Innocently working through the daily twitter load Eli came upon a middle low German trickster pushing a line that had been snipped out of the IPCC AR5, and an answer by a high flyer
Followed by a subtweet (eg dragging the innocent in without telling them), so Eli dragged the innocent in while telling him..@eulenspigel The Arctic is substantially warmer than in the 1930s, accompanied by substantial reductions in sea ice cover. pic.twitter.com/e5iVEtlXzH— icarus62 (@icarus62) March 6, 2017
As it turns out Gavin had been doing his assigned reading and provided part of the answer as to where this came from
a recent post by Tamino, a handsome prince lost in a distant land, pursuing a serpent (played by Judith Curry) using time series analysis to save himself, in which the handsome prince speculates about how the serpent found this quote
Here’s what I believe happened: Judith Curry combed through the IPCC AR5 looking for stuff she could use to contradict the stronger statement of confidence in dangerous global warming which the report makes explicit. I further believe that she paid little or no attention to stuff which would support the stronger statement in AR5. The seeming inconsistency between Arctic temperature (just as hot in the 1930s as now) and Arctic sea ice (nowhere near as low in the 1930s as now) is one of those things she was looking for.and engages in analysis of what the data says concluding that
I’ve studied the data. Not only does it fail to support the claim about 1930s Arctic temperatures, it actually contradicts that claim. By a wide margin. It ain’t even close.
There’s something even more important to think about. Judith Curry combed through the IPCC AR5 looking for stuff that would cast doubt. One of the things she found, which she even included in her written testimony to a U.S. Senate committe, turns out not to cast doubt. If I were being hyperbolic I would say “To find evidence against AGW in the IPCC report, it looks like you have to quote stuff that they got wrong — ’cause the stuff they got right is evidence for AGW.” But that would indeed be hyperbole.
What’s not hyperbole is how it looks to me: that Judith Curry cannot have studied the available data to draw that conclusion because the available data contradict it, that Judith Curry cannot have studied the supporting references because they don’t support it, and that if she believes it “because the IPCC report says so” then it’s obvious she’ll take the IPCC report’s word for what she wants to believe but not for what she doesn’t want to believe.Where upon Peter Stott appears on Twitter to lay this one to rest
@ClimateOfGavin @EthonRaptor @icarus62 (1) This was a single sentence in section discussing Arctic sea ice decline which referred to temps without citation not ideal but note also— Peter Stott (@StottPeter) March 6, 2017
@ClimateOfGavin @EthonRaptor @icarus62 (2) that lower in section contrasts Arctic wide increases of temperature in last decade with episodic regional increases in early 20th c— Peter Stott (@StottPeter) March 6, 2017
Showing that it pays to ask even if you are handsome prince lost in a distant land, pursuing serpents and not a fuzzy little bunny@ClimateOfGavin @EthonRaptor @icarus62 (3) point being that "Arctic temperature anomalies" is referring to temps in some parts of Arctic not necessarily Arctic wide.— Peter Stott (@StottPeter) March 6, 2017