• Announcements

    • Zapata

      Abbreviated rules   07/28/2017

      Underdawg did an excellent job of explaining the rules.  Here's the simplified version: Don't insinuate Pedo.  Warning and or timeout for a first offense.  PermaFlick for any subsequent offenses Don't out members.  See above for penalties.  Caveat:  if you have ever used your own real name or personal information here on the forums since, like, ever - it doesn't count and you are fair game. If you see spam posts, report it to the mods.  We do not hang out in every thread 24/7 If you see any of the above, report it to the mods by hitting the Report button in the offending post.   We do not take action for foul language, off-subject content, or abusive behavior unless it escalates to persistent stalking.  There may be times that we might warn someone or flick someone for something particularly egregious.  There is no standard, we will know it when we see it.  If you continually report things that do not fall into rules #1 or 2 above, you may very well get a timeout yourself for annoying the Mods with repeated whining.  Use your best judgement. Warnings, timeouts, suspensions and flicks are arbitrary and capricious.  Deal with it.  Welcome to anarchy.   If you are a newbie, there are unwritten rules to adhere to.  They will be explained to you soon enough.  

sidmon

Members
  • Content count

    752
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About sidmon

  • Rank
    Anarchist

Profile Information

  • Location
    Chicago

Recent Profile Visitors

2,611 profile views
  1. Mann straight up lied before Congress.
  2. Tell that to Mann and Schmidt.
  3. Dr. John R. Christy is the Distinguished Professor of Atmospheric Science and Director of the Earth System Science Center at the University of Alabama in Huntsville where he began studying global climate issues in 1987. Since November 2000 he has been Alabama's State Climatologist. In 1989 Dr. Roy W. Spencer (then a NASA/Marshall scientist and now a Principle Research Scientist at UAH) and Christy developed a global temperature data set from microwave data observed from satellites beginning in 1979. For this achievement, the Spencer-Christy team was awarded NASA's Medal for Exceptional Scientific Achievement in 1991. In 1996, they were selected to receive a Special Award by the American Meteorological Society "for developing a global, precise record of earth's temperature from operational polar-orbiting satellites, fundamentally advancing our ability to monitor climate." In January 2002 Christy was inducted as a Fellow of the American Meteorological Society. Dr. Christy has served as a Contributor (1992, 1994, 1996 and 2007) and Lead Author (2001) for the U.N. reports by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in which the satellite temperatures were included as a high-quality data set for studying global climate change. He has served on five National Research Council panels or committees and has performed research funded by NASA, NOAA, DOE, DOT and the State of Alabama and has published many articles including studies appearing in Science, Nature, Journal of Climate and The Journal of Geophysical Research. Dr. Christy has provided testimony to several congressional committees. Dr. Christy received the M.S. and Ph.D. degrees in Atmospheric Sciences from the University of Illinois (1984, 1987). Prior to this career path he had graduated from the California State University in Fresno (B.A. Mathematics, 1973, Distinguished Alumnus 2007) and taught Physics and Chemistry as a missionary teacher in Nyeri, Kenya for two years. After earning a Master of Divinity degree from Golden Gate Baptist Seminary (1978) he served four years as a bivocational mission-pastor in Vermillion, South Dakota where he also taught college math. He was featured in the February 2001 issue of Discover magazine and in a National Public Radio profile in 2004 in which his diverse background was highlighted.
  4. Education 1982 Ph.D. The University of Chicago, Geophysical Sciences 1974 B.S. cum laude Northern Illinois University, Geography Professional Experience 2002- Chair, School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences, Georgia Institute of Technology 1992-2002 Professor, University of Colorado-Boulder, Department of Aerospace Engineering Sciences Program in Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences Environmental Studies Program 1989-1992 Associate Professor, Department of Meteorology, Penn State 1986-1989 Assistant Professor, Department of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences, Purdue University 1982-1986 Assistant Scientist, Department of Meteorology, University of Wisconsin-Madison Awards/Honors 2006 Georgia Tech Sigma Xi Award, Best Faculty Paper Award 2004 Fellow, American Geophysical Union 2002 NASA Group Achievement Award for CAMEX-4 1997 Elected Councilor, American Meteorological Society 1995 