Guest Opinion: Dr. Tim Ball
Pick your trend.
The historical relationship between solar activity and temperature indicates the world is in a cooling trend. Meanwhile, governments prepare solely for warming, using manufactured academic and scientific justification. Regardless, of your position on the science of these issues, there is a strategy that is more logical in terms of both adaptation and preparation. Unfortunately, because global warming was used to achieve a political agenda, objective science and logical planning are ignored and it won’t be adopted. As usual, the people who have already paid a price will pay more.
A couple of years ago I received a small contract to contribute a chapter to a strategy manual for Senior Staff officers of the Canadian military (yes, there is one). Its purpose was to provide a framework for preparing military contingencies for global and Canadian climate conditions. The theme of my chapter was, that when you cannot prepare for all contingencies, you must reduce risk of being prepared as much as possible. The objective was to have a game theory approach that provides the optimal plan, regardless of what happens. The plan may not win, but it shouldn’t lose. Two factors, among others, formed the basis for the strategy: the failed predictions (projections) of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC); and the lack of a temperature increase, at that time of 15 years, despite increasing CO2.
My philosophical basis was a variation of Pascal’s Wager. He was a theistic humanist who knew it was impossible to prove the existence of God. However, he also rationalized that the wise position was to believe that there was a God. As one person explained,
Belief is a wise wager. Granted that faith cannot be proved, what harm will come to you if you gamble on its truth and it proves false? If you gain, you gain all; if you lose, you lose nothing.
I was left with few options because Governments, based on the work of the IPCC, assume that only a warming trend is the foreseeable future. The IPCC argue that this is guaranteed, unless we stop all human production of CO2. The problem is that CO2 is not the cause of the temperature trend, as the hiatus, now at 19+ years, illustrates. In fact, the entire historic record shows that CO2 is not the issue. Supporters of the IPCC projections believe that the warming trend will continue, that the pause is just that, and the trend will resume shortly. Unfortunately, use of the word hiatus by skeptics, which means a brief pause, condones that belief. The reality is the climate changes all the time as it moves between warming and cooling trends. Calling it a hiatus implies it is an anomaly, when it is one cycle in a cyclical pattern.
It is no surprise to skeptics that the starting and ending points of the graph determine the climate trend. Figure 1 shows the sequence I used in the first lecture of my first year climate class. On the blackboard I drew the first line (UP) then added subsequent lines to create the UP, Down, UP sequence.
Figure 1
An Earlier “Hiatus”?
The following quotes are from the cover of a book about a climate trend. The book is using alarmism to demand action. To give credibility a gold medallion tells the reader that the book “Includes two CIA reports.”
“Have our weather patterns run amok? Or are they part of a natural and alarming timetable.”
“From all over the world: Frightening reports of unusual climatic occurrences!”
“This vitally important document is compiled from expert testimony, scientific studies, government inquiry and the growing body of data in the field. Its purpose is to inform the public of the true facts about a topic often clouded by action, superstition, and alarmist misrepresentation.”
The quotes are on the cover of a 1977 book, The Weather Conspiracy, written by a group of reporters under the rubric, A Special Impact Team Report. They answer the question “What does it mean?” as follows.
“Many of the worlds leading climatologists concur we are slipping towards a new Ice Age. Why is this so? How will it affect food scarcity? Rising costs? How much is it a threat to the quality of life –the very fact of our existence on this planet? What is going to happen? What can – and can’t – we do about it? THE ANSWERS ARE IN THIS BOOK!”
There is no point in examining the solutions, because they are either so obvious, or silly. They are all related to changing lifestyle and demands on energy and economy. Ironically, the only proposal for direct intervention, what today we call geo-engineering, was to offset increasing droughts with cloud seeding. Yes, the claim was a colder world would cause more droughts.
The omission is interesting because several proposals were made. One from the Soviet Union proposed building a dam across the Bering Straits to prevent the cold flow of Arctic waters in to the north Pacific. Another involved putting large reflectors in space to beam more sunlight into high latitude cities in winter. To my knowledge, nobody proposed adding more CO2 to increase warming, but then CO2 had not yet become isolated and demonized by the IPCC. The “Greenhouse effect” was not in the political lexicon, although it was being used in the classroom, as a possible explanation for a world warmer than a simple energy budget would allow.
Today’s activists would push for adding more CO2 to offset the cooling. Just as they believe humans are to blame for all “changes”, they also believe human remediation is required and will work. This was demonstrated by the proposal to produce ozone and pump it up to ‘heal’ the ozone hole. It was abandoned, when back of the envelope calculations showed it would take all the energy we produce globally to do it.
Game Theory: Best Strategy.
A brief examination of climate change and environmental changes through history shows that colder temperatures are a much greater threat to flora and fauna, and therefore the human condition. More important, adjustments to warmer conditions are much easier than to cold. One of the major deceptions promoted by the IPCC is the impact of warming. It is part of their singular approach. Working Group I proves CO2 is causing warming. Working Groups II and III accept that as the sole base and determine the impact and the necessary policies. One of these is the claim that warming will cause increased loss of life. It may cause some increase, but, contrary to the belief promoted by the alarmists, more people die from the cold every year and that would increase more with colder temperatures.
Governments are preparing for warming. The degree of preparation varies, and those who made the biggest commitments are already suffering the consequences. Green agendas are dominated by alternate energies and are collapsing everywhere. Here is an a example from the UK
More than 15 million UK households plan to ration their energy use this winter to cope with “sky-high” energy costs, according to uSwitch. The price comparison website, which surveyed 5,300 people, found that almost six in ten (57%) people have already cut back or plan to ration their energy use this winter in a bid to reduce bills. The research also revealed that more than a third of people (36%) who rationed their energy last winter said it affected their health and wellbeing.
Governments have three options. 1. Do nothing. 2. Prepare for warming, or 3. Prepare for cooling. They’ve chosen (2) the worst option because of the deceptions and deliberate coercion by the IPCC. The first option is the best, because if you don’t know what is going on it is better to do nothing. IPCC’s failed predictions prove they don’t know what is going on.
Pascal’s Wager provides the answer. You prepare for cooling because it is the real threat and potentially fatal to ignore. If you plan for warming and it cools, adaptation is much more difficult, assuming you have the time and the energy resources to do it. In addition, there is the damage done in the meantime of loss of lives and destruction of economies.
Most governments have chosen to prepare for warming. Fortunately, it is a token position for many. Some have already done more than others. They always begin by adopting a shift from traditional energy sources to alternate energies. These are accompanied by legislation and directed funding to force the change. Subsidies are created at all levels, so that even if full cost/benefit studies were done, it becomes almost impossible to identify them. Legislation is even more singular, directed and negative. It is directed at punishing, what are deemed transgressions, and preventing development.
Request for my chapter in the Senior Officers Strategy Manual occurred because a Senior Officer, with degrees specializing in nuclear physics, heard a public presentation I made. The entire project was supervised and edited by an academic. He advised me the chapter would not be included, but would not explain why. Fortunately, I got paid. The problem is that some countries, such as Canada, are more vulnerable to cooling than others, as studies done by the World Meteorological Organization recognized in the 1970s. Martin Parry, who later attended the 1985 establishment meeting of the IPCC in Villach, Austria (Figure 2) was active in those studies.
Figure 2: (“Tom” is Wigley).
In a 1975 paper, “Secular climatic change and marginal land.”[1] Parry produced two maps (Figure 3) to illustrate the impact of cooling, from the Medieval Warm Period down to the Little Ice Age, on the county of Berwickshire in southeast Scotland.
Figure 3: Berwickshire
Figure 3:
Canada was one of the regions Parry looked at with regard to the impact of cooling. He produced Figure 4 showing the effects of a 1°C cooling on the extent of agriculture in Canada.
Figure 4
A modern indicator of the impact of 1°C cooling occurred in 1992, following the eruption of Mount Pinatubo in 1991. In the first week of September 1992 I drove across a major portion of the Canadian Prairies from Winnipeg to Regina and then up to Saskatoon. All wheat and most other cereal crops were still green. Many farmers applied a desiccant to dry the crop sufficiently to allow harvesting.[2]
That is a simple technological fix, but longer and deeper cooling spells will require more complex social and technological solutions. The major traditional social response is migration. The Berwickshire maps (Figure 3) indicate the relationship between cooling, loss of agricultural sustainability, and migration. The height of climatically viable limit for agriculture lowered by 300 meters, which doesn’t sound like much, but on the gradient it converts to a very large area. It affected the Highland clans most and it appears their migration to the Lowlands triggered the clan wars. The Highland Clearances were a combination of loss of agricultural land and failure of the governments to respond adequately. They did assist migration by moving 100,000 Scots to the plantation in Ulster by 1610. There was also agricultural adaptation, as sheep grazed land unsuitable for crops.
Since governments will be starting from behind the temperature curve, as the cooling trend continues, it is interesting to speculate what they can do. Ironically, producing plants for the new conditions, that with plant breeding traditionally takes 15 to 18 years from lab to field, is now possible in less than 2 years, thanks to genetic modification. Of course, that is also unacceptable for environmentalists and many governments, but they may be responsible for reduced options.
History tells us that practicality won’t prevail as long as we have politics and environmental extremism in charge. George Santayana said, “Those who forget history are doomed to repeat it.” The “Those” he refers to are the political leaders. The people know, because they pay the price. Too often the leaders are aided and abetted by academics who, either create the theory or provide one on request, as happened with the IPCC. The person who rejected my chapter for the Staff manual was an academic with an arts degree and an apparent bias. I suspect that is how most wars are lost and as always, in all things, the people pay the price.
References:
[1] Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers. 64: 1-13.
[2] Dessicant: a substance, such as calcium oxide, that absorbs water and is used to remove moisture; a drying agent.
Dr. Ball, another pertinent history and penetrating analysis (which, unfortunately, is almost assuredly destined to remain unread by policy makers who are entranced by the IPCC’s myths…).
Thank you!
Yes, thank you!
Well done, Tim, as usual.
This article is good introduction to basic logic and decision making in uncertainty.
If you gain, you gain all; if you lose, you lose nothing.
This is one of the biggest lies perpetrated by the warmists and their media lapdogs- that reducing CO2 emission is painless.
Absolutely! They’ve always portrayed the policy prescriptions as enduring a little inconvenience now in order to avoid potential disaster later similar to an insurance policy. In truth its just the opposite, enduring adversity now in order to avoid a potential little inconvenience later, like paying $10k monthly premiums from a $6k monthly income on a $100k house: it just don’t make sense.
It’s because the statement was true in the terms of Pascal’s wager – what is the cost of believing in God, as opposed to not believing? Nothing. So warmist try to pretend the same is true, and must hide the fact that the cost of believing in warming devoutly is immense.
When there are costs involved, then Pascal’s Wager no longer applies, but Risk/Benefit Analysis does.
And this is exactly what the warmists DON’T want.
As Dr. Ball indicates, Pascal’s Wager applies a fortiori in the opposite direction: Betting on cooling costs little, and will help considerably if it occurs, but the costs of being wrong are small. Betting on warming is (observably) costly, and will have negligible impact even if correct; the costs of being wrong will be immense.
They call that meme the precautionary principle…
“If you gain, you gain all; if you lose, you lose nothing”
No kind of God worth His/Her/Its name would accept that sort of hedge-betting.
Nor would they accept murder in their name, unless, of course, that is their goal.
Sure, it’s impossible to prove the existence of something that doesn’t exist. That’s pretty simple.
But you can lose if you believe in things which can’t be shown to exist, especially when there are a multitude of interpretations of what humans think the imaginary entity wants you to do. You end up with destroyed cultures by those who think their belief is better than your belief, you end up with wars for the same reason, wholesale slaughter, etc. And before anyone brings out the old canard that atheists have slaughtered millions too, those atheists did so out of greed and power, not out of a lack of belief in imaginary beings.
I don’t deny that anyone should be allowed to believe whatever they wish. It’s when you force those beliefs on others, either passively or aggressively, that I have a problem.
It’s pretty clear that the so-called “moral compass” of belief in gods hasn’t prevented mass human suffering at the hands of believers.
