A Possible Explanation for the "Pause" in Global Warming

[Jack Hays]

A new paper from Dr. Marcia Wyatt and Georgia Tech's Dr. Judith Curry, published in Climate Dynamics, may point to improved climate models and projections.eace

New paper from Dr. Judith Curry could explain ‘the pause’

Posted on October 10, 2013 by Anthony Watts
From the Georgia Institute of Technology
‘Stadium waves’ could explain lull in global warming
This is an image of Dr. Judith Curry, chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology.

One of the most controversial issues emerging from the recent Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Fifth Assessment Report (AR5) is the failure of global climate models to predict a hiatus in warming of global surface temperatures since 1998. Several ideas have been put forward to explain this hiatus, including what the IPCC refers to as ‘unpredictable climate variability’ that is associated with large-scale circulation regimes in the atmosphere and ocean. The most familiar of these regimes is El Niño/La Niña, which are parts of an oscillation in the ocean-atmosphere system. On longer multi-decadal time scales, there is a network of atmospheric and oceanic circulation regimes, including the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation and the Pacific Decadal Oscillation.
A new paper published in the journal Climate Dynamics suggests that this ‘unpredictable climate variability’ behaves in a more predictable way than previously assumed.

 

[Gimmesometruth]

Ms Curry believes that increased CO2 might be a good thing....because in greenhouses, plants use less water in higher CO2 environments....so this means more water for people!

Impact of climate, population and CO2 on water resources | Climate Etc.

 

[jmotivator]

Ms Curry believes that increased CO2 might be a good thing....because in greenhouses, plants use less water in higher CO2 environments....so this means more water for people!

Impact of climate, population and CO2 on water resources | Climate Etc.

And your point is?

 

[Mithrae]

Mostly for my own amusement, I made a graph of this 'pause' in warming which various folks are going on about. As mentioned elsewhere, my temperature data comes from the pages of AGW-sceptical climatologist Dr. Roy Spencer. My calculations, and links to his pages, can be found in my spreadsheet here, which I've corrected and extended back to 1980.



A full-size version of the graph can be viewed with this link

 

[Oftencold]

A new paper from Dr. Marcia Wyatt and Georgia Tech's Dr. Judith Curry, published in Climate Dynamics, may point to improved climate models and projections.eace

New paper from Dr. Judith Curry could explain ‘the pause’

Posted on October 10, 2013 by Anthony Watts
From the Georgia Institute of Technology
‘Stadium waves’ could explain lull in global warming
This is an image of Dr. Judith Curry, chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology.

One of the most controversial issues emerging from the recent Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Fifth Assessment Report (AR5) is the failure of global climate models to predict a hiatus in warming of global surface temperatures since 1998. Several ideas have been put forward to explain this hiatus, including what the IPCC refers to as ‘unpredictable climate variability’ that is associated with large-scale circulation regimes in the atmosphere and ocean. The most familiar of these regimes is El Niño/La Niña, which are parts of an oscillation in the ocean-atmosphere system. On longer multi-decadal time scales, there is a network of atmospheric and oceanic circulation regimes, including the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation and the Pacific Decadal Oscillation.
A new paper published in the journal Climate Dynamics suggests that this ‘unpredictable climate variability’ behaves in a more predictable way than previously assumed.

There is a much simpler and more likely explanation for why the AGW Acolytes predictions haven't panned out: "they was wrong then, wasn't they?"

 

[flogger]

There is a much simpler and more likely explanation for why the AGW Acolytes predictions haven't panned out: "they was wrong then, wasn't they?"

This happened in the 70s cooling scare too. Even the CIA commissioned a report on it in 1974 on the gravity of the repurcussions for US national security vs potential food shortages etc that the then 'experts' were warning of .

