Positive Climate Feedback
Posted by Jeff Condon on July 22, 2010
Positive feedback is used in every climate model to demonstrate aggressive warming from small changes in CO2. Climate scientists agree that these models are accurate despite the disgustingly poorly quantified response of climate to warming. The models also incorporate ridiculously long and nearly impossible CO2 absorption times. Let’s not get started on the aerosol assumptions, yet everyone is so sure – well climate science is. You question them directly and get obtuse answers and references to papers which are as full of assumption as can be imagined. They really don’t know these important answers – so they couch it in uncertainty and have piled enough of it on top of the piles of others to declare consensus and further, that unbelievers (or the unconvinced) are deniers, deceivers, on the payroll of whichever energy company powers their cushy lifestyles.
What causes this kind of self deception. It is a deception in my opinion because there is a LOT more than uncertainty in climate science and it’s astoundingly easy to find. You can see it in the way climategate was handled. They can’t explain the fact that data is contradicting their conclusions, so they delete the data. It’s the case with Kelly discussing the deletion of endpoints for a presentation. If you add Jones, Mann, and Briffa discussing hide the decline, it’s a done deal. They spent literally over a decade pointing out the same flaws to each other that today’s skeptics discuss in paleo-papers and yet…………. still publish the unpublishable, conclude the inconclusive, sophisticizing the unknown settling for the term …uncertainty.
Climate science is similar to the ‘science’ of philosophy in my mind. Philosophy had no start point, no foundation which could be built on. Some scientists imagined less and less knowledge about the universe until nothing could be knowable, others assumed god wasn’t a deceiver and built from there. Neither of these cases was provable yet they spent their lives doing ‘science’. If people listened to them, then they must be doing the right thing. Of course they could have heated discussions inside their group but was anyone’s conclusion wrong??
The understanding of philosophy at that level is unprovable.
In the case of climate science, these people are required to engage in predicting the future. Which to my knowledge has never been done to much accuracy. Not one instance of future prediction has ever worked out —- on a scientific certainty of course. I suppose that if you plan to go to work tomorrow and call the boss an asshole, there might be some ability to predict the future but that is fairly unique.
Weathermen have been our favorite punchbags for how many years? Does anyone want to bet on the weather next week? Does anyone want the job itself?
Now most here understand that the effects the climatologists describe will create a long slow signal on top of the weather noise. It does make sense, but for those of us who work in other science fields, and can understand a RegEM paper, the climate unknown is more than a bit of uncertainty. It’s just unknown. I don’t care what consensus scientists say about it, my experience in science is that if you cannot explain it clearly, the matter is not known.
I’ve run across plenty of confusing and surprising situations in my career but there is always the known and the unknown, there is also uncertainty but climate science is absolutely RIFE with unknowns, disguised in publication as uncertainty. For instance, THEY don’t know why and didn’t predict THAT Antarctic sea ice would increase. They don’t know the true cycle of CO2 in the atmosphere and They don’t know what feedback’s to expect from warming.
So how can a science become so sure of itself? Jeff, Jeff, Jeff, how can so many become so deluded that they cannot see and only you can?? Why is it only you that can see the truth??
Well first, I’m hardly alone but I have an aversion to the uniformity of their politics. Consider that admission in the face of those who would discredit my opinions. How can such a large group all have such similar politics? It makes me very irritated to see the false solutions they propose, biofuel, today’s solar, etc. but of course that cannot affect the science. I simply will NOT allow it to affect my opinions on science. Numbers are numbers, math is math.
I started this blog thinking that if the science is true, why is every solution based on limitation. Why aren’t we discussing solutions that work? The working stuff like nuclear, research into batteries and solar.
That would have been a fine discussion for me to spend months on, but it was Mann08 at Climate Audit that started me seeing the problems in the science. And the science is fat with bad work. Absolutely fat with people making ridiculous and unprovable conclusions like fish shrinking 40% from overfishing and 3% more from global warming. Coral’s dissolving. Birds and sheep smaller today due to carbon emissions yet flatly ignoring the positives in plant growth. Very much of this is complete bullcrap, it is not a close call, and neither is ‘hide the decline’.