??? might be Spencer Weart
He was’t grey in 1985
Tim Ball’s reasoning makes sense whether a person accepts warming, cooling, or neither as the future condition.
Pedro
I wouldn’t blame the skeptics for the term “hiatus”. That is a term that had some acceptance by the warmists and was a minimum conclusion based on the evidence (and still is). We will need a couple of years of significant temperature drop (IMO about 0.2C) for a “hiatus” to become a “possible end” to global warming.
We are at the point of falsification, not switching belief systems. Solar theory, simple climate variation considerations, all bring us to a prediction of a roll-over in global temperatures and Arctic sea ice coverage in the next couple of years. Even the skeptical side has some non-negotiable evidence that the skeptical position is based on a realistic scientific understanding of the ebb and flow of climates.
Christina Figureres just stated that $100US bn/year is not enough to switch the world over to a green, non-CO2 emission economy, but some $90US trillion. This is enough to stop every government from moving forward except in ways that demonstrate moral support, like saying the world is running out of fresh water and so in California they are going to only water the street verges during the night. The true socio-economic-politico cost is so daunting and damaging that delay until the personal damages are clear is the wisest course. Americans (or Europeans) will pay 100 billion per year to avoid 150 billion per year of personal costs IF there is an obvious direct relationship. The warmists need significant warming over the next several years to show that action now is justified. The skeptics need significant cooling over the next several years to derail big anti-CO2 legislation.
The hiatus needs to become a decline; a pause in warming needs to become a trend towards cooling. Then the anti-CO2 fight will be over for the fear the world will fry. It will still go on, unfortunately, because “ocean acidification” will be the cause celebre.
The world already is cooling in the RSS satellite series. The land station & sea surface (actually subsurface) “data sets” are so manipulated in so many ways as to be worse than worthless for almost anything, but least of all for policy purposes. Their only use IMO is to more effectively to falsify the GCMs’ predictions, since even in cooked books, the “data” are now below the error bars even of the “No more CO2 after 2000” scenario. And UAH satellite program is reportedly going to improve its data handling to remove its obvious warming bias.
No it isn’t. I’ve checked the trends for several periods and none of them are even close to being significant. Furthermore, the ARGO data shows a considerable accumulation of heat in the oceans which is reasonably consistent with the Hansen estimate of the energy imbalance. Ocean cycles mean that more energy is entering to oceans and lees into the atmosphere but that is likely to change at some point.
You and Tim Ball need not be concerned about cooling. It’s not going to happen – not in any meaningful way at least. I consider myself a ‘lukewarmer’ and still think CO2 sensitivity is more likely to be on the low side, but I’m less certain than I was.
Mr. Finn, ARGO is randomly sampling a statistically insignificant portion of ~40% of the ocean’s volume and has not even been doing that long enough to produce anything resembling definitive data. It also has the fundamental flaw in that the “drift” part of the profile leaves it wandering about in the same blob of water, but mapping it as unique ocean. Satellite data, while also short term (on planetary scales,) is a far better metric for one to hang his/her hat on and is at least sampling a significant portion of the planet. We are in an interglacial and the history we CAN look at says that cooling is far more likely than warming… and based on what we now of the contrasts between LIA and MWP, warming (if we get any more in this cycle) would be more of a boon than bane.
John Finn, please explain what a “luke warmer” is: “I consider myself a ‘lukewarmer’ and still think CO2 sensitivity is more likely to be on the low side, but I’m less certain than I was.”
Is it something like: “I know I’m being lied to, I know they manufacture and manipulate the data, but somehow I think they are right.”?
I cannot logically understand this position, but I would appreciate your explanation. Seriously.
Thank You.
Check the RSS trend since ~2005. That’s about half as long as the alleged “late 20th century warming”.
How can you know that there will be no cooling in reality? The cooked book surface record may never show it, but IMO it’s more likely than not to occur. In both warm & cold multi-centennial & multi-decadal secular phases of the Holocene & prior interglacials, counter-trend cycles have always been observed. Sometimes of greater magnitude, some of less.
For the past more than 3000 years, the long-term secular trend has down. For the past ~300 years, it has been up on that time scale. The way to bet is for a repeat over the next 20 to 30 years of the cooling cycle of c. 1945-76, which followed the warming cycle of the ‘Teens to Forties, the slope of which even in rigged data sets is virtually indistinguishable from that of c. 1976-98. The “blow-off top” (to borrow another term from market analysis) of the super El Nino of 1998 is about the only giveaway as to which warming is which, the early or late 20th century one.
John Finn said: “No it isn’t. I’ve checked the trends for several periods and none of them are even close to being significant. Furthermore, the ARGO data shows a considerable accumulation of heat in the oceans which is reasonably consistent with the Hansen estimate of the energy imbalance. Ocean cycles mean that more energy is entering to oceans and lees into the atmosphere but that is likely to change at some point.”
The problem with the ocean heat is that it must have come from the sun – direct solar radiation is really the only way the oceans can be significantly warmed. The infrared emitted by greenhouse gases is only able to warm a few microns at the surface of the oceans, and the net effect of that will be increased evaporation with an accompanying loss of latent heat – ie cooling,
Eric Sincere December 4, 2014 at 1:04 pm
Most scientists who study the climate recognise that the addition of CO2 to the atmosphere will make the earth warmer than it would otherwise be. This doesn’t necessarily mean that there will be non-stop warming – other natural factors can offset the warming and either slow it or stop it completely over a period of time. The estimated 97% consensus you might have heard about is probably not that far off being correct. However, while the overwhelming majority agree there will be warming, there is some disagreement over the magnitude of warming. Let’s call the disagreement as one between “warmers” and “sceptics” (UK spelling).
Warmers and Sceptics actually agree that warming due to the CO2 increase alone is fairly modest and both sides reckon it’s a bit more than 1 degree C in response to a doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere. This is, effectively, what is known as the (No Feedback) Climate Sensitivity (though it may sometimes be expressed in other forms). Warmers, however, are convinced that, as the atmosphere warms in response to more CO2, it will result in an increase in the concentration of atmospheric water vapour (also a GHG). In other words there will be a positive feedback. This is quite a reasonable line of thinking since warmer air can hold more moisture. From a combination of paleo-climatological data (mainly from the LGM) and climate models the warmers conclude that warming will actually be nearer to 3 degrees per 2xCO2. They have some support from LGM conditions but sceptics are … well … sceptical.
Sceptics think feedback will be small – some even think negative. Because they believe there will be some warming these sceptics are sometimes referred to as “lukewarmers”. So the term “lukewarmer” simply defines someone who thinks warming will not be a major problem.
Which of the 2 groups is right?
Current observations (depending on how you interpret them) suggest the lukewarmers are closer to the true CO2 sensitivity figure but jury is still out – and will be for some time.
milodonharlani December 4, 2014 at 1:44 pm
I have it’s not significant – not even close.
John Finn,
Please show why you suppose that LGM conditions offer support for the speculation that net water vapor feedback will be positive. It might be safe to assume, although there is little to no good quantitative evidence on the effect, that warming will produce a lot more water vapor in the air globally. This water vapor, depending again on where & when it occurs, could produce a positive feedback through radiative “greenhouse warming”.
However, there are at least equally as important effects, better supported by evidence, that produce negative feedback, such as evaporative cooling & clouds (which can have both effects, ie shading & reflecting to cool & insulating to warm).
The upshot is that there is no good reason to assume net positive feedback from CO2. Moreover, even a doubling will leave it a minor portion of all GHGs (even though a distant second) which are dominated by water vapor. And H2O’s absorption bands overlap to a large extent with CO2’s. So the climatic effect of doubling CO2 would be trivial, at best its basic ~1.2 degrees C for doubling from ~280 to 560 ppm, much of which has already happened. If it has, since human knowledge of the climate system is so unsettled & scarcely understood.
John Finn
December 4, 2014 at 3:10 pm
Depends upon your significance level.
Since it’s impossible to take the planet’s temperature with either accuracy or precision, let alone that required for policy decisions, best to look at proxy data rather than untrustworthy, at best, instruments. Glaciers are growing. Sea ice is growing. Lake ice is growing early. Snow is piling up early. El Ninos are scarce. Excess winter deaths are tragically & needlessly occurring.
The main thing is, it’s not warming, contrary to the GIGO GCMs’ predictions, hence Catastrophic Anthropogenic Climate Alarmism is falsified.
Neither.
Adding radiative gases to our radiatively cooled atmosphere will not reduce its ability to cool the surface of our ocean planet. Remember the oceans are a SW selective surface not a “near blackbody”. Were it not for atmospheric cooling, ocean surface Tmax would hit 80C or beyond. Given 1 bar pressure, the net effect of our radiatively cooled atmosphere is surface cooling, not warming.
PS: Unadjusted cold records have also been broken over much of North America this year, as they were in South America last year.
xyzzy11 December 4, 2014 at 2:38 pm
Yes – we know this. Gavin Schmidt knows it. Jim Hansen knows it. Every CAGW scientist knows it. Why is it that so many commenters on this blog seem to think that AGW crowd have overlooked some basic part of Physics. Schmidt actually posted an article on the RC blog on this very subject.
Downwelling LWIR slows the rate of energy loss from the ocean while the sun continues to heat the ocean.
You’re only looking at one part of the cycle. The only way the earth’s climate system can lose heat is by radiation to space. Convection, Evaporation etc simply redistribute energy. If the flow of outgoing IR is reduced by, e.g. GHGs, then the climate system (surface, oceans and atmosphere) will warm.
ARGO data shows that, despite weaker solar activity over the last decade, OHC has continued to increase at a pretty fair lick.
Konrad. December 4, 2014 at 3:23 pm
I’m not sure what you’re saying here. You appear to be suggesting that without radiation emitting gases the earth would not cool. It would ,of course, radiation would be direct from the earth’s surface – just as it is in the IR window.
John Finn,
You don’t seem to understand what Konrad is saying.
And your amazing comment:
You and Tim Ball need not be concerned about cooling. It’s not going to happen…
…indicates that you can see the future. What are you doing here, then? Shouldn’t you be in Las Vegas?
John Finn
December 4, 2014 at 3:47 pm
//////////////////////////////////////////////////
”I’m not sure what you’re saying here. You appear to be suggesting that without radiation emitting gases the earth would not cool. It would ,of course, radiation would be direct from the earth’s surface – just as it is in the IR window.”
No, I am saying that without radiative gases the atmosphere would have no effective cooling mechanism. Without a radiatively cooled atmosphere the surface temp of the planet would rise to around 312K, far hotter than present, if it could only cool by radiation directly from the surface.
Climastrologists however claim 255K for surface without atmosphere. Where’s the mistake? For a near blackbody without atmosphere receiving 240 wm/2 of solar radiation 255K is correct for equilibrium temperature. The mistake was assuming the oceans to be a near blackbody when in fact they are an extreme short-wave selective surface*. 335K is a better figure for oceans without atmospheric cooling. (land 29% 255K + ocean 71% 335K = global 312K)
Given 1 bar surface pressure, the net effect of our radiatively cooled atmosphere is therefore surface cooling. So AGW is not “less than we thought”, it’s a physical impossibility. There can be no Realpolitik “soft landing” for the global warming fellow travellers.
*The factors that make the oceans a SW selective surface –
1. LWIR emissivity is asymmetric with SW absorptivity. While SW absorptivity remains near 0.9 for water up to 80 degrees from vertical, LWIR emissivity drops rapidly below 55 degrees. Full hemispherical emissivity for water is as low as 0.7. A near blackbody in contrast would have emissivity and absorptivity close to unity.
2. Water absorbs SW at depth not at the surface like a near blackbody. This leads to far higher surface temperatures than an SW opaque material when intermittent diurnal illumination is factored in. Convective circulation drives surface temps higher again.
Senior Finn, you really missed my point about ARGO. It randomly samples a very tiny percentage of less than half of the ocean and as such the statistical gyrations that try to force that data to represent either the ~40% of the ocean it is physically possible for the floats to get to or the whole ocean is ludicrous. It’s like randomly taking 40% of the land area and then picking 3000 stations in that area (at random without regard to siting) and say that represents all land on Earth. That’s only one of the reasons the data is suspect.
