Wednesday, September 17, 2014

Debunking the essentially truthy climate claims of 'And then there's physics'

Our warmist friend "Anders," proprietor of the "And then there's 'physics'" blog [formerly "Wotts up with that" blog] is taking a semi-permanent hiatus* allegedly because "he is depressed by the futility of it all, trying to have a discussion with people, who are blathering from bad faith or ignorance."

*interesting choice of words since he doesn't believe there is a global warming 'hiatus' and over 50 publications acknowledge the 18-26 year 'hiatus' in global warming

In his excuses for his personal 'real hiatus' post, he proclaims, 

"So, I think there are certain things that we can regard – given the evidence we have today – as essentially true."
and then proceeds to list the certain things he thinks are essentially true. I've quoted each of these followed by just a few of the Hockey Schtick posts which debunk each one of Anders' essentially truthy claims:
  • "The rise in atmospheric CO2 since the mid-1800s is virtually all a consequence of anthropogenic emissions. If you want to know why, you can read this."
Temperature leads CO2 on all timescales: short, intermediate, and long. The cause does not follow the effect [mathematical proof]Mathematical & observational proof that CO2 has no significant effect on climate.


Single graph demonstrates man-made CO2 is not the driver of global warming

Climate textbook explains why man-made CO2 does not control atmospheric CO2



  • There have been numerous millenial [sic] temperature reconstructions using a variety of different proxies and a variety of different techniques. They almost all produce a hockey stick-like shape and indicate that temperatures today are probably higher than they’ve been for more than a thousand years and the rate at which it has risen is faster than for more than a thousand years. You can read more here."
Not true on 3 levels:

1) All of the dozen or so millennial temperature reconstructions that allegedly find a "hockey stick" shape have been debunked by Steve McIntyre et al, including PAGES, Kaufmann, Gergis, BriffaSteig, Marcott, et al, in many cases for using the same upside-down data and biased screening as Michael Mann did with his original hockey stick, in addition to other statistical trickery.

2) "They almost all produce a hockey stick shape" is blatantly false. There are well over 1000 published non-hockey sticks in the peer-reviewed literature worldwide vs. only a couple dozen [debunked] hockey sticks.

3) "They almost all"..."indicate that temperatures today are probably higher than they’ve been for more than a thousand years and the rate at which it has risen is faster than for more than a thousand years" is false since the Medieval Warm Period project tallies temperature reconstructions over the past millennium from over 1000 scientists and finds less than 10% indicate the current warm period as warmer than the Medieval Warm Period 1000 years ago. 


4) The rate of warming is not at all unusual or unprecedented during the 20th century, during the Holocene, and during prior, warmer interglacials.
  • The instrumental temperature record has been replicated/reproduced by numerous different groups. All the different records show that we’ve warmed by more than 0.8 degrees since 1880. Homogenization is a crucial part of generating these temperature records and is not an indicator of data tampering, or because scientists want to show that it’s warming faster than it actually is (e.g., here).
According to the HADCRUT3 dataset [from which the GISS and BEST data originates], the globe has warmed/recovered only 0.7C since the end of the Little Ice Age in 1850, not "more than 0.8 degrees." Homogenization is important, but unfortunately has been misapplied/misused to often result in an artificial warming trend not found in the raw data. 

Further, just because the globe recovered 0.7C since the Little Ice Age does not imply all or most of this recovery is due to man, the false attribution fallacy. 
  • Our understanding of climate change is not primarily based on global climate models (GCMs). They provide some evidence for how our climate may change if we continue to increase anthropogenic forcings. Also, claiming that climate models have failed because they didn’t specifically predict the so-called “pause” is like suggesting that you can’t be sure the river will flow downhill because you can’t predict the winner at pooh sticks(H/T Richard Betts).
Not true because:

1) Computer model output is not "evidence" of anything. Observations are evidence, never models. It's the scientific method, look it up. 
 
