After a “And Then There’s Physics” article exchange about the “pause”, I got to thinking where I might find “the missing heat” – or as politicians would put it “the economy’s growing – it’s just we can’t see it”. In other words, I don’t hold much to hocus pocus science and post factum certainties that “it has been warming – we just can’t see it”.
But even so, I was thinking about where the missing heat could go, mainly as it’s also the potential cause of natural climate variation, and that does interest me.
Eventually I realised a potential solution, and working through the figures came up with about 2C as the scale of possible change with about 0.2C as a conservative figure on how much I might expect to have seen recent global temperature change.
So am I going to say? No!
I was counting up how much of my life had been wasted waiting for academics to admit a simple trend in the climate. I am sure the first time I mentioned it, there had been 5 years of “no warming”, which as I used to use 2001 as the starting point for my trends, suggests 2006. As such, that is 8 years I have been waiting for academics to admit a simple fact.:
THE CURRENT TREND OVER 5, (NOW 13YEARS) IS NOT WARMING.
That is 8 years, telling people a simple fact which they denied. 8 years in which the BBC and politicians created an environment in which they felt they could say I should be exterminated, put in concentration camps and tattooed. 8 years that the academics have been living off immoral earnings saying they understood the climate when they did not. 8 years watching academia attack engineering and industry through the proxy of CO2 and 8 years watching the hell through which many householders have been put because of wind noise and rising fuel prices. And 8 years of more and more wildlife going through their “bird-mincers”.
So, what would they have me do? Hand over my ideas to these ungrateful scoundrels. For what? So they can either attack me, ignore me or worst of all, use it as yet another excuse to “explain” why they think the climate models are not totally wrong. I think not.
I think not!
I don’t earn money from this blog. I’ve already donated far more to society in terms of my own time and resources than it is fair to ask one person to do. There is not a hope in hell of me getting any kind of “grant” – because only those academics who (used to) believe in global warming would get a grant.
I know from my previous experience on archaeology that the “Not Invented Here” syndrome of academia rules out anyone from outside ever being heard:
- Mons Graupius revealed
- The Names of the Roman Forts along the Antonine Wall
- The racial origins of the British
II – The French are Kelts
II – Britain before the Romans
- The truth about the Clearances
This is why the internet has taken over from academia as the mainstay of the debate. They haven’t “kept us in the cold”, but instead we have built our own halls of knowledge. The internet has become an alternative source of authority on what was hitherto “academic” knowledge. As such, I don’t have to tell academia squat all, as soon, those being left out “in the cold”, will be the academics.
Have a look on your shoulder. I think you’ll see there’s a big chip there.
So says the girl with the chipmonk next to her!
Sorry, more time to reply.
I can’t believe you’ve been to a wind conference where a lot of very angry people turn up wanting to know why they can’t sleep at night because of wind turbines.
Paradoxically, as most are very pro-academia and pro-green (they often move to countryside when they retire), they have tolerated us sceptics rather than listening as I’m sure they thought we must be nutters – because we were saying crazy things like the academics were not telling the truth and it isn’t currently warming.
They trusted you academics so implicitly that it never occurred to them that you were not telling the whole truth. So it never occurred to them that this whole policy was a waste of time. THAT NONE OF IT WAS NEEDED.
So, if you want to meet someone who really has a chip on their shoulder – go to a wind event, talk to one of the numerous people who can’t sleep at night and can’t sell their house … and then tell them you’ve change your mind and now don’t think it’s currently warming.
I think you would be unpleasantly surprised at their reaction.
I am not an academic.
Apologies for the insult.
don’t worry, it’s warming again now*, and at nearly 5 degrees/century too!
It must be hard being right when all the experts in so many areas are wrong (that’s why they’re not listening, right?), but you can comfort yourself in that just ‘cos you’re paranoid doesn’t mean the bastards aren’t out to get you.
Enjoy your weekend.
#Time series (hadcrut4) from 1850 to 2013.92
#Selected data from 2011
#Selected data up to 2014
#Least squares trend line; slope = 0.0484571 per year
[extracted from wood for trees]
All that you know about the climate is in those climate models which cannot predict the climate. This shows all you know about the climate amounts to zilch!!
You cannot call a group of failed academics with their failed theories and failed models and dishonesty about the “pause”: “experts”.
The real experts are the ones who said the models would not work … and so I am the expert not you!
you’re so obviously well-intentioned it’s impossible not to want to help you, but I think you’re in a place well beyond reach.
Consider what you’ve posted here
(1) Perversity – you claim to have solved a significant issue in science but won’t say what it is because scientists will “either attack me, ignore me or worst of all, use it as yet another excuse…”
(2) Paranoia, saying others think you should be “exterminated, put in concentration camps and tattooed”
(3) Grandiosity – you have “donated far more to society in terms of my own time and resources than it is fair to ask one person to do”
(4) Delusion – claimed that not only do you know better than experts in science on climate, but also the same in various aspects of History.
Please, try to stand back from your furious polemic and think about just how bizarre you sound to others.
On your points
(1) … I got relentlessly attacked simply for stating what sceptics view is not denial and explaining the science presented by Salby.
(2) Read “the police visited today”
(3) How much of my life do you want me to donate for free?
