For FC's benefit: "While the Medieval Warm Period saw unusually warm temperatures in some regions, globally the planet was cooler than current conditions." Fortunately we know this is true, with a high degree of certainty, because of the thousands of weather stations positioned around the globe and their impeccable record keeping during medieval times. This is well backed up by the remote sensing medieval, satellite network.
'The main problem is we are putting the policy cart before the scientific horse' Dr. -- Judith Curry. '...all other things are never equal. We just don’t know. I think we are fooling ourselves to think that CO2 control knob really influences climate on these decadal or even century time scales.' -- Judith Curry It's an honor to be paraphrased by such a fine scientist as Judith Curry.
FIGURE 6-2 Two composite isotopic records from low latitudes and two isotopic records from single locations on the polar ice sheets. Top: Record for central Greenland (GISP2 site), converted to temperature by calibration against borehole temperatures. Second from top: Composite record (normalized to mean and standard deviation) for four ice cores from Tibet. Third from top: Composite record (normalized to mean and standard deviation) for three ice cores from the equatorial Andes. Bottom: Normalized record (deuterium) from Taylor Dome, Antarctica. In each plot, data are shown as point measurements and a smoothed version is superimposed for clarity of trends. The central Greenland and Taylor Dome series are smoothed using a 100-year triangular filter, while the composite series uses a 50-year triangular filter. SOURCES: Data from Cuffey and Clow (1997), Thompson et al. (2003, 2006), and Steig et al. (2000). This is from the National Academy study of surface "temperature" reconstructions for the last 2000 years. In the top graph calibration of isotope enrichment has been used to allow a highly accurate conversion to "temperature". Note how there is practically no scatter in the data and how the calibrated temperature is rising straight up since we started using fossil fuel!!! (Apparently there was a lot of fossil fuel used between 850 and 950 AD too!; I imagine all these people are dead now-- likely incinerated!) From these charts, it is obvious to anyone from the "smoothed" data (the solid lines) that the temperature is going straight up and we are all going to die!!!
Maybe the Heartland Institute? Judith Curry is a climatologist at Georgia Tech, infamous for flirting with the denier community on the basis that some of them have "good ideas" and can't get their contrarian papers published. For instance, she has posted on Anthony Watts' blog, as well as Steve McIntyre's Climate Audit. She has further embarrassed herself (and her university) by using refuted deniertalking points and defending the Wegman Report, eventually admitting she hadn't even read it in the first place.[1] This and other shenanigans led Tamino of Open Mind to say, "Judith, your credibility is now below zero."[2] In short, she's the Richard Lindzen of the South. Or maybe the Roy Spencer of Georgia, take your pick. Perhaps what has sparked the most criticism, more than any other one thing, is that she has invited McIntyre to talk at Georgia Tech. No, really.[3] This makes her a massive enabler. Some other stuff she's been wrong about: Maybe the Heartland Institute isn't so bad after all![4] The BEST team tried to "hide the decline," because there has been "no warming since 1998." (This was widely quoted in a Daily Mail article.)[5] (From the same Daily Mail article) "The models are broken." She later backed down about this on her blog, saying she was misquoted and "had no idea where it came from."[6] Murry Salby is right about CO2 and every other scientist is wrong.[7]
Oh, and piehole. Maybe you missed my response to your back-up buddy Ffox about you.... piehole is not reasoning. He is fucking lying. Douchbag. And your little articles of pseudo science put you in the same category. Why are all your dozen posts on this topic and this one only? Right after piehole? Are you his back-up at the think tank or are you piehole with another name?
