Articles on this Page
- 01/02/19--07:31: _ Comment on Cli...
- 01/02/19--08:01: _ Comment on Nat...
- 01/02/19--08:18: _ Comment on Cli...
- 01/02/19--08:19: _ Comment on Nat...
- 01/02/19--08:22: _ Comment on 201...
- 01/02/19--08:25: _ Comment on 201...
- 01/02/19--08:28: _ Comment on Nat...
- 01/02/19--08:53: _ Comment on Nat...
- 01/02/19--09:00: _ Comment on Nat...
- 01/02/19--09:04: _ Comment on Nat...
- 01/02/19--09:06: _ Comment on Nat...
- 01/02/19--14:48: _ Comment on Nat...
- 01/02/19--16:21: _ Comment on Cli...
- 01/02/19--16:59: _ Comment on Nat...
- 01/02/19--17:03: _ Comment on Nat...
- 01/02/19--17:08: _ Comment on Cli...
- 01/02/19--17:10: _ Comment on Nat...
- 01/02/19--17:13: _ Comment on Nat...
- 01/02/19--17:22: _ Comment on Nat...
- 01/02/19--18:01: _ Comment on Nat...
- 01/02/19--08:22: Comment on 2018 –> 2019 by Beta Blocker
- 01/02/19--08:25: Comment on 2018 –> 2019 by climatereason
Since you are new here, I don't allow attacks/insults on individuals, particularly other commenters. Discussing other bloggers and their policies is relevant on some threads (its ok on this one). You might be new to the climate blogosphere (apart from Cliff Mass); there are many other blogs run by climate scientists that are much worse than what you accuse Mass of doing. While not a regular participant, I find alot of value in Mass' blog.
Climate Etc. used to be unmoderated, 'anything goes' -- it was a mess. that was a big mistake, It is much better now that I moderate. I do allow anonymity here, since some commenters are employed by universities or government labs, and are fearful of professional fallout. Also, in response to hosting Nic Lewis critique of Resplandy, I received this 'charming' email:
"May you be looking them straight in the eye when they point a gun at you . . . ought to be convicted and summarily executed"
I don't expect any commenters here to open themselves up to that kind of personal threat.
In the old days, I received about 500 comments per day. Early on, I made it a policy not to respond to comments (other than occasionally), but to let the disscussion flow among the commenters. I would have time for nothing else if I replied to comments. If someone has a serious question that they want my response to, they send me an email. I am not interested in responding to people that are grandstanding and trying to play 'gotcha.'
All blogs are different.
[…] world is nothing like the picture the media tries to paint for you. The smart Earthling is highly sceptical — and very, very […]
I'm afraid it is relevant. Not "insults" exactly, although if you like many Americans are not fully conversant with the generally inoffensive yet challenging on the introspection conversational norm of "taking the piss" then perhaps you can be forgiven for mistaking such for "insult" ( which incidentally is not at all absent from the norm here, even if seldom directed at you nor using the unambiguous language you describe.)
No what I'm talking about is if you intend to "talk about other blogs" such as Cliff Mass (the dispute described is entirely about his blog) as well as defend him on certain claims using certain investigations that can only be considered incomplete ( not to mention out to lunch if you include James Dellingpole of Brightfart News!) then you must, if given the chance, pursue the full context, which is what I am offering up here by the bucket load.
OK? Sorry to hear about your work load but I assumed you being retired had at least as much time as your regulars and as I have hinted, you being a scientist disciplined to a ethic of robust, transparent and yes potentially assertive challenge, i figured you'd get around to it eventually.
Which of course is a good thing because then I no longer need to speculate, often as such as a slave to our lesser intuitions and biases, under the illusionary influences of the false positive or the false negative, which either silence or censorship is.
To that end, thank you for ceasing the selective censorship of my posts and finally opening up a dialogue on a perfectly relevant topic which is:
Do you think now, given my examples that perhaps Cliff's style and substance of communication is directly relevant to the volume of criticism he receives? My criticism of him is exactly that. not his expert opinion but how he politicizes that opinion, consistently avoiding all opportunity for a broader and more inclusive context, which could well be the basis of the professional ethics complaint brought against him.
