes is patently illegal and can be proven beyond any doubt. Academic dishonesty isn’t necessarily illegal, but scientific fraud in cases involving government funding and research grants is.

I am certain that if they walk away quietly the penalty will be much less than if the continue to hold the fort until the bitter end.

Back to the germain topic; for you to suggest that the skeptics need to reconcile with these charlatans seems a bit disingenuous while the advocates continue to withhold scientific information and advocate on policy while clearly overstating their case on both the science of AGW and on the potential effects thereof. IPCC AR4 was an absolute joke because of this type of control and advocacy. They claimed it was entirely based on peer reviewed research when some of them certainly knew there were considerable references to out and out propaganda.

[…]

The academic laziness within climate science is obvious and obviously accepted at these academic institutions. What do you suppose happens to large institutions when these types of flaws are exposed? These types of flaws always always always see the light of day eventually. The powers that be will hang these guys out to dry on that day.

[…]

I don’t doubt your intent. I question whether your status within the academic world will allow you to maintain your objectivity. I would further advise you that the “scientists” at the center of all of this play hard ball. If they view you as a threat you will come under fire as well. They will question your credentials, your motives and your ability. They will impune your integrity and skill and it won’t occur to them at all that you were once their esteemed collegue. Ask Richard Lindzen about that. Are you up for it?

Sincerely,
Robert T. Kutz,
Honest Laymen Skeptic
– Bob Kutz

To which Curry responds:

“If they view you as a threat you will come under fire as well. They will question your credentials, your motives and your ability. They will impune your integrity and skill and it won’t occur to them at all that you were once their esteemed collegue. ”

this is already happening, has been for over a year. See my heretic piece in case you missed it first time around.
http://judithcurry.com/2010/10/25/heresy-and-the-creation-of-monsters/
– Judith Curry

Written by cquo

February 2, 2011 at 10:46 am

Posted in Uncategorized