2011-10-31 08:04:00Baked Curry: The BEST Way to Hide the Incline
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
69.230.101.55

Curry sucks.  The lady, not the food (which is delicious).

Baked Curry: The BEST Way to Hide the Incline

2011-10-31 08:26:35
Rob Painting
Rob
paintingskeri@vodafone.co...
118.92.54.80

First sentence under "Enough Cherrypicking Already" -  it'slikely = needs a space.

I wonder if it's worth pointing out near the end, that the oceans are still warming. With over 90% of global warming going into the oceans how can anyone rational suggest global warming has stopped?

Have a post coming up that deals with the switch in ocean surface layers that causes warming/cooling of global air surface temperatures, but it's worthwhile to keep hammering this home. Follow our narrative which means looking at the 'big picture'.

Excellent work, keep it flowing!

 

2011-10-31 08:40:10
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
69.230.101.55

Yeah that's a good idea Rob, I'll add it in towards the end.

2011-10-31 08:52:06
Paul D

chillcast@googlemail...
82.18.130.183

Cool

2011-10-31 09:22:55
Paul D

chillcast@googlemail...
82.18.130.183

Actually one criticism would be that you don't mention the source of the Mail graph, eg GWPF.
They are I believe the people that probably prompted The Mail to do the article. I suspect Nigel Lawson has a lot of fans at the Mail. Without the graph the article would have been a bit boring.

2011-10-31 09:31:50
Albatross
Julian Brimelow
stomatalaperture@gmail...
198.53.65.169

Dana,

Well done. 

Maybe I missed it, but it is critical to note that the reason those last two months have such large uncertainty is becasue not all of the data were available/analyzed.  That also makes it a bit of a mystery why then BEST bothered releasing those particular data.

Have not had a detailed/critical look at the post, will try and do so later tonight if that is not too late.

2011-10-31 09:58:50
Albatross
Julian Brimelow
stomatalaperture@gmail...
198.53.65.169

It also just struck me that 2010 was tied for the warmest year on record, yet BEST have not analyzed al. the data for 2010 yet.  So the "cold" April and May are certainly not representative of 2010.  Anyways, I guess my point is that 2010 was tied for the warmest year on record in the GISTEMP and that seems to be being forgotten in the chaos, and ironically they are using partial data from that year (tied for the warmest on record) to reinforce their bogus claim that the warming has stopped.  Really you can't make this shit up.

I'd also try and suggest that Curry has now made it clear where her  allegiances lie and it is not with the scientists or science, but with ideological denier lobby groups like GWPF and Watts.  GWPF is the same group that recently quote mined one of the papers to claim that the human contribution may have been overstated.  But at the same time GWPF is trying to trash BEST (with the help of a dodgy "journalist" with a coloured past), the same group whose papers they were quote mining citing to substantiate their belief that the warming from huimans is overstated.

 

It might be a bit much, but I think it would be nice to highlight the logical fallacies and contradictions.  Anthony Watts is besides himself with angst.  Lovely.

2011-10-31 09:59:45
Daniel Bailey
Daniel Bailey
yooper49855@hotmail...
97.83.150.37

To piggyback onto Albie's concern (putting on my denier hat - not that it fits): 

The CAGW-ers always prattle on about using all the available data; BEST used the data they had & the data shows flat temps over the final period.  So what' the big deal, then?

Anticipating this question would be wise.  If possible, perhaps extending the dataset through the end of 2010 so as to use full years?  Doable?

2011-10-31 10:05:55
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
69.230.101.55

BEST would have to extend the dataset themselves, Daniel.  Hypothetically we could use NOAA land-only data, which is similar, but then we'd be accused of splicing two different datasets together.

2011-10-31 10:17:47
Albatross
Julian Brimelow
stomatalaperture@gmail...
198.53.65.169

Hi Daniel and Dana,

I was perhaps not clear, my observations was the orony of deniers incorporating data from the warmest year on record to claim that warming has stopped.

It also shows that they are willing to use whatever data it takes, even if incomplete to advance their ideology and reinforce their delusion.

I'm very much enjoying this melt down, I just wish I knew how we could capitalize on it big time.  They have completely lost control of "the message", they have been surprisingly (and annoyingly) good at controlling that up until BEST came out, or am I alone in thinking that?

