From 11/5/13 edition of INVESTOR’S BUSINESS DAILY
Science: The global warming alarmists continue to go about their business — which is minding everyone else’s business — while their yarn keeps fraying. Their latest problem: a study that says nature, not man, drives climate.
Last week President Obama issued the executive order “Preparing the United States for the Impacts of Climate Change.”
It’s almost 3,000 words outlining a plan to help the country get through “prolonged periods of excessively high temperatures” and “more heavy downpours” as well as “an increase in wildfires, more severe droughts, permafrost thawing, ocean acidification and sea-level rise.”
The order even insists that these dire conditions “are already affecting communities, natural resources, ecosystems, economies, and public health across the nation.”
Clearly the White House missed the news — isn’t that where Obama has learned about various scandals that have suffused his administration? — that there has been no warming since 1997.
What’s more, it’s also missed the news about a peer-reviewed paper that recently appeared in the journal Climate Dynamics. According to the science, the pause in warming that began as temperatures leveled off in the late 1990s could extend into the 2030s.
Paper authors Judith Curry, head of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology, and Marcia Wyatt, from the Department of Geological Sciences at the University of Colorado-Boulder, found — no surprise here — that the United Nations climate models that predict a scorched Earth are not reliable.
“The growing divergence between climate model simulations and observations raises the prospect that climate models are inadequate in fundamental ways,” says Curry.
What Curry and Wyatt see, and which the models could not project, given the junk that was fed into them, is a natural cycle of warming and cooling.
The summary of the paper describes a “‘stadium-wave’ signal that propagates like the cheer at sporting events” that covers “the Northern Hemisphere through a network of ocean, ice, and atmospheric circulation regimes that self-organize into a collective tempo.”
This “wave periodically enhances or dampens the trend of long-term rising temperatures, which may explain the recent hiatus in rising global surface temperatures,” the summary said.
The paper also explains that “declining sea ice extent over the last decade is consistent with the stadium wave signal.”
What’s more, “the wave’s continued evolution portends a reversal of this trend of declining sea ice.”
And the role of man’s greenhouse-gas emissions on sea ice decline? Apparently it’s not so significant.
While Wyatt says “the stadium wave signal does not support or refute anthropogenic global warming,” Curry promises that “this paper will change the way you think about natural internal variability,” a factor that the alarmists tend to deny.
Curry also says the paper “provides a very different view from” a study featured last month by the New York Times whose lead author says that by 2047, give or take five years, “the coldest year in the future will be warmer than the hottest year in the past.”
We don’t expect the alarmists to look into this “very different view.” They’ve decided that humans are warming the planet by burning fossil fuels and any evidence to the contrary is dismissed.
But they can’t really believe anything else, can they?
If they did, they would lose their justification for meddling in private affairs.
And that, not the environment, is what the global warming scare is really all about.
In reference to “”Last week President Obama issued the executive order “Preparing the United States for the Impacts of Climate Change.””
To Me it sounds more “President Obama issued the executive order “Preparing the United States for International Marxism” ?
Graham of Sydney, you write ” Steer well clear of any brand of predictive climate modelling”
I disagree, strongly. First, the Wyatt/Curry “stadium wave” is not a model. It is a hypothesis on how global temperatures are, in part, cyclical. As such, the thing one needs to do is to use such a hypothesis to predict what will happen in the future. That is how hypotheses are tested. Classic Feynman. Guess what is happening; predict what is going to happen; see whether it happens.
It would appear to me that no amount of correct science or undisputed observable data is going to change the climate debate in a significant way. Like with many schemes that milk the public just follow the money to understand what is going on. Global warming is now a $ 1 billion per day business with a goal to make it a $2 billion per day business. The offering plate to support United Nations to get $100 billion per year from the developing countries will come around each year. The liberal and democratic political parties love this new tool for taxing the public and the liberal media who have become advocates for global warming make sure that the majority of the public will never read the truth about the very flawed global warming science. I am afraid that it may take another financial crisis that will dry up the free money purse. Nature may also soon demonstrate through a 30 year cold spell that greenhouse gas emissions are not the climate drivers that AGW science claim. Anyone who has not read the book FUTURE BABBLE by Dan Gardner , I recommend this book . It is all about why the predictions of experts fail but people follow them anyway . We seem to have flaw in our programming and others have figured this out and utilize it for their own advantage
And that is how Big Climate hypotheses are tested. Guess what is happening; predict what is going to happen; see weather **it happening.
