Jones: No Warming For 15 Years

[Josh Cryer]

MSimon, if you edit your topic with "statistically significant" between "no" and "warming" I will happily retract my statement about your integrity. I know that you are a very smart person. I could forgive such behavior from someone I didn't consider smart, and could pass it off as ignorance or stupidity. You don't get such a reprieve.

[MSimon]

The paper I posted showed the mass balance of all of Antarctica is decreasing.

But it gives no clue re-orders of magnitude. 1% a year? .1% a year? .01% a year?

And then you have to ask - what kind of rates did we see in millenia past?

And maybe if we can get enough melted we can buffer some against the coming ice age.

[MSimon]

MSimon, if you edit your topic with "statistically significant" between "no" and "warming" I will happily retract my statement about your integrity. I know that you are a very smart person. I could forgive such behavior from someone I didn't consider smart, and could pass it off as ignorance or stupidity. You don't get such a reprieve.

Just pass it off as pig headedness. I wrote what I wrote and the title is what it is.

[Josh Cryer]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w9SGw75pVas

[MSimon]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w9SGw75pVas

They left out the global cooling scare of the 70s. And a few other things. All very scientific:

http://kestencgreen.com/green%26armstro ... logies.pdf

We summarize evidence showing that the global warming alarm movement has more of the character of a political movement than that of a scientific controversy. We then make forecasts of the effects and outcomes of this movement using a structured analysis of analogous situations—a method that has been shown to produce accurate forecasts for conflict situations. This paper summarizes the current status of this “structured analogies project.”

We searched the literature and asked diverse experts to identify phenomena that could be characterized as alarms warning of future disasters that were endorsed by scientists, politicians, and the media, and that were accompanied by calls for strong action. The search yielded 71 possible analogies. We examined objective accounts to screen the possible analogies and found that 26 met all criteria. We coded each for forecasting procedures used, the accuracy of the forecasts, the types of actions called for, and the effects of actions implemented.

Our preliminary findings are that analogous alarms were presented as “scientific,” but none were based on scientific forecasting procedures. Every alarming forecast proved to be false; the predicted adverse effects either did not occur or were minor. Costly government policies remained in place long after the predicted disasters failed to materialize. The government policies failed to prevent ill effects.

The findings appear to be insensitive to which analogies are included. The structured analogies approach suggests that the current global warming alarm is simply the latest example of a common social phenomenon: an alarm based on unscientific forecasts of a calamity. We conclude that the global warming alarm will fade, but not before much additional harm is done by governments and individuals making inferior decisions on the basis of unscientific forecasts.

[Diogenes]

Water Vapor.


Water Vapor.


Water Vapor.


WATER VAPOR!



Water Vapor. Water Vapor. Water Vapor. Water Vapor. Water Vapor. Water Vapor. Water Vapor. Water Vapor. Water Vapor. Water Vapor. Water Vapor. Water Vapor. Water Vapor. Water Vapor. Water Vapor. Water Vapor. Water Vapor. Water Vapor. Water Vapor. Water Vapor. Water Vapor. Water Vapor. Water Vapor. Water Vapor. Water Vapor. Water Vapor. Water Vapor. Water Vapor. Water Vapor. Water Vapor. Water Vapor. Water Vapor. Water Vapor. Water Vapor. Water Vapor. Water Vapor. Water Vapor. Water Vapor. Water Vapor. Water Vapor. Water Vapor. Water Vapor. Water Vapor. Water Vapor. Water Vapor. Water Vapor. Water Vapor. Water Vapor. Water Vapor. Water Vapor. Water Vapor. Water Vapor. Water Vapor. Water Vapor. Water Vapor. Water Vapor. Water Vapor. Water Vapor. Water Vapor. Water Vapor. Water Vapor. Water Vapor. Water Vapor. Water Vapor. Water Vapor. Water Vapor. Water Vapor. Water Vapor. Water Vapor. Water Vapor. Water Vapor. Water Vapor. Water Vapor. Water Vapor. Water Vapor. Water Vapor. Water Vapor. Water Vapor. Water Vapor. Water Vapor. Water Vapor. Water Vapor. Water Vapor. Water Vapor. Water Vapor. Water Vapor. Water Vapor. Water Vapor. Water Vapor. Water Vapor. Water Vapor. Water Vapor. Water Vapor. Water Vapor. Water Vapor. Water Vapor. Water Vapor. Water Vapor. Water Vapor. Water Vapor. Water Vapor. Water Vapor. Water Vapor. Water Vapor. Water Vapor. Water Vapor. Water Vapor. Water Vapor. Water Vapor. Water Vapor. Water Vapor. Water Vapor. Water Vapor. Water Vapor. Water Vapor. Water Vapor. Water Vapor. Water Vapor. Water Vapor. Water Vapor. Water Vapor. Water Vapor. Water Vapor. Water Vapor. Water Vapor. Water Vapor. Water Vapor. Water Vapor. Water Vapor. Water Vapor. Water Vapor. Water Vapor.Water Vapor.

