Faustino as someone who understands this subject your position is highly irresponsible.
You know full well that human greenhouse gases if they continue will cause a significant warming of the Earth. There is simply no question about that. They best you can say is you don’t know what effect that will have.
But reassuring people that warming has stopped, let alone implying that the “future surprising us” would be a good thing is highly irresponsible. Shame on you.
actually scrub the “shame on you” part, that’s overly harsh and I didn’t mean it. I think it just rang out in my head as a way of signing off/ending the comment but it makes me sound like some school teacher or parent wagging their finger..
‘The climate system has jumped from one mode of operation to another in the past. We are trying to understand how the earth’s climate system is engineered, so we can understand what it takes to trigger mode switches. Until we do, we cannot make good predictions about future climate change… Over the last several hundred thousand years, climate change has come mainly in discrete jumps that appear to be related to changes in the mode of thermohaline circulation.’ Wally Broecker
Broecker predicted it in the 70′s. It happens along with ‘Camp Century Cycles’ – which are now known to be abrupt climate shifts.
Most warming in the satellite data is from cloud changes associated with ocean and atmospheric circulation.
If warming is quite natural – then cooling is quite likely. Albeit at a risk of climate instability.
The rational response is to take actions that have a wider rationale – but that reduce risk of ‘surprises’ at the same time. There are many of these that address most global emissions of greenhouse gases while at the same building productivity, resilience and prosperity.
Carbon dioxide is best addressed by innovation.
Well, lolwot, one of my teachers did think that I needed a short, sharp shock about once a term.
More substantively, I understand that temperature increase since 1998 has not been significantly different from zero. Perhaps warming will resume, some here argue not, or not for some time, or that we don’t know enough to be sure. The Earth, as others believe, might resume warming. Yes, I don’t know exactly the consequences of further warming, no one does. I’ve seen no reason to accept that a policy of GHG emissions reduction in an attempt to reduce any such rise is preferable to policies which increase our capacity and adaptability to deal with the uncertain future. My interest is in policy; I think that that’s the best policy. The anti-emissions position has been dominant in Australia, we have incurred high costs for little or no reduction in potential warming, I seek to mitigate that damaging policy consensus.
An intriguing discussion is definitely worth comment.
There’s no doubt that that you need to publish more about this subject, it might
not be a taboo matter but typically folks don’t discuss these subjects.
To the next! Many thanks!!
Faustino,
Excellent letter in today’s Australian and the two preceding days, too. Three in a row, Excellent.
Faustino,
+100.
Lolwot,
I don’t understand why you reject what Faustino is saying.
So if the facts don’t give you the explanation that you want, you keep looking until you find some way that they do. And then (and this is very important) you immdiately STOP looking and declare that the science is settled and anyone who disagrees is a filthy denier. Have I got the methodology right?
==> “I’m following this, not sure what to make of it yet”
Well – at least it means all the debate will be settled by 2017. Only 3 years and it will be clear that global warming is just not a concern. The “skeptics” will be proven right, once and for all, and we can pump ACO2 into the atmosphere with impunity. No more starving children. Fossil fuel Nirvana can be reached. No more concern about increases in extreme weather, about sea level rise, about species extinction. No more AGW cabals, with their Eco-N*zi/anti-capitalistic/statist/faith-based/socialistic/”progressive”/leftist/anti-poor/progress-hating/neo-Luddite/alarmist/warmista/neo-McCarthyistic/Lysenkoistic/oneworldgovernmentistic plots to destroy the human race.
What a relief! Just a few brief years and “skeptics” can stop spending so much time typing at their keyboards to save us from disaster.
The problem seems to have occurred in finance and business planning. When the mobile spectrum auctions were announced in Europe, all the bidders started to construct models to tell them how much they could bid.
The general view was that the more detailed the model the better. Makes sense, right? The more detailed and specific your information, the more accurate your predictions must be, and the more sure you must be that you are paying the right amount and really will be able to make the return you think.
Well no. They all ended up with 100s of pages of Excel and predictions whose basis was totally unclear to anyone except the modellers, and maybe not even them, and they ended up bidding largely on emotion, and in a couple of cases they nearly bankrupted themselves.
Whereas the real drivers of return would have fitted on one A4 – but of course, without specifying the values of all the assumptions in enormous detail. When you do that, what you end up with is something that can be sanity tested by looking at ranges of values for variables in a discussion.
What they ended up with was a complete inability to argue about whether the assumptions were reasonable because the model had put them out of reach.
We seem to be in the same situation with climate. Endless detail is not a marker for accuracy, still less usefulness. Multiplying detail does not usually lead to any different predictions, nor to greater certainty, than very simple models. It just makes the process more obscure and less reliable.
And finally, we have true science:
Joanne Nova
June 27, 2014 at 3:30 pm · Reply
Popeye, with respect, we are part of the real scientific community. I think you are referring to the officially endorsed government funded science community?
Despite the horrible news of imminent cooling, we can look forward to the deconstruction of the “officially endorsed government funded science community.” Imagine the good what will come about as a result. No more of those resources-wasting entities like the CDC and the NSF. No more of that NASA and EPA and the insidious “government-funded science.” We won’t have to worry about the scourges of vaccines and atomic regulation and food security.
