Wednesday, January 29, 2014

Curry Vindaloo

Two excellent comments in the post on the Discovery of Currywurst.  First Fergus tell the bunnies of the thrills of England's national dish

On the optimum temperature of a Curry, or weather;

Some people like it nice and mild,
something like a Korma,
Others have more ambition
And go for something warmer;
But you should be alarmed, too
If offered proper Vindaloo.
In all events, it pays to hurry
When ultimately dumping Curry

and then TonyLearns shows the other side now
But Mosher says Tamino is a(an almost) complete incompetent.

Isn't that a devastating rebuttal?

Then I read Judith post of Tamino and arctic temps.

I was rather surprised that all the PEER REVIEWED research shoed the arctic in the 30's was as warm or warmer than NOW?

My heart started racing. ALL that time I had spent ridiculing Goddard on the arctic, at it turns out he was RIGHT ALL ALONG.

All these years I have trust you alarmists, and then a true Galileo like curry shows me the TRUTH!

I rushed over to Tamino's page to read his heart felt surrender. I was feeling really sad for him.
but then it turns out, Curry had apparently not been references research that included the 2000's and not the most recent years in the arctic.

But then how was one to guess that anything unusual had been going on in the arctic since 2002? has there been ANY coverage on the condition of the arctic since say 2007? It is hard to imagine that Curry would have known of ANYTHING happening in the arctic after 2002, it is SOOO big and COLD up there, and has not really been an issue among climate alarmists or deniers in the last few years.

I think Curry was perfectly justified, after reading Tamino's response, to just take her marbles and go home. The NERVE of that man to talk to a real lady like that way. REALLY!

I mean how much more scientific can one get than, when presented with real data, to pout and say

"Well, we really don't know much of anything about the arctic".

and I must say the other commenters on Tamino's post were VERY rude, expecting her to act like a real scientist and all, and engage with him about real research.
There is no end to the sharp observations, but for now these too will do.  Will no bunny carry the news to our friends?


Thomas Lee Elifritz said...

Any wagers on how long it takes me to get banned over there? You'll have to pay me to post there though, and if you want you can pay me to not post here anymore as well, lol.

This has all become so tiresome, were it not for the entertainment.

Keep up the good work!

Miguelito said...

She's either ignorant that 21st-century data exists or she's intellectually bankrupt, knowing that it exists, but ignoring it because it disproves her argument.

Neither is good. Actually, both are quite bad.

And if that data actually helped her cause, I'm pretty sure she wouldn't be ignoring it.


Curry's contribution to the military music of the Climate Wars finds celebration in the second half P.D. Q. Bach's baroque oratorio , The Seasonings.

The great chorale, To Curry Favor, Favor Curry begins exactly seven minutes into this you Tube video

EliRabett said...


Anonymous said...

It looks like Steven Mosher is not happy now that Tamino has bitchslapped his latest BFF.
He gets a bit ugly but that's understandable. Perhaps someone should give him a conforting pat on the back.


Anonymous said...

Thomas Lee Elifritz, you would not be banned there. So far as I know, no one has ever been banned.

A critical requirement, however, is that the technical issues be the focus of comments. Not the crap that occurs here.

Anon N+1

Susan Anderson said...

I relish the light (pickled) touches.

Thanks also for highlighting the excellent TonyLearns comment.

The Old Man is back said...

More material ongoing here:

Susan Anderson said...

Could not find lyrics for PDQ's curry favor, but I think that was Petty Curry ... triple-entendre?

The Old Man is back said...

Sorry, couldn't resist...

tonylearns said...

Mr. Rabett,

You could have AT LEAST fixed all the typos.

I posted a couple of things on Curry's site and tried to make it as clear as possible.
but they are cycling the wagons, and arguing about irrelevancies. It amazes me how people can delude themselves when it comes to ideology.

Curry is NOW saying that she was using the IPCC figures in the senate because this was ABOUT the IPCC.
But in that case she shouldn't have responded so arrogantly to you folks, and explained herself after the initial salvo's that she never meant to say that she actually BELIEVES the arctic was as warm back then.

Anonymous said...

"Any wagers on how long it takes me to get banned over there?"

I am kinda curious, who's been banned? and where?

This site allows continued discussion of data.

Based on experience, Skeptical Science, Real Climate and Tamino
are more interested in their pre-existing notions than any data
which might contradict them.

Carlos Danger.

The Old Man is back said...

Carlos anon;
what data?

exusian said...

Fergus, I doubt Carlos would know what data is if he tripped over it in broad daylight.

Anonymous said...

It's not controversial that parts of the Arctic were comparably warm during the 1920s and 1930s.

The question is why. Dynamic variation of sea ice appears to be a good candidate.

That doesn't preclude cee-oh-tu from causing global warming, but it would mean that a significant part of Arctic warming and Arctic sea ice change are attributable to natural variation.

guthrie said...

Anonymous at 10:05 am:

Only if all the other influences of the time held good, and obviously they don't and can't, given the massive loss of Arctic sea ice in summer, the changes in the jet stream etc etc.
Or, you can go away and do some work finding out what was affecting ice then and what those influences are doing just now...

Why Hockey Sticks are True said...

