Curry Quotes

Bits of wisdom and denialist chum from Judith Curry

Archive for October 2011

Curry gets her words out there

leave a comment »

At the moment, I’m feeling manipulated by both Rose and BEST. This is one reason I started a blog, to get my words out there and minimize my personal exposure to manipulation.
– Judith Curry

I did not say that “the affair had to be compared to the notorious Climategate scandal two years ago,” this is indirectly attributed to me.
– Judith Curry

It’s true I did ask you in the second conversation whether you thought this affair had to be compared with the leaked CRU emails. But having been asked, you said that it did, hence the paraphrase in my piece.
– David Rose

Judith
Have you replied to the comment made by David Rose at 4.57?
tonyb

David and I have conducted an email exchange, which I am keeping private. The issue of the data plot was his issue not mine, so I cannot conceive that I was the first person to mention hide the decline in that conversation.
– Judith Curry

Advertisements

Written by cquo

October 31, 2011 at 10:59 am

Posted in Uncategorized

Curry on being teased and misleading graphs

leave a comment »

Figure 5. Result of the Berkeley Average Methodology applied to the GHCN monthly data. Top plot shows a 12-month land-only moving average and associated 95% uncertainty from statistical and spatial factors. The lower plot shows a corresponding 10-year land-only moving average and 95% uncertainty. This plot corresponds to the parameter in Equation 5. Our plotting convention is to place each value at the middle of the time interval it represents. For example, the 1991-2000 average in the decadal plot is shown at 1995.5.
– Robert Rohde, Judith Curry, Donald Groom, Robert Jacobsen, Richard A. Muller, Saul Perlmutter, Arthur Rosenfeld, Charlotte Wickham, Jonathan Wurtele, “Berkeley Earth Temperature Averaging Process”

I did not say that “the affair had to be compared to the notorious Climategate scandal two years ago,” this is indirectly attributed to me. When asked specifically about the graph that apparently uses a 10 year running mean and ends in 2006, we discussed “hide the decline,” but I honestly can’t recall if Rose or I said it first. I agreed that the way the data is presented in the graph “hides the decline.” There is NO comparison of this situation to Climategate. Muller et al. have been very transparent in their methods and in making their data publicly available, which is highly commendable.
– Judith Curry

I have dug into my memory. Rose brought up hide the decline in our first interview, in the context of the plot that ends in 2006. He called me back specifically to discuss this and teased the “hide the decline” out of me.
– Judith Curry

There is no question that the diagrams and accompanying text in the IPCC TAR, AR4 and WMO 1999 are misleading. I was misled.
[…]
It is obvious that there has been deletion of adverse data in figures shown IPCC AR3 and AR4, and the 1999 WMO document. Not only is this misleading, but it is dishonest (I agree with Muller on this one). The authors defend themselves by stating that there has been no attempt to hide the divergence problem in the literature, and that the relevant paper was referenced. I infer then that there is something in the IPCC process or the authors’ interpretation of the IPCC process (i.e. don’t dilute the message) that corrupted the scientists into deleting the adverse data in these diagrams.
– Judith Curry

Written by cquo

October 31, 2011 at 9:38 am

Posted in Uncategorized

Curry on hiding the decline

leave a comment »

Though it is sometimes argued that global warming has abated since the 1998 El Nino event (e.g. Easterling and Wehner 2009, Meehl et al. 2011), we find no evidence of this in the GHCN land data. Applying our analysis over the interval 1998 to 2010, we find the land temperature trend to be 2.84 ± 0.73 C / century, consistent with prior decades.
– Robert Rohde, Judith Curry, Donald Groom, Robert Jacobsen, Richard A. Muller, Saul Perlmutter, Arthur Rosenfeld, Charlotte Wickham, Jonathan Wurtele, “Berkeley Earth Temperature Averaging Process”

This is “hide the decline” stuff. Our data show the pause, just as the other sets of data do. Muller is hiding the decline.