2) Climate models are not based upon physics, they consist almost entirely of parameterizations/fudge factors, which is one of many reasons why they do not properly simulate the most fundamental aspects of climate including convection, clouds, gravity waves, atmospheric circulation, ocean oscillations, indirect solar amplification mechanisms, etc. This is why recent papers have called for scrapping the current crop of failed numerical models and replacing them with a whole new approach of stochastic modeling. 


3) "claiming that climate models have failed because they didn’t specifically predict the so-called “pause” is like suggesting that you can’t be sure the river will flow downhill because you can’t predict the winner at pooh sticks" is a non-sequitur and ridiculous claim. Comparing water flowing downhill from gravity is in no way the same as pointing out the climate models have been falsified as overheated at 98%+ confidence levels. If a model said that water flows uphill, then that model would be falsified as well based upon observations.
  • We may not know, precisely, the equilibrium climate sensitivity and the transient climate response, but we do have evidence that provides a range for each of these quantities. Claiming that it will probably be on the low side of these ranges, is simply wrong. The probability distribution tells us the likelihood of each portion of these ranges, and deciding that a particular interval is more likely than this probability distribution suggests, is simply ignoring some (or most) of the evidence.
Not true and "we may not know, precisely" is the understatement of the year. The range of climate sensitivities suggested by various scientists is huge, ranging from < 0.5C to well over 6C. The climate sensitivities based upon observations [i.e. the scientific method], not falsified climate models, show very low climate sensitivities and show that IPCC model-based estimates are exaggerated by ~7 times. Further, several papers have demonstrated that climate models cannot be relied upon to determine climate sensitivity to CO2, despite what Anders truly believes.
There are probably more, but the point I’m getting at is that it really isn’t possible to have a good faith discussion with anyone who dispute the points above. 
Anders thinks all of the above rebuttals are "not in good faith," just like when @hockeyschtick1 pointed out to him on twitter that his claim of sea level rise in the past was off by a factor of only 60 times and he claimed correcting his error was in "bad faith."

Happy "hiatus" Anders

Tuesday, September 16, 2014

New paper finds 'strong correlation between floods and solar magnetic activity', no trend in British floods

A new paper under discussion for Hydrology and Earth System Sciences finds recent floods in Britain are "not exceptional," "there appears to be no shift in long term flood frequency," and 
"The principal finding of this work is that of the strong correlation between flood-rich phases and solar magnetic activity."
According to the author,
"The findings identify that whilst recent floods are notable, several comparable periods of increased flooding are identifiable historically, with periods of greater frequency (flood-rich periods) or/and larger floods. The use of historical records identifies that the largest floods often transcend single catchments affecting regions and that the current flood rich period is not exceptional."

The paper joins many others in the scientific literature linking the hydrological cycle, precipitation, floods & droughts to solar activity, one of many solar amplification mechanisms described in the literature. 

Excerpt:

Summary

The apparent increase in flooding witnessed over the last decade appears in consideration of the long term flood record to be unexceptional, whilst the period since 2000 is considered as flood-rich, the period 1970–2000 is relatively “flood poor”, which may partly explain why recent floods are often perceived as extreme events. The much publicised (popular media) apparent change in flood frequency since 2000 may reflect natural variability, as there appears to be no shift in long term flood frequency (Fig. 4). In reviewing the flood series for European systems for which long flood series have been reconstructed, a complex picture is identified, whilst flood rich phases appear synchronous across many systems (ca. 1600 and 1765–1780), others show less synchronicity (1920s), whilst a number of prominent flood-rich phases at a European scale appear subdued or are not evident in the British FI (e.g. ca. 1740–1750). 