1974 CIA Report : Global Cooling Causing Excess Ice, Famine, Record Droughts And Floods | Real Science

The catastrophists have been desperately trying to 'paint' this embarrassing failure out of history ever since even commissioning a study to do just that at the height of the warming scare back in 2008. They seem to think that there arent people still around who remember it but it was big news then. Needless to say that one was allegedly all our fault too and we were heading for armaggeddon according to the same doomster hymnsheet they are reading off today. :roll:

 

[Oftencold]

This happened in the 70s cooling scare too. Even the CIA commissioned a report on it in 1974 on the gravity of the repurcussions for US national security vs potential food shortages etc that the then 'experts' were warning of .

1974 CIA Report : Global Cooling Causing Excess Ice, Famine, Record Droughts And Floods | Real Science

The catastrophists have been desperately trying to 'paint' this embarrassing failure out of history ever since even commissioning a study to do just that at the height of the warming scare back in 2008. They seem to think that there arent people still around who remember it but it was big news then. Needless to say that one was allegedly all our fault too and we were heading for armaggeddon according to the same doomster hymnsheet they are reading off today. :roll:

At one time witches were seen as a looming catastrophe. One of the obvious drastic actions that had to be take to protect people was to kill of their familiar spirits, well known to disguise themselves as cats. Of course then, the rat population in the cities exploded. And with the rats came fleas. With the fleas, came the Black Death.

 

[Jack Hays]

Mostly for my own amusement, I made a graph of this 'pause' in warming which various folks are going on about. As mentioned elsewhere, my temperature data comes from the pages of AGW-sceptical climatologist Dr. Roy Spencer. My calculations, and links to his pages, can be found in my spreadsheet here, which I've corrected and extended back to 1980.

View attachment 67154961

A full-size version of the graph can be viewed with this link

No one disputes this data. Indeed, it's the basis of the paper in the OP.eace

 

[Mithrae]

This happened in the 70s cooling scare too. Even the CIA commissioned a report on it in 1974 on the gravity of the repurcussions for US national security vs potential food shortages etc that the then 'experts' were warning of .

1974 CIA Report : Global Cooling Causing Excess Ice, Famine, Record Droughts And Floods | Real Science

And the Pentagon did a report on global warming - and this was in 2003, under the presidency of the oil fellah :lol: You do understand that it's their job to be prepared for contingencies, don't you?

The catastrophists have been desperately trying to 'paint' this embarrassing failure out of history ever since even commissioning a study to do just that at the height of the warming scare back in 2008. They seem to think that there arent people still around who remember it but it was big news then. Needless to say that one was allegedly all our fault too and we were heading for armaggeddon according to the same doomster hymnsheet they are reading off today. :roll:

As I've previously pointed out to you - in a study coincidentally from 2008! - there was no expert consensus about cooling in the 70s. Not trying to poison the well there, were you?

In the actual scientific literature of the 70s, global cooling papers (and citations) were both outnumbered six-fold by global warming papers (and citations). Over 60% of papers examined supported global warming, though they might not have been all relevant papers (and might all not have indicated anthropogenic warming). But given that the history of the idea goes back at least as far as Alexander Graham Bell in 1917 we can readily infer that as early as the 1970s a growing significant minority of the experts were already recognising the impacts and risks which are now recognised by the national academies of sciences of all major developed nations and (according to various credible meta-studies and surveys) at least 80 percent of relevantly-qualified scientists.

As Oftencold helps to illustrate, religions, governments, corporations and the media certainly indulge in all kinds of ignorance, scaremongering and sensationalism. But while it's not perfect, sitting here listening to an MP3 track while typing on my laptop under the warm glowing warming glow of an electric lightbulb, I reckon that the track record of science in the past few centuries has been pretty darn good

 

[flogger]

At one time witches were seen as a looming catastrophe. One of the obvious drastic actions that had to be take to protect people was to kill of their familiar spirits, well known to disguise themselves as cats. Of course then, the rat population in the cities exploded. And with the rats came fleas. With the fleas, came the Black Death.

