Judith Curry Part 1: Presentation about her new book | Tom Nelson Podcast #77

Tom Nelson

Dr. Judith Curry is President and co-founder of CFAN. Following an influential career in academic research and administration, Curry founded CFAN to support the management of weather and climate risk. She is Professor Emerita at the Georgia Institute of Technology, where she served as Chair of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences for 13 years.

Curry is a Fellow of the American Meteorological Society, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, and the American Geophysical Union. She is frequently called upon to give Congressional testimony and serve as an expert witness on matters related to weather and climate. Curry received a Ph.D. in Geophysical Sciences from the University of Chicago.


Curry on BizNews:    • “There’s no emerg…  

Curry’s Jordan Peterson interview:    • The Models Are OK…  

Curry on the Robert Bryce podcast:    • The Power Hungry …  

Tables turned: Scientist Judith Curry and Author Mark Steyn question, school Sen Markey on climate:    • Tables turned: Sc…  

New book by Judith Curry: Climate Uncertainty and Risk, Anthem Press, 256 pages (in press; publication date June 6, 2023) https://www.amazon.com/Climate-Uncert…

4.5 11 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
March 3, 2023 7:02 am

If non-communist female scientists working in academia wanted to get ahead, they could transition to a male pretending to be a woman.

Erik Magnuson
Reply to  Scissor
March 3, 2023 7:49 am

I’m assuming that was intended as a criticism of academia as opposed to Dr. Curry. Needs sarcasm tag…

Paul S
Reply to  Scissor
March 3, 2023 7:51 am

I detect sarcasm in this dark punch at our sad state of current affairs in our upside down world

More Soylent Green!
Reply to  Scissor
March 3, 2023 8:05 am

Why the down votes? If it’s OK for a biological male to self-identify as a female and compete in girls/women’s sports it must therefore be acceptable for a biological male scientist to self-identify as a female scientist. Same applies to doctors, engineers and software developers.

This is a post-factual world. “Your truth” trumps objective reality. You can identify as any race, gender, sex or ethnicity and nobody can say you are wrong.

Last edited 24 days ago by More Soylent Green!
Reply to  More Soylent Green!
March 3, 2023 9:39 am

Yep. Just look at the former DOE Brandon political appointee in the US who wore dresses and lipstick. Dresses from luggage stolen from airports. That IS plural, multiple airports across the US. A heshe or shim who was obviously highly qualified from the perspective of the current Democrat party and president.

Reply to  Drake
March 4, 2023 3:07 am

A perfect fit for Bidet’s Cabinet of Incompetents

I hope they never find put lipstick is made from oil — there will be a panic in the Cabinet.

Last edited 23 days ago by Richard Greene
Reply to  More Soylent Green!
March 4, 2023 3:06 am

 “Your truth” trumps objective reality.

You wrote “trumps”
Prepare for a visit by the Biden FBI

Last edited 23 days ago by Richard Greene
Reply to  Scissor
March 3, 2023 8:48 am

Some people need to understand you don’t always need a /sarc tag

Gunga Din
Reply to  Redge
March 3, 2023 2:49 pm

Not always, but it does help sometimes.

E. Schaffer
March 3, 2023 8:07 am

And that is the problem. A lengthy talk with weak arguments. You will only advocate like this, if you are not aware of a much more immediate reality. Here it is:

  • Climate sensitivity is calculated on gross(!) forcings and feedbacks instead of net(!!!)
  • Lambda as a conversion factor from Watt/m2 to temperature is erroneously assumed 0.3 instead of 0.27. Through the feedback loop this produces a margin of error much higher than just 10%
  • Assuming surface emissivity = 1 procudes another significant error overstating both the GHE and climate sensitivity, specifically affecting the role of WV. Practically those surface emissions not existing in the first place, as emissivity is only 0.91, are wrongly attributed to the GHE of WV.
  • Further feedbacks (cloud-, albedo-) are purely speculative and unsubstantiated, made up to enhance climate sensitivity.

