Interview 1261 - Judith Curry Explains Climate Modeling to the Layman

03/15/201742 Comments

Dr. Judith Curry, climate scientist and former chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at Georgia Tech, joins us once again today to discuss her comprehensive new report, "Climate Models for the layman." We discuss the history and purpose of climate modeling, their uncertainties, equilibrium climate sensitivity, and what we can or cannot learn from their study.

Watch this video on BitChute / DTube / Odysee / YouTube or Download the mp4


Dr. Curry's blog

Dr. Curry's resignation post

Climate Models for the layman

Climate scientists open up their black boxes to scrutiny

Filed in: Interviews
Tagged with:

Comments (42)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. joseph.r says:

    The top link to Dr. Curry’s blog reads “” and should be listed without the “y” in the middle. <— Like this

  2. nancytime says:

    Please do an interview with a reputable scientist on the heliocentric model for it’s accuracy, too.

  3. BillP says:

    Great show, James.

    FYI … the link to Judith Curry’s blog is broken:

    I believe the ‘y’ should be removed.

    Kind regards,

  4. Mishelle says:

    Please do interview Jim Lee about the very long history of weather modification. I find this interview very irritating. Why does she keep giggling as if this is funny? This is a serious topic and just because someone decides this is supposedly the century of best climate whether or not humans are responsible (so let’s not get drastic about measures) is an irresponsible path to take, imo. Plants adapt slowly to weather changes and we know the weather is being manipulated, this is documented fact, and we know weather is a global system, so to not address the extreme weather we are facing is simply a lie. This is a discussion of life and death. The parts affect the whole. We have weather whiplash in the US and no one is talking about it except for a few good youtubers and Dane Wigington. No one is putting an end to fossil fuels next week, so we can stop the fear tactics on both sides and have a REAL conversation about who should or shouldn’t be controlling the weather and climate. Until we get proper context for these conversations we are all just pointing at a different part of the elephant and pretending we know something useful about the animal.

    • HomeRemedySupply says:

      It’s not nice to fool Mother Nature.
      5 seconds –

      I agree that deceptions exist with chemtrails and with “the climate change official narrative”.
      I strongly oppose any major collectivist authoritarian effort to “fool Mother Nature”. In fact, I strongly oppose any major collectivist authoritarian dictates or manipulations.

      ha!…Being an old man from Texas, I have seen some wild weather along the way (e.g. Snow in May, then heat up to the 80’s the same day).
      “Weather” and “climate” are two different species.

      • Mishelle says:

        I knew you were a Texan, as am I! If you are near to Tyler I will be speaking there about the history of weather modification, would love to meet you! It’s older than you, old man. 🙂 They’ve been experimenting in this area heavily since the 50s, ground-based modification began before aviation was invented, so you’d have to be really old to know “natural” weather in this region.

      • Mishelle says:

        Was just reading your other posts–no summer a/c in the hospital–WOW! It’s hard to imagine, and not at all pleasant to imagine!

        I just also want to comment on “Weather and climate are two different species.” I’ve been hearing this quite a bit lately and it really is not true, or at least sends a faulty message. According to the dictionary: “weather–the state of the atmosphere at a place and time as regards heat, dryness, sunshine, wind, rain, etc.” And “climate–the weather conditions prevailing in an area in general or over a long period.” These are indeed the same ‘species’ –the definition of one doesn’t exist without the other.

        We have climate modeling based on manipulated weather, how are these two things not relatable? The weather in the short term is equal to the climate in the long term, therefore if the rain is being ‘pushed’ from one area to another in the short term, repeatedly, it affects the climates in both areas and all those in between. This is currently what’s happening with the Jet Stream (see the channel of 1PacificRedwood for more on how).They are deliberately moving entire weather systems across the country–this is why we get such enormous temp shifts lately. When you look at how the record such events at NOAA, it is by averages, so these extreme shifts in a single day get ‘siphoned’ out into averages, making it appear that the shift was not as abrupt. Also, the rain when it does eventually fall again, has a drying affect on the soil, it is not saturating as it once did and I have learned from French sources this is exactly what their farmers/gardeners have also noticed and tested. This aluminum mix is a desiccant. This then works a cycle in desertification, which in the short-term affects the weather and in the long term the climate.

        • graviv says:

          Thanks for the coherence Mishelle. “climate modeling based on manipulated weather”.

          Another good site to learn about manipulated weather:

          Mucho mysterioso, James and Judith: you can giggle at the stupid IPCC but ignore the deadly DOD. I searched Curry’s blog for ionospheric heaters, HAARP and there is no discussion there either.