Given the current scare is petering out due to inconvenient real world observations (just like the last one did) they have a new one lined up and waiting in the wings. Its called 'Oceanic Acidification' so prepare for more shrouds to be waved guilt to be indoctrinated and most importantly wallets to be emptied

 

[Diogenes]

Given the current scare is petering out due to inconvenient real world observations (just like the last one did) they have a new one lined up and waiting in the wings. Its called 'Oceanic Acidification' so prepare for more shrouds to be waved guilt to be indoctrinated and most importantly wallets to be emptied

You are correct. The world will never suffer a shortage of doomsayers.

 

[Mithrae]

You are correct. The world will never suffer a shortage of doomsayers.

No shortage of folk eager to tickle itching ears with promises of peace and prosperity either, to use a biblical expression, but neither of these tell us anything about facts.

Who knows the most about the facts, I wonder?

 

[flogger]

You are correct. The world will never suffer a shortage of doomsayers.

Creating taxable fear is what governments have been doing for a while now. There seems to be an almost Freudian need for some in our safe cossetted Western lives to have some fear or other to cherish and they will defend that fear against all comers however irrational you show them it is . I've noticed many scares (and not just environmental ones) come and go and this has been particularly apparent since the Cold War ended. Its almost in as if in absence of that very real fear that many required the AGW placebo to replace it. Its no surprise to me that the ending of the cold war and the start of the AGW eco gloomer scare almost exactly coincided. Government just love this one too because its so lucrative and can never be disproven whatever happens ...ker ching

 

[Mithrae]

Its no surprise to me that the ending of the cold war and the start of the AGW eco gloomer scare almost exactly coincided.

Once again -
In 1917 Alexander Graham Bell wrote “[The unchecked burning of fossil fuels] would have a sort of greenhouse effect”, and “The net result is the greenhouse becomes a sort of hot-house.”[14][15] Bell went on to also advocate for the use of alternate energy sources, such as solar energy.[16]
- and in the late 60s through the 70s, with over 60% of both scientific papers and citations of those papers recognising global warming, it's clear that at the very least a significant and growing portion of experts were already forming the conclusions which are now all but universal.

SOURCES:
Greenhouse effect - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie
Expert credibility in climate change


The cold war ended in 1991, more than a decade after the 1970s.
Maths really isn't your forte, is it? C'mon man, some people actually put a little effort in their conspiracy theories!

 

[Jack Hays]

Once again -
In 1917 Alexander Graham Bell wrote “[The unchecked burning of fossil fuels] would have a sort of greenhouse effect”, and “The net result is the greenhouse becomes a sort of hot-house.”[14][15] Bell went on to also advocate for the use of alternate energy sources, such as solar energy.[16]
- and in the late 60s through the 70s, with over 60% of both scientific papers and citations of those papers recognising global warming, it's clear that at the very least a significant and growing portion of experts were already forming the conclusions which are now all but universal.

SOURCES:
Greenhouse effect - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie
Expert credibility in climate change


The cold war ended in 1991, more than a decade after the 1970s.
Maths really isn't your forte, is it? C'mon man, some people actually put a little effort in their conspiracy theories!

Just like the archeological consensus on the Clovis people.

 

[Jack Hays]

Once again -
In 1917 Alexander Graham Bell wrote “[The unchecked burning of fossil fuels] would have a sort of greenhouse effect”, and “The net result is the greenhouse becomes a sort of hot-house.”[14][15] Bell went on to also advocate for the use of alternate energy sources, such as solar energy.[16]
- and in the late 60s through the 70s, with over 60% of both scientific papers and citations of those papers recognising global warming, it's clear that at the very least a significant and growing portion of experts were already forming the conclusions which are now all but universal.

SOURCES:
Greenhouse effect - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie
Expert credibility in climate change


The cold war ended in 1991, more than a decade after the 1970s.
Maths really isn't your forte, is it? C'mon man, some people actually put a little effort in their conspiracy theories!

Just like the archeological consensus on the Clovis people.

