You are rather backed by your opinions and guesses ABOUT science... Now those opinions might be reasonable and the guesses could be educated... but they are not science.
They are not "opinions" or "guesses". They are probabilities, backed by a great deal of evidence - like virtually everything in science. Higgs Boson existence? Probability. The Big Bang? Probability. Quantum mechanics? Yeah, a lot of that. To be scientific, a theory does not have to be a certainty at all; the probability just needs to be carefully quantified, and backed by observation and/or experiment.
...you have overstated your reasonable degree of confidence on issues for political gain. This has been done repeatedly which is why many of the IPCC reports have come under such savage criticism
Citation needed. The IPCC reports all state their conclusions in probabilities, which are carefully quantified, and are backed by citations of peer-reviewed studies at every stage. The vast majority of the evidence presented in the IPCC reports has proved under very close examination to be solid (NOT absolutely certain, but of sound scientific methodology). This is why they are accepted as, not the gospel truth, but the best information on the subject that we have, by every major scientific institution and government, as well as by the great majority of scientists (and nearly all climatologists).
It is THAT which is ultimately causing most of the controversy. Not the science but rather the political solution to the science.
I do agree that this is the source of the controversy. Solutions are indeed often political, but unfortunately all too often, peoples' political views about some of the solutions contaminate their views of the science, which usually leads to claims that the science itself is being politicised. I disagree with that.
Or you must sit down and talk about solutions we can all find palatable.
If only we could do that. Unfortunately, there are still far too many strident voices still trying to undermine the science, which blocks any reasonable discussion of solutions. If those voices actually had any peer-reviewed evidence of a quality that could convince a reasonable number of experts, that would be fine, but sadly these dissenting voices tend to rely on volume instead.
I'm also of the opinion that many people misunderstand the solutions that have been proposed (for example, see all the claims that a phased transition to a carbon-neutral economy would be a disastrous burden on society, whereas many economists are seeing it as an opportunity for actually reducing the many existing external costs of carbon emissions).
It's not just creation cost, it's storage cost. If every tree is different, you need a complete dataset for every tree.
Notice how they didn't tell us how big any of those scenes were? The only number they mentioned for a laser-scanned scene was 3 terabytes (presumably after their compression), and I don't see anything close to that making it into a consumer release.
Still nicely done tech for professional fields; I just take issue with their whole "infinite detail! polygons are DEAD!" hyperbole.
As for 4, I don't disagree, but my point was there is no easy way to determine absoutely if any given study is "scientifically correct" - particularly if you are not an expert in the field. That being the case, "probably" right is usually all we can determine (as most scientists themselves will tell you). And the science in question has well over 30 years of peer-reviewed observation to back it up, so climatologists do have some knowledge on the subject.
In effect, you're saying you don't want to be open minded and methodical on the issue because you think your supposed consensus gives you license to politicize the issue.
I'm not sure why people feel compelled to drag politics into this issue in the first place. I certainly have no interest in doing so. And I'm happy to be open-minded to new evidence - if it's solid enough to pass peer review, for a start (peer review: consensus in action).
I have little time for anecdotal arguments however, and less for people that dismiss peer-reviewed studies (and authors of same) for being "politicised", particularly if they can't offer any more reason than "this is the same thing as said by other, politically-leaning people".
Clearly you don't know how the Argument from Authority works, if you assume it is automatically a fallacy.
Nobody is claiming that the consensus view is 100% unassailably correct, just because it's a consensus. Like Occam's Razor, it's merely an aid to choosing between uncertain alternatives. Any rock-solid evidence could challenge the consensus view successfully - if you could be certain it was rock-solid.
And therein lies the rub. Science is uncertain. 100% certainty does not exist, outside pure math. We will never see a study that is self-evidently absolute truth to any person who views it, because a study can only roughly approximate reality, and our ability to judge these approximations varies according to our expertise with that aspect of reality and the techniques used to approximate it. Failing to realise this is the hallmark of Dunning-Kruger.
In the absence of certainty, the consensus view is more probably correct, and is therefore the best view to take, at least until better evidence comes along. And if you believe there is already better evidence, then why has it not changed the consensus view? I've yet to hear an answer for this that doesn't involve mass incompetence or mass conspiracy, either of which are far less probable than the remaining option of the "better" evidence not actually being better.