(4) I have relevant degrees, relevant experience in temperature monitoring and control, I have produced numerous works on the subject and have 8 years experience in climate and 15 years experience in renewables and climate. And I was the one that correctly said the models would not work. If I’m not an expert then we are all non-experts.
Some friendly advice. Send your post to a trusted friend who knows nothing of the background. See what they think.
I won’t be back, but good luck. VTG
Thanks for the advice, but I really don’t want my friends, who don’t have as thick a skin as me, to see the kinds of nasty insults and abuse I get on this blog or have had on the internet.
Clueless, aren’t you?
Five years inclusive is totally insufficient to indicate anything at all, and a trend is purely a line on a piece of paper with some data points on it, and is entirely irrelevant to anything whatsoever beyond the scope of the data.
But if you really want to see a graph with trends on it, I think mine’s better!
#Time series (hadcrut4) from 1850 to 2013.92
#Selected data from 2001
#Least squares trend line; slope = -0.00110874 per year
Looks like it’s cooling at -0.110874 °C per century to me.
“Five years inclusive is totally insufficient to indicate anything at all, and a trend is purely a line on a piece of paper with some data points on it, and is entirely irrelevant to anything whatsoever beyond the scope of the data.”
yes. that’s the point I was trying to make.
Yes! 5 years is too short a trend. That is the kind of reply I expected as a reply. It was more “hey look at this – if you use these figures it’s cooling”.
It should have been an easy question to answer – you are bound to get different trends depending on the period chosen – I suspect that was possibly where I expected it would go – but I wasn’t prepared for the denial of the facts.
I understand your frustration. I have some dear, though very ‘green’ friends. They will simply cannot understand that they have been fed lies from the IPCC, Greenpeace, WWF and all the rest of the CAGW crowd. They think I am a conspiracy nut.
It is no use saying to them that I don’t deny the basic science, its just that I don’t think its nearly as bad, or as certain, or as catastrophic as claimed, and I think most of the solutions are the equivalent to blood letting – useless for curing the disease and likely to kill the patient.
We know that politicians lie to us as a matter of routine. We know (thanks to Christopher Snowdon & others) that the Health Lobby twists research to suit itself. We know that religious leaders lie constantly (even religious people know that all the other religions lie).
Why is it so hard for so many otherwise intelligent people to believe that the CAGW lobby lies too? And why will they not simply look at the evidence, and discuss it rationally? Why all the insults, threats and worse?
I don’t think you sound bizarre at all. I think people who have swallowed the ‘science is settled and more taxes are the answer’ crap are the ones who look ridiculous.
Here, here. Very well said.
It’s very difficult. I’ve been invited to a celebration as I helped out in a campaign to stop housing on our local nature reserve. Indeed, it was quite bizarre. They were trying to get me to front the campaign, because the land was owned by the rugby club, and I don’t think they liked the idea of being disliked locally.
I, on the other hand was desperately trying to get one of the environmentalists to front the campaign, because I knew the local MSP absolutely hates me because I’m a sceptic.
Indeed — if you see the picture (http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/home-news/fears-over-plan-for-houses-near-historic-nature-reserve.19604524)
I’m the idiot at the front. The one to my right was a friend who had nothing to do with the campaign. And the other guy was likewise brought along by the person who (not in photo) organised it.
When I read about the failure of the models to predict the future I am reminded about these great quotes :-
“When [Kepler] found that his long cherished beliefs did not agree with the most precise observations, he accepted the uncomfortable facts. He preferred the hard truth to his dearest illusions. That is the heart of science.” – Carl Sagan
“It doesn’t matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn’t matter how smart you are. If it doesn’t agree with experiment, it is wrong.” – physicist Richard Feynman
The long established Scientific Method shows that empirical evidence and observation is very important. Unfortunately Climate Science has difficulty following the Scientific Method because it cannot easily conduct experiments (since we only have one full size Earth .. and Sun, Moon). Therefore the pseudo-experiment is real life observations .. that have failed to correlate with the increasing global temperatures shown in the models.
climatology is an awkward subject with an awkward time-scale. In hard sciences, one can as you say do experiments, and so assertions can quickly be tested. So a researcher can afford to wait to bide their time before telling the public.
In subjects like history or geology, where it is very difficult if not impossible to prove anyone wrong, academics are given time to reflect and there is time to allow those who strongly hold a belief, to quietly go into retirement. In other words, things change more slowly than the comings and goings of individual academics.
But climate is in an in between world. A researcher can do a PhD, become a lecturer and even a professor, before the assertions in their PhD are ever tested. So, unlike other sciences, they cannot just say nothing until their results are validated. But unlike Arts subjects – many of their assertions will be tested before they retired.
In reality, it is a fairly new subject (at least in terms of the hypothesis-test cycle). So, it is inevitably have teething problems, working out how to state “understandings”, before they can be tested.
Unfortunately, they were far too cock-sure of themselves and now are having to deal with the mess. Unfortunately, that is often followed by a period when they won’t say anything at all for decades for fear of again getting into the same mess.
So, what I would suggest we sceptics want, is a “soft landing”. That is: we bring them down to a more sensible level of confidence in their “knowledge”, but we do so without terrifying the subject so much that it is all but useless for another 30 years — because that will result in a repeating cycle as they get the resurgence of over-confidence followed by another fall – followed by famine, etc.