I don’t know if history will care but you will and, regardless of where the data takes us, you’ll be able to look back in 20 years and say you did the right thing.
Comment on The legacy of Climategate: 5 years later by steven
↧
↧
Comment on The legacy of Climategate: 5 years later by rpielke
Hi Judy – This is really an excellent post!
Your experiences are quite similar in a lot of ways to mine. Unfortunately, I do not see things improving as you note. We need more colleagues to be open about their perspectives, which they are only communicating in private. I have even been told that they are “afraid of losing their jobs” if they speak out.
As an example of how much more needs to be done to inform others, the call for ~250 million dollars for multi-decadal climate model predictions is another example in which others in our community are silent.
The headline of that article is
“International supercomputing centres dedicated to climate prediction are needed to reduce uncertainties in global warming, says Tim Palmer.”
with text that reads
“Against the cost of mitigating climate change — conceivably trillions of dollars — investing, say, one quarter of the cost of the Large Hadron Collider (whose annual budget is just under US$1 billion) to reduce uncertainty in climate-change projections is surely warranted. Such an investment will also improve regional estimates of climate change — needed for adaptation strategies — and our ability to forecast extreme weather.”
These funds could be put to much more societally and environmentally beneficial purposes, including improvement of short- and season-term weather forecasts, and also the reduction of vulnerabilities to key resources, as we proposed in our book
Pielke Sr, R.A., Editor in Chief., 2013: Climate Vulnerability, Understanding and Addressing Threats to Essential Resources, 1st Edition. J. Adegoke, F. Hossain, G. Kallos, D. Niyoki, T. Seastedt, K. Suding, C. Wright, Eds., Academic Press, 1570 pp. http://store.elsevier.com/product.jsp?isbn=9780123847034
Until the leadership in the climate issue becomes enlightened, we are going to continue to see such self-serving calls for money.
Roger Sr.
↧
Comment on Open thread: Thanksgiving edition by Matthew R Marler
Pierre-Normand: <i> Matthew, this hypergeometric guy seems like an interesting fellow </i>
thank you. I bookmarked them.
↧
Comment on Gravito-thermal discussion thread by Rob Ellison
The alternatives suffer from a circularity of argument that is unconvincing at best. There is very little in the way of mathematical exposition or physical theory. There is little to distinguish it from symbolic logic.
There is certainly no notions of viscosity, convection or conduction in the alternatives – merely handwaving at fundamental principles. I rather fear that Pekka’s quibbles fall into the same trap. We have some maths that suggests that a gravito-thermal gradient exists in an isolated system under gravity – and Pekka arm waves about conduction and convection countering the effect to get the ‘true’ result of a uniform temperature. It is so far from proven as to be laughably unconvincing.
Here’s the experimental apparatus as visualised by Clive Best I presume.
It relies only on the centrifuge simulating a large enough gravity to enable easy measurement of a temperature gradient. Seems simple enough.
↧
Comment on The legacy of Climategate: 5 years later by son of mulder
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/03/13/climategate-3-0-has-occurred-the-password-has-been-released/
And then what – deafening silence?
↧
↧
Comment on Gravito-thermal discussion thread by Bryan
Just out of interest I used equation 107 from page 70 of G&Ts paper
http://arxiv.org/pdf/0707.1161v4.pdf
This was to contrast the radiative loss from a bottom face of a cubic metre of dry air with the radiative loss from the top face of a cubic metre of water.
This is the most common interface on our planet covering almost 70% of the surface area.
For both the calculated temperature drop is a modest one unit from 300K to 299K
The loss of internal energy would be typical for night time conditions
For air answer is 2 milliseconds
For water it is 2.54 hours
We don’t even need to invoke the second law to note that radiative warming of the surface by the atmosphere is pretty far fetched.
↧
Comment on Open thread: Thanksgiving edition by Bob Ludwick
@ Max_OK, Citizen Scientist
“The choice is between (a) loosely regulated nuclear power, or (b) burning cow dung for fuel.”
Those are not the choices. The choices are (a) establish generator regulations and the permitting process for new plants, nuclear or otherwise, with the objective of ensuring public safety rather than ensuring that the process, legal and permitting, is so restrictive that it cannot be achieved in finite time with finite funds or (b), above.
Keep in mind that the folks who are setting our technical and regulatory policies are totally focused on achieving (b).
For a refresher on the ultimate objective of our environmental policies, see the quotes from several of the icons of the movement, who regularly receive standing ovations when they address environmental and climate forums:
No, cow dung is the objective, unless the Maurice Strongs of the world succeed in banning cows along with energy from the grid (“Current lifestyles and consumption patterns of the affluent middle class – involving high meat intake, use of fossil fuels, appliances, air-conditioning, and suburban housing – are not sustainable.”