Hallelujah brothers and sisters. Put town your hammers and saws and AK-47s and stop building your bunkers and organizing your militias. Free-market Utopia is right around the corner. The Warmistas are already heading for the hills.
ceresco kid complains [wrongly] “Fan nowhere did it [your link] say IBM was leaving the technology business.
Climate Etc readers are invited to verify for themselves the following excerpts
No one knows for sure how many jobs IBM plans to cut [in 2014], and the estimates vary wildly … SIBM has well under 100,000 employees in the United States these days, although how many is unclear because the company has not provided a breakdown of workers by country for many years.Rumors have been going around that IBM is looking to sell off its chip making business … I have little doubt it is for sale and that IBM wants to get out of the chip making business. It may even want to get rid of chip research, and in fact, it may have to sell of a chunk of IBM Research along with its patent portfolio to get a deal done. … Selling off that chip research would probably mean IBM loses its prestige in the IT racket and its annual patent king status.
Needless to say, these trends are of great importance to America’s STEM students who once (but no more) have realistically planned for a research career at IBM, and also to American voters who once (but no more) might realistically have regarded IBM as an American corporation.
It is a pleasure to assist your reading comprehension and to help improve your appreciation of globalization’s impact on American private-sector research capabilities, ceresco kid!
@ Alistair Riddoch | June 27, 2014 at 12:21 pm |
My what a lot of capitals.
You may have misunderstood me re: “solar output”. I was alluding to your comment about solar cycles and warming,ie we are at a solar low point, so when the sun gets it’s mojo back, the ‘pause’ will go paws up in a major way.
The rest – hope you feel better.
Ragnaar, “Is 8 watts considered insignificant?”
In the tropics the 11 years solar cycle variation is a little over 1 Wm-2 and that seems to be considered insignificant because of the “global” averaging, but that was before land amplification was recognized. Land amplification mainly in the 30N-60N regionis something the models don’t even come close to getting right along with absolute temperature. Since it is pretty obvious that solar does impact ENSO and ENSO does impact “climate”, it should be significant.
ENSO though is not really cut out to be a reliable “global” index since there are 4 ENSO regions and should be more like 6 regions. The Indian ocean because it has less THC influence is a better “global” indication of variation in forcing.
http://redneckphysics.blogspot.com/2013/12/2000-years-of-climate.html
That uses the Indian Ocean or rather the Indo-Pacific warm pool, sea level, ocean heat content and the Oppo 2009 to reverse reconstruct temperatures allowing for the land amplification.
Then if you consider both solar and volcanic influences,
http://redneckphysics.blogspot.com/2013/10/sol-y-vol-giss-rough-fit.html
you can start seeing a little more of what happens even without including the lags.
It is a fun puzzle
temperature data does not have a notch.
it does not have a trend
it is what it is.
Models of data have trends and notches.
data just is. it is what it is. nothing more.
“Another Reasonable Question Why is Climate Etc’s skeptical cohort (including Judith Curry herself) proving to be utterly incapable of generating probabilistic Fermi Estimates? Instead, skeptics post feeble excuses and vague ideological baffle”
Because others guess future based based on doggy models, we don’t have to do the same. The heat absorbing powers of CO2 depend upon how many neutrons are in the molecule and that depends in turn from where the parent fuel came from. This can explain the temperature singularity of 1940. In 1940 the CO2 molecule as it was then reached heat saturation and so the temperature fell very fast.
Im 1940 the lapse rate of tropospheric temperature equalled the maximum temperature that the CO2 molecule could sustain its heat absorbing powers.
There is no evidence that future CO2 can absorb any more heat, since it is still unlikely ro exceed 1.0% of the atmosphere.
![\scriptstyle\rule[2.25ex]{0.01pt}{0.01pt}\,\boldsymbol{\overset{\scriptstyle\circ\wedge\circ}{\smile}\,\heartsuit\,{\displaystyle\text{\bfseries!!!}}\,\heartsuit\,\overset{\scriptstyle\circ\wedge\circ}{\smile}}\ \rule[-0.25ex]{0.01pt}{0.01pt}](http://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=%5Cscriptstyle%5Crule%5B2.25ex%5D%7B0.01pt%7D%7B0.01pt%7D%5C%2C%5Cboldsymbol%7B%5Coverset%7B%5Cscriptstyle%5Ccirc%5Cwedge%5Ccirc%7D%7B%5Csmile%7D%5C%2C%5Cheartsuit%5C%2C%7B%5Cdisplaystyle%5Ctext%7B%5Cbfseries%21%21%21%7D%7D%5C%2C%5Cheartsuit%5C%2C%5Coverset%7B%5Cscriptstyle%5Ccirc%5Cwedge%5Ccirc%7D%7B%5Csmile%7D%7D%5C+%5Crule%5B-0.25ex%5D%7B0.01pt%7D%7B0.01pt%7D&bg=bbffcc&fg=0055ff&s=2 "\scriptstyle\rule[2.25ex]{0.01pt}{0.01pt}\,\boldsymbol{\overset{\scriptstyle\circ\wedge\circ}{\smile}\,\heartsuit\,{\displaystyle\text{\bfseries!!!}}\,\heartsuit\,\overset{\scriptstyle\circ\wedge\circ}{\smile}}\ \rule[-0.25ex]{0.01pt}{0.01pt}")
