steven, I mean this.
It is very hard for skeptics to state that the green line (ocean) is driving the red line (land) because the land is leading the ocean especially in the last warming phase. This happens with the stadium wave thing too where CRUTEM4 clearly leads AMO, as expected for external forcing.
“I respect your passion, but your newly found term is providing damage only to your reputation and is not benefiting your argument.”
______
Here’s is an excellent recent article on this topic:
http://phys.org/news/2014-11-scientists-distinguishes-science-pseudoscience.html
This term should make people feel uncomfortable. It challenges scientists to make check both themselves and their fellow scientists who might stray into the area of pseudoscience. Sometimes the dividing line can be hard to see. This video (part of the article above) is well worth a look:
R. Gates,
I promise you I will look at your offering. Also, I just ran across this (on Fox so ya know) and have to wonder if it’s a previously unknown unknown, if it may also have climatological impacts of which we’re unaware.http://www.foxnews.com/science/2014/11/26/scientists-discover-earths-star-trek-style-invisible-shield/
There (it seems to me) is so much we do not know.
Here’s the relative current flow values from one source:
http://www.seos-project.eu/modules/oceancurrents/oceancurrents-c01-p03.html
The two colors show minimum and maximum flows. Different sources do give differing values.
Ah. You’d offered this before. I cannot disagree with the reference, but can see how it applies to all equally.
I’m most likely to be named pseudo scientific as I don’t have the background, but my concern for you is that you paint with too broad a brush. I provide to you a wiki containing 54 reputable academics including J. Curry, et al. And I ask again, do you declare them pseudoscientists just because they do not support that which you do?
“I will look at Curry v. Schmidt again, but from my first read I pretty much gleaned only that the science is not settled.”
____
What science is not settled? This overly broad is not scientific and get’s back to the issue of pseudoscience. It is supposed to me:
1) We don’t know GH gas levels affect climate?
2) We don’t know human activities are altering GH gas levels?
3) We don’t know how strongly (sensitivity) of GH gas changes?
4) We don’t know all the feedbacks related to altering GH gas levels?
For some of these points the science has a high degree of being “settled” (no science is ever 100%).
The point is, simply saying “the science is not settled” does not adequately describe the exact areas of uncertainty, and hence in not science but pseudoscience and thus can be seen as more of a motivated or positional statement rather than a straight scientific.
So if you are going to play the Uncertainty Monster card, you need to tell us exactly where that monster is living and how big that monster is compared to the Pretty Darn Certain monster, as having those two battle constantly is what honest science and rational skepticism is all about.
Pseudoscience is where you construct a flat or downward trend with recent years and claim that therefore CO2 isn’t having the expected effect because they think, or try to imply, AGW means it should always be upwards. These flat trends are still possible from natural variation, but you see this all the time in articles, some even quoting scientists.
JimD, “Pseudoscience is where you construct a flat or downward trend with recent years and claim that therefore CO2 isn’t having the expected effect because they think, or try to imply, AGW means it should always be upwards. These flat trends are still possible from natural variation, but you see this all the time in articles, some even quoting scientists.”
So THATS what pseudoscience is. I was under the impression that “thinking” natural variability could account for half or a little more of the warming since 1950 was pseudoscience. Or was that scientific disinformation, anti-science or some combination of the three?
‘As for your question: at the end of the century we were sitting on the highest global temperature value of the modern record. Since then we have leveled off and we may in fact be cooling. “We have reached the top of the mountain”, therefore it’s not surprising that the last decade is one of the warmest on record. Think about it! The important aspect is that the warming of the 80s and 90s has stopped and the models missed it completely! The important issue is that we have entered a new regime in global temperature tendency. In fact, I find it very misleading that scientists will present “the warmest decade” argument to justify their beliefs (or failures).’ Anastasios Tsonis
“There (it seems to me) is so much we do not know.”
______
And that is what motivates scientists, or at least ought to.
But it is a balance of building on and applying what we DO know, to research and investigation into the areas of uncertainty and the unknown. The recent landing on the comet (a spectacular achievement), used the absolute limit of what we do know about the universe (laws of gravity, materials, chemistry, etc.) in order to investigate the surface of a comet, which we’d never done before. If scientists had thrown up their hands and declared the Uncertainty Monster too big, and the task therefore too impossible, then the attempt would never have even happened. Fortunately, real science, (as opposed to pseudoscience) drove the mission to land on a comet, and by using what we do know with a high degree of certainty, we are able to search into the areas of true uncertainty. This is the way true and honest science works. A very beautiful thing, and really a crowning achievement for our species.
captd, well that may be another example, where you assert that over half the change since 1950 is natural variability with little chance of it being more, because that is saying that the central IPCC estimate (100% manmade) is almost certainly wrong.
“Since then we have leveled off and we may in fact be cooling.”
_____
A bit of a premature prediction it seems since 2014 is not quite over and the probability is quite high that the year could be the warmest on record. And no, it does not take “torturing” or “twisting” the data to make this year so warm. It’s been warm– globally at or near the warmest of the warm this year. It is pseudoscience to suggest there is any hint of cooling going on.
Indeed the US may be big enough that someone living in a different state from Dick may also have different coldest years in their memory, even if limiting it to the last 20. But the US is only 2% of the global area, so it is small in that sense.
JCH
ONI?
ocean temps?
looked at the NOAA ONI graph
seems to show temps in a range of 2 degrees from the 50’s
in the 50’s and 60’s was this literally data from buckets over the side, no?
can’t be that accurate
Am I missing something?
Mosomoso
Its been headlines news all day here with a four hour radio tribute tonight.
Loads of flowers laid at Lords from cricket lovers of all nations.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/live/29697239
tonyb
Oceanic Nino Index.
The US Navy is full of perfectionists.
John
There is a distinction between ocean heat content and Sea surface temperatures. Here is OHC
“OHC is defined as the integrated temperature change times the density of sea water, times specific heat capacity from the surface down to the deep ocean. In other words, OHC is an anomaly calculated in comparison to a reference period. OHC is estimated based on temperature measurements or on reanalyses using a combination of models and observations.
Changes in heat content cause the ocean to expand or contract, thereby changing sea level regionally and globally. This thermosteric effect has contributed about one quarter to global sea-level rise since 1993.’
SST’s is taken much closer to the surface. I wrote about SST’s here
http://judithcurry.com/2011/06/27/unknown-and-uncertain-sea-surface-temperatures/
There was a change over from Buckets to engine manifolds and floating devices but prior to the 1950’s /60’s I would not place much trust in the data which was often very thinly gathered. You needed one reading in a year in a grid square for that to be used to create a longer temperature for that grid and to interpolate it. to adjacent squares.
There are some reasonable readings along well travelled shipping lanes but generally the idea of a global SST to 1850 is nonsense.
HMS ‘Challenger’ was probably the first scientific expedition to examine SST’s (and deeper temperatures) but it was very limited in scope as regards the amount of ocean it sampled. Its a fascinating read though.
tonyb
US Navy
full of perfectionist
funny
thanks
John
Sorry, misread your post as I thought you said OHC.
tonyb
Happy Thanksgiving everybody.
I just gleaned a great idea on this thread: use 30-year averages. Then there is no “pause”. 30 is a magical number. 50 and 100, too.
