Quote of the week – a pause for cooling off

qotw_cropped

From Dr. Judith Curry: 

This period since 2002 is scientifically interesting, since it coincides with the ‘climate shift’ circa 2001/2002 posited by Tsonis and others. This shift and the subsequent slight cooling trend provides a rationale for inferring a slight cooling trend over the next decade or so, rather than a flat trend from the 15 yr ‘pause’.

From her “week in review” where she also quotes Robert G. Brown of Duke Physics from a comment that I plan to elevate to a full post.

About these ads

31 thoughts on “Quote of the week – a pause for cooling off

  1. Heaven forbid a 15-year pause, but rather, a 10-year slight cooling trend is far better. What about that “climate shift,” of 2001/2002, eh? (glad to hear someone predicted something right).

  2. Climate shift sounds dangerously like Gaia just doing her thing with no room for humans in the equation.

  3. The one major problem with AGW thoery is…
    I try to get to heart of the problem with AGW, and it’s not so much that we’ve had a pause in the warming or it may be cooling now. Because the fear mongering Chicken Littles will say that this is in fact a pause or that the cooling is a temporary blip, caused perhaps by natural variability or…. the sun. But they could say and are saying that in the longer term the “indisputable established physics” will cause us to fry. So… do a carbon tax, and build more silly windmills. Or worse.
    No, the key debunker of AGW is not this pause. Or even that it’s not actually shown through evidence that CO2 causes temperatures change (as we see in the great 3 minute video where Gore’s deceptions on CO2 are exposed: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WK_WyvfcJyg&info=GGWarmingSwindle_CO2Lag). No, it’s not the CO2 lag, as the doomsayers can still maintain that, yes, CO2 is in fact both a cause and an effect of warming. Or even that the hockey stick has been debunked, and that with the Medieval Warm Period we see that current temps are not unusual in any way, and so the climate isn’t broken. The climate is fine. Well, so what, the doom and gloomers can say, the climate may be fine now, but it won’t be for long, because we have “established physics” on our side.
    No, the real major problem with AGW theory is the evidence of the rate of temperature change going back at least two centuries. See what I’m talking about in this C3 piece: http://www.c3headlines.com/2013/06/ipccs-gold-standard-hadcrut-confirms-co2s-impact-on-global-temps-statistically-immaterial-insignific.html, with an outstanding reproducible graphic here: http://c3headlines.typepad.com/.a/6a010536b58035970c01901d26f85e970b-pi
    We’ve had multiple ups and downs in temperature. But you see the slopes of temp change look nearly identical in recent (high CO2) and past times. CO2 has simply done… nothing.
    And there’s just too much evidence and too many years where the rates of change have been just the same, and we see no period with higher where the rate of change is accelerated. It’s beyond being able to be explained away by whatever epicycle type explanations the warmists try to give. By the identical rates of temp change you can see that CO2 has done nothing, so that doesn’t fit the supposed “established physics” on CO2. Serious, back to the drawing board on CO2.

  4. Heading for my 60s, I would prefer it remained warm or a little warmer, the next 30-odd years.

    But Reality does what it does. Only the True Believers think otherwise.

  5. @Eric Simpson says:

    The problem with the theory is it’s been falsified. But it was never about science, it’s always been about an agenda. The doomsayers have always known fossil fuels were killing us, but every chicken little scenario they threw at the wall just slid down to the floor and out of the public eye. With AGW they thought they had something that couldn’t be refuted, because it depended upon computer models that projected decades into the future and not actual data. They hoped to create enough public panic that by the time the data came in, their agenda was already too far implemented to back away from it.

    Then you have the con-artists and rent-seekers who hoped to profit from the massive government programs, but that’s another story

  6. well brown ‘s comment is right, but then his critic adress first climate science!!!
    how come a set of model s runs can make something called uncertainty..it is a mystery to me…

  7. From her “week in review” where she also quotes Robert G. Brown of Duke Physics from a comment that I plan to elevate to a full post.