The principal finding of this work is that of the strong correlation between flood-rich phases and solar magnetic activity, indicating a clear driver for flooding patterns across Britain, what is still unclear is the relationship between the spatial/temporal distribution of flood clusters and solar activity. This work suggests that flood-rich periods relate to both positive and negative NAOI, with reasonable correspondence with previously diagnosed periods of climatic variability identified from individual series from across Europe. The inclusion of historical flood information provides a better understanding of long-term flood patterns. The detection of flood-rich periods and attribution to periods of climatic change are tentative. The historical records still hold a wealth of untapped information within the records for which specific discharges cannot be estimated, but from which indices could be extracted (Barriendos and Coeur, 2004). The wealth of information presented by the historical records presents valuable new information for flood risk assessment and management (Kjeldsen et al., 2014); as new flood chronologies become available, more detailed and complete indices based chronologies will improve the resolution and enhancing understanding of flood-rich and -poor periods, presenting a more complete depiction of the role of climate and extreme floods.

Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci. Discuss., 11, 10157-10178, 2014
www.hydrol-earth-syst-sci-discuss.net/11/10157/2014/
doi:10.5194/hessd-11-10157-2014



N. Macdonald
Department of Geography and Planning, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, L69 7ZT, UK
Abstract. The last decade has witnessed severe flooding across much of the globe, but have these floods really been exceptional? Globally, relatively few instrumental river flow series extend beyond 50 years, with short records presenting significant challenges in determining flood risk from high-magnitude floods. A perceived increase in extreme floods in recent years has decreased public confidence in conventional flood risk estimates; the results affect society (insurance costs), individuals (personal vulnerability) and companies (e.g. water resource managers – flood/drought risk). Here we show how historical records from Britain have improved understanding of high magnitude floods, by examining past spatial and temporal variability. The findings identify that whilst recent floods are notable, several comparable periods of increased flooding are identifiable historically, with periods of greater frequency (flood-rich periods) or/and larger floods. The use of historical records identifies that the largest floods often transcend single catchments affecting regions and that the current flood rich period is not exceptional.

__________________________________________

Also published today in the same journal, a paper finding cold periods such as the Little Ice Age were associated with increased extreme precipitation and flooding, the opposite of climate model assumptions. 

Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci. Discuss., 11, 10085-10116, 2014
www.hydrol-earth-syst-sci-discuss.net/11/10085/2014/
doi:10.5194/hessd-11-10085-2014



D. Retsö
Dept. of Economic History, Stockholm University, 10691 Stockholm, Sweden
Abstract. This article explores documentary evidence of floods and extreme rainfall events in Sweden in the pre-instrumental period (1400–1800). The survey shows that two subperiods can be considered as flood-rich, 1590–1670 and the early 18th century. The result is related to a low degree of human impact on hydrology during the period, and suggest that climatic factors, such as lower temperatures and increased precipitation connected to the so called Little Ice Age, should be considered as the main driver behind flood frequency and magnitude.

New paper debunks claims that global warming causes colder winters & more snow

Not from anthropogenic global warming

A paper published today in Geophysical Research Letters debunks claims that anthropogenic global warming causes colder winters, more snow, jet stream dips, or the dreaded 'polar vortex'. Instead, the authors find climate models predict the opposite pattern of a poleward jet stream shift [i.e. fewer jet stream dips] from CO2 direct radiative forcing:
"The direct radiative forcing of CO2 drives a weak poleward jet shift in both hemispheres" 
The paper goes on to claim
"the indirect (Sea Surface Temperature) component of the CO2 forcing dominates the total response and drives a zonally asymmetric response in the Northern Hemisphere. Hence, understanding the Sea Surface Temperature-mediated component of atmospheric CO2 forcing appears crucial to unlocking the mechanisms that contribute to forced extratropical circulation changes."
The major problem with this assumption of "indirect CO2 forcing" on sea surface temperatures is that longwave IR radiation from greenhouse gases cannot significantly heat the oceans, and ocean heat capacity is 1000 times greater than the atmosphere, therefore the ocean wags the tail of the atmosphere. These major physical bugaboos & false assumptions built into all climate models are perhaps the primary reason why 93% of Trenberth's missing CO2 heat is still missing from the oceans.