Once it’s been running for a few more decades and with some much better correlations about how its drift data compares to real in situ measurements then it might be a good tool… it ain’t there yet.
nielszoo,
Here I was thinking that random sampling was sound statistical practice. And a 40% sample, well that’s 10% shy of half a census. I fail to see the fatal flaw.
Right. So the cooler water you imply is there knows to dodge the floats whenever they’re in the vicinity. Explain for me how that works.
I’m a big advocate for satellite observation. However this isn’t a one or the other proposition. Science is about convergence of multiple observations, best effected when several different observational methods are combined. Thowing away data because it doesn’t meet some arbitrary standard promulgated by non-domain experts is generally bad practice. That said, satellites in this context only see what’s going on at the surface, not below it. If one wants better models of ocean dynamics at depth, the best place to get it is actually going to depth with instrumentation to get it. Each method has their own relative benefits and drawbacks, and they are far from the only two major players.
100,000/44,000 year glaciation cycles are quite well understood on the basis of regular and predictable parameters of Earth’s orbit around the sun and variations in its axial tilt. Straight up probability analysis to the exclusion of all else isn’t required when predictable physical effects have been identified.
What you know about the LIA and MWP pales in comparison to the researchers who brought you that knowledge to begin with. It’s interesting to see which bits you accept vs. the vast majority you discount. Especially since you’re complaining about “statistically insignificant” coverage in modern instrumentation. I assure you, we didn’t have global coverage from space during the MWP. You may wish to ponder the glaring discrepancy between the amount and quality of data you accept as valid vs. that which you don’t.
Brandon Gates
December 5, 2014 at 4:57 pm
////////////////////////////////////////////
”Right. So the cooler water you imply is there knows to dodge the floats whenever they’re in the vicinity. Explain for me how that works.”
It’s very simple Brandon. The cold waters did not bypass the floats. Initial ARGO results showed the truth, ocean cooling. Since then not one, but three adjustments have been applied to the data. And now, even with all the artificial warming adjustments, ARGO only shows very slight warming only in the southern ocean, too slight by an order of magnitude to account for the Trenberthian “missing heat” (which is of course passing Saturn as I type).
Konrad,
Thank you.
The argument I was responding to was: ARGO is randomly sampling a statistically insignificant portion of ~40% of the ocean’s volume and has not even been doing that long enough to produce anything resembling definitive data. Now you want to change the subject by introducing another one. Fine. How do you know know the truth about the temperature of the oceans at depth? Have you got an independently verifiable set of data you’re not telling me about?
By the way, there is an issue, well several issues, of coverage with ARGO to date — namely that there’s been more coverage in the NH than SH, and only the very latest generation floats — of which few have been deployed — go past 2,000 m depth. The new ones go to 4,000 m or thereabouts, and oceanographers are clamouring for more of those, and ones that go even deeper, because the do recognize the need for representative sampling despite certain folks’ fantasies to the contrary.
If the climate models made “predictions” claims made by them would be falsifiable. However, they make non-falsifiable “projections.” The appearance of falsifiability is created by an equivocation that conflates the two terms ( http://wmbriggs.com/blog/?p=7923 )
John Finn says:
How can 40% be “statistically insignificant”. With data on a random 40% of any population highly accurate estimates can be obtained.
Yes, and they were. Oops…
But when those highly accurate estimates did not support climate alarmism, ARGO was “adjusted”.
So I agree with you: the original ARGO data was highly accurate. They show ocean cooling, 0 – 2000 metres.
Doug is right – don’t blame skeptics for the term “hiatus”. It’s the preferred term of the Believers who want to give the impression it’s just a temporary lull in warming. Look at the Wikipedia entry “Global warming hiatus”, which is policed by warmists. Any use of another term, such as “pause”, “standstill” or the like, is quickly reverted. Try editing the entry for yourself and see what happens.
This winter in Canada will be very dangerous. Let us see the temperature of the Atlantic off the coast of Canady.
http://polar.ncep.noaa.gov/global/nc/images/large/rtofs_global_temperature_n048_000.png
I hope that Betts and Edwards will give us the benefits of their thoughts on this.
why would they come back and be mistreated?
skeptics dont want a debate on the science. that why whenever you give them a lecturn, they accuse all scientists of engaging in a big lie. And when you offer an Olive branch as Betts has, you take that branch and beat him. cause you dont want a debate.. you want to demonize and flog anyone who objects to being demonized
It is not a debate I want it is an explanation why the models are accepted for policy making when they have not been validated by measurable data. To the contrary they have clearly been wrong. How can you debate the science with someone who insists the science is settled?
Betts’ olive branch was to pretend that Dr Ball had called him a Nazi.
What insight do you have that tells you what people want?
You know you are making it up. Betts and Edwards didn’t say a word about science. Not a word.
And, of course, the refusal to debate is on the record of the warmist side. Some fools still brag about it.
Are sceptics people who have a right to free speech, or people who should wait until the warmists deign to give them a lectern?
No Steven, it won’t wash. Sceptics have been calling for debate since the inane claim “the science is settled, the debate is over” was made.
I certainly don’t accuse all scientists of engaging in a big lie. But I stand behind my claim that “97% of climastrologhists are assclowns”. That claim is solid. Remember the “basic physics” of the “settled science”? The church of radiative climastrology went and treated the oceans as a near blackbody instead of a short-wave selective surface. That’s [where] the claim of surface temp of 255K being raised 33K to 288K comes from. That 255K should have been around 312K. This fist-biting error is in the very foundation of every claim made by climastrologists.
Do you think any climastrologist would welcome free and fair debate on whether the oceans are a “near blackbody” or an extreme short-wave selective surface? Those chicken littles wouldn’t dare!
Steve Mosher: “skeptics dont want a debate on the science.”
You know that’s not true, Steve.
More to the point, when you denied that climate models are curve-fits, I demonstrated that models are tuned to reproduce the climate. With more evidence here.
Your response was a bald denial of evidence directly before your eyes, followed by an ad hominem, followed by yet another fatuous attack on my published work on systematic error in surface air temperature (here and here (~1 MB pdfs both)).
After that, you ran away from the debate about model tuning. FYI: tuning = curve fitting.
You run away every time I ask you to specify the errors you claim I made in my papers. You’ve never done it. You can’t do it.
So, who is it again that doesn’t want to debate?
By the way, here’s the poster I presented at the December 2013 AGU meeting (2.9 MB pdf). It demonstrates that climate models have no predictive value. I’m ready to debate that, too.
Corrected links: I demonstrated that models are tuned to reproduce the climate. With more evidence here.
Mistreated?
They made a whiny complaint which was never substantiated by either of them, then Betts returned to snivel further, while addressing only petty comments.
Not one comment of substance or rational thought, just some kind of “respect my authority” hectoring.
Funny kind of olive branch.
Odd that Steven Mosher thinks that it was Betts and Edwards that got mistreated. You really are a piece of work, Mosher.
You goof.
Thanks to Ball. Always interesting to read.
I cannot wait!
Far better to prepare for a cooling world, and hope it doesn’t come.
To that end, secure energy resources are paramount. For with energy, food supplies can be maintained, borders, trade, and allies defended, and economies sustained. And the disease of Eco-Progressivism, a pox upon Western Societies, will pass but not without a cost to the body to rid itself of that infected, malodorous flesh.
Well spoken, PJ!
“That Others May Live!”
milodon,
I was not a PJ in my time in AFSOC flying special ops missions around the world. But I did party on occasion and have a few special ops missions with them and serve as Ops officer on SAR detachments that the PJ went into Iraq during the mid 90’s for. PJ’s are a fun bunch when the beer is flowing, and I have the greatest of respect for those guys (as well as SEALS, Rangers, ODA’s, etc). My time in the 8th SOS, the Blackbird RMO, and my time in the 1st SOW and 16th SOW are special to me; a band of brothers many times over.
What fools the IPCC, with its promoters, contortionists and extortionists, have made of us (or taken us to be).
Dr. Ball.
In all my dealings with Her Majesty’s Commonwealth Forces, whether Canada, Australia or New Zealand, I’ve always been favorably impressed with their training, professionalism & excellence, if not always their equipment. But then US weapons & gear also have problems.
Dumb of me, but I had never connected the Clan Wars & Ulster Plantation with the Little Ice Age. Thanks for that!
From now on, any study of climate must be done without air conditioned offices, without paid trips to Rio, without the tax and spend motive, too the old ones did live out in the weather and they did move about and adapt due to the weather/climate. So must the current populations.
Just a few rounded rocks leaning up on a mesas did a better job than these paid liars of the CO2 fraud.
http://www.nps.gov.chuc/index.htm
OOps
http://www.nps.gov/chuc/index.htm
oops x 2
http://www.nps.gov/chcu/index.htm
Yup, yet another culture which flourished during the high Medieval Warm Period, but was wiped out by climate change, ie drought.
For estimates of the timing and extent of the coming cooling based on the natural 60 and 1000 year periodicities in the temperature data and using the 10Be and neutron monitor data as the most useful proxy for solar “activity” check the series of posts at
http://climatesense-norpag.blogspot.com
The post at
http://climatesense-norpag.blogspot.com/2014/07/climate-forecasting-methods-and-cooling.html
is a good place to start. One of the first things impressed upon me in tutorials as an undergraduate in Geology at Oxford was the importance of considering multiple working hypotheses when dealing with scientific problems. This is really what Tim is suggesting . With regard to climate this would be a proper use of the precautionary principle .-The worst scientific error of the climate establishment is their unshakeable faith in their meaningless model ouputs and their refusal to estimate the possible impacts of a cooling rather than a warming world and then consider what strategies might best be used in adapting to the eventuality that cooling actually develops.
I disagree with the claim that it is better to prepare for a cooling world. I argue that while it may seem counter intuitive, it is better by far to do nothing at all in the current situation – just let things play out and see which way the shoe drops. If there is evidence of things going one way or the other, then we can start taking action.
The problem with any government sponsored program is that you will simply empower the leeches who will siphon at least half of the money off into their own pockets (probably more than that, in most cases) No programs means no opportunity for large scale theft.
just what Australia is doing (or trying to do) And PM Tony Abbott is being made out to be a piriah for it, one day he will be seen as the first politician with the balls to make the right decisions for his country, despite the pressures he is put under by other world leaders. I still keep coming back to the question WHY? Why is this happening, Dr Ball makes the case for either preparing for cooling (or as a second option doing nothing) but yet they still proceed with the other option….Why?
I cannot understand why everyone in Canada would not be welcoming global warming.
They worry that the populations of Washington, Idaho, Montana, North Dakota, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Michigan, Ohio, Pennisylvania, New York, Vermont, New Hampshire and Maine will want to move north.
Arggh – That should be “Pennsylvania.”
What’s matter with my home state of Indiana? I hate being left out.
Not with the roads in Canadia, eh.
Pennisylvania?
Given the current government of that that state there may be some truth to your error.
Another great article Dr. Ball – however, someone there must not be as big a fan – other writers, researchers, bloggers and scientists get an essay, post or article classification, but you get a weaker ‘Guest Opinion’ label. Seems a little unjust.
Perhaps justified because it’s more of an opinion piece than a new scientific analysis, although the good Dr. does hark back to the halcyon days when climatology was actually practiced according to the scientific method as known on Earth, before it became post-modern “climate science” about computer-generated Planet GIGO.
I don’t think governments are preparing for warming or any other kind of climate change. They are looking to expand their revenue streams (taxes) and provide financing to anyone who in even 6 degrees of separation can provide cover in their desire for expanding revenue streams and centralizing power.
In many instances, ignorantly supporting a shift to “renewables” (another meaningless term like :”Climate Change” except as a catchphrase for solar and wind), they are providing their citizens a declining standard of living and putting the elderly and poor at risk.
government + climate science = a cornacopia of bad news
cornucopia
”Governments have three options. 1. Do nothing. 2. Prepare for warming, or 3. Prepare for cooling.”