Maurice Strong,
Rio Earth Summit”
If left to the environmental movement, as represented by the most famous among them, the ultimate objective would appear to be the banning of fire in any form (except for that necessary to maintain themselves in the jet-setting lifestyle to which they have become accustomed as they flit from spa to spa, ensuring that WE live OUR lives at the technological level that THEY consider appropriate.
↧
Comment on The legacy of Climategate: 5 years later by Rob Bradley
History will judge you kindly. History will judge others who could have and should have joined you (Gerald North, etc.) as putting personal and peer profit over scientific progress in a political environment.
↧
Comment on Gravito-thermal discussion thread by Peter Lang
Thanks Willis,
Interesting and clear. Good enough for me.
And like nearly all the down-in-the-weeds climate science is irrelevant for input to policy analysis.
↧
↧
Comment on Gravito-thermal discussion thread by captdallas2 0.8 +/- 0.2
Yep. Yet when I mention that there is really two greenhouses to consider, the oceans and the atmosphere all you hear is crickets.
↧
Comment on The legacy of Climategate: 5 years later by RiHo08
Judith Curry you did not mention the migration to climate change issues of a host of people in many sciences who saw as fraudulent: “The science is settled.” Climate Science the Consensus is an anathema to scientists in general and particularly doesn’t apply climate science. The smell bad of climate science drew the attention of many passer-bys. Anthony Watts provides a blog with fast paced tidbits of science and politic as well as a lengthy commentary. You have provided a site for both learning and discourse which RealClimate abrogated when it went into its defensive shell, peering through portholes in the edifice, sniping at any and all who suggested: ” that an’t so”.
Climategate as a watershed for the environmental movement more likely than not will go down as a moment when environmental issues and organizations lost their way down the CO2 rabbit hole. Their blind allegiance to the IPCC, their money from the monied left, destined their radicalization and progressively extremist positions. GreenPeace, World Wildlife Federation, Sierra Club, and many others are no longer on my “contribution” list. Many NGOs with an environmental flavor, who even are religiously affiliated may be suffering in contributions and in particular clout.
What seems to have gained in attention, after Climategate and maybe because of the hiatus, is a confrontational attitude to the “consensus view” on energy. This is more evident as the climate catastrophists’s push for intermittent and unsustainable “renewable” energies which is now discussed in economic terms, including economic viability without significant governmental subsidies.
What has also become evident, that the involvement of purported selective environmental casualties (island nations disappearing beneath the ocean waves) is being contrasted to the plight of people in the present day energy poverty and the war on fossil fuels.
Although not stated by the Republican landslide in the recent USA election, Climategate, the hiatus, and unilateral declarations by Obama and rule making of EPA, endangers EPA via funding limitations. What might transpire: a complete overhaul of the Clean Air Act and trashing of the Endangerment Finding and all those public servants who struggled mightily to implement coal’s energy demise via stifling regulation. It’s more than West Virginia at stake. Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Kentucky, Montana, Wyoming and a smattering of others have been gored by EPA. Pretty soon, that leads to real Congressional votes.
Climategate is but a moment which helped begin a movement. The movement to dismantle climate science babble seems to have legs.
↧
Comment on The legacy of Climategate: 5 years later by Curious George
Head on.How can we predict climate for 100 years when there is no consistently reliable weather forecast for 100 hours.
The climate models should be a natural outgrowth of successful weather forecasting models. That’s where our money should go. Somehow, IPCC folks think that running a bad model 10,000 times tells us something about climate. It does not.
We don’t need 20 good models We only need one. We have none.
↧
Comment on The legacy of Climategate: 5 years later by JCH
<i>I have even been told that they are “afraid of losing their jobs” if they speak out.</i>
Exactly how many climate scientists have said this to you? What are their names?
↧
↧
Comment on The legacy of Climategate: 5 years later by Tonyb
Judith
All the 1100 comments on the Tim ball piece we’re not vitriolic against Betts and Tamsin. Two of the first comments Agreeing with them were from myself and Barry Woods.
We had both met up with Anthony Watts at Bristol just prior to the Mann talk And there is no doubt that Anthony was highly enthused and inspired by his meeting with Richatd and Tamsin and was in a conciliatory mood which suited the dozen or so of us who met up with him .
Richard Betts himself is a nice guy who went out of his way to introduce himself to me when I asked a question of the Ipcc reviewers at a climate conference in Exeter. I hope to meet up with him at the Met office one of these days whose scientists are unfailingly helpful and polite to me in my own resarch.
