Thursday, June 11, 2009

Satellite Temperatures' Inconvenient Truth

I believe this picture is worth a thousand words. Not much sign of that runaway global warming thing that we used to hear so much about...

PKD, if you are reading this, your comments are currently blocked due to your insistence on being obnoxious.

11 comments:

JR said...

Those pesky satellites aren't doing much to help push the AGW story line, are they?

As it happens I just put up a post on "runaway global warming" that might interest you.

P K D said...

Aah - poor Half. I really feel sorry for you.

You'd rather have a deserted blog, than one where you're being badgered with the truth.

Go ahead then, stick your head up your bum and enjoy the self-adulation!

Halfwise said...

Hello readers. Here is another sample of PKD spreading joy.

JR said...

Yup. PKD is typical of the many trolls who find a demented joy in being churlish.

Anonymous said...

PKD - I reckon you can't handle what the graph is saying. And it's satellite data! What do you say about that?

PKD said...

Umm - its STILL above average - and its meant to be sooooo cold - what with the PDO and the solar cycle.

So the real question for your denialists to ponder is - why is it still above average???

Halfwise said...

I don't recall hearing anything about the PDO or the solar cycle when things were warmer a few years ago. It was all CO2 all the time. How much did non-CO2 factors contribute, PKD? Or are they as selective in their effect as you are in your use of data?

Meanwhile I will tremble before the mighty 0.04C anomaly, knowing that it might be a portent of worse things to come.

PKD said...

The point you're missing there Half is - if the previous rise in temps was down to simple old PDO and solar cycles et al, and now the world is cooling *all* because of these same effects, then shouldn't we be well BELOW average by now?

Hmm? We're still above it and last year was what, the 10th warmest on record?

Halfwise said...

PKD, thank you for your patience with me. However, I guess I do not share your faith just yet.

You mention a couple of mechanisms that have never been in the IPCC mantra, and which were never used to attenuate the hype of AGW when temperatures were warming. It was all CO2, all the time when things were warming up. Now you suggest that someone is smart enough to know that things should be cooling by some convenient amount, but are not. What would this be based on?

This is a chaos-rich system, with shaky temperature data, rich politics, and scientists' careers and reputations muddying the issue. You have faith that it is all understood, explainable and predictable. I have no such faith, and the more time passes, the more content I am to be a skeptic. Alarmists have to accommodate all the new information that emerges and (if you were diligent) explain why you did not account for it before and what impact the new information has on the confident analyses that were made before, without the new information. Not me! I can just relax here and say "that is interesting - there is something else we didn't allow for, that maybe we should have."

Keep your faith, PKD, if it serves you. But don't expect to convert me.

PKD said...

I have to admit - thats a very neat way of completely avoiding the question I posed Half!

THe definition of a cynic is someone who stands by and carps and complains about something, while suggesting nothing himself to improve the situation in question. I personally find your 'sitting on the fence' position to be quite in alignment with the world of the cynic...

Halfwise said...

PKD, you misunderstand me, perhaps on purpose.

Your questions and comments all imply a level of comprehension of causality and interrelationships that I can not accept as reality. This is a chaos-rich system, I keep saying, and you keep responding with "why isn't it behaving in a certain way?". How do chaos-rich systems behave? Well, they behave in ways that we can't explain, or if we do explain them our explanations fail when new conditions occur.

You believe that climate can be explained and predicted, and that changes in climate are understood and can be reversed if only stubborn people like me would get on board.

I do not share your beliefs. I do not even believe the surface temperature record itself, never mind the sophisticated explanations of why it is what it is and what could be done to make it different.

You asked two comments ago about where we "should" be in terms of temperature. Who knows? The very question implies a level of comprehension about the system that I say does not exist.

I call myself Halfwise on this blog for a reason. We are only half as wise as we imagine ourselves to be. That which we do not know is overwhelming. A great mistake is launched when we proceed with confidence into a chaos-rich system, unaware of our blind spots and the limits of our knowledge.

You believe otherwise, and you persist in airing your views on this little blog which, as you say, attracts very few readers. Good for you. I think it just proves my point.