The Australian Election result

[french frank]

As so often happens with your back-referencing, I cannot find your quote:.

I believe it did happen once before. Just a search tip - take out a short, distinctive phrase, put it in quotes and google.

In this case, I looked beyond the blog which you linked to, as I don't really trust blogs and similar 'user generated sources' as I'd never heard of her.

This is what I checked (pdf):

STATEMENT TO THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE AND TECHNOLOGY OF THE UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Hearing on "Policy Relevant Climate Issues in Context"
25 April 2013 Judith A. Curry, Georgia Institute of Technology
curryj at eas.gatech.edu


The final paragraph, bottom of page 14, just before the biography, is what I quoted.

[amateur51]

GongGong and Amateur51: from the strength of your concern about sea level rise I assume you have expert knowledge of its predicted rise.

What are your views on this matter?

What advice would you give Mr Abbott?

"Great time to reduce the cost of de-salination plants, I'd say Tone"

[An_Inspector_Calls]

FF yes, I tried that wheeze, but didn't hit on the magic quote selection to find your reference. It would be so much easier if you just gave the reference - in the first place.

Later

That's a 'paper' of Curry's (not peer-reviewed, deary me) that predates the deliberate leak of IPCC SPM that will accompany TAR5. My earlier comments are sufficient.

[Mr Pee]

Well any rise in sea levels will be felt most acutely on the coast Mr Pee.

I do hope you're right, for your sake.

How long have I got? Should I move to higher ground by the weekend????

Only I'm having a few friends round on Saturday and if my house is going to be underwater I'd best put them off.

[amateur51]

How long have I got? Should I move to higher ground by the weekend????

Don't ask me, ask an expert.

Or ask t'Inspector.

He's bound to have an opinion.

[An_Inspector_Calls]

If you can read a graph, Mr Pee would seem to have a while:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Trends_in_global_average_absolute_sea_level,_1870-2008_(US_EPA).png

And just look at that acceleration around 1930. Obviously global warming. Except:


B.D. Hamlington, R.R. Leben, M.W. Strassburg, R.S. Nerem, K.-Y. Kim (2013) GRL 'Contribution of the pacific decadal oscillation to global mean sea level trends'.

"Understanding and explaining the trend in GMSL has important implications for future projections of sea level rise. While measurements from satellite altimetry have provided accurate estimates of GMSL, the modern altimetry record has only now reached twenty years in length, making it difficult to assess the contribution of decadal to multi-decadal climate signals to the global trend. Here, we use a sea level reconstruction to study the twenty-year trends in sea level since 1950. In particular, we show that the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) contributes significantly to the twenty-year trends in GMSL. We estimate the PDO contribution to the GMSL trend over the past twenty years to be approximately 0.49 ± 0.25 mm/year, and find that removing the PDO contribution reduces the acceleration in GMSL estimated over the past sixty years."

So 140 years and no sign of any change in the rate of sea level rise . . .

[amateur51]

So 140 years and no sign of any change in the rate of sea level rise . . .

So it could be along any day now?!

[Beef Oven!]

If you can read a graph, Mr Pee would seem to have a while:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Trends_in_global_average_absolute_sea_level,_1870-2008_(US_EPA).png

And just look at that acceleration around 1930. Obviously global warming. Except:


B.D. Hamlington, R.R. Leben, M.W. Strassburg, R.S. Nerem, K.-Y. Kim (2013) GRL 'Contribution of the pacific decadal oscillation to global mean sea level trends'.

"Understanding and explaining the trend in GMSL has important implications for future projections of sea level rise. While measurements from satellite altimetry have provided accurate estimates of GMSL, the modern altimetry record has only now reached twenty years in length, making it difficult to assess the contribution of decadal to multi-decadal climate signals to the global trend. Here, we use a sea level reconstruction to study the twenty-year trends in sea level since 1950. In particular, we show that the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) contributes significantly to the twenty-year trends in GMSL. We estimate the PDO contribution to the GMSL trend over the past twenty years to be approximately 0.49 ± 0.25 mm/year, and find that removing the PDO contribution reduces the acceleration in GMSL estimated over the past sixty years."

So 140 years and no sign of any change in the rate of sea level rise . . .

What about mammoths? Weren't they killed off by global werming?

[amateur51]

What about mammoths? Weren't they killed off by global werming?

Global werming? :yikes:

Wasn't it scurvy?

[french frank]

FF yes, I tried that wheeze, but didn't hit on the magic quote selection to find your reference. It would be so much easier if you just gave the reference - in the first place.

I chose the phrase "the possibility of an extreme, catastrophic outcome". It didn't occur to me that you might think I had made it up!

That's a 'paper' of Curry's (not peer-reviewed, deary me) that predates the deliberate leak of IPCC SPM that will accompany TAR5. My earlier comments are sufficient.

To be more precise it was her 'testimony' to a Congressional Hearing, but to my scientifically inexperienced appraisal it seemed to be, at least, fully referenced.

However, rather like the last source you quoted, the climate sceptic Andrew Montfort, the lady's views are controversial, judging by her blog posting of the same testimony (it's a bit like this forum).

The blog posting of the testimony, with appended comments is on this link:

http://judithcurry.com/2013/04/25/congressional-hearing-on-policy-relevant-climate-issues-in-context/

However, I fully understand that the relative dates of the two articles mean that you are satisfied with your evidence.

And I think I now agree with you: we should wait until we are absolutely sure that disaster is imminent. It would be silly to take all these precautionary measures until we are sure of that. And very costly, especially to countries like the Czech Republic.