False dilemma. Governments have a multitude of options.
http://www.cei.org/PDFs/no_regrets.pdf
It isn’t necessary to prepare for cooling. Those who are best prepared for anything, are now, and will always be those who are economically strong. And the key to economic strength is as always, cheap, plentiful, and reliable energy, which happens to be the exact opposite of what the Climatists are fighting for.
Think about your comment, “… cheap, plentiful, reliable energy.” Isn’t that one of the first things you would do to prepare for a cooling planet? Wouldn’t it also be one of the things you’d do to prepare for a warming planet? Energy gives people freedom, power and independence… that’s what the Climateers are fighting against.
We are both saying the same thing. Cheap, plentiful and reliable energy is the key, no matter what the climate is doing.
Renewables are now economically at a par with fossil fuels (even without considering the enormous socialized costs of the latter – pollution, illness, climate change). They also lend themselves far better to distributed energy generation rather than building more centralized plants and infrastructure owned by oligopolies and billionaires, which I would think would appeal those who actually adhere to libertarian, small government philosophies. The fact that the WUWT echo chamber doesn’t, by and large, support investment in renewables, speaks volumes about actual motivation.
Sir Harry Flashman
December 5, 2014 at 6:27 am
Renewables are now economically at a par with fossil fuels
Not even close if reliability and dispatchability are taken into account.
Don’t tell the Germans, who are now sourcing about 1/3 of their electricity from renewables and are saving so much money that they’re doubling down on their investment. At the moment there’s still a need for back-up that’s not dependent on wind or sun conditions (I would opt for nuclear) but in ten years battery technology will make it possible to run a typical household off the grid entirely. These are enormously positive developments even if you don’t “believe” in AGW – unless your actual motivation isn’t promoting scientific truth, but the continued use of dirty energy.
The utility-scale energy storage capability is coming along faster than that. In Texas, ONCOR is planning to invest $5.2 billion in grid storage. They’d commissioned a study by the Brattle Group which concluded that costs of battery storage is dropping very rapidly – could be halved by 2020.
“Due to recent development, electricity storage appears to be on the verge of becoming quite
economically attractive. Most importantly, several battery storage manufacturers have indicated
that their costs will decrease substantially over the next few years. Public reports now forecast
cost declines from the current $700–$3,000 per kWh of installed electricity storage in 2014 to
less than half of that over the next three years.2 Some analyst projections and vendor quotes
point to even more significant cost reductions, forecasting that the installed costs of battery
systems will drop to approximately $350/kWh by 2020.3 At these much lower system costs,
many innovative applications of electricity storage could be cost effective.”
Here’s the report link http://tinyurl.com/nqsjswa
http://www.bizjournals.com/dallas/blog/2014/11/oncors-plan-for-batteries-on-its-grid-called.html
http://www.utilitydive.com/news/inside-sce-and-oncors-big-plans-to-deploy-utility-scale-storage/331838/
You’re right Bruce. I flipped your original comment about some in my head yesterday hence my “clarification.” I guess it was to myself.
Let’s just remove Panama and be done with it. Better get to digging…
Nothing in this article makes sense. There is no evidence whatsoever that the world is cooling. There is ample evidence that it is heating up, notably temperature readings showing that it’s heating up.
And comparing the unfounded wingnut ice age theories of the 70’s (that were never accepted by mainstream climate science) with the decades of research in multiple fields that prove AGW is comparing apples to accordions.
Wrong. We have had some, rather unremarkable warming during the last century and that is all you can say. The warming has stopped now for about 18 years and counting, and we appear to be heading into a cooling phase, the length and severity of which can only be guessed at. If we’re lucky, it will only last a few decades.
Sure, that’s it. Move along folks, nothing to see here… http://news.sciencemag.org/climate/2014/12/antarctic-ice-shelf-being-eaten-away-sea
What evidence do you have that we are heading into a cooling phase?
Sir Harry Flashman
December 5, 2014 at 6:23 am
What evidence do you have that we are heading into a cooling phase?
Solar output. Dalton Minimum. Maunder Minimum.
Yet with solar output very slightly declining, the 80s, then the 90s, then the 2000s have each been the warmest decade in the instrument record, and the 2010’s so far are in good shape to continue that trend.
The slight decline in solar input is more than counterbalanced by greenhouse warming.
Sir,
If you think ‘Science’ is honest take a look at what some ‘Scientists’ get up to.
Another batch of them colluding to get a pesticide banned,read it here.
http://www.thegwpf.com/green-scientists-accused-of-plotting-to-get-pesticides-banned/
That’s also nonsense. Notice how there are no sources, no facts, and no documentation in the story? Beyond that, do you really think that thousands of scientists have nothing better to do than engage in pointless conspiracies just to piss you off? Oh wait, you do.
D.I. Posting a link to an anti-regulation web site, mentioning a supposed conspiracy – details supposedly hidden behind a paywall? Puh-leez.
So your “proof” mentions four scientists. Read through the number of authors and papers in theis Google Scholar search on “neonicotinoids bees” and notice how quickly you count beyond four.
http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=neonicotinoid+bees&btnG=&as_sdt=1%2C14
And what does bee research have to do with climate? Are you shutting off your computer and avoiding medicine now, because they use science, and someone hinted four bee researchers were up to something?
So, real historical data on cyclical glaciation vs. unproven chaos unleashed by a 3% increase in the .04% atmospheric amount of a trace gas vital to all photosynthetic life and therefore almost all life on the planet… got it.
Dismissing science you don’t understand doesn’t make it less true.
Harry, you might want to look up “Quaternary glacial cycles” just for fun. Then you might want to look at the real thermodynamic and physical properties of CO2 and then look at some un-manipulated temperature data sets… say from some sensor systems that have a lot of coverage and don’t have a lot of biases, like satellites.
Yes, I understand the physics and science quite well and looking at the fact that we’re 12ky into our current interglacial and the last on only went about 15ky and the real temperature increases of the last century or so are well within the error range of natural variability and technology, I’d rather hang my hat on that data over the unproven hypothesis that a trace gas is grabbing extra energy several orders of magnitude higher than anything ever seen in history.
Two things.
1. I’ll correct your typo. “…it’s heating up.” should be “…it had heated up.” (The last 18+ years and all that.)
2. Are temperature readings from before or after Hansen “et al” got their hands on them?
You may want to look at this also:
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2012/08/watts_et_al_2012_button.png?w=180&h=180
PS Here’s a nice little summary I just now came across.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2014/12/2014-a-record-warm-year-probably-not/
If all your evidence refers back to this site, maybe you should be questioning that. There is SO much evidence, and it’s become obvious even to the casual observer that things are seriously wonky.
Long-term the world is cooling & has been for over 3000 years. Intermediate term, it has been warming for around 300 years. The recent warm spell was nothing out of the ordinary. For the past 18 to 26 years, global temperature has been flat, neither warming nor cooling. But in the most trustworthy data set, it has been cooling for about a decade, slightly.
You’re wrong about the cooling concern of the 1970s. It was accepted by mainstream climatology, because in fact the world had been cooling since the 1940s, despite steadily rising CO2. In fact, many hoped for GHG induced warming to combat that worrisome trend.
I’m willing to look into the acceptance or otherwise of the 70’s cooling theory, I don’t know a lot about it so could be wrong.
Sir Harry… Your statement “unfounded wingnut ice age theories of the 70’s that were never accepted by mainstream climate science”. May be true but they were certainly accepted by the main stream news media. Who were they getting that ice age stuff from?
You’re right that some scientists came up with it, and because the media love doomsday stories, it made big press. However, I don’t think it was ever widely accepted.If you look at this article, at the peak of the cooling craze, six times as many published papers supported warming. http://www.skepticalscience.com/ice-age-predictions-in-1970s.htm
So Sir Harry, the press have it right this time?
Hmmm, well the press say a lot of things. But to the degree that they’re saying that AGW is real, and an existential threat to our civilization, yes, I do believe they have it right. I readily acknowledge there’s a lot of uncertainty in there – how fast will it happen? How serious will the impacts be, and where? What will be required to avoid the worst consequences? But generally, yes, I think the evidence is incontrovertible, so I’m agreeing the with press on this one.
“…wingnut ice age theories of the 70’s (that were never accepted by mainstream climate science)…”
Steve Goddard has extensive documentation of the global cooling theory being put forward by leading climatologists in that period.
James, do you think that the leading alarmist scientist of today will become “not the leading scientist” in the future?
In my part of the world winter is coming sooner and the last 10 years the winters have been colder, while the summers are just as pleasant as they were in my childhood. The only difference that i have noticed in my global position is winter is longer and more brutal. Therefore i lean towards cooling. Do not give a toss what government payroll scientists say.
Thanks, Dr. Ball.
A very good article. It’s a pity the Canadians won’t publish your work.
Who are “the Canadians” exactly? And where should this work be published, in your opinion?
Below are some of the effects of the Little Ice Age from the peer review.
In short we had crop failures, hunger, mass migration, epidemics, great storms in the North Atlantic, Europe wide witch hunts, endemic Malaria in England & part of the Arctic Circle, higher wildfire frequency in circumboreal forests, strong droughts in central Africa (1400–1750), social unrest in China, dead Central American coral reef, century-scale droughts in East Africa, large increases in flood magnitude (upper Mississippi tributaries), environmental and economic deterioration in Norway, decline in average height of Northern European men, climate became drier on the Yucatan Peninsula, sudden and catastrophic end of the Norse Western Settlement in Greenland, River Thames freeze-overs, agro-ecological, socioeconomic, and demographic catastrophes, leading to the General Crisis of the Seventeenth Century.
wws
I agree that to do nothing is the best option, because bigger government is never better government.
I considered that option, but decided that there is a need to counter the damage already done. However, the actions I would propose are all passive, designed to dismantle and restore balance, so a do nothing situation can occur.
This is the sort of good work that any reasonable person could endorse.
How can they ever get the weather right when it seems they never look out the window.
Here’s a map from the NWS that shows all that snow today around the Buffalo area … and I’m in an area covered in white, with a bit of blue to boot. A similar map was showing the same thing Tuesday … before it even started snowing … and it kept showing the snow all through yesterday, through all the rain.
Now I can go outside and look for miles in all directions and see bare (and still green) ground. Not a hint of snow. And after a few hours of real sunlight, even the ground is rather soft, not frozen solid.
http://www.nohrsc.noaa.gov/snow_model/images/full/Southern_Great_Lakes/nsm_depth/201412/nsm_depth_2014120405_Southern_Great_Lakes.jpg
These NWS dudes need to look out their windows now and again … and maybe tweak an algorithm or two.
“…….Today’s activists would push for adding more CO2 to offset the cooling. ……..”
Uh, no, they would not .
CO2 was purposely selected as the major AGW pollutant because the AGW proponents wish to literally shut down the CAPITALIST advanced industrial economies, in particular that of the USA.
This is the sole and ENTIRE purpose of the AGW zealots; it has absolutely nothing at all to do with climate or the environment,
It is simply a ploy, a scam, a charade akin to implementing a “workers paradise,” or seeking a little ‘”lebensraum” to improve the plight of the citizenry. The entire AGW movement was originated by leftist progressives who were left out in the cold when their beloved, heaven on earth USSR fell apart; their main counterweight to the imperialist, root-of-all-evil in the world USA.
If the evidence begins to show unequivocally that the earth is cooling it WILL be blamed on CO2 and on human activity. The AGW neo-communist-fascists have literally developed a holy grail theory that real physicists have been seeking for 75 years; a ” theory of everything.”
Leftists never, ever give up; the 100,000,000 exterminated in the 20th century by leftist regimes notwithstanding.
Many of us are of the opinion that the chances of cooling going forward are near 100%.
CO2 is a non player in the global climate picture as past historical data has shown.
CO2 and the GHG effects are a result of the climate not the cause in my opinion.
I maintain these 5 factors cause the climate to change and they are:
Initial State Of The Climate – How close climate is to threshold inter-glacial/glacial conditions
Milankovitch Cycles – Consisting of tilt , precession , and eccentricity of orbit. Low tilt, aphelion occurring in N.H. summer favorable for cooling.