Anthony: there should be an update containing a link to the Wyatt & Curry paper at the end of the head post:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/10/10/new-paper-from-dr-judith-curry-could-explain-the-pause/
andrewmharding says:
November 7, 2013 at 12:34 am
Our (UK) government, seem to be seeing through this veil of deceit and lies, well at least the Conservative side are.
I don’t agree. I think they’ve always known that they were deceiving and lying to the electorate but it suited them because it was an excuse to raise taxes – for our own good – because our ‘Conservative’ party aren’t really Conservative at all.
It’s only the upcoming election and the pressure on our cost-of-living that has prompted them to make some noises about green taxes needing to be ‘looked at’. The reality is that green taxes relate to European obligations and we won’t be allowed to reduce them while we’re still members.
No doubt the heavy rains and flooding play a big role in increasing the drought and wildfires.
Curry is an honest scientist, and this wave theory may turn out to be correct. We’ll see. However, this paper is just what the warmists need at this point. It provides a basis for claiming that there are prolonged downward cycles within an underlying upward trend in temperatures. So the recent cycle does not refute the overall hypothesis of CAGW, Armed with this, the warmists will be able to extend the testing period for their view from 17 years or so to 30 or more. For them it could be another little step toward making their theory unfalsifiable.
Amen Anthony.
It’s the excuse for centralized planning and a public sector dominated economy. http://sourceable.net/cities-around-the-world-chase-sustainability-dream/
The execut\ive order is seriously flawed. It fails to control the GIANT snakes (and itty bitty ponies)
http://news.cnet.com/8301-17852_3-57611126-71/global-warming-to-create-horses-like-cats-snakes-like-horses/
But look at the bright side. Every kid (even one in an apartment) will have room for a pony.
John Fish.
Thank you for your comments, I do partly agree with you, the point I was trying to make was that as far as I am aware, this is the first time that green issues are being questioned by any of the major political parties. The reduction of CO2 emissions up until now, has been totally unquestionable, the current Climate Change Act had the distinction that it had virtually full cross party support. Hopefully the PM will think that power cuts in the middle of the expected bitterly cold winter, and sky high energy costs are not exactly vote winners and most of the public do not believe in AGW anyway. I agree with what you say about the EU too, but Cameron is our only hope of getting a referendum on our continuing membership of this corrupt organisation, since Farage is highly unlikely to form a government.
The Conservative party is not conservative enough for me either, but unfortunately it is the only hope we have, because if UKIP split the Conservative vote we will be “blessed” with another Labour government.
Anyone that can solve a middle school algebra problem can observe the manipulations and junk science promulgated by the left to support the the premise of AGW. However, to make the assumption that Obama et al are doing this through ignorance or incompetence is incorrect. AGW is just one plank in a platform that the Marxist in charge of the US are using to dismantle the USA. The real concern is that 90% of the US populace is unable to solve a middle school algebra problem.
Ian W says:
November 7, 2013 at 12:35 am
Spot on!
To Graham of Sydney and everyone, could we please stop referring to the chaotic climate and using “chaos” as a reason for something? If you are working in Chaos Theory, using someone’s Chaos Theory, or referring to another’s use of Chaos Theory, then you can use “the climate is chaotic” as a reason. But you have to reference the actual theory being used. Short of a reference to some actual use of Chaos Theory, saying “The climate is chaotic” amounts to saying “the climate is fairy driven.” (“Chaotic” is a highly theoretical term that makes sense only in a highly ramified context and should never be used as an observational term.)
May I point out for the umpteenth time that no one, including all Alarmists and Skeptics, is using Chaos Theory at this time?