[mvanwink5]

A combination of high cost for proposed AGW solutions (coupled with a worldwide deep recession), FOI request laws, and speed due to internet blogs (countering hijacked peer review by proponents) could change the outcome of the pessimistic prediction. (my hope)

[Diogenes]

Negative Feedback.



Negative Feedback.



Negative Feedback.



Negative Feedback!




Negative Feedback. Negative Feedback. Negative Feedback. Negative Feedback. Negative Feedback. Negative Feedback. Negative Feedback. Negative Feedback. Negative Feedback. Negative Feedback. Negative Feedback. Negative Feedback. Negative Feedback. Negative Feedback. Negative Feedback. Negative Feedback. Negative Feedback. Negative Feedback. Negative Feedback. Negative Feedback. Negative Feedback. Negative Feedback. Negative Feedback. Negative Feedback. Negative Feedback. Negative Feedback. Negative Feedback. Negative Feedback. Negative Feedback. Negative Feedback. Negative Feedback. Negative Feedback. Negative Feedback. Negative Feedback. Negative Feedback. Negative Feedback. Negative Feedback. Negative Feedback. Negative Feedback. Negative Feedback. Negative Feedback. Negative Feedback. Negative Feedback. Negative Feedback. Negative Feedback. Negative Feedback. Negative Feedback. Negative Feedback. Negative Feedback. Negative Feedback. Negative Feedback. Negative Feedback. Negative Feedback. Negative Feedback. Negative Feedback. Negative Feedback. Negative Feedback. Negative Feedback. Negative Feedback. Negative Feedback. Negative Feedback. Negative Feedback. Negative Feedback. Negative Feedback. Negative Feedback. Negative Feedback. Negative Feedback. Negative Feedback. Negative Feedback. Negative Feedback. Negative Feedback. Negative Feedback. Negative Feedback. Negative Feedback. Negative Feedback. Negative Feedback. Negative Feedback. Negative Feedback. Negative Feedback.Negative Feedback. Negative Feedback. Negative Feedback.Negative Feedback. Negative Feedback.

[Diogenes]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w9SGw75pVas

They left out the global cooling scare of the 70s. And a few other things. All very scientific:

It's just a well made visual presentation. It's just propaganda, like the way they showed people standing in unemployment lines, and businesses windows boarded up when they were reporting on the Economy during George H.W. Bush's reelection campaign. In this case, they show dire appearing videos, and then associate those with the narrative.

They never discuss the one factor that makes all their arguments moot. Water Vapor and Negative feedback.

If their theory is correct on CO2, then the EXACT same theory applies to H2O which is far worse than CO2 as a greenhouse gas. CO2 is insignificant compared to H2O. If their theory were correct, then we would all be dead.

Obviously we are not. Ergo, their theory is complete and utter Bullshit.

[tomclarke]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w9SGw75pVas

They left out the global cooling scare of the 70s. And a few other things. All very scientific:

It's just a well made visual presentation. It's just propaganda, like the way they showed people standing in unemployment lines, and businesses windows boarded up when they were reporting on the Economy during George H.W. Bush's reelection campaign. In this case, they show dire appearing videos, and then associate those with the narrative.