Fellow, American Meteorological Society" 1992 Henry G. Houghton Award, the American Meteorological Society 1988 Presidential Young Investigator Award, the National Science Foundation Councillor Professional Activities (last five years) World Meteorological Organization / International Council of Scientific Unions / International Ocean Commission / World Climate Research Programme American Meteorological Society National Science Foundation Department of Energy National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) NAS/NRC NOAA Other RESEARCH GRANTS Current Research Grants Towards the Understanding and Parameterization of High Latitude Cloud and Radiation Processes. DOE ARM, 12/01/02-11/30/08, $720,000 (PI) Applications of Aerosondes to long-term measurements of the atmosphere and sea ice surface in the Beaufort/Chukchi sector of the Arctic Ocean, NSF, 9/1/99-8/31/06, $3,997,402. (PI) Arctic Regional Climate Model Intercomparison Project: Evaluation and Interpretation of Cloud and Radiation Fields Using Data Products from FIRE.ACE. NASA, 12/03-12/07, $525,000. (PI) UAV Systems Analysis for Earth Observations: Education and Outreach. NASA, 3/05-3/08, $350,000 (PI) Global analysis of ocean surface fluxes of heat and freshwater: satellite products, NWP analyses, and CMIP simulations. NASA, 10/1/05-9/30/10, $1.4M. (PI) Parameterization of cloud particle activation and diffusional growth. NASA, $450,000, 11/1/05-10/31/08 (PI) TEACHING Courses Taught Hurricanes (Georgia Tech, grad/undergrad) Thermodynamics of Atmospheres and Oceans (Georgia Tech, graduate) Thermodynamics of the Earth System (Georgia Tech, undergraduate) Preparing Future Faculty (University of Colorado; graduate) Thermodynamics of Atmospheres and Oceans (University of Colorado; graduate) Remote Sensing of the Atmosphere and Ocean (University of Colorado; graduate) Aircraft Probing of the Lower Atmosphere (University of Colorado; graduate) Future Faculty Training (University of Colorado; graduate) Engineering Thermodynamics and Heat Transfer (University of Colorado; undergraduate) Engineering Senior Design Lab (University of Colorado; undergraduate) Survey of Meteorology (Purdue University; undergraduate) Atmospheric Thermodynamics (Purdue University, Penn State University; undergraduate) Atmospheric Physics (Purdue University, Penn State University; graduate) Cloud and Precipitation Physics (Purdue University; graduate)
  5. Again, the information in #322 was presented at the AGU... https://judithcurry.com/2017/03/31/deniers-lies-and-politics/ Lies, damned lies and more lies I always thought that there would be consequences for lying during Congressional testimony. I guess not. Mann got caught out in several blatant lies during the Hearing. This is pretty classic: Mann denies calling me a denier [link] A number of statements have been attributed to me. I don’t believe I’ve called anybody a denier when he states this in his written testimony: Bates’ allegations were also published on the blog of climate science denier Judith Curry Mann ‘denies’ being associated with the Climate Accountability Institute [link]. Julie Kelly writes in an article Michael Mann Embarrasses Himself Before Congress Turns out Mann appears to be a bit of a denier himself. Under questioning, Mann denied being involved with the Climate Accountability Institute even though he is featured on its website as a board member. CAI is one of the groups pushing a scorched-earth approach to climate deniers, urging lawmakers to employ the RICO statute against fossil-fuel corporations. When asked directly if he was either affiliated or associated with CAI, Mann answered “no.” [JC note: Mann also lists this affiliation on his CV] Some additional ‘porkies’ are highlighted in an article by James Delingpole. Venal motives Michael Mann’s testimony plays to the theme of the evil oil companies and Koch brothers being responsible for climate denial. I’m still waiting for my check (according to Mann, I’ve earned one). Lets take a look at Mann’s venal motives. A little birdie dropped this in my mailbox this morning: x The sent time on the email is just moments after the Hearing. Apparently Michael Mann now has a Political Action Committee (PAC) 314.action I imagine that my receiving this information will intensely provoke someone’s paranoia. Red Teams Well I have to say that I feared our key messages got lost in all the bickering and nonsense of the actual Hearing. I was very heartened to see this article by Chelsea Harvey in the WaPo: These scientists want to challenge climate research. Congress is listening. This article is basically about the ‘Red Team’ strategy discussed by Christy and myself. It is a good and article, and I would like to thank Chelsea Harvey for writing this. I will have lots to say on this topic in coming months. JC reflections Well, the Hearing was rather bizarre. I don’t think anyone got out of it what they wanted (other than MM with