I see no need for vitriol but both sides have been very strident for a long time and have taken extreme positions.
I do not believe in hoaxes and conspiracies or that climat scientists are stupid. However there is an awful lot of Over certainty in climate science when in reality we still know very little, especially the further back in time you go. I have argued numerous times with John Kennedy of the Met Office, a fine scientist, we can not possibly know SSTs back to 1850.
Similarly we have no idea at all of the temperature of the deep oceans as Thomas Stocker admitted. More research and less certainty would be welcome
Tonyb
↧
Comment on Gravito-thermal discussion thread by A fan of *MORE* discourse
Rob Ellison wonders about a “centrifuge simulating a large enough gravity to enable easy measurement of a temperature gradient.”
These babies pull 70,000 “g’s” (and more!).
After a run, when you take out the fluid-filled tubes, their tops aren’t frozen and theirs bottoms aren’t hot … the tubes are the same temperature from top-to-bottom … precisely as orthodox thermodynamics predicts.
It’s a pleasure to increase your knowledge, Rob Ellison!
![\scriptstyle\rule[2.25ex]{0.01pt}{0.01pt}\,\boldsymbol{\overset{\scriptstyle\circ\wedge\circ}{\smile}\,\heartsuit\,{\displaystyle\text{\bfseries!!!}}\,\heartsuit\,\overset{\scriptstyle\circ\wedge\circ}{\smile}}\ \rule[-0.25ex]{0.01pt}{0.01pt}](http://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=%5Cscriptstyle%5Crule%5B2.25ex%5D%7B0.01pt%7D%7B0.01pt%7D%5C%2C%5Cboldsymbol%7B%5Coverset%7B%5Cscriptstyle%5Ccirc%5Cwedge%5Ccirc%7D%7B%5Csmile%7D%5C%2C%5Cheartsuit%5C%2C%7B%5Cdisplaystyle%5Ctext%7B%5Cbfseries%21%21%21%7D%7D%5C%2C%5Cheartsuit%5C%2C%5Coverset%7B%5Cscriptstyle%5Ccirc%5Cwedge%5Ccirc%7D%7B%5Csmile%7D%7D%5C+%5Crule%5B-0.25ex%5D%7B0.01pt%7D%7B0.01pt%7D&bg=bbffcc&fg=0055ff&s=2 "\scriptstyle\rule[2.25ex]{0.01pt}{0.01pt}\,\boldsymbol{\overset{\scriptstyle\circ\wedge\circ}{\smile}\,\heartsuit\,{\displaystyle\text{\bfseries!!!}}\,\heartsuit\,\overset{\scriptstyle\circ\wedge\circ}{\smile}}\ \rule[-0.25ex]{0.01pt}{0.01pt}")
↧
Comment on The legacy of Climategate: 5 years later by tonyhellerexposed
I’m happy to report we “technical skeptics,” as you like to call us, Judith, are above distasteful and disgusting ad hom fray: http://tonyhellerakastevengoddardisnotasociopath.wordpress.com/tony-hellers-aka-steven-goddards-latest-and-greatest-insults/
↧
Comment on Gravito-thermal discussion thread by DocMartyn
Willis, is there any matter that does not absorb, at all, in the Far-IR and microwave region?
↧
↧
Comment on Open thread: Thanksgiving edition by David Springer
Pekka Pirilä | December 1, 2014 at 10:34 am | Reply
<blockquote>
P-N,
The error in that direction is, indeed, more common, but even people, who think that the thermodynamic equilibrium is not isothermal should understand that circulation like that found on Earth leads to strong dissipation, and that maintaining circulation in spite of the dissipation requires an atmospheric heat engine that gets its driving force from the temperature differences created by GHE. They should understand that, if they had any understanding of physics.
</blockquote>
GHE not needed. Atmosphere is heated mostly by rain and the water cycle is not dependent on IR absorption by water vapor or any other so-called "greenhouse" gas. Nice try but no cigar.
↧
Comment on The legacy of Climategate: 5 years later by captdallas2 0.8 +/- 0.2
Excellent post.
↧
Comment on The legacy of Climategate: 5 years later by Joseph
By the time 2011 rolled around, my ostracization by the climate establishment was pretty complete
What do you expect when you say that overwhelming majority is wrong and you are right? You try to rationalize the disagreement by speculating that they are suffering under group think (etc) and you say certain high profile individuals lack integrity because you say they are “advocates.” You have gone beyond the science with your accusations about individuals and your attempt to psychoanalyze the others in the group. I really don’t know why you expect these people to embrace you or your ideas when you engage in such behavior.
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