The response of mid-latitude jets to increased CO2: Distinguishing the roles of sea surface temperature and direct radiative forcing

Kevin M. Grise and Lorenzo M. Polvani


In Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 5 (CMIP5) models, the zonal-mean tropospheric circulation shifts robustly poleward in the Southern Hemisphere (SH) extratropics in response to increased atmospheric CO2 concentrations. However, in the Northern Hemisphere (NH) extratropics, the circulation response to CO2 is largely absent in the zonal mean, and is instead characterized by complex regional anomalies. This study decomposes the atmospheric circulation response to CO2 forcing in CMIP5 models into two components: a direct component due to CO2 radiative forcing and an indirect component associated with sea surface temperature (SST)-mediated changes. The direct radiative forcing of CO2 drives a weak poleward jet shift in both hemispheres, whereas the indirect (SST) component of the CO2 forcing dominates the total response and drives a zonally asymmetric response in the NH. Hence, understanding the SST-mediated component of atmospheric CO2 forcing appears crucial to unlocking the mechanisms that contribute to forced extratropical circulation changes.


New paper links intensification of El Niño & La Niña to solar activity

A paper published today in Earth and Planetary Science Letters reconstructs the "El Niño-Southern Oscillation (ENSO) [which] represents the largest perturbation to the climate system on an inter-annual time scale" from a 10,000 year Holocene proxy in the Galapagos Islands.

According to the authors, 
"Periods of strong or frequent El Niño tended to occur during peaks in solar activity and during extended droughts in the United States Great Plains linked to La Niña. These changing modes of ENSO activity at millennial and multi-centennial timescales may have been caused by variations in the seasonal receipts of solar radiation associated with the precession of the equinoxes and/or changes in solar activity, respectively. 
El Niño and La Niña events are coupled in the Holocene
Intensification of both ENSO phases [El Nino & La Nina] broadly coincided with peaks in solar activity.

Our data from the core of the ENSO region thus calls into question earlier studies that reported a lack of El Niño activity in the early Holocene. In agreement with other proxy evidence from the tropical Pacific, the mid-Holocene (5600–3500 yr BP) was a time of consistently weak El Niño activity, as were the Early Middle Ages (∼1000–1500 yr BP). El Niño activity was moderate to high during the remainder of the last 3500 years."
The paper joins many others in the scientific literature finding solar activity is the main driver of ENSO, as well as other ocean oscillations. Thus, solar influence on ENSO, "the largest perturbation to the climate system on an inter-annual time scale," is another of many solar amplification mechanisms described in the literature. 




Changes in El Junco log (bot) and biomarker δD reveal the evolution of El Niño.
Alternating extremes in El Niño events characterize the early Holocene.
Our data refute earlier studies on lack of El Niño activity in the early Holocene.
El Niño and La Niña events are coupled in the Holocene.
Intensification of both ENSO phases broadly coincided with peaks in solar activity.

Abstract

The El Niño-Southern Oscillation (ENSO) represents the largest perturbation to the climate system on an inter-annual time scale, but its evolution since the end of the last ice age remains debated due to the lack of unambiguous ENSO records lasting longer than a few centuries. Changes in the concentration and hydrogen isotope ratio of lipids produced by the green alga Botryococcus braunii, which blooms during El Niño rains in the Galápagos Islands, indicate that the early Holocene (9200–5600 yr BP) was characterized by alternating extremes in the intensity and/or frequency of El Niño events that lasted a century or more. Our data from the core of the ENSO region thus calls into question earlier studies that reported a lack of El Niño activity in the early Holocene. In agreement with other proxy evidence from the tropical Pacific, the mid-Holocene (5600–3500 yr BP) was a time of consistently weak El Niño activity, as were the Early Middle Ages (∼1000–1500 yr BP). El Niño activity was moderate to high during the remainder of the last 3500 years. Periods of strong or frequent El Niño tended to occur during peaks in solar activity and during extended droughts in the United States Great Plains linked to La Niña. These changing modes of ENSO activity at millennial and multi-centennial timescales may have been caused by variations in the seasonal receipts of solar radiation associated with the precession of the equinoxes and/or changes in solar activity, respectively.
__________________________________________
Also published today, a companion paper to the above paper showing El Nino strength peaked around 700-800 years ago and at the end of the record [left side of graph] was in the mid-range of the past 3000 years, i.e. not unprecedented or unusual:



Novel proxies for tracking hydrologic changes of El Junco Lake, Galápagos.
Based on molecular and isotopic biomarkers from several types of plants and algae.
Proxies used to infer past changes in mean rainfall and El Niño-related rainfall over last 3 kyr.
Novel method used to infer changes in ITCZ-related rainfall during select periods.

Abstract

We present a 3000-yr rainfall reconstruction from the Galápagos Islands that is based on paired biomarker records from the sediment of El Junco Lake. Located in the eastern equatorial Pacific, the climate of the Galápagos Islands is governed by movements of the Intertropical Convergence Zone (ITCZ) and the El Niño-Southern Oscillation (ENSO). We use a novel method for reconstructing past ENSO- and ITCZ-related rainfall changes through analysis of molecular and isotopic biomarker records representing several types of plants and algae that grow under differing climatic conditions. We propose that δD values of dinosterol, a sterol produced by dinoflagellates, record changes in mean rainfall in El Junco Lake, while δD values of C34botryococcene, a hydrocarbon unique to the green alga Botryococcus braunii, record changes in rainfall associated with moderate-to-strong El Niño events. We use these proxies to infer changes in mean rainfall and El Niño-related rainfall over the past 3000 yr. During periods in which the inferred change in El Niño-related rainfall opposed the change in mean rainfall, we infer changes in the amount of ITCZ-related rainfall. Simulations with an idealized isotope hydrology model of El Junco Lake help illustrate the interpretation of these proxy reconstructions. Opposing changes in El Niño- and ITCZ-related rainfall appear to account for several of the largest inferred hydrologic changes in El Junco Lake. We propose that these reconstructions can be used to infer changes in frequency and/or intensity of El Niño events and changes in the position of the ITCZ in the eastern equatorial Pacific over the past 3000 yr. Comparison with El Junco Lake sediment grain size records indicates general agreement of inferred rainfall changes over the late Holocene.

___________________________________________________

On the other hand, climate models and the IPCC have no consensus on ENSO due to climate change, likely because climate models do not consider any possible direct or indirect solar influence upon ENSO [from NOAA]:

ENSO in climate models


When climate models are tasked with answering this question, they have struggled to give a consistent prognostication (Vecchi and Wittenberg 2010). For example, in Figure 2, the y-axis refers to ENSO variability (how frequently events occur) while the x-axis refers to the pattern of SST change (whether it looks more like El Niño or La Niña). While most climate models show a tendency towards more SST warming in central/eastern Equatorial Pacific than western (i.e. points located on the right side of the plot), there is no consensus on what that actually means for ENSO variations (i.e. points placement on the y-axis). Some models show decreasing variability (i.e. points in the bottom half), increasing variability (i.e. points in the upper half), or remains nearly the same (i.e. points in the middle). The point near the origin (center) would be if that bratty child in the dining room adjusted the switches but the total amount of light never changed.
ENSO_models_fig2
Figure 2. Projections by 21 global climate models of changes in the mean state of sea level pressure of the tropical Pacific Ocean (x-axis) and ENSO variability (y-axis). When climate projections of the mean state of the tropical Pacific resemble something that looks like El Niño, points are greater than 0 along the x-axis and vice-versa for La Niña (points less than 0). When ENSO variability increases, points are located greater than 1 along the y-axis and vice versa for a decrease in ENSO variability (points less than 1). We see here that most climate models project a trend towards an El Niño-like average state of the tropical Pacific Ocean but there is considerable model-to-model disagreement regarding whether ENSO variability will increase, decrease, or remain the same in the future.  Adapted from IPCC AR4 (2007).
What does the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) say?
It’s not surprising then that the IPCC report issued in 2013 takes a measured approach. The IPCC has LOW confidence in exactly what will happen to ENSO in the future even while they have HIGH confidence that ENSO itself will continue (IPCC, 2013).
Even though we are not sure how ENSO will change in the future, the impacts of ENSO will probably be affected. In a warming world, rainfall variability is expected to increase. Wet areas will likely get wetter, while dry areas get drier. Combined with a future ENSO event, climate change could strengthen or weaken the typical weather patterns associated with ENSO.
For instance, during El Niño events, below-average rain usually occurs across Indonesia. However, according to climate models, average annual rainfall will increase in the same area. So, during future El Niño events, dry conditions in Indonesia may not be as dry as today. Similarly, La Niña events are associated with a drying of southwestern North America and so are impacts from climate change. So drying during future La Niñas may be enhanced (Vecchi and Wittenberg 2010).
This is a very brief overview of the potential impact of climate change on ENSO and on how the atmosphere and ocean might change in the next hundred years or more. But remember, just because we do not have high confidence on how ENSO might change in the future does not mean that it won’t. It just means scientists have more work to do.

Dr. Judith Curry: "we are fooling ourselves to think 'CO2 control knob' really influences climate on decadal or even century timescales"

Repost from Climate Depot today & prior Hockey Schtick posts featuring Dr. Curry:


Climatologist Dr. Judith Curry warns of decades of possible global cooling: Suggests the ‘current cool phase will continue until the 2030s’