These provable mistakes are responsible for climate sensivities in the 3K+ region, while in reality it is only about 0.5K(!). Even a basic tool like modtran points towards this reality..

comment image


Reply to  E. Schaffer
March 4, 2023 3:16 am

You can’t scare anyone with =0,5K even though the guess is very reasonable. So that’s out. Modern climate science starts with a conclusion. To be fair they provide a range of desired conclusions. Then the climate confuser games are programmed to ,ake predictions that fit in that range. Except those pesky Russians, with their INM model — they simply don’t know how to follow “orders”.

That’s why the current wild guess is +2.5 to +4,0 degrees C., or about +3.3 degrees C. average The prior +1.5 to “4.5 degrees C, ( +3.0 abverage ) wild guess had the within reason +1.5, from 1979 until a few years ago, which was not scary enough. Can’t have that !

Was +3.0 degrees C. average
Now averages +3.3 degrees C.
Conclusion: Worse than we thought
(that is modern climate science, folks)

March 3, 2023 9:00 am

You won’t see it on BBC, for example. And that – reaching the masses – is the problem.

Bursting that bubble seems almost impossible

David Pentland
Reply to  strativarius
March 3, 2023 9:54 am

Reaching the masses is correct. Most are busy with their lives and totally trusting of their policy makers. Ignorance is Bliss.

Dave Fair
Reply to  strativarius
March 3, 2023 10:06 am

Reality always intrudes, no matter the ultimate timeframe nor the costs. And Abraham Lincoln said it all: “You can fool …”

Gunga Din
Reply to  strativarius
March 3, 2023 2:54 pm

One “bubble” at a time.
The more the individuals are impacted, the more the the little bubbles burst.
And those burst bubbles can vote.

Dan Pangburn
March 3, 2023 10:27 am

All that and no mention of the measured average global water vapor increase. Water vapor molecules have been increasing 7 times faster than CO2 molecules. NASA/RSS reported average global water vapor using satellite instrumentation Jan 1988-Dec 2021. They claim an accuracy of ~1 kg/m^2 RMS (~3%) on each of the 420 measurements. Applying the 1.14% per decade trend increase in WV molecules to the average WV content of 10,000 ppmv at ground level reveals that WV molecules have been increasing about 7 times faster than the CO2 molecule increase measured at Mauna Loa. The increase in WV can account for all of humanity’s contribution to climate change.
Apparently some folks haven’t considered WV because they are not aware that it has been increasing or don’t think it matters because the water cycle is only a few days. The first assumption is proven wrong by the measurements. The resident time doesn’t matter wrt IR absorption/emission because precipitated molecules are continuously replaced by evaporation.
NASA/RSS stopped reporting average global WV after their Dec 2021 report and a year later they deleted the site that had been showing all data. I wonder if it’s a story tip that this WV data was erased because it can be used to demonstrate that suppressing the use of fossil fuels will have no significant effect on climate.

TPW thru Dec 2021.jpg
Reply to  Dan Pangburn
March 3, 2023 2:34 pm

The chart is deceptive. It shows an anomaly with a baseline added. I know that is shown on the chart but not obviously so. A casual observer would think they are looking at monthly TPW.

I have attached the actual vapour pressure over a similar time frame. When viewed like this, the gradual increase is hardly observable.

The TPW follows the ocean surface temperature and will continue to rise as the oceans in the NH warm up faster than the SH oceans cool down.

Screen Shot 2023-03-04 at 9.28.33 am.png
Reply to  RickWill
March 3, 2023 2:39 pm

If there was TPW data before satellites, it would show the same trend as the water vapour pressure that goes back 1900; although accuracy is probably questionable way back then.

There has been a steadily increasing trend from 1900 through to present time with a dip from 1940 to 1980. Temperature records had the same dip before it was homogenised away.

Screen Shot 2023-03-04 at 9.35.55 am.png
Dan Pangburn
Reply to  RickWill
March 6, 2023 7:07 pm

The shape of this curve looks similar to reported average global temperatures

Aint 1850 to 2020 H4 sine.jpg
Dan Pangburn
Reply to  RickWill
March 6, 2023 7:03 pm

Thanks for that data source. How does this uptrend compare with the 1.14% per decade for the TPW data? Is this global average vapor pressure?

