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.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
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:
Go ahead – say it won’t happen!
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?
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.
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)
Pamela;
Right. If natural factors dominate once, they dominate always.
Maybe cooler is the new hot?