Also, you dodged the question: How do you (personally) know one specific scientist is right, and the others are wrong?
What happens far more often is that studies that claim to overturn existing knowledge simply turn out to be wrong - usually bad methodology, where other factors have not been sufficiently controlled for.
Most of these get weeded out before publication by peer review. Most of the rest have their flaws pointed out by other scientists in the field. A few remain in limbo, where their evidence is unconvincing but not demonstrably wrong, and are not accepted until further studies add more convincing evidence.
The point is, how are you or I to know which is which? What looks correct to us may simply be our ignorance of the mistakes in the study, which aren't obvious until they are pointed out by more experienced people. And if 9 out of 10 experienced people say that such-and-such a flaw is fatal to the study's proposition, are you going to believe the one who claims it's still OK?
Answer me one simple question: How do you know one specific scientist is right, and the others are wrong?
Fact is, for any question outside our own fields of knowledge, only those suffering from the Dunning-Kruger effect can answer that with any certainty, What may seem obvious to you or I could be completely wrong, if we aren't aware of other evidence, or of all the details and factors and nuances and caveats that underlay any moderately-complex scientific statement. This is why we rely on those who have specialised in that field to make those judgements for us.
Science isn't done by consensus - but correctness is certainly decided that way. In mathematics, your new proof may look bulletproof to you, but it's not accepted as fact until your peers have examined and judged it. A single study won't overturn a whole field of knowledge until it's accepted by the majority in that field. This is an essential aspect of the scientific process, and is crucial for weeding out plausible-sounding studies that turn out, on closer examination, to be wrong.
Speculation, and only relevant if we want to duplicate human consciousness. And even then, lower levels of virtual sensory input may well be sufficient for those purposes.
For much of the Singularity's predictions, non-human intelligences with varying levels of consciousness would be enough. We don't need to make a submarine swim like a fish for it to be useful.
Australian here. See above; QuickFlix has to pay for the AU regional licenses for whatever paltry content the owners are willing to spare, while Netflix only pays for the US license (cheaper per view & much more content) but collects a *lot* of AU viewers too.
Hard to blame QuickFlix for feeling bitter, but it's the content owners that created the situation with the huge discrepancies between their region licenses.
A) CO2 accumulates. Plants absorb it, they also release it. So does the ocean. And even though the ocean is absorbing more than it releases (making it more acidic), the amount we have been releasing into the atmosphere is still pushing CO2 levels higher and higher. This is easily measured.
B) CO2 historically has not driven temperatures, it's acted as a feedback, making warming temperatures even warmer. Orbital cycles or other factors cause some initial warming, which triggers higher CO2 concentrations, which causes further warming. This is also easily measured in a lab, and shows up in countless lines of observations. CO2 and temperatures have both been higher in the past, but now we're the ones releasing CO2, and we'll have to deal with the results. "Runaway" warming effects are unlikely, but what we expect is going to be plenty expensive enough.
C) Climate models are intended to predict trends, not short-term variation. Longer term trends are easier to predict than random fluctuations, as the random cycles all average out. Only those who don't understand the models (e.g. they're not "all feedback-based models") claim that they're not "working".
D) The effects are already here, you just haven't been looking. They're showing up, not in dramatic unheard-of catastrophes, but in increased likelihood of heat waves, droughts, and fires (in some areas), floods (in other areas), melting glaciers, reduced ice mass (arctic and antarctic). These things aren't new, but they're getting steadily more common, and the costs are already adding up.
Increased CO2 means global average temperatures rise, both on the surface and (more significantly) in the oceans. This has been happening for 150 years, as predicted. More rainfall in some areas, less in others.
There are many studies about the feedback effects of CO2 on plant growth. The overall conclusions are that this will affect the climate, but not very much.
The predictions have been made for decades and longer. They're coming true all around us. Only the deniers refuse to look and see for themselves, insisting that this or that one little thing hasn't changed yet, so nothing could possibly be happening. But a glance at the bigger picture shows overwhelming evidence, which is precisely why there is such a strong consensus among climatologists.