Earth Magnetic Field Strength – which will moderate or enhance solar variability effects through the modulation of cosmic rays.
Solar Variability – which will effect the climate through primary changes and secondary effects. My logic here is if something that drives something (the sun drives the climate) changes it has to effect the item it drives.
Some secondary/primary solar effects are ozone distribution and concentration changes which effects the atmospheric circulation and perhaps translates to more cloud/snow cover- higher albebo.
Galactic Cosmic Ray concentration changes translates to cloud cover variance thus albedo changes.
Volcanic Activity – which would put more SO2 in the stratosphere causing a warming of the stratosphere but cooling of the earth surface due to increase scattering and reflection of incoming sunlight.
Solar Irradiance Changes-Visible /Long wave UV light changes which will effect ocean warming/cooling.
Ocean/Land Arrangements which over time are always different. Today favorable for cooling in my opinion.
How long (duration) and degree of magnitude change of these items combined with the GIVEN state of the climate and how they all phase (come together) will result in what kind of climate outcome, comes about from the given changes in these items. Never quite the same and non linear with possible thresholds.. Hence the best that can be forecasted for climatic change is only in a broad general sense.
In that regard in broad terms my climatic forecast going forward is for global temperatures to trend down in a jig-saw pattern while the atmospheric circulation remains meridional.
THE CRITERIA
Solar Flux avg. sub 90
Solar Wind avg. sub 350 km/sec
AP index avg. sub 5.0
Cosmic ray counts north of 6500 counts per minute
Total Solar Irradiance off .15% or more
EUV light average 0-105 nm sub 100 units (or off 100% or more) and longer UV light emissions around 300 nm off by several percent.
IMF around 4.0 nt or lower.
The above solar parameter averages following several years of sub solar activity in general which commenced in year 2005..
IF , these average solar parameters are the rule going forward for the remainder of this decade expect global average temperatures to fall by -.5C, with the largest global temperature declines occurring over the high latitudes of N.H. land areas.
The decline in temperatures should begin to take place within six months after the ending of the maximum of solar cycle 24.
“Many of us” Many of who? Because we’re clearly not talking about climate scientists.
Because we’re clearly not talking about climate scientists.
True that. But scientists don’t matter. Reality does. Phlogiston. Piltdown Man
The simple fact is that the U.S. public probably would not tolerate the enormous government spending going into global warming if the public were getting the bills. To date, it’s all been lost in the fog of deficit spending. In pockets such as California, where a carbon tax and renewable power mandates have been imposed, the financial chickens are about to come home to roost. I’ll be interested to see if that inevitable arrival changes California’s “save the planet” mentality.
Dr. Ball:
You wrote, “Meanwhile, governments prepare solely for warming…”
I beg to differ. Most Western governments are squandering resources in an effort to ‘mitigate’ the purported future warming.
Viable, economical and reliable energy sources are being scrapped, to be replaced by uneconomical and unreliable sources. This acts as a burden on the entire economy, further reducing preparedness.
they’re preparing in parts of Canada already:
2 Dec: Victoria News: Andrea Peacock: Cold weather increases need for emergency shelter
For the first time this season, the Greater Victoria Extreme Weather Protocol increased the amount of available emergency shelter mats beyond the standard amount on Monday.
According to Environment Canada, the coldest day in the last few days was Sunday (Nov. 30) morning at -3.7 C. By comparison, the recorded low on Nov. 30 last year was 6.5 C…
Currently McKenzie said Our Place is in need of warm winter clothing donations, including socks, toques, underwear, sleeping bags, blankets and winter coats…
http://www.vicnews.com/news/284490581.html
28 Nov: CBC: Pearson’s new plan of attack for winter weather
On Thursday, the Greater Toronto Airports Authority announced a number of new steps that will be followed when severe winter weather strikes…
For staff, the airport will ensure that warming stations are available when extreme cold sets in. New equipment has been purchased for snow removal…
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/pearson-s-new-plan-of-attack-for-winter-weather-1.2852634
Er, yeah we call that “winter” up here, and not even the most enthusiastic AGW believer thinks it’s going away anytime soon. Probably not a good argument on which to base your denialism.
Flash man:
You obviously have no contribution to make concerning science. Nothing but snark so far.
If you object to the tone, here are some facts restated in a more neutral way. Canadians preparing for winter weather says absolutely nothing about the possibility of global cooling, since winter will continue, and indeed snowfall (at least for the next few decades) will increase due to warmer air drawing up more moisture.
Flash man:
Now we have your measure as a scientist. Global warming= colder winters.
You are one of those types who swallow down at HotWhopper or sks and come spew up here.
in Asia, they’d be happy with a little global warming!
PICS: 4 Dec: GlobalVoices: Japan’s Long Winter Has Only Just Begun
Japan is experiencing the first early-December cold wave in eight years…
According to meteorologists, from December 1 to December 12 Japan can expect cold temperatures and winter conditions normally seen only in February.
The cold winter weather makes for excellent television of wind-driven storm surges, hazardous driving conditions, and snowy landscapes as “intense cold invades the Japanese archipelago, causing damage throughout the country.”…
With this latest cold snap, the northenmost island of Hokkaido is already socked in, as this Instagram photo of Rumoi demonstrates…
http://globalvoicesonline.org/2014/12/04/photos-japans-long-winter-has-only-just-begun/
3 Dec: CCTV: Temperatures plunge in northwest China
The Inner Mongolia Autonomous Region in north China has seen temperatures nose dive by 22 degrees Celsius in less than 48 hours. With arctic gales triggering sandstorms, visibility has gone below 50 meters in some areas. Police were called in overnight to rescue sheep scattered by the gales. In neighboring Xinjiang Uygur Autonomous Region, workers of a local forest farm were trapped…
In other sections of the road, avalanches trapped dozens of vehicles. “The road is too slippery. We’ve spent two and a half days stuck here,” a trapped driver from Xinyuan county said…
In Changchun, the capital city of Jilin province in northeast China, the first snow of the season brought more reports of traffic accidents…
http://www.cctv-america.com/2014/12/03/temperatures-plunge-in-northwest-china
Hi there,
I am the author of the Global Voices post linked-to above.
The early winter and heavy snows this year are related to changes in the Jet Stream. The changes in the Jet Stream are linked paradoxically to *warmer* Arctic temperatures.
The warmer Arctic temperatures create a temperature differential that distorts the Jet Stream, bringing it further south earlier in the season, which in turn brings colder temperatures and more snow in this case.
So you can have both a warming planet and a locally cooler winter.
Nevin Thompson says:
So you can have both a warming planet and a locally cooler winter.
Sure. As if.
Barrow’s low today will be eight degrees colder than normal & a lot colder than the same date last year.
http://www.arh.noaa.gov/wmofcst_pf.php?wmo=CDAK49PABR&type=public
Nevin_T.
1.The planet is not warming, as temp. trends this century show.
2. By your logic, if it does start to warm, there will be another ice age.
Your pseudoscience concoction belongs at HotWhopper, not here.Get lost.
You’re not very good at science.
Sir Harry Flashman
December 6, 2014 at 5:03 pm
You’re not very good at science.
Piltdown Man. Phlogiston.
Below are examples of why we must resist global warming solutions.
Excellent point.
” Ironically, producing plants for the new conditions, that with plant breeding traditionally takes 15 to 18 years from lab to field, is now possible in less than 2 years, thanks to genetic modification. Of course, that is also unacceptable for environmentalists and many governments, but they may be responsible for reduced options.”
The new method, marker assisted selection (MAS), is delivering on the promises of engineering plants faster and it doesn’t change the protein structure. It is so successful in fact in beating the 2cd generation of plant modifications (aka GMO) that the big agribusiness companies are buying them up left and right. The second generation failed to deliver anything like what they promised so hopefully they don’t screw up the MAS products they buy.
Once explained most people who oppose GMOs are actually open to MAS. The recurring theme is “don’t spray Roundup on my food and expect me to pay for it much less eat it”. Studies that show problems like Dr. Judy Carman’s double blind piglet study and other don’t instill confidence in industry assurances and 3 month studies.
As to traditional process, 1st generation modifications (selective breeding, etc) it still has lots of legs left as shown by the university of Saskatchewan’s work with haskap plants. Good to climate zone 2 and can withstand frost on open blossoms down to -7C. They did a whole lot in less than 10 years. Varieties for size, mechanical picking, taste etc etc. I’ve got all 6 varieties growing in my garden and was eating them in the second year. Great stuff.
preparing for cooling has a side benefit of (if done right) adding cheap energy which also helps poverty levels.
no government anywhere can sit there and do nothing so preparing for cooling is the best option.
Another good point, although I’m generally opposed to new government actions.
That image of the 1985 Villach expedition could so easily be a recapitulation of Scott’s famous photograph from Antarctica:
http://www.blupete.com/Scott/Images/Scott%20Birthday.
Hubris in the face of weather.
try again
http://www.blupete.com/Scott/Images/Scott%20Birthday.jpg
Do I see two bottles on the table with attached CO2 cartridges?
It’s the first week of summer, Christchurch, New Zealand, I’m rugged up trying to keep warm in 11 degrees (52 F), and I have this mental image of the Antarctic growing up towards us (discussed in that purely hypothetical post a while ago now). I used to be able to grow tomatoes, cucumbers and courgettes, and even the odd capsicum. I don’t mind the ups and downs of weather, though. What really bugs me is when I talk about the high temperatures and droughts of the late 70s and early 80s here, and people simply frown and reject it: it MUST be warmer now. At the time the media talked about farmers walking off the land and having increased rates of suicide, but in a bizarre airbrushing of history all this has been forgotten.
Ditto with the rug in Christchurch RGP.
The MetService says its the coolest start to Summer since 2006,…
“It’s unseasonable, but it’s not [completely] unusual,”
MetService forecaster Richard Finnie said.
[completely]? – who added that? Sub-Editor? Reporter?
so its Incompletely normal? (but mostly normal)
Periodically Typical? (unquestionably unsinister)
Episodically unremarkable? (getting harder to hide the decline?)
Pity power is so expensive, we have a large aging population ill positioned to pay more for less.
Plenty of indicators that the lights go out and stay out, even in winter, when the 65+ age group hit a cold spell. Still waiting for the Govt to drop its emissions trading scheme, which has hiked the price of everything, of course it serves the big corporates who up their prices and pass the cost onto customers who do what?….they stop buying, or buying as much.
Funny how that works.
John Finn
Somehow you think that increasing CO2 will raise SST. This is error.
Your confusion on these matters is, I believe, typical of many who embrace AGW theory.
The oceans cool by evaporation.Water is opaque to IR, and IR cannot warm water, it only increases evaporation. The GHE has no effect on SST whatsoever, nor GHG, nor CO2.
The recent trend of increasing SST was due to increased insolation.
John’s confusion is that he bases his thoughts on physics rather than wishful thinking, which is what true “skeptics: like yourself base your thoughts on. There are few examples of such wishful thinking as dramatic as the claim that amounts to saying the ocean can’t absorb IR because water is too good an absorber of IR (and hence it gets absorbed very close to the surface)!
Your claims that downwelling IR just leads to more evaporation is nonsense. The amount of downwelling IR greatly exceeds the total amount of evaporative cooling of the surface (which is known to good accuracy since it can basically be calculated once you know the global average precipitation and you look up the latent heat of vaporization for water).
The thing about science is it doesn’t give care what you want to be true because of your political ideology. Just wishing the science would be the way that would conform to your ideology won’t make it so.
Joeldshore:
See the absorbency spectrum of water with respect to depth of IR absorbance.
Also see experiments wherein IR was directed at the surface of water.
IR cannot warm water, this by the immutable laws of radiative physics, or have you forgot? Or maybe you never knew.
This is the first ad hominen that I have seen from you. I must have touched a real tender spot.
joeldshore
December 4, 2014 at 6:16 pm
///////////////////////////////////////////////
”There are few examples of such wishful thinking as dramatic as the claim that amounts to saying the ocean can’t absorb IR because water is too good an absorber of IR (and hence it gets absorbed very close to the surface)!”
