Judith Curry to Michael Mann
“Since you have publicly accused my Congressional testimony of being
‘anti-science,’ I expect you to (publicly) document and rebut any
statement in my testimony that is factually inaccurate or where my
conclusions are not supported by the evidence that I provide.”
Robert Way
One of your major points:
“Lack of warming since 1998″
“the warming over the past 15 years is only ~0.05″
Is inconsistent with surface air temperature datasets that have more
complete coverage of the Arctic (e.g. Cowtan and Way; GISS). We have
done many more further tests which strengthen this result. If you
believe that the rate of warming is only 0.05 then I ask that you prove
it and provide your code and rationale for how you deal with the missing
coverage areas. Remember leaving a region out treats it the same as the
global average.
A second major point:
“Further, Arctic surface temperature anomalies in the 1930’s were as large as the recent temperature anomalies”
Your statement (and the IPCC one you referenced) regarding the early
century Arctic warming being of comparable magnitude to the recent
Arctic warming is incorrect. Once again I ask that you provide the
analysis to prove this erroneous statement. Myself and Kevin have
already verified based on all available land, and land+ocean datasets
even including the NansenSAT dataset that the IPCC referenced for this
statement.
Tamino
I’ve recently done three blog posts
about your senate testimony. In addition to offering my opinions, I
have also taken the time to “(publicly) document and rebut” statements
in your testimony that are “factually inaccurate or … not supported by
the evidence” that you provide.
If you think my efforts are “dubious,” then I invite you to publicly
support that contention. Be sure to provide scientific evidence, and
rest assured that those (including me) who will place whatever you
provide under the microscope will be far better prepared to evaluate it
than members of a senate committee.
As for the legal case between Steyn and Mann, I suggest that the
judge who will decide the case has at least as much reverence for our
constitution’s free-speech guarantee, and a far better understading of
the issues, than you and others who talk of “rather frightening
implications of this case for free speech.” Or have you spent enough
time on google and wikipedia to launch a “21st century democratization
of expertise” when it comes to the law?
Eli
Prof. Curry, perhaps you would be kind enough to reconcile the claim in
your written testimony that increasing Antarctic sea ice extent as
reported in the AR5 WGI report weakens the case for attributing most of
the warming to human influences can be reconciled
with your 2010 PNAS paper, Accelerated warming of the Southern Ocean
and its impacts on the hydrological cycle and sea ice the abstract of
which reads:
The observed sea surface temperature in the Southern Ocean shows a
substantial warming trend for the second half of the 20th century.
Associated with the warming, there has been an enhanced atmospheric
hydrological cycle in the Southern Ocean that results in an increase of
the Antarctic sea ice for the past three decades through the reduced
upward ocean heat transport and increased snowfall. The simulated sea
surface temperature variability from two global coupled climate models
for the second half of the 20th century is dominated by natural internal
variability associated with the Antarctic Oscillation, suggesting that the models’ internal variability is too strong, leading to a response to anthropogenic forcing that is too weak.
With increased loading of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere through
the 21st century, the models show an accelerated warming in the Southern
Ocean, and indicate that anthropogenic forcing exceeds natural internal
variability. The increased heating from below (ocean) and above
(atmosphere) and increased liquid precipitation associated with the
enhanced hydrological cycle results in a projected decline of the
Antarctic sea ice.
Good times.
Posts
Good times.