2011-10-31 10:35:06
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
69.230.101.55

Good point Alby, have added a note about the ironly of aruging global warming stopped while ending the analysis in a record hot year.  I also added a reference to the GWPF graph source.

The deniers really are all over the place right now.  They don't know whether to argue BEST is wrong, or that BEST is right but it doesn't matter.  They don't even know whether to argue that BEST confirms global warming or that it confirms global warming has stopped.  Contradictions abound.

2011-10-31 11:04:24
Albatross
Julian Brimelow
stomatalaperture@gmail...
198.53.65.169

Hi Dana,

Thanks -- yes and incomplete data for 2010 at that.

"The deniers really are all over the place right now.  They don't know whether to argue BEST is wrong, or that BEST is right but it doesn't matter.  They don't even know whether to argue that BEST confirms global warming or that it confirms global warming has stopped."

Sounds like a nice way of finishing off your post :)

2011-10-31 12:14:58
Daniel Bailey
Daniel Bailey
yooper49855@hotmail...
97.83.150.37

Sorry, dana, for not being a good "skeptic".  One of the issues I'm not clear on is this:  Why did BEST not use later data?  Why end it on such a low point?  I mean, it looks like such an obvious skeptic cherry-pick.  And it had to be obvious early on in their data analysis that April 2010 was a huge outlier.  Here we are in late 2011, more than 16 months after the last datapoint in BEST.  THe Muir Russell Commission did their analysis in about 2 days to arrive at a similar conclusion.  I mean, WTF?

Unless they wanted to give the deniers wiggle room.  As is occurring now.

2011-10-31 12:17:52
Albatross
Julian Brimelow
stomatalaperture@gmail...
198.53.65.169

Hi Daniel,

Yes, it is odd that they terminated their analysis so far back.  Makes their analysis premature IMHO.  Can't see why they could not have gone through until December 2010.

2011-10-31 12:31:53
John Cook

john@skepticalscience...
130.102.158.12

Dana, just be careful to check your citing of the Daily Mail article with Curry's recent blog post. The Daily Mail did misrepresent her so make sure any critiques are consistent with her actual words on her blog - preferably quoting her blog rather than the Daily Mail.

2011-10-31 12:33:23comment
Robert Way

robert_way19@hotmail...
142.162.25.5

That should be in the review of their paper... the fact that they basically only included 3 months from 2010 is a pretty big negative... I thought this was going to be up to date and that it would result in a database that anyone could use...

2011-10-31 13:19:01
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
69.230.101.55
Daniel - April 2010 isn't really an outlier, their data is just screwy on that one. I don't know what happened with their analysis there, and frankly I have no idea why they included it when the uncertainty is 2.8C. Especially when the data point is so clearly wrong. It's very strange that they didn't take the analysis further and leave out the outliers. John - I only used one quote from the Daily Mail article, and Curry said in her blog post that the quotes were correct.
2011-10-31 13:27:21If Nick is right then April and May are indeed outliers
Daniel Bailey
Daniel Bailey
yooper49855@hotmail...
97.83.150.37

Interesting recent posts by Nick Stokes on this subject over at Tamino's:

 

Nick Stokes

I did a count of the data that BEST has for 2010. In March they have 14488 stations reporting. In April and May there are 47. And in June, none.

And April and May are all Antarctic.

2011-10-31 13:36:24
logicman

logicman_alf@yahoo.co...
86.180.38.239

The fact that the graph and article came from the GWPF means that it is political opinion, not science.  That fact needs to be stressed.

Perhaps you could mention this:

The GWPF was founded in Britain's House of Lords.  It is a 100% political organisation whose members think that climate science is a matter for debate.  This attempt by GWPF to refute a robust scientific finding with political opinion should be seen for what it is: political propaganda.

2011-10-31 14:54:01
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
69.230.101.55

I don't really want to get into the nitty gritty of GWPF, logicman.  As far as I'm concerned, all they did here was cherrypick 2001 as the starting date, and include those final two erroneous data points.  We should stick to criticizing them on their scientific analysis, not on their politics, and that's what the post does.

This one is pretty time critical as the deniers seem to be gearing up to try and make this into a "hide the decline version 2.0", so I want to publish this post tomorrow.  I'll hold off until the afternoon though, so get any last comments in before then.

2011-10-31 19:17:48
Brian Purdue

bnpurdue@bigpond.net...
121.216.232.220

"hide the decline version 2.0"

Not seems dana - definitely is the word.