By:  - Climate DepotSeptember 16, 2014 5:49 PM 
Climate Depot Exclusive
Climatologist Dr. Judith Curry, who was until recently the Chair of School of Earth & Atmospheric Sciences at Georgia Institute of Technology, detailed her conversion from a scientist who accepted the global warming “consensus” on man-made global warming to one who now openly challenges it. Curry spoke at the National Press Club in Washington DC on September 16 at an event sponsored by the George C. Marshall Institute.
Curry warned of possible global cooling. “We also see a cooling period starting around the turn of the (21st) century.” She also suggested that the “current cool phase will continue until the 2030s.”
“Even on the timescale of decade or two, we could end up be very surprised on how the climate plays out and it might not be getting warmer like the UN IPCC says,” Curry noted.
“We don’t know what going to happen. All other things being equal – yes — more carbon dioxide means warmer, but all other things are never equal,” she emphasized.
“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,” she added.
“I view the [climate change] problem as a ‘big wicked mess,” Curry told the crowd at luncheon assembled. “The main problem is we are putting the policy cart before the scientific horse,” Curry said.
Curry believes the United Nations has distorted the research of global warming and shifted too much on carbon dioxide as the “control knob” of the climate system. “Climate scientists have focused primarily on greenhouse gases,” Curry noted, linking that focus on the IPCC’s focus and the funding streams available to scientists who focus on CO2.
“Other factors relatively neglected,” Curry declared. “The early articulation of a preferred policy option by the UN framework marginalized research on broader issues surrounding climate change and resulted in an overconfident assessment of the importance of greenhouse gases in future climate change and stifled development of a broad range of policy options.”
UN Treaty Futility
Curry also dismissed the UN global climate treaty process. “Relying on global international treaty to solve the problem — which I do not think would really solve the problem even if it was implemented – is politically unviable and economically unviable.  [Also see: Climatologist Dr. Judith Curry: ‘I don’t think anyone can credibly argue that CO2 reduced under Obama’s plan will change or improve the climate’]
Curry told of her conversion and how she ended up disillusioned with the so-called “consensus.”
“Prior to 2005, I was comfortably ensconced in academia,” Curry noted and discussed how she grew increasingly “uneasy about how the UN IPCC dealt with uncertainty.”
Curry’s turning point was the Climategate email controversy in 2009. She said she was disappointed at the “lack of transparency” and the ‘silence” of many of her colleagues about the behavior of the upper echelon of the UN scientists revealed in the emails. [See: She was once dubbed the “high priestess of global warming” and now freely admits to being “duped into supporting the UN IPCC.” Chatting With ‘A Climate Heretic’: Climatologist Dr. Judith Curry reverses belief in AGW – Climategate ‘triggered a massive re-examination of my support of the IPCC, and made me look at the science much more skeptically’]
Curry showed the headline from Scientific American termed her a “heretic” and the headline blared: ‘Climate Heretic’: ‘Judith Curry Turns on Her Colleagues’
Screen capture of November 2010 Scientific American article.
“By that time I had becoming increasingly skeptic of the UN IPCC,” she noted. [See: Curry: ‘If the IPCC is dogma, then count me in as a heretic’]
Crushing of Scientific Dissent
Curry spoke of the “intolerance of dissent” and attempts to silence skeptic in the global warming discussion today. “President Obama said in his State of the Union address, ‘we don’t have time for a meeting of the flat earth society.’” [See: Climatologist Dr. Judith Curry: ‘I am mystified as to why Obama and John Kerry are making such strong (and indefensible) statements about climate change’]
She called claims of a 97% consensus “deeply flawed.”
“You cannot even talk about these kinds of issues in the mainstream climate debate. We get called ‘deniers’. This is a very sad state of affairs,” she noted.
“Careerism is a big problem. It much more beneficial to join the dominant paradigm, rather than to fight against it,” Curry explained.
“If I were nontenured scientist, I would fear for my job! But I am a senior scientist with retirement in my sight, so I can afford to do what I want, say what I think.”
“I no longer write government grant proposals. I have lot more independence. I truly feel liberated by not having to chase dollars,” she added.
Curry lamented the current state of academia. “There is a system in place with an emphasis on paper counts, an emphasis on dollars, and it is very difficult to dig in and work on hard problem. You have got to keep cranking it out. I really despair. I really despair,” she said.
“I see more of our graduates going into private sector rather than academia,” she added.
Curry was optimistic about how the internet is changing things for the better. “Social media is changing things like crazy. The whole emphasis on peer review being challenged by social media and open access journals. The whole dynamic of research and higher academia is changing for the better,” she explained.
“I was on that treadmill, I am mostly off it now and it is very liberating to be off that treadmill,” she added.
Severe Weather
Curry also challenged the notion that there was more “extreme weather” today. “Much of the severe weather we think we are seeing right now — you look back to the 1930 and 1950s and this is what we were seeing also. This is weather amnesia,” she noted.
“Sandy was a category one, when it struck. There is nothing exceptional about a category one hurricane striking New York City. What was exceptional was the damage and this was associated with extreme wealth and development in that region,” she said.
“We have seen that the hurricane landfalls have become fewer in last few decades overall. So you cannot blame it on global warming,” she said.
Sea Level Rise
Curry downplayed sea level rise fears. “If you look back to the 1930 and 1940s, the rate of sea level rise was at least as large as recent values when there was little contribution of human caused warming.”
“Bangladesh, this is the poster child for sea level rise – has an estimated only 10-15% of their sea level rise associated with warming, the rest of it is associated with land use issues and geological issues. So trying to cure the sea level problem by reducing warming — even if that were possible — is only going to address a fraction of the sea level rise issue,” Curry said.
She also laughed about the growing number of excuses (currently at 52) for the global warming ‘pause‘, approaching 18 years according to satellite data.
Related Links:
Judith Curry, Professor and chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology: ‘Given the widespread nature of the infection and intrinsic motivated reasoning.  We need to put down the IPCC as soon as possible’
Key Points: There is a ‘growing realization that you can’t control climate by emissions reductions’