          Let’s talk about this:

          Another reason to resign from Georgia Tech. where mad scientists teach you how to use DEW

          Pray for the healing of those hell bent on harming others.

          • Mishelle says:

            Thanks you too graviv, I appreciate all new info and insight and will look through it. I’ve been a bit obsessed with the wx modification, but I think I need to be expanding out as well, are some of these, more than I think anyway, unintentional consequences of other programs, like space weather and experiments in the ionosphere, etc? I get myopic, as in, the wind is driving me crazy, what’s the cause of this incessant wind?! And off I go into propaganda and theories, but all I really want is the wind to stop. 🙂

  5. VoltaicDude says:

    The only really disappointing part of this interview was the conclusion: “…it sure does remove a lot of the urgency from rapidly transitioning away from fossil fuels as our energy source.”

    There are various reasons for rapidly transitioning from “fossil” fuels, not just environmental (which is essentially a matter of micro and macro health concerns), but also economic and political (including wars and acts of genocide), and moving to a decentralized society.

    That said, Dr. Curry is always a good guest to have on:

    What’s the “best” climate? That’s not a scientific question. Curry is right – “it’s arbitrary.”

    Curry’s review of climate models was refreshing. They are useful tools, but also (like statistics in general) highly susceptible to deceptive and exploitative applications, especially through popular (corporately controlled) media and education outlets.

    CO2 is not a pollutant – a very important point. But, there are also very real pollutants associated with “fossil” fuel consumption and those continue to be important motivations for moving away from “fossil” fuels.

    The history of disinformation on “fossil” fuels disseminated through corrupted media channels provides an important clue to the muddle of current popular and mistaken beliefs on this subject.

    Originally big-business and organized “environmentalists’ were on opposite sides of this argument. More recently big-business has aligned with the (often unwitting) Left to create Team B of this deceptive dialectic.

    What gives this mendacious strategy away is that corporate media has embraced it so thoroughly – we know corporate media never strays from serving its masters, and the new hype centered on CO2 emissions is a straw-man argument!

    So why is this new strategy convenient for our corporate masters?

    ExxonMobil remains a nation unto itself; Citibank and Chase became the richest banks in the world through their association with Standard oil; solar and wind energy technologies have been suppressed for decades in the same way that mass transit infrastructure was largely eliminated in the mid-twentieth century – ALL for the same reasons/effects.

    Two other important points to reckon with: the petro dollar and corporate media itself (the disseminator of CO2 disinformation!).

    The deep state relies on control over the major industrial revenue streams as its very lifeblood, but the energy “markets” as constructed are bogus.

    The staling game here is “how do we transition from centralized ‘fossil’ fuel industries to CENTRALIZED renewable energy industries” – or what other social constructs, including things like the demonetization of society might eventually make such controls moot points.

    The Orwellian control grid will only be undermined when regular/daily consumables are outside the revenue streams of the central banksters.

    There’s a HUGE difference between getting your energy from a wind-farm and owning your own helix-shaped wind-mill installed on your roof, or between getting your energy from a solar energy farm and owning your own solar panels installed on your roof or plot.

    Ironically, when the control grid is dismantled, then society at large will be more freely able to pursue real science and well-informed debate, not just through “alternative” sites.

    • Aron says:

      Well stated.

      To provide one example of where a government’s preferences lie with centralized (controller) versus decentralized (people) interests, the province of Alberta is allocating $36 million dollars over a three-year period for solar panel installation on Albertan homes and businesses. In contrast, provincial carbon taxes of $3.6 billion dollars over a five-year period will be allocated for large-scale renewable energy, bioenergy and technology projects. This represents about a 50:1 ratio between controller and people-centric green energy projects funded by carbon tax revenue. I think this ratio says something about interest in maintaining the control grid.

      Solutions to any problem can be found within one’s imagination and will to make it happen.

    • m.clare says:

      Big Oil created Big Environment.

      Have you read “Cloak of Green” – Elaine Dewar?

      Another good one is “It’s the crude, dude” – Linda McQuaig

      Linda gets mixed up a bit with the Climate Crisis fairy tale but her book offers, nonetheless, an excellent historical perspective on the geopolitical history of petroleum.

      The Rockefeller Brothers Fund announced their divestment from fossil fuels in 2014 while oil was $100/bbl…. after which it dropped to $23. How’s that for timing?

      Big Environment was CREATED by Big Oil….. wrapping your head around the implications is both painful and necessary.