They never discuss the one factor that makes all their arguments moot. Water Vapor and Negative feedback.

If their theory is correct on CO2, then the EXACT same theory applies to H2O which is far worse than CO2 as a greenhouse gas. CO2 is insignificant compared to H2O. If their theory were correct, then we would all be dead.

Obviously we are not. Ergo, their theory is complete and utter Bullshit.

Diogenes,

It is seldom that internet postings of scientific ideas can be comprehensively answered - most things are so complex that it talkes a paper or two of discussion & refs.

However what you have said is provably mistaken. You just need the maths.

First you are confusing dependent & independent variables. CO2 is (on 50 yr timescale) independent and is known to have increased 50% + due to man-made cativities. (Though there is also the CO2/sea CO2 balance which is a further complication and long-term positive feedback).

H2O is in continual equilibrium with seas, fast time constant (a few days). So though it alters with temperature etc it is a dependent (on temperature) parameter, and so a feedback, not a forcing parameter.

You can debate what is the feedback due to H2O. Even whether its effect is positive or negative. But you cannot say that if positive it would have more effect than CO2. Nor can you say that it has to be negative. Of course if it is too large positive you get unbounded (actually bounded by nonlinearities) increase. But it can easily be as believed by IPCC - an amplifying factor. IPCC is unclear how large this is, but clear that it is positive.

And the maths?

x = CO2
y = H2O
T = temp

T = ax +by (dependent on CO2 & H2O)

y = kT (dependent)

=> T (1-bk) = ax
=> T = ax/(1-bk)

Note that we have elimnated y, the dependent parameter.

for overall positive feedback but no runaway you need 1 > bk > 0

[You can do this for perturbations of a nonlinear system with partial derivatives]

Best wishes, Tom

PS - the real question is why so many people believe such big mistakes?

[tomclarke]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w9SGw75pVas

They left out the global cooling scare of the 70s. And a few other things. All very scientific:

http://kestencgreen.com/green%26armstro ... logies.pdf

We summarize evidence showing that the global warming alarm movement has more of the character of a political movement than that of a scientific controversy. We then make forecasts of the effects and outcomes of this movement using a structured analysis of analogous situations—a method that has been shown to produce accurate forecasts for conflict situations. This paper summarizes the current status of this “structured analogies project.”

We searched the literature and asked diverse experts to identify phenomena that could be characterized as alarms warning of future disasters that were endorsed by scientists, politicians, and the media, and that were accompanied by calls for strong action. The search yielded 71 possible analogies. We examined objective accounts to screen the possible analogies and found that 26 met all criteria. We coded each for forecasting procedures used, the accuracy of the forecasts, the types of actions called for, and the effects of actions implemented.

Our preliminary findings are that analogous alarms were presented as “scientific,” but none were based on scientific forecasting procedures. Every alarming forecast proved to be false; the predicted adverse effects either did not occur or were minor. Costly government policies remained in place long after the predicted disasters failed to materialize. The government policies failed to prevent ill effects.

The findings appear to be insensitive to which analogies are included. The structured analogies approach suggests that the current global warming alarm is simply the latest example of a common social phenomenon: an alarm based on unscientific forecasts of a calamity. We conclude that the global warming alarm will fade, but not before much additional harm is done by governments and individuals making inferior decisions on the basis of unscientific forecasts.

MSimon - you are too grounded as engineer to be taken in by this socio-soft-science rubbish.

These people are not scientists.

You can argue (and have argued) that the IPCC process & the climate scientists are not science. Not an easy charge to answer either way. But this stuff is clearly not (hard) science and has all the rigor of economic theories (which BTW is what it is usually used for).

Best wishes, Tom

[MSimon]

Tom,

The article discusses the scientific method: verification. The soft science gloss is just to show that this is not the first time verification has been ignored.

This is not the first example of "the end is nigh, give me all your money".

And btw Diogenes in his most excellent method has pointed out the hole in the theory which is actually agreed on by the scientists (warmists and sceptics alike) water vapor in all its myriad effects is not well understood.

So the hypothesis can be clearly shown to be NOT PROVED.