his PAC donations). I hope that my written testimony will result in reflection by some scientists. And it seems possible that the Red Team idea will develop legs. Some establishment scientists are calling for climate scientists to boycott these Hearings. Well, that would be fine with me. Scientists who don’t want to engage in respectful discussion and debate should stay home, and preach to their choirs. Here is some advice for Lamar Smith. If you hold another Hearing on climate change and the democrats invite Mann, either cancel the Hearing or call Steve McIntyre and/or Mark Steyn as witnesses. Several times during the Hearing, the thought popped into my mind that I wished Mark Steyn was here. Who could forget his performance at Ted Cruz’s previous Hearing [link].
  6. The last was actually from a presentation given at the AGU. And all you can do is throw empty insults. http://www.nationalreview.com/article/446295/michael-mann-house-testimony-climate-change-embarrassing-rude In his testimony to the House Science Committee on Wednesday, Michael Mann, one of the world’s leading climate scientists, told the story of Trofim Lysenko, a plant scientist who worked for Stalinist Russia: The gist of Mann’s anecdote was that scientists who challenge the ruling government’s diktat on any given scientific issue are demonized and punished while innocent bystanders suffer. In the here and now, this would seemingly apply to the minority of scientists brave enough to question the reigning dogma of climate science. After all, these are the folks who have been threatened by top law-enforcement officials, personally and professionally attacked by their peers, and even driven out of their academic positions due to the harassment. But astonishingly, Mann was not talking about those scientists: He was talking about himself. In his alternative universe, he and other climate scientists are the martyrs, oppressed and silenced by the Politburo. Never mind that Mann — a tenured professor at one of the country’s top public universities — opened his testimony by reciting a prodigious list of awards he has won, books he has authored, scientific organizations he leads. He is celebrated by the media and environmental groups around the world, and yet in front of Congress he talked like a guy on his way to the Gulag. It takes a special blend of hubris, juvenility, and dishonesty to portray yourself as a victim when you are really the bully.
  7. More here: https://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/working-paper-35_2.pdf
  8. The graph was presented as part of his testimony before Congress. Read the pdf to see the context in which it was presented. And, to your point, its been brought up...Read the whole thing: https://judithcurry.com/2016/04/05/comparing-models-with-observations/ A whole host of interesting issues are raised in this exchange: How to communicate complex data to a non technical audience? How to best compare model predictions against observations? What is are the most reliable sources of such plots to use in public presentations? I’ll start with the third question first. When selecting figures to use in presentations or testimony, I am looking for the most credible figures to use. I use figures from the most recent IPCC assessment where possible. A second choice is a figure from the published literature. However, in public presentations and testimony, they are looking for the most up-to-date analysis with the latest observations (which aren’t in peer reviewed publications owing to research-publication time lags). Hence I have often used Ed Hawkins’ update of figure 11.25 from the AR5 comparing model projections and surface observations (Ed was the author of fig 11.25). With regards to John Christy’s figure, he is the author of one of the main observational data sets used in the comparison. I don’t know the source of the time series that Gavin provided, but the observations in gavin’s figure vs Christy’s figure do not look similar in terms of time variation. I have no idea how to explain this. I have to say that I think John Christy’s figure is more reliable, although some additional thought could be given to how to define the beginning reference point to eliminate any spurious influence from El Nino or whatever. Why don’t I draw my own figures for such presentations? Apart from the issue of lack of time and lack of artistic skill in making such plots look nice, I regard published diagrams or diagrams made by originators of the data sets to have a higher credibility rank, as well as being a source of analysis independent from the person summarizing the information (i.e. me). The issue of comparing models to observations has been hashed out here (Spinning the climate model – observation comparison Part I, Part II, Part III) and at other blogs (e.g. Lucia’s, etc.). How to compare depends on the point you are trying to make. For example, in Gavin’s first time series plot, I am not sure what the point is of comparing to scenario R4.5. I don’t see that the baseline matters that much, if you are mainly comparing trends. I really like the histogram, this conveys exactly the point I wanted to make, although explaining this to a nontechnical audience in ~1 minute is pretty hopeless. I also like Ed Hawkin’s figure 11.15.