I don't know any more than you or anyone else here, but given all the well documented evidence, is it not a reasonable suspicion?
Are the prognostications of "Limits To Growth" and its "40 Year Update" helpful?
Does Claude Levi-Strauss' greatest fear, "the Poisoning of the Planet," have any consideration in the climate change debate?
LTG originally expected global population overshoot and collapse, from starvation caused by our failure to invent an effective detoxification response to our 90,000+ man-made chemicals accumulating in and poisoning our planet's food chains to become obvious sometime between 2030 and 2050.
Its 40 Year Update expected it to happen NLT 2024!
I've presumed that the weakest amongst us will be the first to present evidence of that contamination. In our food chains there are I thousands of microbes required to grow, digest and excrete our food.
Are those microbes declining at a similar rate to that of insects?
Cooked, or Contaminated, as they disappear, why won't we?
<b>David Wojick:</b> <em>"Beta, if you think that a Democrat sweep is a 'predictable certainty' this tells us a lot about your strange concept of uncertainty, which in turn helps explain your views on the climate change debate."</em>
Donald Trump's election as president in 2016 was an aberration in the long term ebb and flow of American politics. It's one that won't last long.
That Trump's victory happened at all was a consequence of Hillary Clinton's extreme hubris in believing she was the sure winner in 2016. Thus her failure to campaign hard in the Electoral College swing states most vulnerable to the Trump message. Having witnessed what that hubris cost them in 2016, the Democrats will not be making the same mistake in 2020.
Much more likely than not, a Democrat will be elected president in 2020, and the Democrats will probably take control of the Senate as well, given that a larger number of vulnerable Republican Senate seats will be up for reelection in the 2020 campaign cycle than there were in 2018. Starting in January 2021, everything Donald Trump did while he was in office will be quickly overturned and erased.
That said, the aggressive use of existing Executive Branch authorities operating under the Clean Air Act and its EPA-managed enforcement mechanisms is the only possible means of getting from here to there in reducing America's GHG emissions as quickly as climate activists say is necessary.
If the Democrat who follows Donald Trump as president doesn't use the EPA to its maximum possible effectiveness in controlling America's carbon emissions, it will become obviously apparent that climate activists have an agenda which doesn't necessarily include saving the earth from climate change.
I hope you don't mean you intend to give up? Your comments are always interesting even if I don't always agree with them
With regard to your comment that "Climate change is a very serious issue — depending on your perspective, there will be much future loss and damage from either climate change itself or from the policies designed to prevent climate change." -- it is not at all obvious to me that there would be "much future loss and damage from ... the policies designed to prevent climate change." Obviously that depends on the policies chosen, but it is at least possible to imagine a market-driven innovation strategy that would result in low costs and high non-climate benefits. Is this not a question for which you (and we) should show less confidence?
I don't find the label "Overconfidence" helpful. When used in general parlance, I'd take this to be a more benign term than the consequences it creates in this arena. I can't think of an issue either present or historical in which "group think" so infected an objective pursuit as to render the bulk of an entire field at odds with reality.
I think the overconfidence bear should be poked and engaged with a bit more aggressive language. Otherwise, it is content to remain unconscious to what it perceives to be the fringe.
"Overconfidence" is actually more akin to hubris (pride that removes a correct perception of reality to the point of being destructive).
Judith Curry raises valid concerns about the scientific process in use with regard to the confidence levels reported for current conclusions regarding climate change. Reading this article has increased my doubt about the methods used to determine the extent and potential results of climate change as it is studied and used for policy decisions today.
Consensus does not automatically mean that those who agree are correct in their assumptions. The current methods of communicating climate change information do not include verification of evidence, nor does it probe into the unknowns of climate change determinations, which are numerous and compelling.
If we create policy based on the current scientific process, we risk creating harm as great as that being predicted for an alleged changing climate.
Will the real scientists please stand up? Sheepishness, worry about your career, and the importance of being part of the group do not outweigh the potential for harm if the conclusions are incorrect.
