![Royal_Society_350_logo_400x175[1]](https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2014/09/royal_society_350_logo_400x1751.jpg?quality=83){kind=logo}
Guest essay by Eric Worrall
The new British Energy and Climate Change Secretary Amber Rudd’s plan to win over prominent climate skeptics like Lord Lawson, by setting up a meeting between skeptics and the Royal Society, has dramatically backfired, after the Royal Society admitted that the pause would have to continue for another 50 years, before they admit they are wrong.
According to Breitbart;
“We pinned them down on this hiatus… they were arguing that yes, there might have been a hiatus, but warming might be going into the ocean, or it could be due to volcanic activity. So we asked at what point would you begin to accept there had been no warming. If there is no warming for five years, or ten years?
“Finally they conceded they would wait fifty years.
“We asked would that be fifty years from now, or fifty years from 1997, when the hiatus started? They said they wouldn’t change their mind for fifty years from now.
The bitterly cold ocean depths have the thermal capacity to absorb hundreds, maybe thousands of years of global warming, even at levels of global warming predicted by alarmist models. If the predicted heat is missing, because it is readily absorbed by the ocean depths, I would suggest claims by the Royal Society that global warming is an urgent problem are already untenable.
This same royal society have in the past been very adamantly wrong. ex. A heavier than air machine will never fly. This about five minutes before the Wright brothers proved them wrong. My whole life I have taken what they declare with a pinch of salt.
The ego’s involved prohibit the poor dears from admitting mistakes. Scientists not, deluded egotistical fools in charge.
Wrong about what? AGW or CAGW?
I buy the former, but not the latter. So far it has been BAGW (beneficial).
“Eine neue wissenschaftliche Wahrheit pflegt sich nicht in der Weise durchzusetzen, daß ihre Gegner überzeugt werden und sich als belehrt erklären, sondern vielmehr dadurch, daß ihre Gegner allmählich aussterben und daß die heranwachsende Generation von vornherein mit der Wahrheit vertraut gemacht ist.” Max Planck
Hence the present Royal Society is adopting a correct approach. In 50 years time they will all be dead and off the hook of their own making.
How many centuries has it been since the Royal Society was right about anything?
They will be six sigma outside the control limits by then. Never can be too sure.
These people are idiots. What they’re saying absolutely is that they will ignore global cooling that could lead to an ice ball Earth tipping point for 49 years, all the while making recommendations to curb global warming. This is what passes for science?
Were their actual words “when hell freezes over”?
The last warming phase ended in 1940. In the 75 years since then it has warmed for 22 years and these boofheads want 103 years of cooling or pause out of 125 to admit they were wrong.
The ones waiting 50 years, of course, would be stone cold dead before they would be called to account.
What they meant to say was that they (themselves) would never change their minds for any reason. A pretty outlandish assertion for alleged “scientists”.
The Royal Society also recently made a public announcement that they were still opposed to the removal of silt from the man-made drainage channels on the Somerset Levels a.k.a dredging.
They propose that we should allow the channels to fill with silt over time, such that the channels lose their capacity to carry water from the uplands.
The result of such a policy after 20 years was severe and worsening annual flooding.
By recreating severe flooding the RS and the BBC were able to inform the general public that they were witnessing the effects of climate change.
If these guys can’t find a suitable disaster, then they seem to be intent on manufacturing newsworthy disasters to meet their own demands.
Local farmers and drainage engineers know exactly how to maintain the somerset drainage system, but they have little say in the matter. Unfortunately for them, the Royal Society want to see them exposed to great misfortune, so that more off-shore wind turbines can be constructed to protect us all from a fantasy weather ghoul.
I’m not kidding. It really has got THAT bad:
http://www.somersetcidervinegarco.co.uk/Royal-Society-reopens-debate-on-dredging-Somerset-Levels.htm
We do not require evidence to hold our faith!
We’re witnessing the death of Objectivisim, reason, logic and the Scientific Method, at least in realm of climatology and in many respects, in various aspects of Western culture.
Under the rules of the Scientific Method, if hypothetical projections exceed reality by a statistically significant disparity (usually 2+ standard deviations), for a statistically significant duration (USED to be 15 years, until it wasn’t….), then the hypothesis is either disconfirmed or is modified until there is no statistically significant disparity between reality and hypothetical projections….
In climatology, these Scientific Method rules no longer seem to apply…..
According to satellite and weather balloon global temp data, CAGW projections are already 2 SDs off from reality, and if current trends continue, they’ll likely be off by 3 SDs in just 5 years, for a total of almost 25 years of no global warming trend, despite 1/3rd of all manmade CO2 emissions since 1750 being made over those 25 years…..
The recent Karl 2015 paper clearly shows CAGW zealots have absolutely no intention of modifying the hypothesis to reflect reality, but rather prefer to modify the RAW DATA to keep the subjective data within 2 SDs of hypothetical projections…. CAGW is no longer about science, it’s clearly a political and social construct to obtain grant funding and achieve various political and social agendas….
It’s sickening to watch… Historians will not treat this generation of political and scientific hacks well; and rightfully so.