It's got Watts back from R&R (sorry, reviewing papers) http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/10/29/uh-oh-it-was-the-best-of-times-it-was-the-worst-of-times/#more-50286

2011-10-31 21:22:27
JMurphy
John Murphy
aphex30@hotmail...
81.144.132.166

I am certainly no fan of Curry (Judith) but I reckon you should rewrite the bit in brackets which describes her probable contribution to BEST, i.e "(though likely the least-involved member in terms of actual research and analysis)".

Unless you are definitely sure about that - you never know, she might be underplaying her involvement so she can keep her denial fanbase - perhaps you should say something more like : "(whose precise invovement in the actual research and analysis is somewhat of a mystery, judging by some of her confusing comments since)".

I think it should be more in that vein, anyway.

2011-11-01 00:51:52
Kevin C

cowtan@ysbl.york.ac...
144.32.72.165

Would it be worth fading figure 2 to one with the error bounds shown? Something like this:

2011-11-01 01:34:57
Dikran Marsupial
Gavin Cawley
gcc@cmp.uea.ac...
88.108.197.184

Nice, please make sure you invite Prof. Curry to join in the discussion so I can ask her if the evidence for a reduction in the rate of warming is statistically significant! ;o)

2011-11-01 01:36:03
MarkR
Mark Richardson
m.t.richardson2@gmail...
192.171.166.133

James Delingpole has laid in with his usual failure to understand, and sycophantic swallowing of anything the GWPF give him.

 

The last sentence reads too snidely to me. I'd be tempted to dump it - you're already pointing out that she's being statistically retarded, which should be enough.

If I was her, I'd find what I'd said embarrassing enough after Tamino's takedown (assuming Tamino got his figures right).

 

Your graph starting in '92/3 opens you to accusations of cherry picking. It's after Pinatubo and Tamino pointed out how it's a cherry pick. Tamino's trend graph for different starting points might be better here, or at least pointing out what you've done.

2011-11-01 01:43:32
thingsbreak

things.break@gmail...
66.7.151.194

@JMurphy

Curry's actual contribution to the papers is quite unclear. She doesn't seem to have contributed to much of anything at all, if she hasn't even had "hands on the data", in her words.

http://tamino.wordpress.com/2011/10/30/judith-curry-opens-mouth-inserts-foot/#comment-55880

EFS_Junior 

OK.

Found it;

“My contribution to these papers has been in the writing stage and suggesting analyses.”

So then, having read said papers, and having contributed to the writing of said papers, Dr. Curry NOW takes objection to her own readings, reviews, and recommendations of said papers.

“I have not had “hands on” the data, …”

“The papers are initial steps in analyzing the data set, and the verdict on these particular papers will be given by others who do subsequent analyses.”

So, not having done any analyses whatsoever, and having passed on to “others” the “verdict” of “subsequent analyses”, she is of the mind to “move the goalposts” such that she can claim no discernible temperature trend, since when? Today.

Foot in mouth disease indeed. :-)

2011-11-01 02:58:20
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
64.129.227.4

Thanks tb and JMurph, I've added a link to that Curry post and re-worded a bit.

Mark - I justified the starting point...unfortunate it was Pinatubo, but it's 17 years to the month.  I'm not going to sweat cherrypicking accusations over that.

Kevin - I added tamino's BEST uncertainty 'hockey stick' to illustrate your point there.

2011-11-01 03:01:39
Albatross
Julian Brimelow
stomatalaperture@gmail...
198.53.65.169

Dana,

Forgive me for being too cautious, but i just wanted ot make sure that you saw this post upthread by John C.

"Dana, just be careful to check your citing of the Daily Mail article with Curry's recent blog post. The Daily Mail did misrepresent her so make sure any critiques are consistent with her actual words on her blog - preferably quoting her blog rather than the Daily Mail."

2011-11-01 03:07:59
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
64.129.227.4

Yeah I responded to that Alby - Curry admitted the quotes in the Mail were correct, and my only reference to the Mail was one quote (plus their graph).  It's kosher.

2011-11-01 03:08:20
Riccardo

riccardoreitano@tiscali...
2.33.129.49

In the section "Enough Cherrypicking Already" you first say that temperature has likely slowed down and then demonstrate that global warming hasn't. I think it's confusing. Probably it's better to say that it just seems it has slowed down.