 

[code1211]

Mostly for my own amusement, I made a graph of this 'pause' in warming which various folks are going on about. As mentioned elsewhere, my temperature data comes from the pages of AGW-sceptical climatologist Dr. Roy Spencer. My calculations, and links to his pages, can be found in my spreadsheet here, which I've corrected and extended back to 1980.

View attachment 67154961

A full-size version of the graph can be viewed with this link

Your data is not in step with nor is it as current as the real data.

http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAH_LT_1979_thru_July_2013_v5.6.png

 

[code1211]

Once again -
In 1917 Alexander Graham Bell wrote “[The unchecked burning of fossil fuels] would have a sort of greenhouse effect”, and “The net result is the greenhouse becomes a sort of hot-house.”[14][15] Bell went on to also advocate for the use of alternate energy sources, such as solar energy.[16]
- and in the late 60s through the 70s, with over 60% of both scientific papers and citations of those papers recognising global warming, it's clear that at the very least a significant and growing portion of experts were already forming the conclusions which are now all but universal.

SOURCES:
Greenhouse effect - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie
Expert credibility in climate change


The cold war ended in 1991, more than a decade after the 1970s.
Maths really isn't your forte, is it? C'mon man, some people actually put a little effort in their conspiracy theories!

Do you have the statistically accurate prediction from Bell of the actual rise of temperature and the actual measure of the rise of CO2 that he conducted and published.

Do you know if he ever did research on climate ranging beyond what we all do thinking that the weather seems to have changed?

If not, this is merely the musing of a very interesting and intelligent person.

 

[Mithrae]

Just like the archeological consensus on the Clovis people.

True, an expert consensus isn't always the same thing as fact - especially if the experts themselves don't claim any great certainty. Did they, in the case of the Clovis people? History and archaeology have always been especially impeded by a more limited scope for observation (discoveries) and less opportunity for experimentation or testing than most other branches of science. (Many folk wouldn't even consider them real sciences if it comes to that.) According to Wikipedia the Clovis sites were discovered in the 1930s, and perhaps at that stage the experts did consider their views of this first race quite certain. I know that in the case of biblical and middle-eastern historiography the view of relatively early developments of culture and civilization prevailed in the early 20th century. But there'd been many ground-breaking discoveries in the early parts and middle of the century and later (at Nuzi or Ebla for example), and I suspect that any residual tendency towards late-dating human cultures and achievements, as well as over-confidence in what remains we have so far recovered, should've been mostly dispelled by the 70s or so. That's the timeframe I've so far seen (and shown) in which a significant minority, or perhaps a slim majority, of experts seem to have been reaching the global warming conclusions, though when it became a 'consensus' I couldn't say. Depends what we mean by consensus in any case (I'd say anything above 80% or so). The late 80s maybe?

Point is we all know that the world's best and brightest can be wrong. But these days especially, they know it too and tend to temper their claims accordingly. It's generally the media, politicians and special interest groups (both corporate and non-profit) which tend towards hype, sensationalism and alarmism.

A consensus of the experts isn't infallible, but it's about the best we can hope for - especially we simpletons who aren't even experts.

And if most of those experts go so far as to express some confidence in certain particular, core elements of their conclusions? The study referenced in your OP may (or may not) help explain why the warming trend has not been as sharp as many climatologists expected. There are other contending explanations also from what I've seen; deep ocean warming, or a 60-70 year warming/cooling cycle influenced by solar or astronomical cycles which Code educated me on. Perhaps they overlap and several of them are true, or perhaps none of them are. All of human knowledge is a work in progress. It's unfortunate that when our experts have acknowledged this fact, these areas of uncertainty, some special interest groups have so publicly seized the opportunity to quote 'em out of context as if it were proof that the whole field is a farce!

On the contrary: Unless I have some good reason to suspect otherwise, I would much sooner trust the confident proclamations of a consensus of experts who acknowledge when they are not confident, than folk who never acknowledge uncertainty or error.