Finally, regarding the “Stadium Wave” described by Dr. Curry and Dr. Wyatt, it is not correct to say that they are making predictions regarding temperature or other aspects of climate. Rather, what they have done is identify a system of natural regularities that demand extensive empirical research. Our descriptions of ENSO amount to the same thing. No one can make useful predictions about ENSO; that is, no one can predict the timing of the next El Nino or the degree of any of its other characteristics. Yet we know that ENSO is a system of natural regularities that we must understand and explain scientifically if we are to someday understand the climate.
More promises…Obama’s latest quote:
“With my plan…
if you like your climate, you’ll be able to keep it – period!
If you like your weather, you’ll be able that too!”
The Obama policy move brings into glaring focus the role of activist-driven policy and official statements by this administration and confirms that presidential elections are just updates on what amounts to permanent campaign programs. Dealing with science truth and website construction reality does not make the cut in a campaign headquarters.
O/T but speaking about alarmists and facts, with the recent election results Virginia’s attempts to get UVA to honor the FOI for McMann’s emails will probably stall.
“Tom Stone says: November 7, 2013 at 5:33 am
The execut\ive order is seriously flawed. It fails to control the GIANT snakes (and itty bitty
ponies)
http://news.cnet.com/8301-17852_3-57611126-71/global-warming-to-create-horses-like-cats-snakes-like-horses/
But look at the bright side. Every kid (even one in an apartment) will have room for a pony.”
Reminds me of this:
There’s a Pony in There Somewhere!
Once there were five-year-old twin boys,
one a pessimist and the other an optimist.
Wondering how two boys who seemed so alike could
be so different, their parents took them to a psychiatrist.
The psychiatrist took the pessimist to a room piled high
with new toys, expecting the boy to be thrilled. But instead
he burst into tears. Puzzled, the psychiatrist asked,
“don’t you want to play with these toys?”
“Yes,” the little boy bawled,
“but if I did I’d only break them.”
Next the psychiatrist took the optimist to a room piled high
with horse manure. The boy yelped with delight, clambered
to the top of the pile, and joyfully dug out scoop after scoop,
tossing the manure into the air with glee.
“What on earth are you doing?” the psychiatrist asked.
“Well,” said the boy, beaming
“There’s got to be a pony in here somewhere!”
~ Author unknown ~
(looked for author, found this on a zillion sites, e.g.
http://www.pony-expressions.com/Articles.asp?ID=249 and
http://gregghake.com/2010/02/the-pony-in-the-dung-heap-ronald-reagan-eleanor-roosevelt-and-you/ )
I suspect the optimist is busy digging through the piles of CAGW alarmism,
the pessimist is worrying about his models….
Ironically mist (as in pessiMIST) is a synonym for manure in German.
(explains the puzzled looks I got when noting the drizzle outside by saying “It’s misting outside today.”
Everyone rushed to the windows basically saying “THIS I’ve got to see”….[ could be a metaphor for CAGW]).
(ref: „Der einzige Mist, auf dem nichts wächst, ist der Pessimist.” – Theodor Heuss)
(roughly, the only fertilizer that grows nothing is the pessimist…I’m sure there are much better
translations out there – Dirk, Pierre, anyone?)
It’s simply all falling apart as nature stubbornly refuses to co-operate. News just in:
No warming for over 16 years, polar bear and penguin numbers are robust, the Arctic sea ice boomed this summer (and was pretty chilly too), snowfall is not a thing of the past, aerosols and clouds continue their confusion. This is not settled science at ll really.
Graham of Sydney says:
November 6, 2013 at 10:06 pm
“Whoa! Hardly has the ink dried on Roy Spencer’s plea for sceptics to refrain from any form of long term climate predictions, than out comes this doozy.”
Which raises an important question about Dr. Spencer. Why does he ask skeptics to refrain from any form of long term climate prediction? I hope his position rests on scientific principle? I hope he is not simply suggesting that we bite our tongues to avoid sounding foolish.