The residence time of WV makes zero difference in its feedback. If WV feedback is positive even with short residence a large enough fluctuation in temperature for long enough and away we go.

On top of that both Spencer and Lindzen (for different reasons either or both of which may be incorrect) show that the WV feedback is in fact negative.

In fact the short residence time of WV emphasizes its role as an energy carrier in the system. i.e. a heat pipe.

And short residence time is no deterrent to positive feedback. All it takes is a residence e folding time of greater than 24 hours. If the residence time theory was correct.

The problem is that Climate science is in fact like the social sciences described in Cargo Cult Science by Feynman. Insufficient replication. Insufficient effort to find sources of error. Insufficient cross checking with other disciplines (statistics just to take a not so random example).

And in fact the UEA has a three year project in the offing to go over the temperature record to go over the temperature record. Which means that even the data currently used is in doubt. Enough doubt so that it has to be checked. And this from a group not known for its sceptical proclivities.

So at this point I can confidently state: Nothing is known for certain about climate science.

And this just in from the Institute of Physics:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/02/27/16772/

2. The CRU e-mails as published on the internet provide prima facie evidence of determined and co-ordinated refusals to comply with honourable scientific traditions and freedom of information law. The principle that scientists should be willing to expose their ideas and results to independent testing and replication by others, which requires the open exchange of data, procedures and materials, is vital. The lack of compliance has been confirmed by the findings of the Information Commissioner. This extends well beyond the CRU itself – most of the e-mails were exchanged with researchers in a number of other international institutions who are also involved in the formulation of the IPCC’s conclusions on climate change.

Emphasis added by me.

And then you have the dodgy tree ring proxy stuff by Mann. First he selects trees which mimic the temperature record (not ALL the trees in a sample) and even then he has to Hide The Decline.

And note: for humans catastrophe is not warm. It is cold. And the tipping point I worry about is the tip into an ice age. Something that can actually be seen in the recent geological record. If CO2 can prevent that I say we need more of it. Lots more - just to be sure.

[Jccarlton]

They left out the global cooling scare of the 70s. And a few other things. All very scientific:

It's just a well made visual presentation. It's just propaganda, like the way they showed people standing in unemployment lines, and businesses windows boarded up when they were reporting on the Economy during George H.W. Bush's reelection campaign. In this case, they show dire appearing videos, and then associate those with the narrative.

They never discuss the one factor that makes all their arguments moot. Water Vapor and Negative feedback.

If their theory is correct on CO2, then the EXACT same theory applies to H2O which is far worse than CO2 as a greenhouse gas. CO2 is insignificant compared to H2O. If their theory were correct, then we would all be dead.

Obviously we are not. Ergo, their theory is complete and utter Bullshit.

Diogenes,

It is seldom that internet postings of scientific ideas can be comprehensively answered - most things are so complex that it talkes a paper or two of discussion & refs.

However what you have said is provably mistaken. You just need the maths.

First you are confusing dependent & independent variables. CO2 is (on 50 yr timescale) independent and is known to have increased 50% + due to man-made cativities. (Though there is also the CO2/sea CO2 balance which is a further complication and long-term positive feedback).

H2O is in continual equilibrium with seas, fast time constant (a few days). So though it alters with temperature etc it is a dependent (on temperature) parameter, and so a feedback, not a forcing parameter.

You can debate what is the feedback due to H2O. Even whether its effect is positive or negative. But you cannot say that if positive it would have more effect than CO2. Nor can you say that it has to be negative. Of course if it is too large positive you get unbounded (actually bounded by nonlinearities) increase. But it can easily be as believed by IPCC - an amplifying factor. IPCC is unclear how large this is, but clear that it is positive.

And the maths?

x = CO2
y = H2O
T = temp

T = ax +by (dependent on CO2 & H2O)

y = kT (dependent)

=> T (1-bk) = ax
=> T = ax/(1-bk)

Note that we have elimnated y, the dependent parameter.

for overall positive feedback but no runaway you need 1 > bk > 0

[You can do this for perturbations of a nonlinear system with partial derivatives]

Best wishes, Tom

PS - the real question is why so many people believe such big mistakes?