##############################
##############################

Your data is not in step with nor is it as current as the real data.

http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAH_LT_1979_thru_July_2013_v5.6.png

Flogger posted the same graph in another thread (albeit without any reference, and rather less politely). As I said to him, I have used Dr. Spencer's data. It's not as current and not in step with that graph because just as he's highlighted the 13-month running average of his monthly data, my graph plots the 5-year average of his annual data, to smooth out the discrepancies of individual el nino or la nina years and better illustrate the general trend.

Do you have the statistically accurate prediction from Bell of the actual rise of temperature and the actual measure of the rise of CO2 that he conducted and published.

Do you know if he ever did research on climate ranging beyond what we all do thinking that the weather seems to have changed?

If not, this is merely the musing of a very interesting and intelligent person.

Of course, though it does imply that some of the key theoretical (and basic experimental) underpinnings were already in place that early, perhaps even earlier judging by some of those other quotes on Wikipedia. I mention Bell simply to highlight the apparent development, trend or progress of scientific thought here. Contrary to Flogger's conspiracy-style implication, the notion of AGW was not manufactured as some kind of scare campaign to fill a Cold War void: The current consensus was preceded back in the 70s by a significant minority of relevant scientists reaching that conclusion (or perhaps even a slim majority, even then), and they in turn were preceded by the much more speculative long-term concerns (based on reasonable theory and modest experiment) of folk like Bell and no doubt less prominent others following the work of Tyndall and Arrhenius.

The media sensationalism (there surely is as much sensationalism favouring AGW, just as there is opposing it, just as there was about global cooling and so on ad infinitum) or the specific government funding have followed the science - it's simple ignorance for anyone to imply otherwise.

 

[code1211]

True, an expert consensus isn't always the same thing as fact - especially if the experts themselves don't claim any great certainty. Did they, in the case of the Clovis people? History and archaeology have always been especially impeded by a more limited scope for observation (discoveries) and less opportunity for experimentation or testing than most other branches of science. (Many folk wouldn't even consider them real sciences if it comes to that.) According to Wikipedia the Clovis sites were discovered in the 1930s, and perhaps at that stage the experts did consider their views of this first race quite certain. I know that in the case of biblical and middle-eastern historiography the view of relatively early developments of culture and civilization prevailed in the early 20th century. But there'd been many ground-breaking discoveries in the early parts and middle of the century and later (at Nuzi or Ebla for example), and I suspect that any residual tendency towards late-dating human cultures and achievements, as well as over-confidence in what remains we have so far recovered, should've been mostly dispelled by the 70s or so. That's the timeframe I've so far seen (and shown) in which a significant minority, or perhaps a slim majority, of experts seem to have been reaching the global warming conclusions, though when it became a 'consensus' I couldn't say. Depends what we mean by consensus in any case (I'd say anything above 80% or so). The late 80s maybe?

Point is we all know that the world's best and brightest can be wrong. But these days especially, they know it too and tend to temper their claims accordingly. It's generally the media, politicians and special interest groups (both corporate and non-profit) which tend towards hype, sensationalism and alarmism.

A consensus of the experts isn't infallible, but it's about the best we can hope for - especially we simpletons who aren't even experts.

And if most of those experts go so far as to express some confidence in certain particular, core elements of their conclusions? The study referenced in your OP may (or may not) help explain why the warming trend has not been as sharp as many climatologists expected. There are other contending explanations also from what I've seen; deep ocean warming, or a 60-70 year warming/cooling cycle influenced by solar or astronomical cycles which Code educated me on. Perhaps they overlap and several of them are true, or perhaps none of them are. All of human knowledge is a work in progress. It's unfortunate that when our experts have acknowledged this fact, these areas of uncertainty, some special interest groups have so publicly seized the opportunity to quote 'em out of context as if it were proof that the whole field is a farce!

On the contrary: Unless I have some good reason to suspect otherwise, I would much sooner trust the confident proclamations of a consensus of experts who acknowledge when they are not confident, than folk who never acknowledge uncertainty or error.


