|
Post by Andrew on Oct 15, 2012 7:53:08 GMT
Phil Jones works for a University. And his data has proven to be a scientifically validated representation of past climate observations - that's probably why he kept his job. East Anglia has an unusual funding history Initial sponsors included British Petroleum, the Nuffield Foundation and Royal Dutch Shell.[6] The Rockefeller Foundation was another early benefactor, and the Wolfson Foundation gave the Unit its current building in 1986.[5] Since the second half of the 1970s the Unit has also received funding through a series of contracts with the United States Department of Energy to support the work of those involved in climate reconstruction and analysis of the effects on climate of greenhouse gas emissions.We can be fairly sure a number of people would be available to detail just how motivated people at Universities become to ensure that kind of exceptional funding continues to appear to be justified. But only providing it was not likely to alter their financial and social standing in the community - just as was the case with the Jimmy Saville saga.
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Oct 15, 2012 8:08:19 GMT
Radiant, So there are two possibilities. The journo asked for a response from Curry. He was unhappy with the response so looked through her blog for something more "juicy". Or he was already aware of a juicy quote from her blog, but failed to get a repetition of the quote when he asked her. Either scenario suggests that he had a preconceived idea of what he wanted to say. And since we don't know the context of Curry's quote that may possibly be hidden somewhere on her unsearchable blog we cannot judge it. I can tell you lots of "deep flaws" in models, but if you quote me as saying "models are deeply flawed" you'd give the wrong impression of my opinion. The mail article was a bit odd. Obviously the layout artist wanted to tell a totally different story of AGW including melting icebergs, cooling towers belching out C02, cute looking warmists and ugly denialists. But Curry was not really taken out of context much at all. Just like anybody featured in these articles she too cannot be seen as a rabid denialist or she will be out of a job Rather like Carl Wunsch in the great global warming swindle video who quite happily talked about 600 year ocean cycles but felt he was quoted out of context and talked about how outraged he was, but also admits we know little and he finds extreme talk at either end of the climate wars to be distasteful We all need our funding. Obviously if somebody worked for you, they would have to keep a very low profile about doing research onto any kind of long term cycle since you already decided you know they are wrong And what did you accuse Rose of?
|
|
|
Post by steve on Oct 15, 2012 12:29:26 GMT
Judith Curry has tenure, and is confident in her research track record to rock the boat as much as she pleases. The idea that she holds back from her views is just ludicrous - just read her blog for a few days.
She cannot be seen as a "rabid denialist" because she isn't a rabid denialist. She doesn't doubt that CO2 induced forcing will cause warming, she questions whether the IPCC addresses uncertainty appropriately and advocates adaptation as opposed to mitigation.
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Oct 15, 2012 12:59:31 GMT
The point really was to demonstrate that the writer of the article has written his article then fished for quotes, if necessary, twisting the quotes to fit his demands. I've read the Daily Mail on and off for nearly 40 years - they've always been lying liars, and always will be. Steve you are not much different You claim there are no cycles of importance. Wunsch and Curry do no agree with you. Endlessly a whole troup of people here declare that AGW is of huge importance and nothing else can ever explain what is happening Have you ever entered into a conversation with any one of them? I dont think so. Instead you work for your team only and chose to bash the other team. Curry liked the mail article. Obviously you did not and unless a person had made an effort to go to Currys blog which you claim to be intimately familiar about, they would have had no idea from your comments that she liked the article.
|
|
|
Post by trbixler on Oct 15, 2012 14:23:46 GMT
So everybody is getting it wrong? "HadCRUT released their latest global temperature dataset today, which confirmed what both NOAA and NASA reported earlier this month - that global temps declined during July 2012. In addition, the plot of the HadCRUT and CO2 data for the last 15 years, through July 2012, is very revealing. Contrary to what the mainstream press reports and exaggerates about "global warming," the world has actually been in a stable-to-cooling phase since the El Nino temperature spike of 1997/98." directorblue.blogspot.com/2012/10/boom-gold-standard-of-temperature-data.html
|
|
|
Post by duwayne on Oct 15, 2012 14:57:38 GMT
I don't read the Global Warming blogs regularly, so I was surprised to see this from Judith Curry's blog concerning the discussion with Mr. Rose referred to above.....
