Another One of the Problems with Judith Curry
Innocently working through the daily twitter load Eli came upon a middle low German trickster pushing a line that had been snipped out of the IPCC AR5, and an answer by a high flyer
Followed by a subtweet (eg dragging the innocent in without telling them), so Eli dragged the innocent in while telling him..@eulenspigel The Arctic is substantially warmer than in the 1930s, accompanied by substantial reductions in sea ice cover. pic.twitter.com/e5iVEtlXzH— icarus62 (@icarus62) March 6, 2017
— eli rabett (@EthonRaptor) March 6, 2017the innocent being Peter Stott.
As it turns out Gavin had been doing his assigned reading and provided part of the answer as to where this came from
— Gavin Schmidt (@ClimateOfGavin) March 6, 2017pointing to a recent post by Tamino, a handsome prince lost in a distant land, pursuing a serpent (played by Judith Curry) using time series analysis to save himself, in which the handsome prince speculates about how the serpent found this quote
Here’s what I believe happened: Judith Curry combed through the IPCC AR5 looking for stuff she could use to contradict the stronger statement of confidence in dangerous global warming which the report makes explicit. I further believe that she paid little or no attention to stuff which would support the stronger statement in AR5. The seeming inconsistency between Arctic temperature (just as hot in the 1930s as now) and Arctic sea ice (nowhere near as low in the 1930s as now) is one of those things she was looking for.and engages in analysis of what the data says concluding that
I’ve studied the data. Not only does it fail to support the claim about 1930s Arctic temperatures, it actually contradicts that claim. By a wide margin. It ain’t even close.
There’s something even more important to think about. Judith Curry combed through the IPCC AR5 looking for stuff that would cast doubt. One of the things she found, which she even included in her written testimony to a U.S. Senate committe, turns out not to cast doubt. If I were being hyperbolic I would say “To find evidence against AGW in the IPCC report, it looks like you have to quote stuff that they got wrong — ’cause the stuff they got right is evidence for AGW.” But that would indeed be hyperbole.
What’s not hyperbole is how it looks to me: that Judith Curry cannot have studied the available data to draw that conclusion because the available data contradict it, that Judith Curry cannot have studied the supporting references because they don’t support it, and that if she believes it “because the IPCC report says so” then it’s obvious she’ll take the IPCC report’s word for what she wants to believe but not for what she doesn’t want to believe.Where upon Peter Stott appears on Twitter to lay this one to rest
@ClimateOfGavin @EthonRaptor @icarus62 (1) This was a single sentence in section discussing Arctic sea ice decline which referred to temps without citation not ideal but note also— Peter Stott (@StottPeter) March 6, 2017
@ClimateOfGavin @EthonRaptor @icarus62 (2) that lower in section contrasts Arctic wide increases of temperature in last decade with episodic regional increases in early 20th c— Peter Stott (@StottPeter) March 6, 2017
Showing that it pays to ask even if you are handsome prince lost in a distant land, pursuing serpents and not a fuzzy little bunny@ClimateOfGavin @EthonRaptor @icarus62 (3) point being that "Arctic temperature anomalies" is referring to temps in some parts of Arctic not necessarily Arctic wide.— Peter Stott (@StottPeter) March 6, 2017
Posts
9 comments:
Looks like you need to slap down Steve A Morris on the related thread.
I don't have the twitter, or I'd say something like "We are well past the peak of the current Interglacial. Greenland didn't melt, nor has it done so in previous interglacials."
1)The AR5 quote has nothing to do with J Curry, Gavin or tamino. Total obfuscation and "bizarre". If they don't agree with the AR5 quote that's fine.
2) Sea ice extent is a different argument.
3) I would have gladly cited the next line if I had more than 140. I fail to see how "There is still considerable discussion of the ultimate causes of the warm temperature anomalies that occurred in the Arctic in the 1920s and 1930s" advances the warmers argument.
4) This is hardly an isolated quote in AR5. Ch 10 cites many studies as well. Also previous IPCC.
5)"point being that "Arctic temperature anomalies" is referring to temps in some parts of Arctic not necessarily Arctic wide" is pretty rich since there is such thin coverage now.
6)"middle low German trickster". I'm offended. Till Eulenspiegel can merry prank with the best of them :-)
Till
Oime! The thick is trying in him.. Tsk tsk
Till E. seems a particularly bland brand of pseudoskeptic. Rather dull.
The DMI ice charts from 1893 - 1956 are available in several locations online. https://nsidc.org/data/docs/noaa/g02203-dmi/
He also seems unfamiliar with the literature. It is well known that the arctic is not monolithic - neither now or in the past. During the HCO we find beach ridges on Greenland shores - yet much thicker ice than present on Ellesmere Island.
You are being far too kind to Till Eulenspiegel.
He's a fake, a fraud, and a simpleton. His best friend is anonymity.
Eulenspiegel
Suddenly, it can spell.
Weird.
I am forever indebted to this wonderful animation:
http://gergs.net/2013/07/more-northern-sea-ice/
By putting available ice maps from the 1920s and 1930s together with 2012 it gives it to you in one short obvious visual.
You are not going to get through to Eulenspiegel alias or JCurry, who are bent on pleasing their masters or their delusions. Curry's profit to her self-regard is fed by actual profits and corporate publicity. It started as shameless victim bullying but seems to be reinforced by massive fandom of don't want to knowism.
Till Eulenspeigel of literary fame, was not so much a prankster as an idiot who created turmoil and conflict all around him by the agency of his sheer stupidity. A 16th century Jerry Lewis Our Till vainly aspires to such a status.
I vaguely recall some years ago an observation that the 'warm Arctic' events were quite local and occurred sometimes on the Russian side and other times on the Canadian side, with a corresponding cold event opposite. Nothing like the widespread warming currently being seen. Weather, as it were.
Post a Comment