I know why I ask everyone to refrain from any form of long term climate prediction. I do it on scientific principle. I know that Alarmist climate science is limited to Arrhenius’ hypotheses about the effects of CO2 on radiation. But Arrhenius’ work is limited to the laboratory and has never been confirmed in the atmosphere. Confirming it in the atmosphere requires solving the “Forcings and Feedbacks” puzzle. But solving that puzzle in a scientific way requires well confirmed physical hypotheses that describe the behavior of water vapor and clouds, among other things, in the atmosphere. No such well confirmed physical hypotheses exist. To the best of my knowledge, no climate scientist has proposed hypotheses and experiments which might lead to confirmation of such hypotheses. Climate science, as it pertains to global warming and the effects of CO2 in the atmosphere, is in its infancy and has not earned the right to make scientific predictions.
Discussion of this issue will require a definition of ‘prediction’ that is up to the standards of scientific principle. When I use the word ‘prediction’, I am not speaking with the vulgar. A scientific prediction is a statement about observable phenomena that is derived from well confirmed physical hypotheses and a statement of “initial conditions.” The initial conditions are what the scientist presently observes. The physical hypotheses describe the natural regularities about which the scientist makes predictions.
For example, from Kepler’s Three Laws of Motion and the present location of Earth and Venus in their orbits, the phases of Venus can be predicted.
In case someone wonders why I require that the hypotheses be well confirmed, the answer is that you do not want to make predictions from hypotheses that are known to be false. What about the new hypotheses that are not yet well confirmed? The new hypotheses are undergoing initial tests. The scientist derives future observations from the hypotheses to test them. Such hypotheses are provisional hypotheses and are used for provisional prediction. (Though Karl Popper is not the last word on scientific method, he was right to emphasize that scientists must attempt to falsify new hypotheses and do so vigorously.)
P Gosselin says:
November 7, 2013 at 6:26 am
Oooooooooohhhhhhh. Bazinga!
Without problems to solve, ambitious people don’t have the sense of worth and fulfillment that is necessary for maintaining their own self image. It is for this reason that as humankind’s real problems are gradually solved, fake problems must be invented to take their place.
Within the world’s rich post-industrial societies — American society is the most prominent example — environmentalism in general, and climate change in particular, have become manpower sinks for otherwise smart and productive people who cannot find a useful role for themselves in technology or in industry, simply because the kinds of opportunities which formerly came with science and industry have migrated to less rich societies where the solution of real problems, as opposed to fake problems, remains the operative priority.
Before he passed away, Dr. Carl Sagan offered his opinion that the world’s population crisis could only be solved through the progressive industrialization of the world’s poorer economies. But of course, this solution carries with it the increased risk of environmental degradation and pollution. (No risk, no reward. No pain, no gain.)
Here is the real story. The masquerading Marxists have this plan: the elected politicians enact a policy that sends a steady stream of money to some industry. Those in the industry end up being major advocates, including campaign funds, for the politicians.
With public-relations type pronouncements, and campaign rallies, NYT editorials, and so on, the perception is created for the general public that these efforts are helping out. So, there is little opposition to the government-funded business.
The politicians know that they are dependent on the industry for survival – for re-election funds, and the industry knows it is dependent on sustained political support.
The more of these “progressive” institutions that can be established as an inherent part of our government, the more established are the progressives.
As the old job success advice goes: make yourself invaluable. The pols are invaluable to a narrow constituency, which can support re-election campaigns from the govt gravy train.
The work being done doesn’t even have to yield actual benefits – to the environ, or anything. It just has to have a generally welcome perception in the general populace. This is not like the world of private business, where budgets are scrutinized, and something with no return-on-investment is dropped.
Also, this is not mere lobbying. A politician can favor some industry – medicine, insurance, banking, etc., but this just helps the industry with their normal revenue stream.
Here, the secret is to have politicians establish govt work that is not susceptible to vagaries of the free market (their enemy).
The TSA was established – thousands of new govt workers. Then, soon after, the effort to have it legal to unionize TSA workers began. See? We won’t get rid of TSA anytime soon. Plus, we have no idea how much the TSA, as configured, prevents terrorism, versus a variety of other strategies.
So, it is there, with no easy way to evaluate its value. It is there “for the duration.”
Now, with the union machine, with its very clear history of overlap with international socialist activities, the TSA has gone union – as money goes from govt to TSA employees, money also goes to TSA union, then straight back into politician campaign war chest.