##############################
##############################



Flogger posted the same graph in another thread (albeit without any reference, and rather less politely). As I said to him, I have used Dr. Spencer's data. It's not as current and not in step with that graph because just as he's highlighted the 13-month running average of his monthly data, my graph plots the 5-year average of his annual data, to smooth out the discrepancies of individual el nino or la nina years and better illustrate the general trend.


Of course, though it does imply that some of the key theoretical (and basic experimental) underpinnings were already in place that early, perhaps even earlier judging by some of those other quotes on Wikipedia. I mention Bell simply to highlight the apparent development, trend or progress of scientific thought here. Contrary to Flogger's conspiracy-style implication, the notion of AGW was not manufactured as some kind of scare campaign to fill a Cold War void: The current consensus was preceded back in the 70s by a significant minority of relevant scientists reaching that conclusion (or perhaps even a slim majority, even then), and they in turn were preceded by the much more speculative long-term concerns (based on reasonable theory and modest experiment) of folk like Bell and no doubt less prominent others following the work of Tyndall and Arrhenius.

The media sensationalism (there surely is as much sensationalism favouring AGW, just as there is opposing it, just as there was about global cooling and so on ad infinitum) or the specific government funding have followed the science - it's simple ignorance for anyone to imply otherwise.

As I said, though, it is merely the musing of a very intelligent and interesting person. Nothing more.

 

[Jack Hays]

True, an expert consensus isn't always the same thing as fact - especially if the experts themselves don't claim any great certainty. Did they, in the case of the Clovis people? History and archaeology have always been especially impeded by a more limited scope for observation (discoveries) and less opportunity for experimentation or testing than most other branches of science. (Many folk wouldn't even consider them real sciences if it comes to that.) According to Wikipedia the Clovis sites were discovered in the 1930s, and perhaps at that stage the experts did consider their views of this first race quite certain. I know that in the case of biblical and middle-eastern historiography the view of relatively early developments of culture and civilization prevailed in the early 20th century. But there'd been many ground-breaking discoveries in the early parts and middle of the century and later (at Nuzi or Ebla for example), and I suspect that any residual tendency towards late-dating human cultures and achievements, as well as over-confidence in what remains we have so far recovered, should've been mostly dispelled by the 70s or so. That's the timeframe I've so far seen (and shown) in which a significant minority, or perhaps a slim majority, of experts seem to have been reaching the global warming conclusions, though when it became a 'consensus' I couldn't say. Depends what we mean by consensus in any case (I'd say anything above 80% or so). The late 80s maybe?

Point is we all know that the world's best and brightest can be wrong. But these days especially, they know it too and tend to temper their claims accordingly. It's generally the media, politicians and special interest groups (both corporate and non-profit) which tend towards hype, sensationalism and alarmism.

A consensus of the experts isn't infallible, but it's about the best we can hope for - especially we simpletons who aren't even experts.

And if most of those experts go so far as to express some confidence in certain particular, core elements of their conclusions? The study referenced in your OP may (or may not) help explain why the warming trend has not been as sharp as many climatologists expected. There are other contending explanations also from what I've seen; deep ocean warming, or a 60-70 year warming/cooling cycle influenced by solar or astronomical cycles which Code educated me on. Perhaps they overlap and several of them are true, or perhaps none of them are. All of human knowledge is a work in progress. It's unfortunate that when our experts have acknowledged this fact, these areas of uncertainty, some special interest groups have so publicly seized the opportunity to quote 'em out of context as if it were proof that the whole field is a farce!

On the contrary: Unless I have some good reason to suspect otherwise, I would much sooner trust the confident proclamations of a consensus of experts who acknowledge when they are not confident, than folk who never acknowledge uncertainty or error.