Matthias Schuerle
Reply to  Dan Pangburn
March 3, 2023 4:45 pm

The increase in WV can account for all of humanity’s contribution to climate change.

Absolut humidity is increasing – but relative humidity is sinking since decades.

comment image?w=628&zoom=2

Water remains a blind spot for the IPCC and in climate change theories.
Few weeks ago I combined a well-known, simple energy balance model (2009) with the observed CERES data 2000-2020. I think it shows us highly interesting research into the causes of climate development over the last 2 decades and also shows us which climate we should quantitatively be prepared for in the coming years.


Loeb & Trenberth’s GEB shows a well-known version from 2009.
I treat it as if it were the 2000 GEB and plot the 2000-2020 CERES
data (white digits) as 20-year trends.

This is how we see the development of the GEB from 2000 – 2020 … regardless of whether individual values of the climate model used deviate from reality.

Let’s have a look at the balance at the surface of the earth.
In 2020, compared to 2000, an additional +2.08 W/m² of radiation energy arrived here
( SW down surface +1.54 W/m² & LW down surface +0.54 W/m² ).

As a rule, the incoming SW & LW down-surface are balanced upwards in a ~4:1 ratio via
LW-Up-Surface(4) and latent + sensitive energy flows LH &SH(1).
In 2020, however, the further increase in energy of 2.08 W/m² was compensated almost exclusively by LW-Up-Surface.

Here the lack of water and/or the loss of evaporation on the surface becomes visible!

While 104.8 W/m² were still available for LH+SH in 2000, — in 2020 only
104.11 W/m² are available to balance. How is that possible?

The lack of water, evaporation and clouds on and above the land surface is
the trigger and main cause of the warming from 2000-2020 and
produces globally +0.69W/m² higher values for LW-Up-Surface by the
accumulated loss of ~ 5650 km³ = 0.86W/m² of latent evaporation during the last 20 years
, which the oceans obviously can no longer compensate for.


– ~ +0.94W/m² due to the reduced cloud albedo, aerosols,
– ~ +0.6W/m² due to decreasing albedo of the surface,
– ~ +0.54W/m² due to higher LW-down-surface = +2.08W/m².

– ~ -0.768W EEI remaining in oceans, land, cyrosphere and atmosphere = +1.31W/m².

For the measured LW-up-surface = 2.0W/m², — 0.69W/m² are still missing,
which can only have arisen through the loss of evaporation.

This is also confirmed by the trend 2000-2020 for the global evaporation rates (see below) of -0.86W/m² per 20 years and a naturally associated increase of +0.17W/m² for the sensible heat flux.


Time-series Statistics
ALL: land & sea

Statistic Type
NCEP/NCAR Reanalysis I
Evaporation Rate ————————– ERA5 Relative Humidity
Mean: 82.707 ———————————————74.7065
Standard Deviation: 0.700669 ————————0.216812
Skewness: -1.50483 ————————————0.769041
Kurtosis: 2.86361 —————————————-0.333957
Slope*: -0.0432521 (W/m²) —————————-0.0217081 (%)

Slope is given in units of ‚per year‘ —>
– Evaporation Rate: -0,865 W/m² per 20y
– Relative Humidity: -0,434 % per 20y

The improved transmissivity of the atmosphere for LW & SW due to less clouds (29.9W/m² x 1.7% = 0.51W/m²) contradict the very popular theory that the observed increase of CO2 (~ +40ppm) over the 20 years period is mainly responsible for the observed global warming.

Dan Pangburn
Reply to  Matthias Schuerle
March 6, 2023 8:15 pm

The increase in absolute humidity occurring at the same time as decrease in relative humidity is explained by the a graph of the percent increase in water vapor per degree temperature. As temperature increases the saturation vapor pressure increases but the accommodation for water vapor in the atmosphere increases more. This is explained further at Sect 4 of https://watervaporandwarming.blogspot.com

ICE & WATER SAT p vs T.jpg
Reply to  Dan Pangburn
March 4, 2023 2:36 am

Water vapor molecules have been increasing 7 times faster than CO2


Water vapor is determined by the average temperature of the troposphere — a feedback to whatever cause of climate change causes the temperature of the troposphere to change.

