2011-04-13 07:02:36Curried Denial
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
64.129.227.4

There's a Reuters article containing an interview with Serreze (NSIDC director) called “The Harry Potter theory of climate” where Serreze basically explains the climate doesn't change magically - there has to be something causing the change.  No duh, right?  Well, somehow Curry has a problem with this.

Serreze specifically says it's not the sun, not an ocean cycle, and (correctly) pooh-poohs the galactic cosmic ray theory.  To which Curry responds (h/t Bart's blog):

"On previous Climate Etc. threads on attribution of 20th century climate change, we have pretty much debunked each of these arguments."

Now, I don't read Curry's blog, and she doesn't provide any links to substantiate her claims that her blog has "debunked" these myth-debunking statements.  But that's pretty damn denialist to effectively claim "it's the sun" and "it's a natural cycle" and "it's galactic cosmic rays".

Curry is such a joke.

2011-04-13 07:12:30
Albatross
Julian Brimelow
stomatalaperture@gmail...
199.126.232.206

Dana,

"Now, I don't read Curry's blog, and she doesn't provide any links to substantiate her claims that her blog has "debunked" these myth-debunking statements."

Good, don't waste your time-- it is a cesspool of hate, conspiracy theories and misinformation.  Really, iot is just the newest playgroufd for the denialiti.

I'm with Serreze.  Natural cycles cannot explain the rapid loss (e.g., Polyak et al. 2010)-- they may be temporarily accelerate or slow it, and drive the inter-annual variability, but they sure as hell are not driving the long term trend/decline in Arctic ice volume.

Just ignore her, she gets off on all the attention.  Curry is a confusionist.  The wise Rabbit has some ideas too.

2011-04-13 07:16:56
Albatross
Julian Brimelow
stomatalaperture@gmail...
199.126.232.206

I do, however, take issue with this statement by him:

"The only factor that can explain the observed rise in global average temperature — 1.4 degrees F or .8 degrees C over the last century — is climate forcing due to heightened levels of greenhouse gases, Serreze said."

I think we all agree, and so does the science, that CO2 and other anthro GHGs do not account for all the warming.  I'm sure he knows that too, but he is speaking to the press and trying to keep things simple-- however, he cold have relayed that info better IMHO.

I wonder if Serreze's analogy was inspired by SheWonk?

2011-04-13 07:52:05Curry blog
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
64.129.227.4

Agreed, Alby.  I did spend a few days commenting on one of Curry's blog posts, about the 'hockey stick' and McIntyre and Muller's incorrect statements about it (which Curry simply re-broadcast, apparently not having any thoughts of her own, as usual).  The commenters were very rude, and many (perhaps even most) were quite dumb.  Very few of the comments on Curry's blog would make it through SkS moderation.

I also agree that the Serreze quote you provide there isn't very precise.  If he had thrown in a "most", as in "the only factor that can explain most of the observed rise", then it would be okay.

2011-04-13 07:56:21
Albatross
Julian Brimelow
stomatalaperture@gmail...
199.126.232.206

Yes, agreed on all counts; he was missing the word "most".

2011-04-13 08:11:59
grypo

gryposaurus@gmail...
173.69.56.151

I tried toi discuss this with her in that thread.

As usual, her response was dismissive, but she did say she a has a paper coming out.

Julienne Stroeve corrected the record

2011-04-13 08:22:36
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
64.129.227.4

Good comments there, grypo.  As usual, Curry is being an uncertainty inflator.

She seems to take offense when people criticize her knowledge, but that's what happens when you consistently make stupid and ignorant statements.

2011-04-13 09:56:01
Albatross
Julian Brimelow
stomatalaperture@gmail...
199.126.232.206

Someone needs to inform Mosher that while the Arctic may have been warmer than it was in the nineties, that it is now 2010. The Arctic is the warmest it has been in a very long time as was shown in one of the Monckton myths.  Maybe grypo can direct Moshpit to that post-- I have no plans to participate in the confusion fest that is Climate Whatever.  Julienne is brave to go there, but her efforts will sadly be for naught.

Curry claims to be an expert on the Arctic, and that may have been the case over a decade ago, but no more.