It's a Poe. Typos and all. Sarcastic Irony noted and appreciated, I guess... Tamino is operating at a very high level mathematically and should be reverently studied by any and all who would pretend at science!

Anonymous said...

"Or, you can go away and do some work finding out what was affecting ice then and what those influences are doing just now..."

Not enough measurements were made ( other than the temperature imprint ) on what was going on in the 1920s and 1930s.

As for now, we can measure.

2012, the sea ice was making a ( relative ) beeline for the melting waters.

2013, not so much, ( buoys spinning around in place ) which is perhaps why the minimum for 2013 was not as extreme.

Multi-year ice appears to be wrapping around the Arctic. Should that continue, Arctic sea ice would likely grow.

Anonymous said...

Sorry, here's yer 2013.


SA wrote :
Could not find lyrics for PDQ's curry favor, but I think that was Petty Curry ... triple-entendre?

Taking a position so homologous to PDQ Bach falls outside the entendre envelope entirely, coming more under the heading of the vengeance of a just & wrathful God.

guthrie said...

It would be nice if they taught logic and stuff at school these days, but obviously not.
Clearly, not knowing how or why some sections of the Arctic briefly reached temperatures equivalent to those currently enjoyed for a decade indicates that a couple of years of ice data means CO2 isn't affecting the climate much at all.

Kevin O'Neill said...

anon: "Multi-year ice appears to be wrapping around the Arctic. Should that continue, Arctic sea ice would likely grow."

Looking at PIOMAS data since 1980, there's an interesting difference between above average melt years and the subsequent refreeze and below average melt years + refreeze.

In the below average years there is little correlation (0.181) to the amount of refreeze and there is a slight gain in volume (0.052 * 1000 km^3/yr). For above average melt years there is a significant correlation (0.477) to the following refreeze and a net loss of volume (-0.767 * 1000 km^3/yr).

The average melt season over this period is 16.489 1000 km^3. The 2013 melt season was 16.637 1000 km^3) - or just slightly above average.

Up until this point the only above average melt season that resulted in a net volume gain after the refreeze was 2007/8. So, the stats tell us we should expect a net volume loss, but we're looking at pretty small sample sizes (18 years below average, 15 years above).

MYI in week fifty-two 2013
MYI in week fifty-two 2012
MYI in week fifty-two 2011
MYI in week fifty-two 2010
MYI in week fifty-two 2009
MYI in week fifty-two 2008
MYI in week fifty-two 2007
MYI in week fifty-two 2006

Susan Anderson said...

Cycling -> circling, thanks Tony L. And while we're talking about entertaining, homologous?

sah sah! (can't find it; early sword fighting taunt, I seem to remember)


To curry homology , correspond to, or be similar in structure, or function.

David B. Benson said...


tonylearns said...

Cycling was a typo. I meant "circling" you people are SOOOOO mean!

I see Curry has not responded to my comments. Clearly she is scared of me now

Anonymous said...

"Skeptical Science, Real Climate and Tamino are more interested in their pre-existing notions than any data which might contradict them."

Close but no biscuit dear Carlos. It's not the data, its how you analyse it.

SkeptSci, RealClimate and Tamino are interested in distinguishing trends from short term noise. Whereas faux sceptic sites are dedicated to analyses that maximise the effect of short term noise so that the long term trend is hidden.

Regards, Millicent

Susan Anderson said...

As long as it produces either knowledge or entertainment, I don't mind making a fool of myself one bit. I draw the line at outright falsehood. There's a lot of it about, but not in proper climate science as she is practiced in the main.

Sah sah was meant to acknowledge a hit.

TonyLearns, you're marvelous, attaboy!

Anonymous said...

"SkeptSci, RealClimate and Tamino are interested in creating trends from short term noise."


Always enjoy the Bush clones on Rabett Run, you are either with us, or against us.


Thomas Lee Elifritz said...

1 is so special. Of course, in science the opinion of 1 is not so special.

Anonymous said...

So, Elifritz, ( and anyone else )

which blogs have you been banned from?
and ostensibly why?

I'm genuinely curious.

Thomas Lee Elifritz said...

Your curiosity might be more usefully applied to more pressing and urgent problems and questions, but creationists and other religious freaks would routinely get many accounts banned on the largest operations by swamping the automated banning software with ban requests.

It doesn't take much snark and intellectual and technical abuse to get under the skin of most private blog owners. Given the state of science education in America, there is plenty of material out there to work with.

tonylearns said...


I have den banned from Steve goddard's site 3 times I think. I might be able to post again now, but I am no longer interested.

The last time I was banned for "lying about goddard" refusing to make predictions about the arctic in 2012. He pointed out that he made predictions about things as long as it wasn't SIE. We of course had been arguing solely about SIE for 5 months, and he did not give me chance to clarify, just banned me.
co-incidentally this was a couple of weeks before the record low SIE, and I had been on his case since March, hone he had been saying a new record was almost impossible.

Anonymous said...

That makes us even or on the same footing Thomas.


Thomas Lee Elifritz said...

That makes us even or on the same footing

Not even wrong.


Does it count as a ban if they ban your first comment ?

Anonymous said...


I know what I said is not wrong, thanks for agreeing.