  9. Bullshit! I have provided a ton of CREDIBLE information that you happen to disagree with. You, the self proclaimed "scientist" can only spew empty ad hominems..."dolt"..."off the deep end". Furthermore you are quite happy to let false information continue because it fits your belief system. In short you epitomize the sham of "Climate Science"
  10. I agree.. Time to depolarize the debate. But as you can see how Monsoon reacts that wont happen any time soon...
  11. You just validated everything Dr. Curry has to say about the folly of "consensus" NOAA GFDL ...not mention Monsoon...have categorically debunked what Dr Masters opines
  12. https://www.masterresource.org/curry-judith/judith-curry-truth-merchant-center-stage/ “Groupthink” … “sausage making” … “bullying” … “substantial uncertainties” … “premature consensus” … These terms were used by the scholarly Judith Curry in her important, the-future-will-note Congressional testimony last week against the neo-Malthusian, nature-is-optimal natural-science community. And what has she endured by leaving the “consensus”? Among other things, she has been labeled “serial climate disinformer” … “anti-science” … “denier.” It happened with Julian Simon regarding resource exhaustion and the ‘population bomb’ in the 1970s and 1980s; and it is repeated by the same crowd (with new faces) in the current era against skeptics of climate alarm. The panel experience was “bizarre,” according to Curry, who began her column: “where the so-called ‘deniers’ behave like scientists [Curry, John Christy, and Roger Pielke Jr.] and the defender of the establishment consensus [Michael Mann] lies.” The panel was another blow against ‘consensus science”. It was not so much the three-to-one advantage (welcome to the new politics!) as it was the performance of Michael Mann, whose emotionalism and lack of veracity were on full display. Surely at least some of the membership of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) took note of their bad apple. Will new voices in the physical science mainstream emerge in the new political climate to say, enough is enough? Can critics of high-sensitivity climate modeling (or modeling climate at all given the present state of theory) be given jobs or promotions in academia? Or has crony science taken over the profession? Will Michael Mann further self-destruct? Will he become a liability to The Cause like Al Gore? Might Mann’s ego be big enough to step on the stage against Alex Epstein? Here is the entirety of Judith Curry’s written comments, part of her submitted testimony as part of House Committee on Science, Space, & Technology hearing: Climate Science: Assumptions, Policy Implications, and the Scientific Method. It says much in its 620 words.
  13. Wow... Really?
  14. I get it....I am questioning your faith. Yet more proof that AGW has taken on all the trappings of a religion. What is particularly rich is watching those who purport to be "anarchists" cling so tightly to a skewed orthodoxy. Me? I am just after a realistic view of how to take care of our planet. Back on topic: SEPTEMBER 7, 2017 11:53AM Hurricanes Harvey and Irma Can’t Be Blamed on Global Warming By ALAN REYNOLDS SHARE “Harvey Is What Climate Change Looks Like: It’s time to open our eyes and prepare for the world that’s coming.” That August 28 Politico article by Slate weatherman Eric Holthaus was one of many trying too hard to blame the hurricane and/or flood on climate change. Such stories are typically infused with smug arrogance. Their authors claim to be wise and well-informed, and anyone who dares to question their “settled science” must need to have their eyes pried open and their mouths shut. There will doubtless be similar “retroactive forecasting” tales about Irma, so recent story-telling about Harvey may provide a precautionary warning for the unwary. I am an economist, not a climatologist.