Perhaps the Herd of Independent Minds is waiting to finalise a correct opinion before telling the rest of us what our opinion ought to be.
By the way, Faustino, I’m told that the Marylebone Cucumber Sandwich Club are being forced to eat their white fedoras in the middle of the Lord’s pitch. Seems harsh.
Jim D,
“He has gone quiet since the ocean-surface pause during a CO2 rise doesn’t support his idea at all.”
Jim, why is that? That’s clearly wrong. The ocean-surface pause during a rise, which was linear during the pause, does support his idea very well. The annual growth is ~flat since ~1998, just like the temperature indices.
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/
This is for Tony B’s attention
The CET winter looks like going to end above its 20 year average after all.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/CET-dMm.htm
This is the most agreeable of developments.
The missing energy was seen in the earlier CERES period. here is no longer any missing energy.
http://s1114.photobucket.com/user/Chief_Hydrologist/media/CERES_Net_zps9f7faaaa.png.html?sort=3&o=4
This is reflected in OHC.
It will have got a little cooler with the downturn in net CERES. It will get cooler still with the downturn in TSI that is probably millennial but certainly this decade.
Hard to see how the space cadets miss all this – unless it is groupthink..
It seems necessary to distinguish between cyclones and anti-cyclones and convergent and divergent winds in the systems. The anti-cyclone over Greenland has weakened since yesterday and this results in less cold air penetrating to North America. At least that is how I read it.
Jim D
“When our children…”
Fuggidaboudit, Jim.
The biggest threat “our children” face is the monumental debt we are building up for them to pay off – NOT the degree or so of warming that might be caused by human GHG emissions.
Implementing a direct or indirect carbon tax (as the CAGW crowd would like to do) will only exacerbate this problem, while doing NOTHING to change our planet’s future climate.
So let’s get our priorities right, Jim.
Max
Edim, OK, so you are saying that with the global temperature staying flat, Salby would claim continuous outgassing until CO2 doubles or triples or reaches 100% (?). I think this theory is already wrong because we also see acidification at the same time as CO2 rises. The source is clearly elsewhere, and most other people know where that is.
Length of day is tied to ice volume. Ice volume does change ice extent, with a lag. Snow falls and then ice advances. Ice extent is Albedo and that does do the bounding of temperature in a narrow range. This has worked in very narrow bounds for ten thousand years.
R Gates.
I wasnt opposing science and religion.
I was refering to this
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two_Dogmas_of_Empiricism
http://www.ditext.com/quine/quine.html
” Modern empiricism has been conditioned in large part by two dogmas. One is a belief in some fundamental cleavage between truths which are analytic, or grounded in meanings independently of matters of fact and truths which are synthetic, or grounded in fact. The other dogma is reductionism: the belief that each meaningful statement is equivalent to some logical construct upon terms which refer to immediate experience. Both dogmas, I shall argue, are ill founded. One effect of abandoning them is, as we shall see, a blurring of the supposed boundary between speculative metaphysics and natural science. Another effect is a shift toward pragmatism.”
” As an empiricist I continue to think of the conceptual scheme of science as a tool, ultimately, for predicting future experience in the light of past experience. Physical objects are conceptually imported into the situation as convenient intermediaries — not by definition in terms of experience, but simply as irreducible posits18b comparable, epistemologically, to the gods of Homer. Let me interject that for my part I do, qua lay physicist, believe in physical objects and not in Homer’s gods; and I consider it a scientific error to believe otherwise. But in point of epistemological footing the physical objects and the gods differ only in degree and not in kind. Both sorts of entities enter our conception only as cultural posits. The myth of physical objects is epistemologically superior to most in that it has proved more efficacious than other myths as a device for working a manageable structure into the flux of experience.”
” Imagine, for the sake of analogy, that we are given the rational numbers. We develop an algebraic theory for reasoning about them, but we find it inconveniently complex, because certain functions such as square root lack values for some arguments. Then it is discovered that the rules of our algebra can be much simplified by conceptually augmenting our ontology with some mythical entities, to be called irrational numbers. All we continue to be really interested in, first and last, are rational numbers; but we find that we can commonly get from one law about rational numbers to another much more quickly and simply by pretending that the irrational numbers are there too.