To say this is the end of scepticism is misleading, as is the statement that warming hasn’t paused. It is also misleading to say, as he has, that the issue of heat islands has been settled.
– Judith Curry, Daily Mail

Written by cquo

October 30, 2011 at 3:03 pm

Posted in Uncategorized

Curry on model tuning

with one comment

Using lots of tuning, CCSM3 agreed well with observations. Without that tuning, and with a better model, CCSM4 shows warming that is way too strong and ends up 0.5C too warm by 2005.
– Judith Curry

Judith,
you keep saying that, but I haven’t seen any evidence for this claim, here or in your uncertainty papers.
– doskonaleszares

Read the Gent et al. paper, they describe this.
– Judith Curry

Where? Could you please provide a quotation?
– doskonaleszare

The relevant text is on page 4, in section 3
– Judith Curry

I assume you mean the following fragment:
[…]
But in this case I’m afraid you are mistaken. They didn’t tune the CCSM3 to “give the correct 20th century variability”, or to “give a good 20th century simulation”, they didn’t even tune the CCSM3 to “the 20th century observations”, and it makes absolutely no sense to claim that the period 2000-2005 is “untuned”, and this is the reason for the temperature discrepancy.

The NCAR team used 1990s values of forcings and observed climatology as the initial state, but
1) their goal was to tune the model to near-zero TOA imbalance for the UNFORCED control run, which is of course inconsistent with “a good 20th century simulation.”
2) since the proper preindustrial control used in 20CEN runs wasn’t that stable, and kept drifting cold with the TOA imbalence of 0.6 Wm-2 even after centuries of integration, your claim that the CCSM3 “was tuned to the 20th century observations” makes no sense at all.
– doskonaleszare

I did not make a mistake. No one from the NCAR team has objected to what I said.
– Judith Curry

Well, I’m afraid that’s no longer true. I contacted with dr. Gerald Meehl Meehl, and he confirmed that they didn’t “tune the model response to fit 20th century observations, and never have.”
– doskonaleszare

Written by cquo

October 28, 2011 at 1:32 pm

Posted in Uncategorized

Curry on being a radical scholar

leave a comment »

I guess being labeled a “heretic” and “turning on my colleagues” and taking to the blogosphere qualifies me for the title of “radical scholar.”
[…]
I suspect that my personal impact on the field of climate science has been greater over the past year than the preceding 30 years (although my impact during the past year would be diminished without the previous 30 years). And even if traditional scholars in the field want to ignore me, I am happy with “inspiring lay scientists and future academics. That is its own kind of professional impact.”
– Judith Curry

The “heretic” stuff is really old. It really seems like she desperately wants to be one and blows up any criticism of her ideas into persecution of her “heresy”. If I go to a blog to read about science and find its more about the blogger I tend to lose interest.
– sharper00

What novel contribution to climate science has Curry produced since her rebranding and unprecedented in 30 years impact? Regurgitating social science ideas in the name of “uncertainty” awareness? She’s only one of many people focused on the issue. Emphasizing an increased role for natural variability? Where’s the there there- she pointed me to research from her university that in no way supported the claim made on its behalf. Exposing problems with CMIP3 era modeling? She makes patently untrue claims that are easily refuted by actual modelers. Etc.
[…]
People don’t criticize Curry for presenting unconventional or counter-mainstream findings and data. They criticize her for making claims and failing to back them up, passing off nonsense from others as worthy of serious consideration, and so on.
– thingsbreak

It’s always so great when she has random guest posts from crazy people so that then there can be 1000 comment+ discussions about crazy stuff. Like the Sky Dragons, and Murray Salby’s “it’s not us wot’s adding the CO2 to the atmosphere!” whiff and various other nonsense she seemingly pointlessly tosses out. This helps move the debate forward because even crazier people come to defend these posts.

Is there still a debate on whether backradiation violates the laws of thermodynamics? Yes, at Climate Etc. there is! A vigorous and long and ongoing and long and unresolved and long debate! What about whether burning fossil fuels adds to the CO2 in the atmosphere? Yes, they’re having a debate about that at Climate Etc.!

Everything is so uncertain! Even that statement is kind of iffy, come to think of it. By definition. But wouldn’t that imply that if we are uncertain about the uncertainty, then it might imply certainty? I don’t know but it certainly would be good to discuss it. Where is David Wojick when you need him?

It is awesomeness. What an impact.
– rustneversleeps

Written by cquo

October 28, 2011 at 1:21 pm

Posted in Uncategorized