The disconfirmed CAGW hypothesis is becoming the disconfirmed Eugenics hypothesis of the early 20th century, which directly lead to the genocide of 10’s of millions of humans throughout the world…. I don’t wish to see history repeat itself, but it’s beginning to look like “déjà vu all over again”….
Meanwhile, science proves that CO2 has no significant effect on climate. The proof and identification of the two factors that do cause reported climate change are at http://agwunveiled.blogspot.com (now with 5-year running-average smoothing of measured data, R2 = 0.97+ since before 1900)
Your approach is exactly the same as mine in concept and very close in prediction .I simply use the obvious 60 year cycle in the temperature data – which as you say zeros out over time and modulates the quasi- millennial 960 -1020 year cycle . This latter cycle is skewed with about a 635 year down phase and a 365 +/- up phase which latter you quantify with your sunspot integral. My assumption then is that the 1000 -2000 trends will generally repeat from 2000- 3000.
For the cooling forecasts and full discussion see.
http://climatesense-norpag.blogspot.com/2014/07/climate-forecasting-methods-and-cooling.html
For the millennial trend see Figs 5-9
Dr. Page – Thanks for the link. I share your issues with GCMs and discuss some more at http://consensusmistakes.blogspot.com .
The R^2=0.97+ since before 1900 does not leave much wiggle room for other factors in that time period but does not directly address millennial time scale which I am very pleased that your work does. An important discovery is that CO2 has no effect on climate in spite of it being an absorber of 15 micron terrestrial radiation. This finding is corroborated by extant estimates of Phanerozoic global temperature and CO2, and understanding of what a forcing is.
Have you looked into planetary synodic periods as a possible cause of millennial-scale solar cycles? (Ref. 7 & 8)
Keep up the good work.
Because, fifty years from now, the current membership will all be dead without ever having had to admit that they were wrong.
Because, in fifty years the current membership will all have died without ever having to admit that they were wrong.
The Loyal Society!
Even God only required the rebellious Children of Israel to wait 40 years before allowing those who remained to enter the promised land. These people, on the other hand, are hoping to continue to worship the golden calf of government funding for another 50 years. They’re willing to repent and reconsider their ways only after they are dead.
Louis Hunt
There may be more truth than you intended in your sardonic comment saying
The Biblical period of “40 years” means “a period of time too long for people to register how long it is”.
I suspect the RS period of “50 years” means “a period of time too long for people to register how long it is”.
Richard
“If the predicted heat is missing, because it is readily absorbed by the ocean depths, I would suggest claims by the Royal Society that global warming is an urgent problem are already untenable.”
I got a huge belly laugh out of this truth.
What kind of a catastrophe/crisis could it be, if all that heat is absorbed in the ocean (deep or not)?
These are REALLY scientists saying such drivel?
Oh, man, my opinion of the Royal Society just went down from a 6 to a 2.
Hooke and Newton must be turning over in their graves.
“Hooke and Newton must be turning over in their graves.”
Newton sent in his letter of resignation. No word yet from Hooke.
It is just another example showing that global warming is about an agenda other than science. If global warming is shown to disappear, we need to be ready for the next big thing to try to achieve their agenda.
“To see what is in front of one’s nose needs a constant struggle.” – George Orwell
The Royal Society,
True scientists to a man,
A warming pause
Was not part of the plan.
http://rhymeafterrhyme.net/skeptics-at-the-forefront-of-freedoms-defence/
The fraud may become law in Paris in late November.
That will be fun…
KiwiSceptictoo commented: “The fraud may become law in Paris in late November.”
Kind of like Kyoto? A law that only uses shaming to uphold it?
So why 50 years ?
Why not 42 or 37 or 63 ?
It did not take most of a lifetime to jump onto the AGW bandwagon so why 50 years to jump off ?
When I was studying geology in the UK in the late 70s economics was the imperative so papers would published with titles like “On the Silurian graptolites of Darkwood Forest….and their economic significance”.
Now it would be something like “On the Silurian graptolites of Darkwood Forest….and their implications for climate change”.
You have to know where the research grants are coming from.
I AM BOLDENING THIS FOR A REASON.
DEAR MEMBERS OF THE ROYAL SOCIETY, IF ANY OF YOU HAVE ANY CAJONES, COME ON TO THIS SITE, IDENTIFY YOURSELF AND STATE YOUR POSITION ON THIS PREPOSTEROUS FIFTY YEARS OF NO WARMING. ON TOP OF THE ALMOST TWENTY YEARS THAT HAVE PASSED ALREADY.
I can just see the Hudson River Glacier – Thames River Glacier, demolishing New York/London, will they believe it, probably not. Maybe somewhere in the future, in the warmer parts of the Planet we will have to reduce the refugees from all that warming ice. I can just see Australian immigration, “have you ever supported global warming, with money, or protests” yes or no. We know who you are, starting with Al Gore. Stay and enjoy all your nice white global warming, good luck
They won’t last the 50 years. If the flat/slow increase in temperature continues, the divergence in the temp observations and the GCMs will make them a laughing stock long before that. Unless someone can come up with a reason to make a 0.5C step change in the satellite data.
I wouldn’t count this as out of the question however.