    • vincent says:

      Her giggling about the economists view that the warming trend is good for the economy was unnerving in light of the fact that there are farmers in Indian that had to withstand 50 Celsius last summer. I don’t think the parent’s of the children in China and other developing nations coughing to their death beds because of carbon particulates (of coal, wood, and diesel)are laughing much either. I do agree the spread of 1.5 degrees to 4.5 degrees is totally unreasonable and must be addressed. China is quickly switching to nuclear, solar, and LNG from coal, so that the studies going forward on the topic of solar radiance on particulates should be revised as soon as possible. Here is a recent 2013 IPCC report on radiance.

      • m.clare says:

        1) India rotates two crops every year whereas Canadians struggle to produce one.
        Q. Why is that?

        2) Canadians are paying a new carbon sin tax to make Canada colder.
        Q. How much Greener will Canada be after it cools off?

        3) At the gas pump alone, the Alberta government has raised a quarter billion in new carbon sin taxes in the first 3 months of 2017.
        Q. By how many degrees has the planet cooled off as a direct result of the money raised?

        4) Minds trained in the scientific method often giggle at “evidence” provided by the IPCC.
        Q. Why, I wonder?

        5) Whales were hunted to the brink of extinction 150 years ago.
        Q. The expansion of what industry saved the whales?

        6) Life is more abundant where temperatures are above the freezing point of water.
        Q. Why is that…?

        7) The objectives of the “Green” movement are:

        – Cool the planet thereby increasing the quantity of water that is in the solid state rather than liquid (white)
        – Extend the snow and ice covered poles towards the equator (white)
        – Reduce the concentration of plant food in the atmosphere (not green)
        – Build hydroelectric dams that cover “Green” farmland with muddy brown water (brown) …what became of the Yangtze Dolphin?

        Q. Should a movement that strives to make the Earth less Green consider waving a banner that is consistent with the colour changes inflicted by their planet saving strategies? (A murky brown turd on a white background springs to mind).

        8) Is the Green banner waved by Al Gore and his IPCC buddies at the UN symbolic, rather, of the trillions of dollars of sin tithes collected from the religion of the new millennium?

    • mkey says:

      Wind and solar plants with these technologies won’t provide for growing power consumption needs. Further, with extra pollution, I find it to be very questionable if solar is at all feasible.

      On the other hand, LFTR looks like a great contender to the throne and the most obvious path toward free energy. The largest obstacle on this path isn’t the technology, but the ruling politisickos.

  6. VoiceOfArabi says:

    corruption – The most important weapon of “The New World Order”

    The ancient saying goes “A fish rots from the head down”

    Today, the whole planet is running on corruption. The more corrupt the country is, the stronger its ties to USA and the seat of power.

    If some country finally gets a president or ruler that’s is against corruption, the “economic hit men” makes sure he is either “change his mind or get killed”.

    That corruption has seeped into science just as it did many other professions, for example, your doctor who is busy selling on behalf of the big Pharma, the food industry that are busy selling you food that makes you sick (i am sure they get payback from big pharma), the University who are busy ensuring your kids are debit slaves for the rest of their working lives, etc etc..

    And now, we can not trust anyone..

    The problem is…. corruption is part of being human. We are all susceptible to be corrupted.

  7. russ says:

    You cannot model weather, scientist or layman.

  8. Petra says:

    The ongoing deforestation of the American continent during the past 500 years and of the world for over 3000 years leads to desertification. Deserts change the climate. While I agree that reducing fossil fuel usage is a good idea, reforestation would have a better outcome than carbon trading (Wall street BS) or a carbon tax.

    • mkey says:

      Carbon trading and carbon tax will have zero positive effect on the environment. That’s perfectly understandable as they are not designed to have any.

  9. D. Rolling Kearney says:

    No, she wasn’t “giggling” because people are dying in China OR because economists think this is the best weather in a long time. Please grow up. Since we are all quoting old sayings, another one says that the more you know, the more you know that you DON’T know. This is why she was laughing throughout the video. She has been doing this for so long that she understands how the whole thing works… and her whole point is that it DOESN’T work! At least not in the way it is being used to authoritatively pass laws and enforce the NWO. Like some other fields, such as medicine, the “experts” want you to see them as almighty and omniscient when, in fact, they are playing a game that is fueled by the ignorance of the general public.

  10. HomeRemedySupply says:

    LAUGHTER – Laughter is an extremely healthy mechanism. It often can also be very therapeutic and can accompany relief of emotional baggage. The ability to easily laugh is a measure of empathetic sanity and effortless joy.
    Laughter is a close relative of the ability “to play” with its accompanying amusing delight.
    Part of the anatomy of laughter is the fact it often results from “a rejection of something not quite true”. Rejection, castoff, discard, withhold acceptance, scrap, throwaway.
    Examples: When one hears a joke, often there is something which doesn’t add-up that is being discarded. During a self-realization moment, one often laughs with relief at recognizing something silly about one’s self or past.

