Lots of precision in the pause, yet not so much in the models.
Actually I find little precision in the pause and recognize a similar lack of precision in the models when judged on short intervals, which is a mistake we could well avoid.
Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle applies, you can not know the temperature to an infinite precision.
Too much uncertainty in the pause.
I know I’m repeating, but all this of chaos remembers me this sort of toys, where some big balls (multidecadal oscillations, eruptions, etc.) can disrupt the movement. All these toys have an spiral and a battery inside, so they are “forced”, maybe some little changes in the forcing (becuase of losing potential in the battery, for example), may change the exact movements the balls will do, but it will be anyway a chaotic system governed by those big balls and gravity. Just when someone is able to predict exactly the movement of one of those toys, I’ll begin to think that they are in the (long) way to predict climate in the next centuries.
Sorry because of my auto-replying, here is one of those toys.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u1RokwR5fO8
Bob Droege, Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle does not apply to temperature
Hey Beth,
Don’t mix anomalies with percentages or you will get epic fail.
The global warming establishment is the pharaonic construction of Western academia to serve the political interests of the Left.
May be you used a too exagerated vertical scale. Visually very clear, but it only represents 0,6ºC for the whole century. Knowing there have been centennial oscillations ¿how to infer that most of those 0,6ºC are not a natural trend, the recuperation from the cold past centuries when glaciers advanced in the Alps?
For values of tres tres wrong less than one percent.
PE,
Thanks for explanation. I misunderstood. Now I understand better. I hadn’t considered that before. It;s a good point.
However, I am not persuaded solar PV or solar thermal can or ever will provide a substantial contribution to global electricity generation. I don’t believe the ERoEI can ever be sufficient to be sustainable. So that is a limiting factor. Because of it’s low energy density and high materials requirement per MWh on an LCA basis I don;t think it will ever be viable. Storage is essential and the costs are too high by an order of magnitude. No utility would buy solar intermittent and unreliable wind and solar power fif they weren’t mandated and subsidised to do so.
Put simply, I am persuaded they are not viable, there is a much better way to cut GHG emissions from electricity generation. It is proven. It will come eventually whether GHG emissions is an issue or not. That’s my little brain dump for 4:45 am here. I’d be pleased to be shown persuasive evidence that these statements are wrong (all of them).
In generation planning it is a standard CYA (Cover your A##) move to include all assumptions that weaken your case. That and generally, and 100% from my experience, the goal is to pick the best most robust plan from the available options so we are not usually on a side. Up front we point out all the weaknesses and places the plan might fail (and the magnitude of those failures) in the various scenarios. There may be some cases where a utility wants to employ a particular technology, because they are “true believers” or some other motivation, but that has not been my experience. If something might work – most want to say they gave it full and careful consideration and also that they were aware of the drawbacks of the unselected options.
I agree 100%.
Just assertion or do you have any cites to back yourself up.
What about all the artifacts found in Doggerland?
I don’t understand why Joshua continually avoids and dodges the important relevant points – such as wind and solar seem to be not viable, not fit for purpoose in that they don’t meet the main requirements of electricity system, are hugely expensive and a very high cost way to reduce GHG emissions from electricity. And their effectiveness decreases as the proportion of electricity generated by them increases.
I summarised relevant it here: http://judithcurry.com/2014/12/11/all-megawatts-are-not-equal/#comment-655417
The last two paragraphs said:
“With the risk of failure included the total LCOE for the two options are:
No nuclear = $222/MWh
With nuclear = $101/MWh
Therefore, the LCOE of the ‘no nuclear’ option is 2.2 higher than the ‘with nuclear’ option. And emissions would be 3.2 times higher.
The risk that renewables will not be able to do the job is the major risk that should be questioning, not the costs of waste disposal, decommissioning, accident insurance etc. of nuclear all of which are negligible compared with LCOE and the risk that renewables do deliver the benefits claimed by their proponents.”
Surely, anyone who wants to debate rationally and objectively has to be able to refute those numbers by showing the substantial errors, not just throw up assertions and questions.
1+
“Radiative gas” is a linear claim (more co2 warms) out of one side of the meme’s mouth while “science” admits it’s “complex”. AGW marketing is farce and should be condemned not equivocated. Without the double think the meme dies which is why leftist “consensus” is stuck with their talking points.
Actually if the influence of ENSO and volcanoes are removed from the global average temperature plot, a continuous increase in temperature appears. Here is an example:
http://tamino.wordpress.com/2011/12/06/the-real-global-warming-signal/
http://tamino.files.wordpress.com/2011/12/figure05.jpg?w=500&h=499
==> “It’s funny that Schneider waited several years before explaining what he really meant
What does that have to do with passing judgement on what Schneider meant without referencing his explanation?
And what does that have to do with the scientific “ethics” of an academic writing a report that prominently references what Schneider meant, w/o discussing Schneider’s explanation about what he meant?
Please stay on topic.
Oh, that was a year after the fact. Probably why little Joshie didn’t provide a link. It didn’t take Gruber that long to “clarify” his candid comments.
Judith correctly noted in 2011: ” the double ethical bind arises when a scientists tries to influence the public and policy. It does not arise when a scientist interacts with the media to discuss their latest research finding. This is why advocacy by scientists presents problems both for the scientist and for society. These problems can be managed to some extent (e.g. see Pielke Jr’s The Honest Broker), but the end result can backfire on the individual scientist as well as the policy for which they are advocating.”
It is trying to ‘influence public policy’ by trading on their technical expertise (and offering scary scenarios) that is the issue here. It is dishonest. It is deceptive. It is arrogant. It should be disavowed by climate scientists.
Michael –
There another relevant quote from Schneider – where he provides explanation for what he meant – stuck in moderation.
Keep in mind, when you read that quote after Judith frees it from comment prison, that Lee must have read that additional quote prior to or during the time he wrote his report.
Interesting notion of “ethics,” eh?
I find your syntax so garbled, and your terms so opaque that I can’t figure out what your point is.
One thing is clear to me. It seems stupid to attempt to fit a straight line to sea surface temperature data that spans a 700 year oir a 2000 year period.
No one with any sense would consider such a thing.