2011-04-13 11:10:58Mosher and Arctic
John Cook

john@skepticalscience...
60.231.60.165

I wasn't aware of it but if Mosher is currently giving the "Arctic was warmer in early 20th century", then I think we should do a blog post about that. James is in the process (I think) of converting Robert's Monckton Myth into a rebuttal of the Arctic myth and I think it's worthwhile blogging the amended, Monckton-free version - preferably referencing one or more recent examples to make it current.

2011-04-13 11:34:37Agreed
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
69.230.97.203
Some yahoo in the comments on Daniel's Greenland post is insisting Greenland was hotter in 1930 too. Not quite the same as the Arctic claim, but close enough. It merits a new post when James makes the rebuttal.
2011-04-13 11:54:24
Albatross
Julian Brimelow
stomatalaperture@gmail...
199.126.232.206

Some prioze quotes from Curry:

"How much ridging is a function of dynamics and interannual variability, so whether or not the ice completely melts in September is largely a function of interannual variability." [Here]

" The 1930′s were quite warm in the Arctic, with diminished sea ice extent (how diminished is uncertain since there were no satellites.) But arguably less than there was in the 1980′s." [Here]  

OK, so warmer temperatures tend sot lead to less ice.  BUt then she seems to try and attribute the dramatic ice loss to natural variability:

" The big decrease in multiyear ice was triggered by a big flushing through the Fram Strait (natural variability)." [Here]

 

It seems that, Mosher disagrees with Curry's asessment about Arctic temps in the 30s.  Citing an outdated paper.

 

But then just to confuse matters, Curry actually (briefly) makes some sense:

"Further, the downward trend is some combination of natural variability and global warming." [Here

Confused much Curry? So what is the reader left with?  Confusion, impression that uncertainties are much higher than in relaity, that there is a debate.....mission accomplished.

 

Oh this is too funny.  From Julienne:

"Judy, I’m afraid that your knowledge of global climate models might be out of date."

Again, Dr. Stroeve should be commended for trying, but in the end it is a waste of time and simply feeding the dragon.

2011-04-13 11:57:25
Daniel Bailey
Daniel Bailey
yooper49855@hotmail...
97.83.150.37

Interesting straw-man argument the yahoo set up:

Despite not a SINGLE mention of AGW, anthropogenic or even a single mention of the word human (Mauri & I wrote it, so we should know) in the post, said nutter goes off on a tirade about not blaming the Greenland melt on AGW because it was warmer in the 1930's so carbon dioxide couldn't be responsible for the modern warming, etc...

Quite the blindside.

 


Don't blame the non-interest in Curry's blog; I took a peek when she opened the doors, found out she had the same denizens as CA or WUWT, left & haven't returned since.

 

2011-04-13 12:38:02
logicman

logicman_alf@yahoo.co...
86.144.3.241

Those crazy deniers!

" The 1930′s were quite warm in the Arctic, with diminished sea ice extent (how diminished is uncertain since there were no satellites.) But arguably less than there was in the 1980′s."

Try arguing that in a court of law!

Your Honor: The record shows that the company had less than 3 million dollars in 1930.  We do not know how much less because we have no computer records - but arguably it was less than the amount the company has now: declared in the filing for bankruptcy as $25.01.

 

In the early years of the 20th century there was some warming of the Gulf Stream and a commensurate warming of areas directly affected by that stream.  Meanwhile, along the Siberian coast the ice was exceedingly thick.  Even icebreakers were occasionally beset by ice and imobilised.  The Ellesmere ice shelf was still largely intact.  On balance, the Arctic ice was less in the early 20th century than in the 19th century but was still much greater than it is today.

2011-04-13 12:40:31
logicman

logicman_alf@yahoo.co...
86.144.3.241

btw, nearly forgot: a rebuttal to that crazy 'we don't know because there were no satellites' argument.

http://www.science20.com/chatter_box/brief_history_climate_science-78035

2011-04-13 23:47:13Arctic in 1940
James Wight

jameswight@southernphone.com...
112.213.141.65

“James is in the process (I think) of converting Robert's Monckton Myth into a rebuttal of the Arctic myth and I think it's worthwhile blogging the amended, Monckton-free version - preferably referencing one or more recent examples to make it current.”

I created the rebuttal but I didn’t divorce it from Monckton – I used Monckton as the quote.