"The data confirms the existence of a ‘pause’ in the warming. The impact of this pause within the climate dynamic community has been to focus increased attention on the impact of natural variability, particularly the impact of internal multi-decadal oscillations in the ocean. The new climate model calculations for the AR5 have focused on trying to assess what it would take to accurately simulate these multi-decadal ocean oscillations and how predictable they might be. These new observations and climate modeling results will hopefully impact the the IPCC AR5 deliberations so that we do not see the same overly confident consensus statements that we saw in the AR4. "
Have the IPCC become denialists? Do they no longer believe their own story that natural climate change is insignificant- at least after 1950?
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Oct 15, 2012 17:12:50 GMT
I don't read the Global Warming blogs regularly, so I was surprised to see this from Judith Curry's blog concerning the discussion with Mr. Rose referred to above..... "The data confirms the existence of a ‘pause’ in the warming. The impact of this pause within the climate dynamic community has been to focus increased attention on the impact of natural variability, particularly the impact of internal multi-decadal oscillations in the ocean. The new climate model calculations for the AR5 have focused on trying to assess what it would take to accurately simulate these multi-decadal ocean oscillations and how predictable they might be. These new observations and climate modeling results will hopefully impact the the IPCC AR5 deliberations so that we do not see the same overly confident consensus statements that we saw in the AR4. " Have the IPCC become denialists? Do they no longer believe their own story that natural climate change is insignificant- at least after 1950? Curry is however talking about a 'pause' Ie the massaged/conjured data shows the earth is warming less than the 0.2 per decade that the IPCC has defined as not being a pause.
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Oct 15, 2012 18:37:17 GMT
I don't read the Global Warming blogs regularly, so I was surprised to see this from Judith Curry's blog concerning the discussion with Mr. Rose referred to above..... "The data confirms the existence of a ‘pause’ in the warming. The impact of this pause within the climate dynamic community has been to focus increased attention on the impact of natural variability, particularly the impact of internal multi-decadal oscillations in the ocean. The new climate model calculations for the AR5 have focused on trying to assess what it would take to accurately simulate these multi-decadal ocean oscillations and how predictable they might be. These new observations and climate modeling results will hopefully impact the the IPCC AR5 deliberations so that we do not see the same overly confident consensus statements that we saw in the AR4. " Have the IPCC become denialists? Do they no longer believe their own story that natural climate change is insignificant- at least after 1950? Judith Curry is an actual scientist verses some of the loudmouths who think they know a lot, and time and additional research has shown that they are complete baffoons. (I appologize for giving baffoons a bad rap......but ya know?) She is willing to look at all variables, has been chastised for doing so. However, she is strong enough in her principals to emphasize what is known and question the supposedly known.
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Oct 15, 2012 18:38:01 GMT
trbixler: Quit the divergence there isn't it?
|
|
|
Post by steve on Oct 15, 2012 18:48:53 GMT
The IPCC statement in AR4 was that most of the warming of the last 50 years was likely anthropogenic. That far from rules out "natural" climate change.
Radiant
No I say that statements about 60 year cycles based on lots of curve fitting and no sensible hypothesis are nonsense. I think Curry talks a lot of (not total) nonsense when she talks about the so-called similarity between the 1910-45 warming and now. She doesn't engage much with commenters on her blog so it's hard to pin her down though.
1. She didn't like being misquoted. Her statement about being misquoted supports statements from the Met Office about being misquoted. 2. Curry often "likes" articles, books and so forth because bits of them speak to her heart. She doesn't seem to mind that most of the book or article is nonsense, and it infuriates other people (not me - I just think it is revealing) when she refuses to engage with their criticisms. 3. I did not say I was "intimately familiar" with Curry's blog. 4. I expect people to read the article and Curry's response themselves and present their own opinion. If you think they might be fooled by my presentation of her opinion then you are too sensitive.
