Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: longz who wrote (1411844)	7/25/2023 5:05:00 PM
From: Wharf Rat	1 Recommendation Recommended By pocotrader Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1577893

Global Warming: When Judith Curry makes a claim, check for yourself \| Open Mind (wordpress.com) Posted on June 18, 2018 \| Climate models do an excellent job reproducing how Earth’s temperature has changed over the last century and more. But when Judith Curry gives one of her interesting presentations, she seems determined to imply that they don’t. Here, for instance, is a slide from one of her presentations, about what caused the observed global warming: What I find puzzling is her claim of “Cooling 1940-1975: Not reproduced by the models.” It seems to me to be an attempt to discredit the models. But where did she get that conclusion? Is she unable to “do the math”? Did she just make it up? Let’s look for the truth of the matter. Here’s the observational data (HadCRUT4, from the Hadley Centre/Climate Research Unit in the U.K.) for the time span 1940 through 1975: I’ve included a trend line (in red) as well as its uncertainty (dashed red lines). It’s sloping downward so you could call it “cooling” but the uncertainty is so big that there’s no being sure about it — or even being confident about it. The rate is estimated at -0.0028 ± 0.0035 °C/year, which includes zero in the credible range. I’d say no, it doesn’t show cooling it just shows the never-ending fluctuations which Judith Curry has decided to call “cooling” with no ifs, ands, or buts. Not very scientific, Dr. Curry. REPORT THIS AD What about the models? Here’s the multi-model mean for the RCP4.5 through RCP8.5 scenario runs: I’ve included a trend line (in red) as well as its uncertainty (dashed red lines). It’s sloping downward so you could call it “cooling” but the uncertainty is so big that there’s no being sure about it — or even being confident about it. The rate is estimated at -0.0011 ± 0.0025 °C/year, which includes zero in the credible range. I’d say no, it doesn’t show cooling, but neither does the observational data. Here’s the kicker: if you insist on statistical significance then neither shows cooling. If you take any negative value, significant or not, as “cooling” then they both show cooling. You can’t have it both ways, Dr. Curry. Either neither or both, but to state that the observations show cooling 1940-1975 while the models don’t, is false. So tell us, Judith Curry, what’s the scientific basis for your claim? You also said in one of your presentations that your job as a scientist is “to critically evaluate evidence and challenge and reassess conclusions drawn from the evidence.” It looks like you’re happy to “challenge and reassess conclusions” — unless they’re your own conclusions. == Judith Curry sourcewatch.org Dec 25, 2019 — Curry receives ongoing funding from the fossil fuel industry. In an interview with Curry for a October 2010 Scientific American profile, Michael ...