“Longer-term climate records over past centuries and millennia indicate that average temperatures in recent decades over much of the world have been much higher, and have risen faster during this time period, than at any time in the past 1,700 years or more, the time period for which the global distribution of surface temperatures can be reconstructed. (High confidence)”
OK, so this is in reference to global no NH. "Recent decades" is not stated, at least not in the quote. Also, note that there is an "and" there that implies both the temp and the temp increase.
"This statement really struck me, since it is at odds with the conclusion from the IPCC AR5 WG1 Chapter 5 on paleoclimate:
“For average annual NH temperatures, the period 1983–2012 was very likely the warmest 30-year period of the last 800 years (high confidence) and likely the warmest 30-year period of the last 1400 years (medium confidence)."
It would be hard to compare the two anyway.
I'm not sure that it is possible to imagine a "market-driven innovation strategy" that results in low costs high climate benefits without artificial and certainly governmental constraint. Artificial constraint then in turn supplants "market-driven." The easiest way to prove the point is to create/design such a product, Kickstart(er) it and sell it. I'm not being glib here. If it is in fact "easy to imagine" then it is easy to provide a plan/product/road map for doing so. I do doubt it though. Frankly, thinking that such a panacea is possible is the summit of overconfidence.
Temperature anomalies don't kill people, absolute temperatures kill people.
Sign my petition, to ban absolute temperatures !!!
We are better off, without them.
My latest article, shows just how evil absolute temperatures really are. They are not quite as evil as CO2, but CO2 has been quietly increasing absolute temperatures, while everybody has been busy looking at temperature anomalies.
Global warming temperature distributions. (I know that this is a boring title, but the article is incredibly exciting !!!)
Where else can you see 10.0 and 15.0 degrees Celsius of global warming?
Using a single number to represent global warming, like 1.5 or 2.0 degrees Celsius of global warming, makes it hard to see how bad the problem really is. Is 2.0 degrees Celsius of global warming a major change from what we have now, or is it a minor change?
Using temperature anomalies to represent global warming, removes (or ignores) what is "normal" for temperatures. "Normal", becomes a single temperature anomaly, 0.0 degrees Celsius. Does 0.0 degrees Celsius, really represent the "normal" temperature distribution of the Earth.
What is the solution to this problem? The answer is to look at temperature distributions, rather than single numbers. Temperature distributions make global warming multi-dimensional, rather than a one-dimensional number. Temperature distributions show how the temperature varies with latitude, elevation, proximity to the ocean, size of the landmass, UHI (urban heat island effect), and many other factors.
Comparing the "normal" temperature distribution, to a "global warming" temperature distribution, makes it easier to judge the size of the problem. Are "alarmists" trying to turn a molehill into a mountain? Or are "deniers" trying to turn a mountain into a molehill?
This article will show you the temperature distributions for a range of global warming "amounts". People with weak hearts should not look at the more extreme amounts of global warming. Seeing 10.0 or 15.0 degrees Celsius of global warming on a graph, may be too much for those with a vivid imagination.
This article offers a choice of global warming simulations.
1) with NO polar amplification
2) WITH polar amplification
OK I'll take your word for it. Like i said, guess or skill, I wouldn't be surprised that essentially you are right, that the Libtard university crowd went off the deep end on Cliff. I wouldn't be surprised because such hysteria is not really that uncommon these days. For instance while Trump deserves tons of criticism, a fair chunk of it is hysteria. The same goes for say Elizabeth Warren or the Shrillary. It is very much a sign of the times.
Which leads back to my point. It's sad to think the ethics committee (or whatever they are) can't focus on an actual complaint of substance ( please refer to my list and there is more) rather than claim / insinuate / suggest all would be well if only he advocated for the carbon tax!
Carbon tax cheerleading isn't the point. The point, I say once again is that if such a influential pillar of authority purports to "communicate the scientific facts" to what amounts to a very large layman audience, he is professionally obligated to not just provide all due context but as I'm sure his boss would agree, avoid a very obvious partisan favouritism.
I know if I was running that show that would be top of my list for any institute of higher learning. And if it was my corporation, he'd be long gone by now.
Reid Detchon Re "much future loss and damage from … the policies designed to prevent climate change"
Consider the worst consequence of geoengineering by atmospheric aerosol reflection to cool earth. What if that was sufficient to trigger global cooling into the next glaciation? Demanding trillions of dollars for reducing global warming without quantifying the severe dangers of global cooling is an example of the supreme overconfidence.