I’ve never seen more garbage in science. ………….So why AGW?
In engineering, we have the god of physics looking over our shoulder with a very heavy steel fly swatter waiting to smack our best ideas down the moment they are created. If you make a mistake, it’s often not catastrophic, but I guarantee you — god will help you find it.
Philosophy has none. Zero feedback for results except for what others think of them. There isn’t to my knowledge a god of philosophy, and I cannot remember the fraudulent philosopher, but it’s not my field.
Think about that, weatherman’s models must be equally or more sophisticated than climate models yet some reports say weathermen are almost as widely skeptics as climatologists are believers. Why….. because they experience feedback – within hours — and we all know what happens to their best ideas. They know that weather sometimes doesn’t follow their best ideas/models. The technical here will understand that sophists may claim density of data is the problem, but they will also understand that something isn’t perfect in the model..
In climate, no scientist has ever been proven wrong to my knowledge. Mann98 was found by NAS to be good for 400 of 2000 years despite the fact that nobody knows the proxies are temp or whatever and despite the fact that the math was botched — completely.
Hell, they still defend the rubbish at ‘real cliamate’.
But there’s more to the problem. Climate scientists not only don’t receive the negative feedback they require to comprehend the hard science they imagine, climate science has positive feedback built in. A strong, massively positive feedback from:
And more exactly from world government money. Does anyone think Mann and Jones suffer from lack of funds? What about my old engineering professors. Does anyone want to guess who does better work? Global warming “”science”" is a hundred billion plus dollar industry — and expanding.
This is also not a close call.
What we citizens of planet Earth are left with, is a funding of a soft science by government officials. Gee who do you think they would fund? Would they fund Steve McIntyre to archive data or would they rather pay Mann to make an unprecedented temperature reconstruction while simultaneously stating that we need more government taxation and regulation to solve the problem?? — not a close call.
Nevermind that nobody is going to talk about the only working solutions to energy.
Nevermind that paleo temperature reconstructions are FOUNDED on bad math.
Nevermind that models all have the same feedbacks.
Nevermind that global temperature data is so bad that the labels are wrong on hundreds of stations.
“What we have here is a ‘failure to communicate’”.
Either that, or it’s a positive $$ feedback pushing us to a tipping point of regulation, exactly as anticipated by the creators of the IPCC. The brilliance of these politicians exceeded anything a 29 year old scientist can conceive – even as they have aged.
Oddly, ironically, uniquely……..the only thing we don’t have is, uncertainty.
So with that beautifully espoused work, I am taking the next few days off. I do have more Mannian stuff to dig with a shovel but if those of my many scientific readers (some of whom are philosophers) will consider where they would be in life without being wrong once in a while.
I’m serious! Imagine yourself as that cocky young kid with no negative feedback. — not so hard is it? You knew you could keep up with the big guys on absolutely anything. Your prof’s say NOTHING that you cannot understand or figure out.
Most scientific skeptics here were able enough to keep up with whatever, and you damned well knew it, but at 29, you were a kid… No intimidation…….none of what your colleagues felt and often verbalized. You could keep up and with some effort exceed others at the science game. What do you think turned you into skeptics? Not following the herd for sure.
So in accepting that, consider:
What if no physical realities were there to show you that you were EVER wrong?
What would that do to your personality?
Instead of occasional learning experiences, someone pays you big $$ for all of your results.
Mann was discovered at 29. Yet he doesn’t think I (or we) understand him in his complexity. I’m equally certain that he doesn’t understand the Air Vent. Parity right? Mann had already been internationally recognized for success when he ran into the correct math after all. Imagine the pressure on a 29 year old. When you see his climategate personality, his unfortunate narcissism is far more palpable and kills the sympathy. He was young and chose to turtle rather than admit error. Today he is older, and still turtling.
Where would you be??
What would you be? Many of us get/understand each others backgrounds and we recognize the difference between uncertainty and unknown. What is difficult for us is communication that can counter the massive positive feedback from global government.
Philosophy by Jeff
If you have a ‘scientifically reasonable’ guest post you would like carried, I’m gone for the next 3 days. Please sennd to me by email on the left before 2pm Chicago time all submissions will be judged on merit.
Fun to write.