    Of course, there are inappropriate times for laughter (e.g. when a grief-stricken friend first learns of the death of a loved one). However, many times at a funeral service, light-hearted loving anecdotes about the deceased provide relief for the grief stricken.

    Just my personal code: “Never ever hire nor closely befriend someone who is always stuck in solid seriousness, who cannot easily see the humorous side of things.”
    Someone with the inability to easily laugh or sense joy or relief, who is always serious has lost part of his humanity and cannot properly empathetically evaluate a true understanding of situations. Trouble, stress and tension often are the byproducts of someone fixated in a “seriousness mode”.

    James Corbett QUOTE: “…makes a layman like myself laugh…”
    Laughter is the result of recognizing how absurd a concept is. It is a healthy response to rejecting something silly.

    But don’t worry about climate change…
    Sing along for 2 minutes under the Chemtrail umbrella with JOYCAMP.

  11. xplode says:

    What is your agenda vis a vis global warming?
    You discredit yourself by dragging out out these discredited climate skeptics [see
    Get some reputable scientists on board.
    It’s because you are fixated on global warming being part of this globalization conspiracy. And in doing so, you throw the baby out with the bath water.
    The way i look at it, is.. so what if, against all the odds, the vast majority of climate scientists are wrong about the relationship between fossil fuels, CO emissions.
    Well, then we will have moved away from squandering a hugely valuable resource [fossil fuel] to cleaner more sustainable forms of energy production. Just from a pollution point of view alone, what we are doing is absolutely ludicrous. There are days when there is smog from one end of china to the other, along with the hideous respiratory diseases it brings with it. Additionally, the gross inequity produced by dollar oil is the cause of untold global suffering.So apart from alleviating pollution on a grand scale, dismantling the oiligarchs monopoly.. To say nothing of the inroads the global warming campaign is making into proposterous meat industry with its appalling use of resources and destruction of rainforests etc etc. And so it goes on and on.
    So, what exactly are you pushing for? Whats the outcome do you hope for apart from strengthening the hand of global fossil fuel elites? You might not be in their pay, but you certainly should be.

    • HomeRemedySupply says:

      xplode, I agree with you that the Petro fuel industry royally pollutes our environment in so many ways.
      How Big Oil Conquered the World by James Corbett is well worth seeing if you have not.
      YouTube –

      SHOWNOTES with transcript, sources and (comments with more sources).

      I should point out that the Rockefeller Family & Rothchilds, in their own Press Releases state that they are major promoters of the Climate Change agenda backing other elite people like Al Gore and government carbon tax regulations.

      In the comments you will see solutions on what an average person can do to replace the petro in his car with a cheaper, clean, renewable fuel which not only makes the exhaust cleaner than the intake air…but also facilitates organic food production.

    • mkey says:

      “so what if, against all the odds, the vast majority of climate scientists are wrong about the relationship between fossil fuels, CO emissions.”

      Well, do you realize how choke full of liars and crooks this “climate scientists” community really is? These guys have been caught lying, misinterpreting, hiding data … not exactly something a SCIENTIST should be doing, is it?

      “moved away from squandering a hugely valuable resource [fossil fuel]”
      Can you elaborate on its huge value? What makes you think it’s hugely valuable? You are of course aware there are chains in nature which provide millions times greater energy density than the hydrocarbon chain, are you? Further, is there any solid proof of this “fossil fuel” having its roots in actual fossils? Scarcity is great for business, but with what we know about it, “fossil fuels” could be a renewable source of energy.

      “Whats the outcome do you hope for apart from strengthening the hand of global fossil fuel elites?”
      This is the bit that makes your lack of comprehension obvious.

      Advocating for truth about global warming or climate change or whatever they’ll be calling this “movement” tomorrow does not equate “strengthening the hand of global fossil fuel elites”. In fact, fossil fuel elites are FUNDING this GA/CC hog wash.

      Nobody here is claiming humans don’t have influence over this ecosystem. What’s being brought into question (in regards to GW/CC) is the exact magnitude we have on these changes. Another very important question is: what is this carbon tax going to do about issues we’re facing, some of which you mentioned in your post? If we look at recent history of taxing, the answer appears to be ABSOLUTELY NOTHING.