    When you do can you have Willis help? I went and read the comment. Way above my understanding. Willis can make complicated things easier to understand. Well most of the time he does. :)

  8. @more soylent green
    Right, it’s not about the science. And it’s not about climate. You see so many of the chicken littles saying like “Well, what if we are wrong? Will we have done such a terrible thing by building a better world anyway?”
    A better world? Like the * 83% * CO2 cuts by 2050 that were mandated in the Cap & Trade bill that passed the US House in 2009. 83%, with large cuts coming early and immediately. This would have taken a wrecking ball to the economy, and created virtually apocalyptic havoc. “A better world,” I’m afraid not.
    Obama’s “Science” Czar had said as early as 1973 that we must embark on a large scale program to “de-develop” the United States and create a “low-consumption economy.” Holdren said this way before the AGW scare had any purchase; indeed, it was global cooling at the time that was the scare du jour. Nevertheless, de-development was what he wanted, what he wants.
    Maurice Strong, ex UNEP Director, was direct and frank: “Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn’t it our responsibility to bring that about?”
    Do many of them dream of living in some idyllic stone age time? Also frankly, according to Stewart Brand of the Whole Earth Catalogue, yes: “We have wished, we ecofreaks, for a disaster… to bomb us into the stone age, where we might live like Indians, with our localism, our appropriate technology, our gardens, our homemade religion, guilt free at last.” -Stewart Brand, Whole Earth Catalogue
    Stewart Brand mentions guilt, and in this quote from the Club of Rome we can sense this kind of quasi-religious guilt (like penitents): “In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that .. global warming.. would fit the bill… and thus the real enemy, then, is humanity itself….[and we] believe humanity requires a .. common adversary in order to realize world government. It does not matter if this common enemy is a real one or….one invented for the purpose.” -Club of Rome
    “It does not matter if this common enemy [agw] is a real one??” That’s the key, the Greens have wanted to de-industrialize for decades, and are always looking for an excuse, a pretense. Now it’s global warming. De-industrialization is their great noble goal. Like the leftist Senator Tim Wirth said in 1993: “We’ve got to ride the global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing.”
    And to achieve their noble goal, deception is explicitly called for:
    “It doesn’t matter what is true, it only matters what people believe is true.” -Paul Watson, Co-Founder of Greenpeace
    “We have to offer up scary scenarios… each of us has to decide the right balance between being effective and being honest.” -Stephen Schneider, lead ipcc author, 1989
    “I believe it is appropriate to have an over-representation of .. how dangerous it is.” -Al Gore
    “Only sensational exaggeration makes the kind of story that will get politicians’ — and readers’ — attention.” -Monika Kopacz, Atmospheric Scientist
    “The only way to get our society to truly change is to frighten people with the possibility of a catastrophe.” -Daniel Botkin, ex Chair of Environmental Studies, UCSB
    Hence, the fear mongering Chicken Littles, the broken record prognostications of doom that are starting to sound a lot like constant crying wolf.

  9. Not sure about 2002, I thought Willis’ 2005 was as about a clear as you can get for a ‘regime change’. This is not inconsistent with negative “trend” going further back since 2005-2002 is shorter than present-2005.

  10. Otter says:
    June 16, 2013 at 12:22 pm
    Heading for my 60s, I would prefer it remained warm or a little warmer, the next 30-odd years.

    But Reality does what it does. Only the True Believers think otherwise.

    ………………….

    I was 60 last year – and I live in the UK – whenever a “true believer” tries to convince me of the errors of mankind’s way – I kick them in the bollocks.

  11. Problems for warmistas:

    1. They look at time series, a dangerous statistical activity in the first place.
    2. They look selectively at said time series.
    3. They cannot demonstrate that their chosen time series is abnormal.
    4. They are constantly re-adjusting the time series, always in the same direction.
    5. They pass off the error bars in the time series with a wasve of the hand.

  12. Eric says…”CO2 has simply done… nothing.”

    But it has.. it has started to fertilise the biosphere, to the benefit of all mankind !!

    Plants can finally breathe easier !!

  13. The AGW/CC industry has lately lost its way a bit, and I almost feel sorry for it. So to give it a helping hand I humbly propose the new phrase for its future ventures as “Ethical Climate Sustainability”.
    I feel it is an appealing all-rounder that can be used to efficiently cover the embarrassment of the last 15 years or so.

  14. From her “week in review” where she also quotes Robert G. Brown of Duke Physics from a comment that I plan to elevate to a full post.

    Good call Anthony. I’ve just finished reading rgbatduke’s comments and I’m not sure I’ve ever heard the climate situation summarized so well in my life. People would have to be blind, deaf, and reallyreallyREALLY dumb not to be able to grasp the sense in Robert’s words.

  15. The Git predicts that when you post Robert Brown’s excellent comment that Jai Mitchell will claim Robert doesn’t even understand the basics and Margaret Hardman will utter a non sequitur.

  16. First ” Happy Fathers Day to Everyone”!

    Second, this is a wonderful opportunity to expand upon this very significant (IMHO) subject.

    Significant enough to dictate a WUWT-TV interview with the referenced and pertinent individuals who could expand upon this data?

    Think about it,,,,,,,, cooling trend? That is indeed huge, very huge.

