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.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
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.