Those claiming that incident LWIR has no significant effect on water that is free to evaporatively cool are correct. LWIR is absorbed in the first 100 microns of the skin evaporation layer. This is what empirical experiment shows –
http://i42.tinypic.com/2h6rsoz.jpg
– fill both sample chambers with 40C water and record their cooling rate over 30min. You will note no significant difference between the samples under the weak and strong LWIR sources. Now repeat the experiment but put a couple of drops of baby oil on the surface of each water sample to prevent evaporation. Both sample can now only cool by conduction and radiation. Now the sample under the strong LWIR source cools slower. This is not “wishful thinking” this is science. (molecular/kinetic physics, to be precise)
Remember when Minnett went out on the ocean and tried to show LWIR variance causing a significant effect in surface temps? He failed. Even with taking most measurements during the day so SW scattering from clouds could assist, the results were an order of magnitude less that the hypothesis that DWLWIR was keeping the oceans from freezing claimed.
Genghis here at WUWT has taken similar measurements on the ocean. Same result. Sky LWIR fluctuation is not having a significant effect on ocean temps.
Any guess why Minnett didn’t just do a simple lab experiment like the one shown here? I challenge you to produce evidence of a single climastrologist actually showing this claimed 33K effect for the oceans in a clean, simple repeatable lab experiment. I bet you can’t.
”The thing about science is it doesn’t give care what you want to be true because of your political ideology. Just wishing the science would be the way that would conform to your ideology won’t make it so”
That is a lesson that climastrologists and believers would do well to learn 😉
DWLWIR need not be invoked to keep the oceans 33K above near blackbody temperature of 255K for an average of 240w/m2 of solar insolation. The simple answer, from empirical experiment, is that the oceans are an extreme SW selective surface, not a near blackbody. The diurnal cycle of solar radiation penetrating deep into the oceans and peeking at around 1000w/m2 is more than enough to drive our oceans to 335K or beyond were it not for cooling by our radiatively cooled atmosphere. Climastrologists are not right, they are not even wrong.
mpainter,
Yes it touched a nerve because it is so frustrating to see people make arguments based on wishful thinking. I am not disputing the fact that water is such a strong absorber of IR that most of the absorption happens very near the surface because the IR can’t penetrate very far.
However, to think that this energy just magically disappears from the energy balance, whisked away by evaporating water molecules never to be seen again is nonsense. It can mixed down…and the warmed surface regions can reduce cooling of the ocean. It doesn’t just disappear and it has to remain in the Earth’s energy balance.
Even Willis has done posts where he has explained why these arguments of IR being unable to cause temperature changes to the ocean are nonsense. (If it couldn’t, then the oceans would be frozen, since the only reason they are not is because of the greenhouse effect.)
Joeldshore,
But it cannot be mixed down, it is converted to latent heat too rapidly.
The surface characteristics of water (I.e., the surface tension) allow no mixing of the top 100 microns, or so.
IR does not pass this zone. At the evaporative rate of one cm/day (as typical in the tropics)= ~7 microns/min.
Most of the IR is caught in those top 7 microns.
joeldshore
December 5, 2014 at 4:11 pm
//////////////////////////////////////////////
”Even Willis has done posts where he has explained why these arguments of IR being unable to cause temperature changes to the ocean are nonsense. (If it couldn’t, then the oceans would be frozen, since the only reason they are not is because of the greenhouse effect.)”
Yes, Willis did make this fist-biting mistake in 2011. Just as climastrologists do, he treated the oceans as a near blackbody not a short-wave selective surface. Big mistake. The net effect of the radiatively cooled atmosphere over the oceans is cooling not warming.
joeldshore,
mpainter consistently “forgets” that latent heat is a two-way street. And even when I remind him that water vapor condensing back to liquid is an exothermic process he ignores it. Never mind that precipitation falling on the surface picks up sensible heat before being carried back out to the oceans from whence it came. And then, by gosh, the fact that water blocks most IR but allows far more incoming solar energy might just be an important factor.
Net flux via multiple transfer routes just isn’t a concept that can be accepted — if it’s even comprehended in the first place — because that’s pretty much the whole ball of wax.
Brandon:
Latent heat is two ways?
In this remark you show your utter lack of comprehension of convective cooling of the atmosphere.
mpainter,
The latent heat carried away from the surface via evaporation still needs to make it through the atmosphere and back out to space. How is it that you think that proper empirical practice is to ignore every step of the water cycle after the first one?
Brandon
I have to guess your meaning.
You seem to ascribe to me some sort of fault for not describing the water cycle.
I see water vapor (the GHE) as merely a stage in the cooling of the surface. We have been through this before, quite thoroughly. The greater the water vapor, the lower tmax., the less the water vapor, the higher tmax. Water, in all its phases, acts as a coolent in net effect. I realize that this does not conform to AGW conventions. But AGW is a foundering hypothesis. I cite observations.
This of course under solar forcing. Otherwise, residual heat escape (night) may be retarded by higher water vapor levels, I.e., IR flux.
Brandon Gates
December 5, 2014 at 5:05 pm
///////////////////////////////////////////
” How is it that you think that proper empirical practice is to ignore every step of the water cycle after the first one?”
Sceptics are not ignoring anything. But climastrologists are. Energy entering the atmosphere is transferred to altitude by convective circulation, where it is then radiated to space. Water vapour and condensed water (clouds are the strongest LWIR source in the atmosphere) play a critical role in radiating energy to space.
Now what are climastrologists intentionally ignoring? Radiative-subsidence. They have made a concerted effort since 1995 to write the excepted meteorology of radiative-subsidence out of science. They try to invoke “immaculate convection” that does not depend on radiative-subsidence. If they hold the speed of tropospheric convective circulation constant for increasing radiative gas concentration, then their models falsely show near surface warming and high altitude cooling.
Let’s take a quick look at a 2D CFD model (GCM’s don’t do CFD in the vertical dimension) showing what would happen if the atmosphere could only heat and cool at the surface and there was no radiative-subsidence –
http://i60.tinypic.com/dfj314.jpg
– very simple, no radiative gases and our atmosphere would superheat, with its temperature driven by surface Tmax.
mpainter,
Odd. I thought I’d been quite clear.
No seem about it. Ever hear the one about six blind men and the elephant?
No kidding. When we first began discussing this, I was the one who pointed that out on the energy budget chart. THEN you waded in with “oh yeah, what about the Sahara?” Which IS a great question. Too bad you only want to talk about mid-afternoon highs instead of pre-dawn lows. It’s quite interesting how the whole picture fits together. But that’s just me.
And we’re back to tunnel vision. What about Tmin when the sun isn’t out? [I see in your follow-on post that, at long last, you mention it.] What might that do to Tavg, hmmm? Recall that the Amazon has got nearly the same exact annual mean temperature as the Sahara.
Worse. It doesn’t conform to high school chemistry. In fact, let’s just dump the entire 1st law of thermodynamics while we’re at it since Al Gore probably claimed it as his own somewhere along the way.
Only the ones that support your point of view. This is probably why you have staunchly refused to discuss overnight minimum temps, average daily temps … and latent heat of condensation, which is, you know, part of the water cycle. And also happens to be an exothermic process.
Finally he gets it!!! No may about it. Go back to the SURFRAD data. The effect shows up quite clearly if you correlate nighttime temps with absolute humidity.
Konrad,
You don’t speak for all climate contrarians.
Riiiiight. The reason you know so much about climate is that dentists have done the premier research on it.
You’re wading into the middle of a conversation wherin I’ve already gone through ALL of that.
Indeed. Stratospheric cooling was a predicted effect of increasing levels of atmospheric CO2 concentration.
Right now would be a good place for you to insert a citation. In the meantime, read this one: http://www.cesm.ucar.edu/events/ws.2013/presentations/AMWG/romps.pdf
All kinds of “models are wrong!” fodder there for you.
I’m having trouble believing I just read that. You need to remember that a (clear-sky) chunk of atmosphere radiates omnidirectionally and ponder the net up/down flux of an air parcel close to the surface vs. one at altitude … i.e., closer to deep space. Keep it simple at first: dry air, no clouds. And then kindly take whoever wrote that 2D CFD out back to the woodshed for a tuneup.
Brandon Gates
December 5, 2014 at 11:27 pm
////////////////////////////////////////////////
”You don’t speak for all climate contrarians.”
True, but I speak for some of those not so stupid as to be “lukewarmers”.
”Riiiiight. The reason you know so much about climate is that dentists have done the premier research on it.”
Still not getting it? You and yours pissed the engineers off. Now we are coming for you and yours. You called us “holocaust deniers”. There will be no forgiveness. Every activist, journalist or politician of the Left who ever vilified sceptics will be politically destroyed. This includes the UN and its vile spawn the WMO, UNEP and IPCC.
”I’m having trouble believing I just read that. You need to remember that a (clear-sky) chunk of atmosphere radiates omnidirectionally and ponder the net up/down flux of an air parcel close to the surface vs. one at altitude … i.e., closer to deep space. Keep it simple at first: dry air, no clouds. And then kindly take whoever wrote that 2D CFD out back to the woodshed for a tuneup.”
You’re having trouble sweetheart? Well that would be because you are a GoreBull Warbling believer with no understanding of physics. You didn’t pass engineering did you? You don’t have an honours degree in applied engineering do you?
You think the person who ran that CFD needs a “tune up”? What escaped your tiny mind? I ran that CFD! It involves no clouds or water vapour, idiot. If you had the slightest scientific literacy you should have seen that. That was a dry gas run!!! Just how inane are AGW believers?!
Konrad,
So amusing. The most prominent lukewarmers happen to represent the majority of climate contrarians that actually publish original research in primary literature. What have you produced other than calling those who are ostensibly on your side “stupid”? [Ah, ok, the CFD is your own, but still …] Do you have a GCM that beats the CMIP5 ensemble? Since this is all so cut and dried for you, cough it up, genius.
Now you’re putting me on the hook as the speaker for all warmists and speaking for all engineers. You’ve got some sack, that’s for sure.
Here’s the deal. I ultimately speak for one person: me. Either deal primarily with me and my own arguments or sod off.
You’re running very low on substantive arguments I see. But if you want to play the personal expertise card, where’s your PhD in atmospheric chemistry? With honours if you please. From a top university.
Obviously.
Well no wonder you’ve gotten so rambunctious.
From one image with very little other context? No attempt to describe your calculations? Are you telling me that the new standard for premier journals should be pictures only?
What gas(ses)? What flux hitting the surface? Constant or variable flux? Constant angle or variable? If constant, what angle? Albedo and emissivity of the surface? At what wavelengths? Or did you treat the surface as a perfect blackbody across all wavelengths? I see you end up with a roughly isothermic atmosphere, but does that all come from sensible heat transfers at the surface or do you take into account Rayleigh scattering of incoming radiation from multiple angles of incidence? Aside from the total lack of moisture — which is fine — how close do you think you are to approximating average real-world clear sky dry conditions?
All those initial questions aside, let’s address the one I implied the first time: if your dry atmosphere is all but completely transparent to IR, how in the heck would the surface itself ever get hotter than its theoretical black or greybody temperature?
Again with wallpaper paste brush. Ok then. Just how inane are you AGW deniers to tell us that models aren’t evidence, then turn on a dime and say “my model proves that you’re inane”?
You’re a hoot, I’ll give you that. By the way, you still owe me a cite for: Now what are climastrologists intentionally ignoring? Radiative-subsidence. They have made a concerted effort since 1995 to write the excepted meteorology of radiative-subsidence out of science. They try to invoke “immaculate convection” that does not depend on radiative-subsidence.
Brandon Gates
December 6, 2014 at 6:03
////////////////////////////////////////////
”So amusing. The most prominent lukewarmers happen to represent the majority of climate contrarians that actually publish original research in primary literature.”
“Prominent lukewarmers that happen to represent..”?? Not getting it are you? Sceptics are not collectivists like yours. Herding sceptics would be like trying to herd cats. We are not represented by anyone except ourselves. First genuine grassroots movement of the Internet age. Your pathetic Alisky techniques have no power now.