Therefore, any liberal will be for entrenching his or her party, regardless of how useful the service will be.
Note that useful govt services that don’t fit the political agenda – such as military, or border guard, have to be neutered in various ways.
Here, we see it with more environ “regulatory” agency money. The money will go to watermelon firms, who will shuttle some of the money back to campaign coffers.
Right in front of your eyes, this has happened with the community grants of Obamacare to have health care navigators – who do you think is getting these low-skill decent pay positions?
Also, in Obamacare, abortion insurance is inherent. Plus, they have disguised this. The law says that any policy vended through the exchange must include a monthly fee of at least two dollars. This goes into an abortion insurance policy fund. At this point, it seems either that this supports required abortion coverage, or funds abortion rider policies. Technically, since it is a fee along with your premium, and not part of your premium itself, they can declare that your premium is not going to any insurance fund pool that will cover abortion, along with any other services.
Thy also wrote the law to say you do not have to know whether a plan you pick, say from one insurance company, funds abortion, so that you cannot shop per your conscience.
I know many readers here are pro-choice. Science says life begins at conception, and like begets like, and there is no spontaneous creation of life from non-living matter – but we can agree to disagree here.
The point is that some of us are pro-life, but have been boxed out, by law, from shopping our conscience, when forced by law, to shop.
Why such a complicated architecture for this one medical issue? Planned Parenthood is bifurcated into a total service delivery arm and a total political action arm. They just spent a million to support McAuliff, a money-bundler par excellence himself, in Virginia, who won as you know by a narrow margin. That is the campaign war chest in action.
Now, with an abortion fund pool growing at $2/person/month for all those who go through the exchanges, that will largely go to PP, by far the largest abortion provider.
They knew this and had this planned as they began laying the beginnings of Obamacare.
In the end, as I have noted, it doesn’t even matter if the govt-supported service delivers what it is supposed to deliver. Several PP have already gotten in trouble for over-billing Medicaid – that is the same as receiving money while not delivering a good or service. There you have it.
Expect more of this progressive entrenchment as the Obama administration moves toward its end, and a concomitant narrowing of any chance to catch up with him through the slow-moving processes we have, such as congressional investigations.
Three paragraphs from the article:
“While Wyatt says “the stadium wave signal does not support or refute anthropogenic global warming,” Curry promises that “this paper will change the way you think about natural internal variability,” a factor that the alarmists tend to deny.
Curry also says the paper “provides a very different view from” a study featured last month by the New York Times whose lead author says that by 2047, give or take five years, “the coldest year in the future will be warmer than the hottest year in the past.”
We don’t expect the alarmists to look into this “very different view.” They’ve decided that humans are warming the planet by burning fossil fuels and any evidence to the contrary is dismissed.”
This is a big deal. Two years ago, climate modelers would not talk about natural variability at all. They were in denial about it. One year ago, they started talking about natural variability but they defined it in terms of “internal variability;” that is, they defined it by reference to their models and not by reference to nature.
What Dr. Curry and Dr. Wyatt have done is identify a system of natural regularities, their Stadium Wave, that cannot be defined in term of a model’s internal variability. The Stadium Wave must be broken down into its component natural regularities, which requires extensive empirical research, if it is to be accommodated in the existing generation of models. The likelihood that modelers will engage Curry and Wyatt on this topic is zero.
Wow.
One paper comes out in the normal literature and wuwt is ga ga over the results and can’t understand why the field isn’t reeling in shock. Shock, I say! But I am going to, this time, stick with the skeptic line of wuwt and assume that BECAUSE the paper is in the mainstream literature that it is bogus. After all, it’s the wuwt way.
As least until someone else has repeated the findings.
Pippen Fool is such a lamebrain. The article quotes Dr Curry saying “…the United Nations climate models that predict a scorched Earth are not reliable.”
That is the issue. The mainstream is finally coming around to the view of scientific skeptics. Unlike Fool, we knew all along that the UN/IPCC was peddling nonsense. Pippen is unhappy because the truth is finally emerging.