Those deleted water vapor data were obviously wrong — no wonder they were deleted.

Suppressing fossil fuels will have a small effect on the climate, including a water vapor positive feedback — but the main effect will be less CO2 for C3 plants (85% of plants), that prefer a lot more CO2.

Clausius–Clapeyron relation – Wikipedia

Last edited 23 days ago by Richard Greene
Dan Pangburn
Reply to  Richard Greene
March 6, 2023 8:53 pm

As Mark Twain said, “It’s easier to fool someone than convince them they’ve been fooled!” but I’ll try to show how you have been fooled. Water vapor is determined by the temperature of the atmosphere only at saturation, i.e. in clouds. There is a lot of blue sky. The calculations that led to “about 7%” are at Sect 2.8 in http://globalclimatedrivers2.blogspot.com.
IMO the fact that NASA/RSS stopped measuring and deleted the site actually reinforces that the measurements are valid. These WV measurements can be used to demonstrate that CO2 has no significant effect on climate and that the current war on fossil fuels is a mistake.
Another assessment comes to the same conclusion: Radiation from water vapor molecules (they are also IR active) can be in any direction but, at about 2 km and above, because of the steep declining with altitude population gradient of water vapor molecules, the distance traveled by a photon before it encounters another water vapor molecule is greater towards space than towards earth so the prevailing direction of IR flux is towards space. Energy absorbed by CO2 and other IR active molecules is redirected wrt wave number via gaseous conduction to replenish the energy radiated to space by water vapor molecules. At the tropopause and above, water vapor molecules are diminished so radiation to space is from CO2 and other IR active molecules that do not condense in the atmosphere. Increased CO2 there counters warming. More description is at https://energyredirect3.blogspot.com

March 3, 2023 2:44 pm

Magnificent. God bless Judith Curry.

Gunga Din
March 3, 2023 2:46 pm

Judith Curry, like other genuine climate scientist, was forced into taking a public stand against the CiSY only because of the dishonest political stand of those the MSM and politicians have declared to be climate sociologist … er …scientist.
I’m sure that both she and others like her would prefer to just continue to research and learn more about the climate of this wonderous big blue ball we all live on.

March 4, 2023 2:24 am

“Thanks for the invite.” GRRRRRRRRRR!!. Please will people stop using verbs as if they were nouns. The noun is ‘invitation’.

March 4, 2023 2:59 am

Professor Curry does not communicate well with her Ph.D, style tedious long sentence writing style and her inability to define the “climate problem” she always pontificates about, in simple English.

Better climate scientists like William Happer, and especially Richard Lindzen, don’t soft soap their beliefs like Curry does.

I challenge Curry at her website, and she is kind enough to not censor my comments. Sometimes she responds to them.

In her last response to me she would not admit there was no climate problem.

But there is no climate problem — the current climate is the best climate in 5,000 years, and has been improving with global warming and CO2 enrichment for the past 325 years.

Why can’t Curry admit THERE IS NO CLIMATE PROBLEM ?

In her last response to my comment, she said the climate problem was the government response to the climate. That’s getting closer.

I’m going to keep pushing Curry to be definitive.

(1) Say there is no climate problem, based on climate science.

(2) Say there is a government problem, based on leftist politics, using climate propaganda to promote more government power and control of the private sector.

I believe Curry has a business with financial incentives that cause her to avoid making definitive statements about the climate and the government’s use of climate scaremongering for devious purposes.

I can’t respect someone who tries to be nice all the time, because they fail to make needed definitive points about the wonderful actual climate, and the horrible leftist government’s abuse of climate scaremongering. It’s not like educational institutions were nice to Ms. Curry, and she owes them a favor.

Ms, Curry would father pontificate about climate risks, which are just speculations with no data.

There are only data for the present and past climate.

In my opinion, the only risk is Nut Zero, based on always wrong data-free wild guesses of the future climate.

How can one effectively refute CAGW and Nut Zero without starting by saying the current climate is wonderful, in spite of 43 years of wrong predictions of CAGW since the 1979 Charney Report?

Last edited 23 days ago by Richard Greene
%d bloggers like this:
Verified by MonsterInsights