The current interglacial is already 2 C below the previous 4 interglacials. Earth has been cooling on average since the Holocene Optimum.
"most interglacials typically last about 10,000 to 30,000 years".
See <a href="https://eos.org/research-spotlights/characterizing-interglacial-periods-over-the-past-800000-years" rel="nofollow">Characterizing Interglacials</a>.
We are already some 10,000 years into the present interglacial.
e.g McKitrick and Christy 2018 show that satellite and balloon temperature evidence invalidates global warming models.
<a href="https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1029/2018EA000401" rel="nofollow">A Test of the Tropical 200‐to 300‐hPa Warming Rate in Climate Models</a>
There are at least huge Type B systematic errors between this data and conventional climate models OR between the satellite and balloon data vs surface temperature data that have NOT been identified.
The wild overconfidence of CO2 driven global warming climate models could be numbing us to tipping into long term global cooling as evidenced by the descent from the Holocene Optimum to the Little Ice Age.
The consequences of descending into glaciation could well be the loss of most agriculture with a resultant 5 to 6 billion dying of starvation. A mile thick glacier grinding thru Chicago would cause far greater devestation to Canadian and US agriculture and infrastrucutre than a foot or so of sealevel rise!
Until we have transitioned into cost effective abundant fusion and artificial agriculture we need to seriously consider such alternatives and consequences.
I consider glaciation caused starvation of most of earth a serious possible consequence of the extreme overconfidence identified by Judith Curry amplified by the very high TypeB errors between models and data. It has finite probability with major uncertainties that have not been quantified.
PS See the international standard <a href="https://www.bipm.org/en/publications/guides/gum.html" rel="nofollow">Guide to the expression of Uncertainty in Measurement</a> BIPM GUM JCGM 100:2008. The IPCC and us National Climate Assessment appear at least oblivious of the huge systemic TypeB errors in its models as evidenced by the obvious overconfidence highlighted here.
Excellent essay Judith. I see this kind of overconfidence all the time particularly with "assessment" reports. These assessments often reflect the consensus in the field as to what will help the field sell its point of view (and get more funding) and often neglect any negative results that might interfere with the message.
There is a strong herd instinct in most fields of computational science with individuals acutely aware of what will damage their reputation with their peers. That has a basis in the soft money culture where peers can be critical to continued funding, the awarding of perquisites, and professional society awards.
Contrary to the climate science warrior "meme" about retired scientists, they are relatively immune from peer pressure and in my view are more likely to be objective in their evaluations of the science.
One of the memes that dominates computational fields is that more physics (or as is more likely pseudo-physics) must be better. A corollary is that if we include all the physics on a fine enough grid, we will get the "right" answer. These memes are very damaging to scientific progress.
v8, I am having trouble finding your core point among the vast volume of words you have used here. Universities are not private companies and usually think of free speech as part of their core mission. This commitment is also essential for the proper functioning of science. There is nothing wrong with Cliff's blog except to censorious interesectionality types.
Hayhoe's "we can say I don’t believe climate is changing" is an illogical strawman argument with implicit accusation of being illiterate of anti-scientific.
99.9% of geologists and engineers will say climate (as a 30 year average) has been changing for 3 billion years.
Hayhoe's use of "climate change" is also an illogical equivocation - to mean "majority anthropogenic global warming" - again with implied accusation if you say no.
I believe we entered the new Ice Age aboout 18000 years ago. Since then the earth has been loosing more heat every day than it retains.This is shown in the Antarctic Ice core.
Weather is just nature removing heat stored in the ocean by freezing water and storing in at the poles. This is how nature keeps the average surface temperature constant, thus the radient hear sent to the black sky relatively constant.
Will $4 billion of philanthropy address overconfidence?
<a href="https://issues.org/sciences-publics-politics-climate-philanthropy-and-the-four-billion-dollars-that-is/" / rel="nofollow">Sciences, Publics, Politics: Climate Philanthropy and the Four Billion (Dollars, That Is)</a>
By Matthew C. Nisbet bit.ly/2LNogD4