    Game Changer that cannot be squelched by the MSM or governmental agencies.

    Just sayin> opportunity knocks Anthony! :-)

  17. What Quote This !

    No Quote ! Just Indigestion.

    [Note: only one screen name per commenter, please. — mod.]

  18. Otter says: “Heading for my 60s, I would prefer it remained warm or a little warmer, the next 30-odd years.”

    I can sympathize. With the cool temps this year, my knees throb every morning, I’m looking forward to some summer, but, unfortunately, the way things are going, summer’s only going to last for a few days.

  19. I was sure the climate was cooling in 2008. It is one of the reasons I bought a house in the Bahamas.I do not have 30 years to live through another cooling.
    Now, Judith Curry, agrees.
    We have gone through the first decade of cooling, like the 50’s in the last cooling period. Not too bad but it got worse in the 60’s and the 70’s, kind of like this year. I am annoyed that I didn’t get the whole 30 years of warming.

  20. Prediction:

    If measurable cooling begins, the “climate believers” will simply morph it into “human caused cooling”. Not surprisingly, the only solution will be to use fewer fossil fuels, stop fracing, leave the Alberta Oilsands alone, tax carbon, and build more windmills and solar panels.

    From Time Magazine’s “Global Cooling!” issue, January, 2020:

    “We had it wrong,” said pseudo-Hansen. “The warming was just an artifact. The cooling we panicked about in the 70s was only taking a break, now it has returned with a vengeance!”

    “I knew it all along,” said pseudo-Trenberth. “I was looking for the heat. Turns out it wasn’t under the carpet or the ocean, it fled the planet. And it’s all our fault! What a travesty.”

    “Meh,” said pseudo-Mann. “Once I turned the trees right side up, they really did show cooling after all.”

    “I wrote this article originally,” claimed pseudo-Gleick.

    Meanwhile, children won’t know what living without snow is like, animals that were shrinking are actually growing and my soon start eating people, there is a danger that Tuvalu will end up 200 feet above the ocean, prompting their cabinet to meet on top of the Seattle Space Needle to demonstrate their plight, and roving reporter Bill Murray points out that dogs and cats are, in fact, living together.

    Go ahead – say it won’t happen!

  21. Let’s not paint her commentary with too many bright cheery colors. It seems to me she is saying that CO2 still rules unless natural variability temporarily overtakes the march towards a warmer Earth. Which begs the question she is loath to put out there. If natural variability can overtake CO2’s grip on Earth, what is the real cause here? If Earth is capable of cooling its own skin, it must also be capable of warming it. CO2 would then be just a convenient spanking boy. Come on Judith. You can’t have it both ways. CO2 is or is not warming the Earth. It is that simple. If it is not warming the Earth right now because the stronger natural drivers, intrinsic to Earth, have overtaken the manmade greenhouse affect, you must admit that natural variability cannot be ruled out as the primary driver of all long term trends, up and down. Why is this so hard?

  22. For Clyde:

    “*** If you read what I said carefully (and you may not have — eyes tend to glaze over when one reviews a year or so of graduate quantum theory applied to electronics in a few paragraphs, … ” [Robert G. Brown in above-mentioned rgbtdk quote — linked above in post by Judith Curry]

    In view of Mr. Brains (I’m not being sarcastic) Bofill’s comment above: “People would have to be blind, deaf, and reallyreallyREALLY dumb not to be able to grasp the sense in Robert [G. Brown]’s words,”

    I just wanted to encourage you, Clyde. You are not,
    necessarily (ahem) #[:)], “reallyreallyREALLY dumb” to not understand Brown. You just haven’t studied physics long enough.

    Pardonable ignorance, not intelligence, is your problem.

    I agree. It WOULD BE HELPFUL if someone who understood Brown really, really, REALLY, well could translate his words into something an educated non-science major could understand.

    Only a master of a subject who is also really, really, really, bright can do that, BTW.

    Sorry for the “tone,” Mr. Bofill — there was just something so humble and refreshingly candid about Clyde’s post that your remark brought out the “How dare you talk to my friend like that!” side of me.

  23. Codetech, loved the highly creative writing!

    “Meanwhile, children won’t know what living without snow is like, … .”

    Yes. And, given the underlying Godless socialist-CONTROL agenda driving Human’s-Can-Change-Earth’s-Climate propaganda, it would be just like Communist Siberia where it is “always winter and never Christmas.” [The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe by C. S. Lewis]

    I say “would.” I’m convinced the Envirostalinists are going to LOSE. (have LOST — and they know it)

Comments are closed.