So basically you're saying that CO2 is an energy input and a linear relation. Somehow I don't think that anybody who knows anything about physics or thermodynamics would agree with you.

[MSimon]

Tom,

Assuming your equations are correct (for the sake of argument) you are leaving out the lagged term of CO2 dependence on T - you know all that CO2 dissolved in the oceans.

[tomclarke]

Tom,

The article discusses the scientific method: verification. The soft science gloss is just to show that this is not the first time verification has been ignored.

This is not the first example of "the end is nigh, give me all your money".

And btw Diogenes in his most excellent method has pointed out the hole in the theory which is actually agreed on by the scientists (warmists and sceptics alike) water vapor in all its myriad effects is not well understood.

So the hypothesis can be clearly shown to be NOT PROVED.

The residence time of WV makes zero difference in its feedback. If WV feedback is positive even with short residence a large enough fluctuation in temperature for long enough and away we go.

On top of that both Spencer and Lindzen (for different reasons either or both of which may be incorrect) show that the WV feedback is in fact negative.

In fact the short residence time of WV emphasizes its role as an energy carrier in the system. i.e. a heat pipe.

And short residence time is no deterrent to positive feedback. All it takes is a residence e folding time of greater than 24 hours. If the residence time theory was correct.

The problem is that Climate science is in fact like the social sciences described in Cargo Cult Science by Feynman. Insufficient replication. Insufficient effort to find sources of error. Insufficient cross checking with other disciplines (statistics just to take a not so random example).

And in fact the UEA has a three year project in the offing to go over the temperature record to go over the temperature record. Which means that even the data currently used is in doubt. Enough doubt so that it has to be checked. And this from a group not known for its sceptical proclivities.

So at this point I can confidently state: Nothing is known for certain about climate science.

And this just in from the Institute of Physics:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/02/27/16772/

2. The CRU e-mails as published on the internet provide prima facie evidence of determined and co-ordinated refusals to comply with honourable scientific traditions and freedom of information law. The principle that scientists should be willing to expose their ideas and results to independent testing and replication by others, which requires the open exchange of data, procedures and materials, is vital. The lack of compliance has been confirmed by the findings of the Information Commissioner. This extends well beyond the CRU itself – most of the e-mails were exchanged with researchers in a number of other international institutions who are also involved in the formulation of the IPCC’s conclusions on climate change.

Emphasis added by me.

And then you have the dodgy tree ring proxy stuff by Mann. First he selects trees which mimic the temperature record (not ALL the trees in a sample) and even then he has to Hide The Decline.

And note: for humans catastrophe is not warm. It is cold. And the tipping point I worry about is the tip into an ice age. Something that can actually be seen in the recent geological record. If CO2 can prevent that I say we need more of it. Lots more - just to be sure.

MSimon,

I wish very much that you were right. But loooking at the participants: a few ideologically motivated bloggers + the scientifically illiterate public on one side, scientists - both climate change & those from the "edges" of the research who have taken a dispassionate look on the other side - I fear not.

IPCC puts chances of much less GW than expected at maybe 10%. In my judgement the extra uncertainty added by possibility of bad science, massive collusion, some climate models juts wrong, might be max 5%.

Of course if I take your view that the scientific effort here is broken and completely worthless we are left with the same problem and no way to judge what is the risk. I've never liked being an ostrich.

As for your "short residence time is no deterrence to positive feedback" check my math - which assumes equilibrium (and hence fas feedback).

0 < kb < 1 is the condition for positive feedback from H2O without runaway.

As for your point about CO2 in oceans. I have seen less analysis of "long" feedbacks than I would like. In terms of 20C/21C change however what this means is that warming that has occurred will result in more atmospheric CO2 regardless of future anthropogenic cjange, and is a positive feedback with a long time delay - which makes the whole issue more prone to runaway as I am sure you know.

So in summary, how can I disagree with your statement that "we don't know"? It would take 1000s of scientists and papers, with tens of years of effort to hone the wheat from the chaff and reach solid conclusions, to reah any conclusions.... (Oh, I forgot, that has happenned, but you don't accept the results).

Best wishes, Tom