I think this a fair account of the introduction of irrational numbers and other extensions of the number system. The fact that the mythical status of irrational numbers eventually gave way to the Dedekind- Russell version of them as certain infinite classes of ratios is irrelevant to my analogy. That version is impossible anyway as long as reality is limited to the rational numbers and not extended to classes of them.
Now I suggest that experience is analogous to the rational numbers and that the physical objects, in analogy to the irrational numbers, are posits which serve merely to simplify our treatment of experience. The physical objects are no more reducible to experience than the irrational numbers to rational numbers, but their incorporation into the theory enables us to get more easily from one statement about experience to another.
The salient differences between the positing of physical objects and the positing of irrational numbers are, I think, just two. First, the factor of simplication is more overwhelming in the case of physical objects than in the numerical case. Second, the positing of physical objects is far more archaic, being indeed coeval, I expect, with language itself. For language is social and so depends for its development upon intersubjective reference.”
Web, I you look at the plot of LN(CO2) w.r.t. time one can roughly split it into two different rates, pre- and post 1960; the difference in the two slopes is about x3.8.
So if you ‘Climate Sensitivity’ is true either side of 1960, then it follows that all lags from CO2 ‘forcing’ are less than or equal to 1. So, transient sensitivity = ‘equilibrium’ sensitivity.
I had the same thing with the ‘graphology’ model.
I quite like the seasonal component. It amazes me that you think that calculating anomalies from monthly means is a difficult problem.
This is from the Global Argo Mapper.
retirement.
Remove from the labor pool.
Put another way, what “ideas”. ‘frameworks’, approaches, assumptions, catagories, that are used today by scientists are not pulling their weight in the
labor pool. What tools used by science in the past have outlived their usefulness?
1. the illusion of certainty.
2. defining all sciences by the practices employed by a only a few sciences.
3. the notion that only scientists can do science..
etc.
So. to retire is to be removed from the labor pool. There was perhaps a time when these ideas were useful. but the suggestion is that they have outlived their usefulness. Pretty simple
write that down
”
Generalissimo Skippy | February 1, 2014 at 10:27 pm |
The incompetence comes from missing a critical parameter – science denial through groupthink seems likely.
“
And you don’t know what that is. Call your bluff.
MNFTIU
http://imageshack.com/a/img812/74/abh.gif
http://contextearth.com/2014/01/22/projection-training-intervals-for-csalt-model/
“Jean-Paul Sartre demonstrated that being and nothingness cannot coexist – therefore the universe is infinite.”
____
Or, we exist in a finite universe among an infinite number of universes or, there is no beginning or end to time in a single finite universe…that is, there never was a time=zero, in which the universe did not exist, thus the universe is infinite in duration, though of a finite size and total energy, and the idea of nothingness or nonexistence is only a human construct.
“The model is even further from answering the question we should be asking and need to ask: how much actual warming are we causing?”
That will become much more apparent the further we go into this solar minimum, as none of the models include all solar forcing metrics. A key point for regional implications of short term solar forcing is that the Arctic Oscillation, has in this solar cycle readily dropped to negative values not seen regularly since the last weak solar solar cycles (SC’s 12-14), despite a higher global average temperature.
Re: Tom Griffiths – Bias is always bad
No Tom,
“Consensus Bias” is always bad. When there is no opposing bias to counter-balance the ignorant realclimate scientists who engage in IPCC-type pseudo science.
For exactly the same reason that advocates /activists (with links to green organization for example) should not be lead authors in an IPCC report.
In theory there should be nothing wrong with a professional with bias, in practice everything goes wrong (especially if there is an entire army of them).
“I did like Sam Harris’ statement “We must abandon the idea that science is distinct from the rest of human rationality. When you are adhering to the highest standards of logic and evidence, you are thinking scientifically.”
Yup, metaphysical questions ( what is consciousness and what is it to be human) take precendence before epistemological questions: what can I know?.
What can I know?, leads to questions of types and classes of knowledge and understanding and results in a heirarchy of understanding where we debate what is truly scientific.
who am I? or what is the knowing thing?, leads to an entirely different kind of understanding
correction… low altitude.
Bravado and blog science – which I don’t read – notwithstanding – there is more than abundant evidence that natural variability added to warming in the 1976 to 1998 period and are causing the non-warming since.
e.g. http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=8703
Let me Google that for you – http://www.letmegooglethat.com/?q=Interdedcal+Pacific+Oscillation+surface+temperature