      GA/CC is a swindle pulled by people who are able to make people believe EN MASSE they are their own worse enemy. It’s the epicenter of self hate so many people sport today. If you ask me, that was a brilliant move on their part, I say kudos to them.

      • Aron says:

        The difficult reality for the general population to comprehend and accept is the fact we are all being lied to, fed half-truths, and manipulated constantly by much of the media, various scientists (knowingly or unknowingly), political figures and other elites. The social pressure to conform to group think, fear of losing your job/family/friends are strong forces that dissuade people from thinking critically about anthropogenic climate change and other topics raised on The Corbett Report.

        The added benefits of the anthropogenic climate change psyop are in stifling constructive debate and creation of a non-thinking population willing to go along with the approved narratives put out there by the controllers.

        The climate change psyop is as much about added taxation as it is about population manipulation and control over our minds, which, by the way, aligns nicely with the objectives of Agenda 21/Agenda 2030.

        • mkey says:

          “The difficult reality for the general population to comprehend and accept is the fact we are all being lied to”

          I think it’s more of an issue of vanity: people are too vane to admit they have been believing this rubbish for so long (because things have to get suspicious after a while for many, some people really surprise me with short bursts of sobriety which of course never lead to anything) that they would rather continue “believing” and conforming to the norm. Blind beliefs is what dreams are made of.

          Any objections of conscience will be thoroughly doused in cognitive dissonance. Of all the reasons to feel despicable about being a flawed human, people feel guilty over the fact they have been born and now this CO2 malarkey. Ironic, actually.

  12. Ragnar says:

    You know, its this sort of shocking information that I’ve come to value, and what I expect and enjoy about James Corbett and the Corbett Report. I always thought science was about challenging preconceived or traditional notions. But it appears that scientists of today are prevented from that by those who hold the purse strings, or tv contracts.

    I’ve suspected for some time that they were operating from inflated, or even illusionary numbers. Al Gore and his carbon creditors (lol), just came across as wrong. Or that they had ulterior motives. The hype that surrounds global warming just screams exaggeration to me. As does the rabid attacks on anyone who doesn’t toe the line. In my daughters grade school they are now teaching that major flooding is coming due to ice melt. As near as I can figure, they are using the old military maps that predict much of the southern and gulf regions will be underwater within 50 years. I don’t think that’s wise, to push speculation onto young children. But the media and entertainment industry is on board with this and are pumping it whenever possible.

    Keep up the great work James!

  13. vumxmx says:

    Global Warming Wrapup
    Posted By pcr3 On March 27, 2017

    A View We Don’t Often Hear
    Posted By pcr3 On March 27, 2017

  14. MondoShawan says:

    Thank You For This Excellent Interview…

  15. robert.t says:

    I’m wary of climate moderates and those they call “lukewarmers”.

    My first experience with Judith Curry was through her guest spot on a blog where she was obtuse and patronising in the extreme, insisting that the only problem with the IPCC and the consensus was “communication”. (The professor’s points about communication were very obtusely…er, communicated. Incomprehensible, even. Better to refer readers to Cool Hand Luke on the subject of failure to communicate.)

    Later she emerged with her own site as a champion of balance, openness and general glasnost on the subject of CC. She did, in fact, host many skeptical opinions and even express a few of her own.

    Gradually it occurred to me that the site was an enticing open paddock for skeps and conservatives to keep them close to the consensus corral. As in this interview (which I had to turn off, reading and listening to the lady is like swimming in molasses) Professor Curry is keeping the doubters engaged and at least half-believing in the value of institutions and methods which should simply be given the heave-ho.

    Lukewarmers are in some ways more damaging than the ranting mullahs of climate. They end up advocating for smaller white elephants and slower waste while keeping the climatariat on the rails. If a climate model compared to actual climate is like a dinky toy compared to a truck…maybe we just need bigger dinky toys. Funding and attention please! And we’re business friendly! Private sector on board! Skeptical old white guys welcome!

    Is this deliberate? Only a conspiracy type would think so. And who wants to be one of them?

    I’ll believe centuries of geology, glaciology, stratigraphy, archaeology, history etc. (Or isn’t that science anymore?). We are living in yet another brief interglacial of the Quaternary, which is cold with tendencies to glaciate. This interglacial is not warmer than preceding ones, and our “Modern Warming” is not even the warmest part of our present inter-glacial.

    So by all means let’s talk about climate change. But less about the tiny blips of the last eleven thousand years and more about what came before that and what will come again soon…unless the Earth and solar system abruptly decide on no more Quaternary. Feeling lucky, punks?

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Back to Top