In the last paragraph, she does not stand behind just some of her worst comments, she says in her blog that "In David Rose’s article, the direct quotes attributed to me are correct", i.e. all of them. Then probably David Rose misrepresented her in some way.

2011-11-01 03:09:52
Albatross
Julian Brimelow
stomatalaperture@gmail...
198.53.65.169

And, now everything is apparantly hunky dory in la-la land:

http://judithcurry.com/2011/10/30/discussion-with-rich-muller/

and if all else fails go back to conspiraces.  Curry:

"We also discussed problems with the IPCC, Climategate issues, etc., and we tend to mostly agree on all this."

A little odd then that she posts this carton (posted at WFUWT), but maybe she is tryig to mock Watts. I do not know how these people's twisted minds work.

 

2011-11-01 03:12:32
grypo

gryposaurus@gmail...
74.97.39.58

I think she is being purposefully confusing or she's completely unable to remember what her stance was from minute to minute:

 

Here is a direct quote from the Mail article:

‘There is no scientific basis for saying that warming hasn’t stopped,’ she said. ‘To say that there is detracts from the credibility of the data, which is very unfortunate.’

Here is something an update to her post defending herself against her own statements:

Update:  A few days ago, I received an email from Liz Muller, asking for suggestions for issues to deal with on their FAQ.  I suggested dealing with the issue of whether there has been a stop/slowdown in the warming.  Their response is posed here.  The state “This exercise simply shows that the decadal fluctuations are too large to allow us to make decisive conclusions about long term trends based on close examination of periods as short as 13 to 15 years. ”   Which I agree with.  But take a look at the graph. The year 1998 shows up as relatively cool, starkly different from say CRU.

Here is a comment from that same post:

I just read Tamino’s post. Apart from the usual climate dittohead bash curry meme, his analysis is useful. However, please understand that my statement to Rose was about the plot with the 10 year running mean ending in 2006 being misleading. It is misleading. There has been a lag/slowdown/whatever you want to call it in the rate of temperature increase since 1998. This is being widely discussed, see the greenwire article for various opinions on thishttp://www.eenews.net/public/Greenwire/2011/10/25/1

So, actually this is a “hide the slowdown” issue.

As far as I can tell, there is nothing in the BEST data that says there is no lag/slow down in the warming during the past decade or so.

One of the most interesting things about all this IMO is the substantial discrepancies among the 4 datasets during this recent period. BEST agrees fairly well with NOAA, but is quite different from GISS and CRU.

And here is her next post after talking to Muller:

Re the recent trend, Muller reiterated that you can’t infer anything about what is going on globally from the land data, but the land data shows a continued increase albeit with an oscillation that makes determining a trend rather ambiguous.  He thinks there is a pause, that is probably associated with AMO/PDO.  So I am ok with this interpretation.

Are these opinions congruent?

 


2011-11-01 03:18:15
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
64.129.227.4

Curry just doesn't know what she's talking about.  Plotting a 10-year running mean is misleading now?  For f*ck sakes.

2011-11-01 03:20:01
thingsbreak

things.break@gmail...
66.7.151.194

@Dana

Mark - I justified the starting point...unfortunate it was Pinatubo, but it's 17 years to the month.  I'm not going to sweat cherrypicking accusations over that.

 

Dana, I think that the aggressive wording of that paragraph leaves you wide open to accusations of cherry-picking. People like Lucia are always quick to leap on any trends that are significantly affected by a volcanic cooling in the early part of the period. Additionally, I don't think the Santer et al. paper took volcanism into account. So claiming the period is justified based on Santer et al. alone doesn't sit well with me.


I know you aren't cherry-picking, but I think it will be quite easy for denialists to make that accusation as is.


I don't know what the solution should be. Perhaps plot the data using a volcanic-filter a la Tamino and provide that plot as a link in a parenthetical?

 

I'd like to see bases covered without distracting from the take-away.

2011-11-01 03:44:03
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
64.129.227.4

I added in the 15- and 16- and 18-year trends to avoid cherrypicking accusations.  18-year is 0.41°C per decade - that's when Pinatubo really makes a difference, as the eruption was in 1991.

2011-11-01 03:46:46
Albatross
Julian Brimelow
stomatalaperture@gmail...
198.53.65.169

Dana, Santer et al., IIRC, say "at least". 