this shows you what nuts these agw fruitcakes are. they question Curry for stating truth? for instance ... hide the decline... is moot... Curry was right we all now know there has been no global warming for 17 years 11 months or more... depending on the data set... and they temps are done since 2001. http://judithcurry.com/2012/10/14/pause-discussion-thread/ ‘Pause’ discussion thread Posted on October 14, 2012 | 725 Comments by Judith Curry The latest data release from HadCRUT4 is creating quite a stir. David Rose has published a provocative article in the Daily Mail entitled Global warming stopped 16 years ago, reveals Met Office report quietly released . . . and here is the chart to prove it. The two main people that were interviewed were myself and Phil Jones. Here is the meat of the article in terms of my and Phil Jones’ statements: ‘The new data confirms the existence of a pause in global warming,’ Professor Judith Curry, chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Science at America’s Georgia Tech university, told me yesterday. ‘Climate models are very complex, but they are imperfect and incomplete. Natural variability [the impact of factors such as long-term temperature cycles in the oceans and the output of the sun] has been shown over the past two decades to have a magnitude that dominates the greenhouse warming effect. ‘It is becoming increasingly apparent that our attribution of warming since 1980 and future projections of climate change needs to consider natural internal variability as a factor of fundamental importance.’ Professor Phil Jones, director of the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, who found himself at the centre of the ‘Climategate’ scandal over leaked emails three years ago, would not normally be expected to agree with her. Yet on two important points, he did. The data does suggest a plateau, he admitted, and without a major El Nino event – the sudden, dramatic warming of the southern Pacific which takes place unpredictably and always has a huge effect on global weather – ‘it could go on for a while’. Like Prof Curry, Prof Jones also admitted that the climate models were imperfect: ‘We don’t fully understand how to input things like changes in the oceans, and because we don’t fully understand it you could say that natural variability is now working to suppress the warming. We don’t know what natural variability is doing.’ Yet he insisted that 15 or 16 years is not a significant period: pauses of such length had always been expected, he said. Yet in 2009, when the plateau was already becoming apparent and being discussed by scientists, he told a colleague in one of the Climategate emails: ‘Bottom line: the “no upward trend” has to continue for a total of 15 years before we get worried.’ But although that point has now been passed, he said that he hadn’t changed his mind about the models’ gloomy predictions: ‘I still think that the current decade which began in 2010 will be warmer by about 0.17 degrees than the previous one, which was warmer than the Nineties.’ Only if that did not happen would he seriously begin to wonder whether something more profound might be happening. In other words, though five years ago he seemed to be saying that 15 years without warming would make him ‘worried’, that period has now become 20 years. Meanwhile, his Met Office colleagues were sticking to their guns. A spokesman said: ‘Choosing a starting or end point on short-term scales can be very misleading. Climate change can only be detected from multi-decadal timescales due to the inherent variability in the climate system.’ He said that for the plateau to last any more than 15 years was ‘unlikely’. Asked about a prediction that the Met Office made in 2009 – that three of the ensuing five years would set a new world temperature record – he made no comment. With no sign of a strong El Nino next year, the prospects of this happening are remote. Overall, I would say that this is a very good article; I think the exchange between me and Jones, mediated by Rose, is an important one. However, I am not happy with this statement in the early part of the article: Some climate scientists, such as Professor Phil Jones, director of the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, last week dismissed the significance of the plateau, saying that 15 or 16 years is too short a period from which to draw conclusions. Others disagreed. Professor Judith Curry, who is the head of the climate science department at America’s prestigious Georgia Tech university, told The Mail on Sunday that it was clear that the computer models used to predict future warming were ‘deeply flawed’. I have no idea where the ‘deeply flawed’ came from, I did not use these words in any context that Rose should be quoted (perhaps I used them somewhere on my blog?) Also, I agree that 16 years is too short, given the timescales of the PDO and AMO, to separate out natural versus anthropogenic variability (but this cuts both ways: the warming period between 1980 and 1998 was arguably amped by the PDO and AMO). And while I am griping, why did he have to use that photo that makes me look like a gorgon . Here is the text I emailed Rose, in response to his questions: The data confirms the existence of a ‘pause’ in the warming. The impact of this pause within the climate dynamic community has been to focus increased attention on the impact of natural variability, particularly the impact of internal multi-decadal oscillations in the ocean. The new climate model calculations for the AR5 have focused on trying to assess what it would take to accurately simulate these multi-decadal ocean oscillations and how predictable they might be. These new observations and climate modeling results will hopefully impact the the IPCC AR5 deliberations so that we do not see the same overly confident consensus statements that we saw in the AR4. . You might be interested in my recent blog post: http://judithcurry.com/2012/10/02/r...rtainty-in-weather-climate-prediction-part-i/ . The flawed assumption behind the orthodoxy was that natural variability is merely ‘noise’ superimposed on the long term trend. The natural variability has been shown over the past two decades to have a magnitude that dominates the greenhouse warming signal. It is becoming increasingly apparent that our attribution of warming since 1980 and future projections of climate change needs to consider natural internal variability as a factor of fundamental importance. I sincerely hope that the AR5 provides an assessment of what we know and what we don’t know and areas of disagreement, rather than trying to manufacture a consensus. . Climate models are very complex, but they are imperfect and incomplete. In that context the problem is how people interpret the simulations from climate models in view of the uncertainties and imperfections. The UK Met Office has responded to Rose’s article with this statement. For context on this issue, see these previous Climate Etc. posts:
Virtually every "scientist" that you and piehole have paraded out here are either fringe second rate hangers-on, fools, liars or paid for whores. Like piezoe. Funny how you go to these when NASA and NOAA are the real authorities.
Here FC. This is just for you. But I suspect it will be appreciated more by everyone else: PS: Grab a floatation vest. With the bow submerged, the Ship of Subsidy is going down fast.