##############################
##############################



Flogger posted the same graph in another thread (albeit without any reference, and rather less politely). As I said to him, I have used Dr. Spencer's data. It's not as current and not in step with that graph because just as he's highlighted the 13-month running average of his monthly data, my graph plots the 5-year average of his annual data, to smooth out the discrepancies of individual el nino or la nina years and better illustrate the general trend.


Of course, though it does imply that some of the key theoretical (and basic experimental) underpinnings were already in place that early, perhaps even earlier judging by some of those other quotes on Wikipedia. I mention Bell simply to highlight the apparent development, trend or progress of scientific thought here. Contrary to Flogger's conspiracy-style implication, the notion of AGW was not manufactured as some kind of scare campaign to fill a Cold War void: The current consensus was preceded back in the 70s by a significant minority of relevant scientists reaching that conclusion (or perhaps even a slim majority, even then), and they in turn were preceded by the much more speculative long-term concerns (based on reasonable theory and modest experiment) of folk like Bell and no doubt less prominent others following the work of Tyndall and Arrhenius.

The media sensationalism (there surely is as much sensationalism favouring AGW, just as there is opposing it, just as there was about global cooling and so on ad infinitum) or the specific government funding have followed the science - it's simple ignorance for anyone to imply otherwise.

In its later stages a prevailing paradigm in decay will acquire more and more elaborations and exceptional explanations to account for accumulating contrary evidence. The outstanding historical example is the epicycles postulated by defenders of the Ptolemaic planetary system to account for the observations of telescope wielding skeptics. That is the phase of AGW now. Professor Svensmark is in the role of Copernicus. Svensmark's thesis is more comprehensive, simpler and more elegant -- and more likely to be true.eace

 

[Threegoofs]

This happened in the 70s cooling scare too. Even the CIA commissioned a report on it in 1974 on the gravity of the repurcussions for US national security vs potential food shortages etc that the then 'experts' were warning of .

1974 CIA Report : Global Cooling Causing Excess Ice, Famine, Record Droughts And Floods | Real Science

The catastrophists have been desperately trying to 'paint' this embarrassing failure out of history ever since even commissioning a study to do just that at the height of the warming scare back in 2008. They seem to think that there arent people still around who remember it but it was big news then. Needless to say that one was allegedly all our fault too and we were heading for armaggeddon according to the same doomster hymnsheet they are reading off today. :roll:

I always forget. What branch of science does CIA stand for again?

 

[Jack Hays]

I always forget. What branch of science does CIA stand for again?

Their Directorate of Science & Technology employs some of the best and brightest.

 

[Mithrae]

In its later stages a prevailing paradigm in decay will acquire more and more elaborations and exceptional explanations to account for accumulating contrary evidence. The outstanding historical example is the epicycles postulated by defenders of the Ptolemaic planetary system to account for the observations of telescope wielding skeptics. That is the phase of AGW now. Professor Svensmark is in the role of Copernicus. Svensmark's thesis is more comprehensive, simpler and more elegant -- and more likely to be true.eace

Just from some quick Wiki-ing it seems Svensmark's ideas have plenty of critics too. Simpler does not always mean better, because like it or not, reality is often quite complex. We see this even in the case of your own example: Centuries after Copernicus some bright German fellow realised that that there is no absolute frame of reference at all, which means that describing the motions of sun and planets relative to the earth is just as valid as describing the motion of all the planets relative to the sun. The latter is much simpler, so that's what we tend to use, but that doesn't make it correct and the other incorrect :lol:

 

[Jack Hays]

Just from some quick Wiki-ing it seems Svensmark's ideas have plenty of critics too. Simpler does not always mean better, because like it or not, reality is often quite complex. We see this even in the case of your own example: Centuries after Copernicus some bright German fellow realised that that there is no absolute frame of reference at all, which means that describing the motions of sun and planets relative to the earth is just as valid as describing the motion of all the planets relative to the sun. The latter is much simpler, so that's what we tend to use, but that doesn't make it correct and the other incorrect :lol:

A less charitable interlocutor would describe that as nonsense.