![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.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
how can Breibart write “…even if the data shows otherwise…”
even Spencers UAH/RSS shows increased warming if we compare last century with the decennium now (the ‘pause’)
see: http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAH_LT_1979_thru_May_2015_v6.png
is this allowed here: “lunatics” , is there no moderation?
they, they, they….
what a persistent they – us thinking…
So that settles it then and we can all roll over and go back to sleep as we’ve got 50 years to believe in this new kid on the block theory. Sounds fair.
So I’ll see you all at COP 2065 then, where we can review all the science and come to a consensus about it and decide if anything needs doing policy wise and in the meantime anyone who says the science is settled is a denier of the scientific method according to none other than the the esteemed Royal Society.
A step that would have to be taken in converting global warming pseudoscience to global warming science is to identify the unit events (things on which probabilities are defined) and sampling units (things on which the corresponding relative frequencies are defined) underlying the climate model that was slated for use by a world government in its regulation of the climate. A unit event (and the corresponding sampling unit) has a duration in time.
A detail not yet nailed down is the duration. In effect, the Royal Society is proposing that it shall be 50 years, starting today. This is a silly proposal for the Royal Society to be making as this duration would result in the existence of only three statistically independent events stretching back to the beginnings of various global temperature time series in the year 1850. Three is too few by a factor of at least 50 for the purpose of developing a statistically validated model. For this purpose the duration can be no greater than a year. Otherwise, the model lacks statistical significance.
“A detail not yet nailed down is the duration.”
Let’s not get too picky here with the Royal Society and we’ll all meet in 50 yrs time and discuss this new theory of theirs like gentlemen.
observa
For statistical significance of conclusions we’ll need at least a couple of hundred independent events so there’s no point to a gentlemanly meeting with the Royal Society in the next ten-thousand years.
I figure if we take them at face value and not confuse them too much with messy statistics, they’ll have dropped off the radar or the mortal coil by then anyway and I won’t be around to care. Always be pragmatic with ambit claims in negotiations is my motto 🙂
More proof that AGW is religion, not science. They don’t want to be confused with facts, instead deciding to cling to their cherished beliefs for the rest of their lives.
No matter how deep the capacity is for absorbing the excess warming, the assertion that “We’ve got enough cold stuff somwewhere (now where did I put it) to absorb it, is an ADMISSIOn that the warming exists. If you picnic basket ice is melting, then there is not a perfect balance between the heat getting in and the heat being radiated back out, even if the beer is still cold enough to drink.
The facts are, of course, that the Earth’s ice IS melting.
And whether the Royal Society has noticed it or not, IF it’s a problem, solar based “renewable energy” will not solve it. Martin Rees and Stephen Hawking reckon that civilization is doomed anyway, and I don’t know if theythink so because of human overpopulation, or energy shortages.
`
If they had understood the effect of declining solar wind pressure/density since the mid 1990’s on increased negative NAO causing warming of the AMO and Arctic, they would have changed their minds already, as increased GHG’s should in theory do the reverse and increase positive NAO, and have inhibited the accelerated AMO warming since 1995. There is a measure there for how feeble CO2 forcing is in comparison to non TSI solar variability, as the recent AMO warming is nearly as fast as the post 1910 AMO warming.
Or 35yr trends from a cold to a warm AMO:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-amo/from:1910/to:1940/trend/plot/esrl-amo/from:1975/to:2010/trend
oops wrong one, take two..
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-amo/from:1910/to:1945/trend/plot/esrl-amo/from:1975/to:2010/trend
And of course to be consistent, they should agree that AGW skeptics should wait until there are 50 + 18 = 68 years of steady increase in global temperatures before they admit they are wrong. Right?
By “steady increase in global temperature” I imagine that you mean the change in global temperature along a linear trend line. This change is called the “global warming” by some of our colleagues. However, as I have proved elsewhere in this blog, to call it the “global warming” is mistaken for the “warming” is multivalued. The skeptics are right and they are wrong, violating the law of non-contradiction.
The Royal Society is part of a cosy group which incudes the Met Office, the UK government and the EU. The Uk government’s legally binding commitment to EU CO2 emission reductions means that in 50 years time it won’t matter what the Royal Society thinks. The UK will be covered in windmills and the forests of North Carolina will have been cut down to supply wood pellets for burning in converted (from coal firing) power stations such as Drax. This conversion of coal fired stations to wood burning to prevent them from being closed down by the EU legally binding encyclical must be the single biggest act of lunacy in the whole global warming saga.