”What have you produced other than calling those who are ostensibly on your side “stupid”?”
Glad you asked. I design and run the multiple empirical experiments that disprove the radiative GHE hypothesis that is the foundation for the AGW hoax. I then refine these experiments so high school students can replicate them and publish them on the web. This is an important step as future young people need to be armed to discredit every one of their teachers who is a warmulonian. A simple way of stopping the Fabian “long march through the institutions” 😉
”Do you have a GCM that beats the CMIP5 ensemble? Since this is all so cut and dried for you, cough it up, genius.”
I am skilled enough at programming (my first job) to understand why GCMs can’t work. They don’t have the power to do CFD in the vertical dimension for a global run. I don’t need to have a better GCM to restore the null hypothesis. All I need do is prove that the underlying assumptions in the present models are false. Too easy. The oceans are an extreme short-wave selective surface not a “near blackbody”. I provide the empirical experiments for others to replicate that prove this.
”You’ve got some sack, that’s for sure.”
Indeed. Heavy and pendulous. I am a contractor, called onto engineering problems when others have failed. My hourly rates are unpleasantly steep, and I admit it’s all based on a simple trick. In engineering conflicts, look not at where both sides are disagreeing, but where they both agree. There will be the mistake (80% of the time). In the case of climastrologists vs lukewarmers it’s the surface without atmosphere at 255K assumption. The simplest empirical experiment proves this assumption utterly wrong.
”Here’s the deal. I ultimately speak for one person: me. Either deal primarily with me and my own arguments or sod off.”
I’d deal primarily with your arguments if you could understand radiative physics or spacecraft thermal control problems. (you know, selective surfaces…?)
”You’re running very low on substantive arguments I see. But if you want to play the personal expertise card, where’s your PhD in atmospheric chemistry? With honours if you please. From a top university.”
You what? Sorry, my aero work has lead to my team wining institute of engineers presidents award and been exhibited in a technology museum. I need a PHD in atmospheric chemistry??? Oooh! Is this one of those inane “you wouldn’t get a mechanic to diagnose you heart condition” arguments? It won’t work on me. “you have to be a climastrologist” carries no weight to someone who out thinks PHD’s in unrelated fields as part of their day job. PHD = Pile it on Higher and Deeper.
”From one image with very little other context? No attempt to describe your calculations? Are you telling me that the new standard for premier journals should be pictures only?”
Awwwh bless, you needed context sweetheart? Here you go, radiation wasn’t involved –
http://i48.tinypic.com/124fry8.jpg
– just a CFD model of an old experiment. Height of energy entry and exit for a fluid column in a gravity field is critical to determining temperature profile. No radiative gases and our atmosphere superheats. Simple.
”All those initial questions aside, let’s address the one I implied the first time: if your dry atmosphere is all but completely transparent to IR, how in the heck would the surface itself ever get hotter than its theoretical black or greybody temperature?”
Because the surface of the planet is not a “near blackbody” it is an extreme short-wave selective surface!!!! Just how hard is this to understand??
”Just how inane are you AGW deniers to tell us that models aren’t evidence, then turn on a dime and say “my model proves that you’re inane”?”
Well that ones a keeper. 😉
I run FEA computer models for my day job, I don’t consider them evidence, just back up. I never claimed that any model proved that you were inane, but my empirical experiments prove it beyond a shadow of a doubt.
You’re a hoot, I’ll give you that.”
The only issue is who has the last laugh? Guess what? It’s the hard sceptics, not the lukewarmers. And the warmulonians? Game over…
”By the way, you still owe me a cite for: Now what are climastrologists intentionally ignoring? Radiative-subsidence. They have made a concerted effort since 1995 to write the excepted meteorology of radiative-subsidence out of science. They try to invoke “immaculate convection” that does not depend on radiative-subsidence”
Don’t know your climate debate history? Start with Prerriehumbert in 1995 with his “choked radiator” (initially radiative gases cause atmospheric cooling but then the unicorn/rainbow ratio goes negative and then they cause warming). Then progress to “travesty” Trenberth 2010 claiming polewise energy flow drives tropospheric convective circulation not radiative subsidence.
But if you want the real pointers to the squealing malfeasance at play you need to look to the history of the old “high altitude stratospheric ice clouds will cause additional warming” claims. These papers appeared between 2000 and 2005. Then they were buried. The claim was global warming would cause increased evaporation and increased high altitude ice clouds. These clouds could reflect IR back to the troposphere, reducing radiative subsidence, slowing tropospheric convective circulation and therefore slowing energy transport from the surface and cause surface warming. The authors needed to be silenced. They thought they were helping “the Cause”, but the core players knew that any mention of the role of radiation in the speed of tropospheric convective circulation must be eased from record. Hence the M2010 discussion paper debate. Imagine diabatic processes influencing atmospheric circulation?! “Shut up” they argued…
Konrad,
You’re switching up your story now. You lead with radiative subsidence is being ignored. Now you’re saying computational power is the limiting factor. Which is it?
The null hypothesis already is “humans are not causing the warming.” Trenberth did lobby to get that changed; contrarians had a field day.
Waiting with baited breath, luv.
Excellent, I look forward to reading the papers when they’re published.
I agree with that protocol.
Ok, link to the experiment and the results? This time with some explanatory text instead of just an image?
Well now you’re conflating two different issues. My complaint that you’re hanging other people’s words on me is totally separate from my capability to understand your own arguments. The former is easy to resolve; simply don’t do it. The latter is similarly easy; try me.
My PhD happens to be in bullcrap detection and I know some highly degreed people who I think are full of it. But remember now, you were the one who played this card to begin with. Your strident reaction to having it thrown right back down your own gullet is most amusing.
Umm … oh hell, never mind.
If the original test rig is on the order of the size of something that fits on a lab bench, I agree; filled only with, say, nitrogen it would get hotter than if there were some IR active gasses in there.
[sigh] You were doing better with the invalidity of near-blackbody assumptions. So we can either think of the atmosphere as an arbitrary number of columns and let n approach infinity until your code blows up, or we can think of it as a single column. Either way, it’s a closed system to everything except radiative transfers in and out. Parcels of gas don’t flash into and out of existence at random altitudes. Vertical motions in the atmosphere don’t create net energy in and of themselves and the only reason they happen is because of energy input from elsewhere. Without IR active gasses in the atmosphere it seems to me that lapse rate would be all but nonexistent and the atmosphere would be very nearly isothermal. Your CFD model appears to confirm that much.
Without further evidence than assertions of fact, that leaves me with the radiative properties of the surface as pretty much your only interesting argument.
Great. So nice of you to have shared the results of them with me.
More than I care to in some respects. When I ask for a cite, it’s because I like to draw my own conclusions from reading the original source.
There is no doubt that winters have been getting colder in most parts of the world. According to NOAA, CLIMATE AT A GLANCE data, the trend of GLOBAL LAND and OCEAN WINTER TEMPERATURE ANOMALIES has been declining for 17 years or since 1998 at (0.06 C /decade). The trend of GLOBAL WINTER LAND ONLY TEMPERATURE ANOMALIES declined at (-0.22C/decade.) So have the NORTHERN HEMISPHERE WINTER LAND ONLY TEMPERATURE ANOMALIES declined at (- 0.35C /decade) since 1998. The trend of WINTER TEMPERATURE ANOMALIES for CONTIGUOUS US declined at (-1.79 F/decade) since 1998.
If the complete truth were told, the trend of CONTIGUOUS US WINTER TEMPERATURE ANOMALIES have actually been declining since 1995 at (-1.13F/decade) and the trend of NORTHERN HEMISPHERE LAND ONLY WINTER TEMPERATUREANOMALIES have been declining at (–0.18C/decade) or 20 years. So winters have been cooling for 2 decades already, but not word about this from IPCC or NOAA
Why are winter temperatures so important? Because very cold winters lead to cold spring and if sustained over several years, to cold summers and lower annual temperatures as we have seen during 2014. This pattern has led to a 17 year pause in the rise of global temperatures and will lead to 2-3 decades of colder global temperatures.
Annual Contiguous US temperatures have been declining at (-0.36 F/decade) since 1998.
The WINTER TEMPERATURE ANOMALIES for CANADA declined from an average of + 2.6 C during 1998-2000 to (-0.4C) by 2014 winter, or a cooling of some 3 degrees C. A winter cooling trend is also apparent in EUROPE, and NORTHERN ASIA. I see this pattern continuing until 2035/2045 as the oceans enter their cool phase as they did 1880-1910 and again 1945-1975.
Here is what is happening in Canada:
Winter trend TEMPERATURE DEPARTURES ARE DECLINING
Spring trend TEMPERATURE DEPARTURES ARE DECLINING
Summer trend RISE IN TEMPERATURE DEPARTURES
Fall trend TEMPERATURE DEPARTURES ARE FLAT
Annual trend TEMPERATURE DEPARTURES ARE FLAT
A system that is uncharacterized and unwieldy will, eventually, exhibit a confluence of processes and events that produce an outcome outside of the scientific domain (i.e. observable and reproducible in a constrained frame of reference), thereby requiring a risk management strategy to mitigate its consequences. Human life, for example, is an exercise in risk management. A cursory review of human civilizations and population distributions leads to the conclusion that cooling poses a greater threat and challenge to sustaining human life and artificial works than warming.
n.n, I agreed with your comments, especially a sound risk management strategy via mitigation, right up to here:
Please tell me you’re not suggesting that:
1) Cooling being the greater threat equates to the greatest probability of occurrence.
2) That the greater threat necessarily relegates the opposite threat negligible.
Brandon,
The Holocene is closing via the step down pattern of cooling that characterizes the onset of an ice age.
This is shown by ice core d18O( assuming that you understand all of these terms). And here you about to wet your britches over a little CO2, in typical alarmist fashion.
mpainter,
I know my Milanković.
Credit where credit is due, you make a good assumption here …
… but then you had to go ruin it by putting words in my mouth. Tell me, have you ever wondered why the Holocene has been such an exceptionally long interglacial? Here’s a hint: CO2 is not the dominant factor.
Aside from that, how about you actually address points (1) and (2) instead of trying to deflect attention away from n.n’s logical failure?
Dr. Ball,
Thanks.
The CIA specializes in dis-information, anything they say is only to provoke a response from their target.
I don’t understand why anyone still quotes their bait.
What do they know/much less care, about tenths of a degree in temperature ?
Pick your trend? I’ll pick warming, and wish I didn’t have to, but the evidence points to it.
Ball says “The historical relationship between solar activity and temperature indicates the world is in a cooling trend.”
But there’s clearly some kind of editing error. The sentence should have started “When there is not a rapid increase in greenhouse gas concentrations…
He can’t take historical events and conclude that we must, therefore, be cooling, because it’s nonsense. The measured temperature increases show this historical connection doesn’t apply today. Measurements trump historical correlations.
There is measured rapid increase in greenhouse gases. Greenhouse gas traps heat – that’s basic physics. So even though we have measured weakening of solar output the last couple of solar cycles, we have measured continued warming of the surface, and measured warming of the oceans.
So, if we weren’t increasing greenhouse gas concentrations, it is quite likely that the recent solar trend would have been leading to cooling in the most recent decades. Instead, the last three decades (and counting) have been consecutively the warmest three decades in the instrument temperature record.
What the bloody daylights are you talking about? (Unless I missed your /sarcasm rejoinder.)
MEASURED global average temperatures since 1998 have declined. Nothing “historical” or “error” about it. As you yourself just said: ” Measurements trump historical correlations.”
We have read the measurements, and they are ours. The measured temperatures since 1996 have not changed; the measured temperatures since the peak during 1998 El Nino have declined.
You are not paying attention to all of the data.
Belief trumps data. Heck, Belief trumps the need to even engage ones’ brain, or what little there is of it apparently.
Pascal’s Wager is a pile of poo. It doesn’t tell you which of the 2,000+ named “gods” to believe in. It’d take 33 hours to give each one a minute of your day!