[An_Inspector_Calls]

FF

Just how have I suggested that you 'made anything up'. Obviously you'd got your reference elsewhere but as usual you failed to provide a sensible reference. And since I didn't come down with the last shower, I took various chunks of your quotation, fed them into Google (amazing!) and I didn't find your reference. We've now wasted several posts sorting this out.

Andrew Monfort is actually Andrew Montford.

Judith Curry is a blogger, but also 'an American climatologist and chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology. Her research interests include hurricanes, remote sensing, atmospheric modelling, polar climates, air-sea interactions, and the use of unmanned aerial vehicles for atmospheric research. She is a member of the National Research Council's Climate Research Committee. She is also is a former professor of Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences at the University of Colorado-Boulder. Curry is the co-author of Thermodynamics of Atmospheres and Oceans (1999), and co-editor of Encyclopaedia of Atmospheric Sciences (2002). Curry has published over 130 scientific peer reviewed papers. Among her awards is the Henry G. Houghton Research Award from the American Meteorological Society in 1992. Curry may be controversial, but then her published papers have passed the peer-review cosh.

Apparently ignoring the leak of the IPCC SPM leak effectively discards much of the recent progress made with the climate science arena and the impact that's had on the viewpoint of the IPCC.

Satisfied with 'my' evidence is your invention. I'll take her standpoint at its face value and check it against the facts available, along with other evidence such as the 17-20 standstill in global temperatures (ground stations and satellite observations).

[french frank]

FF

Just how have I suggested that you 'made anything up'.

I was careful with my wording. I didn't suggest that YOU suggested that I had made it up: I was merely suggesting that if that thought had occurred to me, I would have given the link in the first place. Instead I thought that stating the author and putting an accurate quote between quotation marks would have sufficed. I apologise for making that assumption and was disrespectful of your scholarly background.

Obviously you'd got your reference elsewhere but as usual you failed to provide a sensible reference. And since I didn't come down with the last shower, I took various chunks of your quotation, fed them into Google (amazing!) and I didn't find your reference. We've now wasted several posts sorting this out.

You have used the phrase 'as so often' and 'as usual' which might be a slight exaggeration? There was, I think, one previous example?

Andrew Monfort is actually Andrew Montford.

I apologise to him too. It was quite an effort of memory to recall his name at all, since he was unknown to me until you referenced him a couple of weeks back.

Judith Curry is a blogger, but also 'an American climatologist and chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology. Her research interests include hurricanes, remote sensing, atmospheric modelling, polar climates, air-sea interactions, and the use of unmanned aerial vehicles for atmospheric research. She is a member of the National Research Council's Climate Research Committee. She is also is a former professor of Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences at the University of Colorado-Boulder. Curry is the co-author of Thermodynamics of Atmospheres and Oceans (1999), and co-editor of Encyclopaedia of Atmospheric Sciences (2002). Curry has published over 130 scientific peer reviewed papers. Among her awards is the Henry G. Houghton Research Award from the American Meteorological Society in 1992. Curry may be controversial, but then her published papers have passed the peer-review cosh.

Yes, I checked her background. I was referring to the fact that your link was to a blog, rather than a peer-reviewed paper, and therefore required checking as, again, I hadn't heard of her. I thought my reference had more credibility.

Apparently ignoring the leak of the IPCC SPM leak effectively discards much of the recent progress made with the climate science arena and the impact that's had on the viewpoint of the IPCC.

Apparently? Well that did clearly stem from one edge of Curry's 'two edged' swords: as I pointed out, the other edge was 'missing the possibility [my bold] of an extreme, catastrophic outcome'.

My own, non-scientific position is based on a cautious, perhaps over-cautious, temperament, and a feeling that IF there is a POSSIBLE catastrophe up ahead, better take action sooner than later. More immediately important to me is that I also like the challenge of reducing my carbon footprint: I would live in a log cabin in the backwoods if it were practicable.

[ahinton]

My own, non-scientific position is based on a cautious, perhaps over-cautious, temperament, and a feeling that IF there is a POSSIBLE catastrophe up ahead, better take action sooner than later. More immediately important to me is that I also like the challenge of reducing my carbon footprint: I would live in a log cabin in the backwoods if it were practicable.

Please don't ever do that! How would you moderate and contribute to this forum if you did?(!). You'd not need to, anyway; even in some parts of Britain, it's possible to construct passive living accommodation in energy consumption terms.

As I've said before, however, there are other good reasons to prioritise sustainable and renewable forms of energy besides just trying to reduce carbon footprint, reducing environmental pollution being one and the massive ongoing cost of exploration, extraction and distribution of fossil fuels being another. Whilst no sustainable renewable energy source can possibly have anything like a beneficial global impact, what's not to like, for example, about Australia adopting a more go-ahead policy with solar energy as I suggested above?

[agingjb]

The weather? Who knows, and although I could be persuaded to worry, it's clear that even if there were some effective changes in policy, they are not going to be made.

The Holocene Extinction, however, continues to accelerate.

[An_Inspector_Calls]

The sad news is that there is almost certainly a catastrophe ahead. What that might be, and what will cause it, I have no idea. If you wish to personally apply the Precautionary Principle then fine but I'm not sure I see what calamity you're hedging against. But if it's energy production you're targeting, you only have control over about 50 % of your 125 kWh/day per capita consumption.

I also make efforts to cut my carbon footprint (heat heat-pump, external lagging to house, etc.) but only to save money. My philosophy would be to apply the Precautionary Principle to any application of the Precautionary Principle.

As for renewables, what I'd do in this northern European context is to recognise that none of them are yet fit for purpose and send them back to a (subsidised) research laboratory, meanwhile continuing with unsubsidised, modern, fossil-fuel technology that is economic and with the lowest emissions possible.