So one could go with 18 or 19 years, that would just make the rate even more robust statistically.  That meets that criterion in Santer et al. and avoids the problem with Pinatubo.  Tamino's last Figure in his latest post actually suggests ~ 20 years (ignoring the impaxct of Pinatubo in 1991-1993) is needed.  I would suggest starting with either 1990 or 1994.

 

2011-11-01 03:48:47
Albatross
Julian Brimelow
stomatalaperture@gmail...
198.53.65.169

Dana, you beat me to it :) I was looking into this and we cross-posted.  All good.

2011-11-01 03:54:55
Albatross
Julian Brimelow
stomatalaperture@gmail...
198.53.65.169

Sigh, putting on my 'denier" hat:

"(the increase being due to the effects of the Mount Pinatubo eruption in 1991)"

That might be taken or spun to suggest the higher value in all three trends is attributable to Pinatubo.  You are of course probably referring to the 18-yr trend starting in 1992, the year the impact from Pinatubo was at its peak.

2011-11-01 04:08:35
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
64.129.227.4

Have re-worded to say the 1991 eruption caused short-term cooling ~18 years ago.

2011-11-01 04:40:11
thingsbreak

things.break@gmail...
66.7.151.194

Dana,

 

At the risk of making this even more of a nit pick, maybe move the entire "aside" about Pinatubo down to the bottom of the page as an asterisk?

Over the most recent 17-year period, the BEST trend is 0.36°C per decade*, clearly showing the anthropogenic warming trend over that period.

Examining the causes of decadal variability is both interesting as useful, but exploiting decadal variability...

...

...We conclude by offering Dr. Curry the same advice we recently offered Dr. Pielke: DNFTD (Do Not Feed The Delayers).

* There is probably a small contribution to this trend from the 1991 Mount Pinatubo eruption. The 15-year trend is 0.30°C per decade, 16-year is 0.28°C per decade, and 18-year is 0.41°C per decade.

2011-11-01 06:26:01
Sphaerica

Bob@Lacatena...
76.28.5.93

I just wanted to share the series of trends I created to respond to Sasquatch on a comment thread... something that highlights that anyone can at any time claim that the globe has begun to cool, because if you twist the logic the graph proves that the globe has in fact not warmed since 1975.  To wit:

  1. All graphed trend lines since 1973 are downward
  2. The trend lines overlap and cover the entire span from 1973 to the current date
  3. Therefore the globe must have cooled

Global Cooling Trends

2011-11-01 06:44:51
Albatross
Julian Brimelow
stomatalaperture@gmail...
198.53.65.169

Sphaeirca, that is a briliant graph IMO.  I bet that the point will STILL be ost on some though, but arguing against that will make them look like fools.

2011-11-01 06:55:41
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
64.129.227.4

Yes, that is quite good.

Looking over Curry's blog, the other day she had a guest poster on there who argued that rather than a linear trend, UAH TLT data should be described with a step function in 1998 - flat before, and flat after.  Of course he failed to explain physically why the climate would remain hotter after the 1998 El Nino than before it.  Why didn't the temp return to pre-1998 levels?  These "skeptics" love to play their curve fitting games.

2011-11-01 07:08:32
Albatross
Julian Brimelow
stomatalaperture@gmail...
198.53.65.169

Dana,

That guest post was penned by none other than Donald Rapp, and he has a dark and ominous history:

http://deepclimate.org/2010/01/07/donald-rapp-more-divergence-problems/

http://deepclimate.org/2009/12/22/wegman-and-rapp-on-tree-rings-a-divergence-problem-part-1/

http://deepclimate.org/2010/01/06/wegman-and-rapp-on-proxies-a-divergence-problem-part-2/

 

You cannot believe a word these guys say, not one word.

Talking of curve fitting (i.e., Rapp):  Pielke is touting this latest exercise in that by Douglass:

http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2011/10/31/new-paper-just-accepted-the-pacific-sea-surface-temperature-by-david-h-douglass-2011/

2011-11-01 07:14:01
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
64.129.227.4

Thanks, I knew I recognized Rapp's name from somewhere.

Pielke's Douglass post says:

"David e-mailed that if he had been able to attend the Santa Fe meeting this week he would have “shouted” that calculating trends across a climate shift has no meaning."

Deniers appear to be trying to create this new argument, that 1998 (or was it 2001?  Or 2002?  Or 2004?) was some sort of "climate shift".  Based on Sphaerica's graph, there's a new "climate shift" every 8 years or so.