It is really disappointing for a skeptic to read an article from another skeptic that invokes Pascal’s wager. Indeed, Pascal’s wager is typically a warmist argument, that I heard once again here (in France) no more than one month ago by our local “Climate Ambassador”.
Pascal’s wager was a brilliant attempt of Pascal to make use of probability theory in a context which did not involve dices or coins. It is highly interesting in a historical perspective, but trying to make use of it as in this article is nonsense. You can prove anything with Pascal’s wager. Moreover, Pascal’s original wager is NOT the trivial version mentioned here.
Interested readers can read a recent paper of mine on the subject (in French) to be published next year
https://mythesmanciesetmathematiques.files.wordpress.com/2014/11/textebrittaudrjv2014.pdf
inre: Benoit Rittaud pdf
It has been a long time since I read French, but it appears that Pacal was working on a theory of probability, or a “geometry of hazard,” and he used the wager in order to illustrate his point.
I have also seen professors use probability to say the opposite about spiritual matters.
But to be clear, the wager of Pascal does not cohere with anything in the Old or New Testaments. That is not a saving faith. It won’t do you any good, except maybe to avoid some of the troubles we mortals bring on ourselves with our unrighteous ways.
Even the blind bard says,
“Oh for shame, how the mortals put the blame upon us gods, for they say evils come from us, when it is they rather who by their own recklessness win sorrow beyond what is given…”
“This is the excellent foppery of the world, that, when we are sick in fortune,–often the surfeit of our own behavior,–we make guilty of our disasters the sun, the moon, and the stars: as if we were villains by necessity; fools by heavenly compulsion; knaves, thieves, and treachers, by spherical predominance; drunkards, liars, and adulterers, by an enforced obedience of planetary influence; and all that we are evil in, by a divine thrusting on: an admirable evasion of whoremaster man, to lay his goatish disposition to the charge of a star!” – William Shakespeare, King Lear, 1.2.132
Who’s Foxy Loxy in our modern chicken little hysteria?
Who is Foxy Loxy in our modern climastrology chicken little hysteria?
Sorry for the duplicate, it didn’t appear after my initial posting! Hey, watch it twice?
dbstealey December 4, 2014 at 3:59 pm
John Finn,
Well if you could point me towards a single scientific paper that supports what Konrad is saying then go ahead.
I don’t know. Can I get a bet on it in Las Vegas? I certainly can’t get a ‘sceptic’ to engage in a bet. Lots of them waffle on about imminent cooling but none of them seem prepared to put their money where their mouths are. James Annan had a very similar problem, I believe, though it does look as though he’ll take $10,000 off 2 Russian Solar scientists.
nielszoo December 5, 2014 at 11:11 am
Konrad. December 4, 2014 at 6:25 pm
Konrad, I’m going to stop you right there. Show me one – just one – scientific paper which supports a mean temperature for the earth of 312K without greenhouse gases. I honestly haven’t got the time to go over every crackpot pet theory that is put forward on a climate blog.
John Finn
December 5, 2014 at 5:11 pm
/////////////////////////////////////////////
”Konrad, I’m going to stop you right there. Show me one – just one – scientific paper which supports a mean temperature for the earth of 312K without greenhouse gases.”
You won’t find a single climastrology paper that gets it right. 255K for surface without atmosphere is the foundation dogma of the church of radiative climastrology. But if you know where to look you will find the correct answer. Without atmospheric cooling, regardless of DWLWIR, our oceans would become an evaporation constrained solar pond. You need to go back to the 60’s when research was being done into evaporation constrained (not salt gradient) solar ponds –
– when you understand why making the top layer of their solar pond black didn’t produce the same results as top layer clear / base black, you will understand the difference between near blackbody and SW selective surface. You may then have a very slight understanding of the unbelievably hideous error in the very foundation of the whole radiative GHE hypothesis.
”I honestly haven’t got the time to go over every crackpot pet theory that is put forward on a climate blog”
You honestly don’t have the understanding of radiative physics to even understand the problem. Go on, show us how “sciencey” you are with this simple experiment –
http://oi61.tinypic.com/or5rv9.jpg
– Both block have equal ability to absorb SW. Both blocks have equal ability to radiate LWIR. The only difference is depth of SW absorption. Illuminate each block with 1000w/m2 of LWIR and they will both rise to the same temperature. Illuminate both blocks with 1000 w/m2 of SW and block A will run 20C hotter. Two simple questions –
1. Why does a temperature differential develop between the blocks when SW illumination is used but not when LWIR is used?
2. Which block is more analogous to how climastrologists treated our oceans in the “basic physics” of the “settled science”?
Yes, I know the answers.
No, you don’t need numbers if you understand radiative physics.
And no, flappy-hands about why “this doesn’t apply to our planet” won’t do. This is the basic physics, known since 1965, missing from the “settled science”.
John Finn says:
Lots of them [skeptics] waffle on about imminent cooling but none of them seem prepared to put their money where their mouths are.
I’m going to stop you right there. As usual, you’re trying to turn it around. You had written:
You and Tim Ball need not be concerned about cooling. It’s not going to happen…
So you are saying that cooling isn’t going to happen. That is your conjecture. As such, you have the onus — not skeptics.
If it weren’t for their word games, the alarmist crowd wouldn’t have much to say.
I can’t wait for “cooling”
…
Especially when 2014 is shaping up to be the warmest year in the measured record.
Phil Jones at CRU is not trustworthy as a person nor a scientist, as shown by Climategate emails . He cooks data.
Try RSS or UAH for reliable information.
Stay away from Hadcrut or you will look like a fool.
RSS and UAH both use the same source data for their products. Why don’t you tell me why the output from RSS and the output from UAH are not in agreement. ?
Wrong again. They do not use the same source.
More “warmest ever” nonsense. The Big Lie: keep repeating it, and unthinking people will start to believe it.
Right – that’s my conjecture. That’s what I think. And my thinking is based on the fact that the oceans are continuing to accumulate heat which suggests the earth is continuing to gain rather than lose energy. The surface temperature trend has slowed but this probably has something to do with ocean cycle variations which are evident in the surface temperature record. Looking at the 1940s there was pretty sharp cooling following the PDO shift. According to Easterbrook, the PDO shifted to a cool phase in 1999 so we should see have seen noticeable cooling by now. What’s more other “sceptics” tell us that the sun is the main driver but solar activity has been on the wan for more than 20 years and has been in something of a slump for most the last 10 years. The result – nothing except empty promises about “another 2 years” or “the next decade” or “by 2030” or some other twaddle. Meanwhile, let me repeat – the oceans continue to gain heat.
Now if you’ve got anything useful to say which counters my argument then I’d be interested to hear it. However, if all you’ve got is “ya boo you can’t prove it” then there not much point in continuing any discussion.
John Finn : “The oceans continue to gain heat”
######
Are you relying on ARGO for this assertion? Because that seems to be a rather uncertain source.
mpainter December 5, 2014 at 7:26 pm
Global Temperature trends since 1990 for Hadley and UAH are:
HadCRUT4 0.144 ±0.074 °C/decade (2σ)
UAH 0.167 ±0.124 °C/decade (2σ)
Ok – I will – thanks.
John Finn:
You seem confused. Or perhaps you aim to confuse.
According to Roy Spencer UAH shows a trend of 1.4°C/decade, with the data beginning in November, 1978. Also, note the stepup of some 21/2° following the ’98 El Nino.
I a neither confused nor do I aim to confuse. I made it perfectly clear what the trends I gave represented. They are the respective trends for UAH and HADCRUT4 since 1990. I was simply making the point that, over the last 25 years, the UAH trend is greater than the HADCRUT trend.
No it doesn’t.
Before you post anything on this subject, it might be best if you understood the graphs you are referring to. The fact that you’ve made the same mistake twice regarding the magnitude of the temperature change suggests that it’s not simply a typo error and that you don’t actually understand the numbers.
mpainter December 6, 2014 at 3:47 am
Really? Why do you say this? Does, for example, the 95% Confidence Interval for the OHC trend include the ZERO trend?
If you can reconcile the greatest snow cover in the Northern hemisphere on record + greatest Antarctic ice extent on record + Arctic ice extent rebound to normal extent + Great Lake ice cover record extent and duration + earliest formation on record, all in a year with “record high temperatures“, then you must be very religious indeed.
What would falsify your hypothesis?
Nothing can ever falsify the hypothesis of a True Believer.
Credulous CACA cultists will be still be waiting for the Second Coming of Global Warming when the Northern Hemisphere ice sheets return.
John Finn
December 6, 2014 at 8:40 am
//////////////////////////////////////////////
MP- “Are you relying on ARGO for this assertion? Because that seems to be a rather uncertain source.”
JF-”Really? Why do you say this? “
Ummm John, that would be because of not one, but three, warming adjustments made to ARGO data?
Do tell..were you spewing your warmulonian tripe on this site because you had no awareness of what ARGO raw data showed? Or because as a typical propagandist, you didn’t care?
I’m well aware of the ARGO data and that there have been adjustments. However you nor anyone else has shown that these adjustments were not justified.
As for “spewing warmulonian tripe”, when it comes to spewing tripe, Konrad, you are in a league of your own, some people are just a little too polite to tell you. And … “warmulonian”? … oh I get … just because I don’t go along with the crackpot nonsense put out by some “sceptics” I’m an alarmist warmer.
Well, let me tell you, Konrad, I’ve actually challenged the warmers on issues where they really are either in error or have produced misleading data. For example , in 2004, I challenged Michael Mann on the Realclimate blog about the ‘hide the decline’ trick, i.e. the attempt to mask the decline in the proxy record by using instrumental record. Note this was 5 years before ” climategate”. To the best of my knowledge I was the only one at the time apart from Steve McIntyre and possibly Ross McKitrick who was making any comment on the issue.
So there you are, Konrad, I’ve highlighted an issue which put the warmers on the back foot. All you and your ilk have done is given the warmers the opportunity to point to evidence of sceptic crackpots.
John Finn says:
I’m well aware of the ARGO data and that there have been adjustments. However you nor anyone else has shown that these adjustments were not justified.
No one has really shown the ‘adjustments’ were justified. John Finn certainly hasn’t. He just makes assertions.
The problem is that in seemingly every case where warming is nonexistent, or cooling is observed, someone makes an adjustment and voila! we have global warming again.
Credibility matters, and when every adjustment supports the Narrative, credibility goes down the drain.
Have any of you been around long enough to realize the “cure” for global warming is exactly the same as the “cure” for DDT, acid rain, hole in the ozone layer, and every other “coming environmental catastrophe” invented since the 1960’s?
.
The “cure” is always more goobermint regulations, more taxesmon the “evil” corporations, severe cuts ion the use of oil, coal, nuclear power, hydropower and now even natural gas (tracking) … with the ultimate goal of worldwide socialism, with its characteristic slow economic growth and chronically high unemployment, plus zero population growth.
.
The “disease” changes over the decades, but the “cure” is always the same: Do what we environmentalists say without question or the Earth is doomed (this sentence should be accompanied by scary music — so you’ll have to imagine that music as you read it).
.
Global warming has NOTHING to do with science:
– It is yet another false crisis, in a long sad series of false crises, invented by leftists since the 1960s
to advance their political agenda
.
Of course the warmunists won’t debate.
.
Of course the warmunists will character attack any real scientists who challenge them.
.
Who would want to debate a a “crisis” created by playing computer games and making bizarre climate astrology predictions, 97% of which are inaccurate, and have no predictive ability.
.
What person in his right mind would debate in support of his computer game climate predictions when the penalty for losing a debate would be losing a goobermint grant (to play computer games for a living, and get attention in the press by making scary predictions, and wasting the taxpayers money … all in a comfortable air-conditioned office).
.
Considering the (lack of) “progress” made in “climate science” in the past 40 years, the government grants and salaries that support “climate science” are comparable to the money spent sending a man to the moon in 1969 (a huge waste of taxpayer money spent to impress the Russians, with little value for the US economy).
Konrad.
December 6, 2014 at 11:31 pm
I have been enjoying your comments greatly.
Moderator – what did I say?