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Oct 15, 2012 20:01:46 GMT
The IPCC statement in AR4 was that most of the warming of the last 50 years was likely anthropogenic. That far from rules out "natural" climate change. Radiant No I say that statements about 60 year cycles based on lots of curve fitting and no sensible hypothesis are nonsense. I think Curry talks a lot of (not total) nonsense when she talks about the so-called similarity between the 1910-45 warming and now. She doesn't engage much with commenters on her blog so it's hard to pin her down though. 1. She didn't like being misquoted. Her statement about being misquoted supports statements from the Met Office about being misquoted. 2. Curry often "likes" articles, books and so forth because bits of them speak to her heart. She doesn't seem to mind that most of the book or article is nonsense, and it infuriates other people (not me - I just think it is revealing) when she refuses to engage with their criticisms. 3. I did not say I was "intimately familiar" with Curry's blog. 4. I expect people to read the article and Curry's response themselves and present their own opinion. If you think they might be fooled by my presentation of her opinion then you are too sensitive. I think Curry talks a lot of (not total) nonsense when she talks about the so-called similarity between the 1910-45 warming and now. There has been an ongoing systematic process to wipe out the warming of the 20's-40's and cooling after that. As Sigurdur said about Iceland, this is bullshit, but is representative of what GHCN, Jones, Hansen and Tom Karl have been doing for many years. There is no question they are cooling the past and warming the present. notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2012/10/13/giss-adjustments-in-iceland/#commentsBEFORE GHCN ADJUSTMENTS AFTER GHCN ADJUSTMENTS AFTER GISS ADJUSTMENTS There are countless examples of these types of data manipulation. Call it code error or whatever you want, none of this would last one minute in the industrial world. The people responsible for such antics would be drummed out of their jobs. Climate science is a joke.
|
|
|
Post by dontgetoutmuch on Oct 15, 2012 20:35:06 GMT
Have the IPCC become denialists? Do they no longer believe their own story that natural climate change is insignificant- at least after 1950? You have to understand. The IPCC never believed their own story. They know it is a fraud. The problem is that NONE of their TESTABLE predictions are coming true. Their excuses as to why they continue to fail in spite of the consensus must be irritating. They have learned not to make testable predictions, but the ones on the books are proving troublesome. They are resurrecting "Natural Variation" to explain why their TESTABLE predictions have been off, all the while trying to keep the gravy flowing by repeatedly stating that the "pause" in warming is only temporary.
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Oct 15, 2012 21:19:55 GMT
Radiant No I say that statements about 60 year cycles based on lots of curve fitting and no sensible hypothesis are nonsense. I think Curry talks a lot of (not total) nonsense when she talks about the so-called similarity between the 1910-45 warming and now. Why does it have to be a cycle? Why cant it just be random change? Do you rule out random change? Why do you rule out similarities between 1910-45 and today? If you rule out similiarities then you become one of these people so convinced you are right you are unable to avoid changing the data to fit what you believe. It seems undeniably true that you have to be part of the warmist alarmist club to be able to change the data, get published and not even have to produce the original data! What the hell is phil jones doing performing reviews of research while travelling without not ever once asking to see the data?? It is beyond belief that anybody can think this is scientific review. Why is the data being changed? It is just beyond belief to me that data can be changed.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Oct 15, 2012 21:42:22 GMT
There has been an ongoing systematic process to wipe out the warming of the 20's-40's and cooling after that. As Sigurdur said about Iceland, this is bullshit, but is representative of what GHCN, Jones, Hansen and Tom Karl have been doing for many years. There is no question they are cooling the past and warming the present.
Sort of like the tidalwave that Josh Willis met when he published his ARGO study. Gee that disagrees with isostatic crust uplifting models worked out to bring results in compliance with GCMs, melting seaice, the application of isostatic crust uplift to offset measured glacial increases, the stopwatch and bucket brigade, and of course the GCMs themselves all suggest an error!
Must be the buoys are leaking! With so many studies lined up in agreement the most likely answer has to be the observations are wrong.
Check Kevin Trenberths emails and phone records!
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Oct 16, 2012 2:31:01 GMT
|
|