* But blaming Harvey on climate change apparently demands much lower standards of logic and evidence than economists would dare describe as serious arguments. Atlantic’s climate journalist said, “Harvey is unprecedented—just the kind of weird weather that scientists expect to see more of as the planet warms.” But Harvey’s maximum rainfall of 51.88 inches barely exceeded that from Tropical Storm Amelia in 1978 (48”) and Hurricane Easy in 1950 (45”). And what about Tropical Storm Claudette in 1979, which put down 42 inches in 24 hours near Houston (Harvey took three days to do that)? In such cases, attributing today’s extreme weather to “climate change” regardless of what happens (maybe droughts, maybe floods) is what the philosopher Karl Popper called “pseudoscience.” If some theory explains everything, it can’t be tested and it is therefore not science. (Popper’s favorite examples of pseudoscience were communism and psychoanalysis.) Seemingly plausible efforts to connect Harvey to climate change are precariously based on another unusual event in 2015–16, not long-term climate trends. In the Atlantic, Robinson Meyer wrote that “Harvey benefitted from unusually toasty waters in the Gulf of Mexico. As the storm roared toward Houston last week, sea-surface waters near Texas rose to between 2.7 and 7.2 degrees Fahrenheit above average.” Thank you, 2015–16 El Nino. Meyer’s source is a single unsourced sentence from “Climate Signals beta” from the Rockefeller Foundation’s “Climate Nexus” project run by Hunter Cutting (“a veteran political director who develops communications strategy”). Perhaps it would be wiser to consult the National Hurricane Center about Gulf temperatures, which shows they are averaging about one degree (F) above the baseline. Looking back at any unpredicted weather anomaly, “fact-checking” journalists can always count on Michael Mann and Kevin Trenberth to spin some tale explaining why any bad weather (but never good weather!) must surely be at least aggravated by long-term global climate trends. “It’s a fact: climate change made Hurricane Harvey more deadly,” writes Michael Mann. Gulf sea surface temperatures have increased from about 86 degrees to 87 “over the past few decades,” he says, causing “3–5% more moisture in the atmosphere.” He neglected to point out other compensatory things he surely knows, like that the same climate science predicts a more stable tropical atmosphere, reducing the upward motion necessary for hurricanes. Even The Washington Post’s esteemed Jason Samenow got onto shaky ground, writing that “rainfall may have been enhanced by 6 percent or so, or a few inches.” It would have been nice if he noted that Harvey’s maximum observed rainfall of 51.88 inches is statistically indistinguishable from the aforementioned Amelia’s 48, forty years ago. In either case, to blame the Gulf’s temperature and moisture in August 2017 on a sustained global increase in water temperatures requires more than theory or “confidence” (faith). It requires evidence. As it happens, sea surface temperatures (SSTs) were not rising significantly, if at all, during the years between the two super-strong El Ninos of 1997–98 and 2015–16. On the contrary, a January 2017 survey of four major data sources finds that “since 1998, all datasets show a slowdown of SST increase compared with the 1983–1998 period.” That may sound as if SST had been increasing rapidly before 1998, but that too is unclear: “Prior to 1998, the temperature changes in Global, Pacific, and Southern Oceans show large discrepancies among [four leading estimates], hindering a robust detection of both regional and global OHC [ocean heat content] changes.” From 1998 to 2012, the evidence on sea surface temperatures becomes even more inconvenient. Two of the four studies show “weak warming” near the surface while the other two show “cooling, coincident with the global surface temperature slowdown [emphasis added].” In other words, the embarrassingly prolonged 1997–2014 pause or “hiatus” in global warming is also apparent in oceanic surface temperatures, not just land and atmospheric temperatures. Keep in mind what the vaunted “climate change consensus” means. By averaging four estimates, NASA declares “Globally-averaged temperatures in 2016 were 1.78 degrees Fahrenheit (0.99 degrees Celsius) warmer than the mid-20th century mean.” The underlying yearly estimates are deviations from that mid-century meanؙ—“anomalies” rather than actual temperatures. To convert anomalies into degrees NASA had to use computer models to add anomalies to temperatures in the base period, 1951–80, where the data are hardly perfect. As a result, “For the global mean,” NASA explains, “the most trusted models produce a value of roughly 14°C, i.e. 57.2°F, but it may easily be anywhere between 56 and 58°F and regionally, let alone locally, the situation is even worse.” It might be rude to notice the range of error between 56 and 58°F globally (“let alone locally”) is larger than NASA’s supposed increase of 1.78 degrees over many decades. Note too that NASA’s ostensibly cooler base period, 1951–80, includes the second and third biggest floods in U.S. history. My main point here is simple: Weather is highly variable. There’s a great deal of noise in hurricane and flood data, and it is impossible to attribute a single hurricane or a flood to the slight rise in temperature. Yes, warmer ocean temperatures would logically seem to correlate with more or stronger hurricanes, but as shown below, they don’t.
  15. One thing we can agree on Monsoon. Updating the dataset clearly shows the downturn post El Nino of last year...