The *climatologists* see very little of that funding - they get a job with a moderate wage. Their scientific reputation, track record of published papers, is their biggest asset. If they could *solidly* show that AGW wasn't significant, with evidence such that a majority agreed with them - they'd be famous world-wide. The talk-show circuit alone would dwarf their wages. OTOH, deliberately fudging evidence to show something that wasn't the case is virtually guaranteed to kill their career stone dead.
Compare that to the vast amounts of money being made by the fossil fuel industry, all those jobs, and the trillions remaining in potential future assets. All that is threatened if climate change is politically accepted. There is a huge amount at stake for those people, and intense motivation to ensure the industry's survival, at any cost. We've seen that same scenario before too many times, more recently with the tobacco industry.
A) But water vapour doesn't accumulate over centuries like CO2 does (it rains out), so the long-term effect isn't there B) Not true. CO2 has historically had a powerful positive feedback effect on temperature. C) Climate models have only missed recent short term temperature fluctuations (as expected). Still important for long-term predictions. D) So? We're concerned about how current levels will affect us.
The obvious answer is that Apple was farsighted enough to diversify its product line, and came up with some innovative music players and phones.
My monoculture comment was more aimed at the iPhone line specifically. It's been very successful but lost market share anyway, because many people want something different. Apple itself will likely continue to do well, as long as it can create entirely new product lines as the old ones fail (as the iPod is doing now).
Monocultures can be very successful. They do have associated risks though. Diversity usually wins in the end.
Apple of course are in no immediate danger, they're doing just fine. Though I do wonder why Apple fans point to their huge profits as a good thing.. Good for Apple, certainly; not quite so much for their customers.
I accidentally RTFA'd and realised the fatwa is actually against high-speed internet that isn't government controlled and censored:
All third generation [3G] and high-speed internet services, prior to realization of the required conditions for the National Information Network [Iran’s government-controlled and censored Internet which is under development], is against Sharia [and] against moral and human standards.
Thus I conclude that internet porn is just fine, so long as it's consumed slowly, scanline by scanline. He clearly wants you to enjoy the anticipation.
I think you're missing my point too. The models are only inaccurate temporarily. They're still quite valid for predicting longer-term trends.
The reason for this is because of the cyclic nature of the ocean warming. ENSO, AMO, PDO etc are all natural cycles that shift heat between the ocean and surface. While heat is being transferred to the ocean (as currently), the models will over-predict surface temperatures. When the cycle reverses, heat is transferred from the ocean back to the surface - and the models will under-predict surface temperatures.
Because heat isn't created or destroyed, only moved around, the net effect of these cycles is zero, and does not affect the longer-term warming trend that the models show. If you take a longer-term running average of surface temperatures, they still come very close to the models' predictions.
Climate scientists already know that the models won't match the short-term noise created by these currently-unpredictable cycles - but that's OK, because they're not intended to. It's only uninformed laymen that insist that any short-term mismatch is a "failure" of the models, rather than simply using them for longer-term predictions only, as designed.
Luckily, the detailed impact of natural ocean cycles like this one (and ENSO, PDO, AMO etc) is not required to be known.
Because they are cyclical, any contributions they make to surface temperatures are by their nature temporary; at the other end of the cycle, the process and temperature contributions are reversed, and the net impact is zero. For the purposes of long-term forecasting, short-term natural cycles are irrelevant.
Global CO2 emissions are tightly locked to economic development
This is only assumed to be true, and only if fossil fuels are your sole source of energy. Investment in other sources of energy creates economic development in itself, as well decoupling this assumption.
it certainly seems insufficient to advocate massive global political and economic reforms.
Luckily we have many thousands of informed individuals in dozens of countries who have studied the matter in depth, and they're telling us very clearly that there is more than enough certainty to warrant reforming our energy sector.
If you don't feel there's enough to go on, perhaps the problem is that you don't have all the information?
We really don't care much what the temperature was 300M years ago - we care what it is now, while we're here to experience it. And particularly, we care when it changes suddenly and drastically.
That would be news, yes. While it's quite true that surface temperatures haven't increased much recently, ocean temperatures are still warming at least as fast as ever. Which is exactly what TFA describes - the extra surface heat is being moved into the oceans. All other examples of this effect have been cyclical - in the near future, the process will reverse, moving heat from the oceans to the surface. When that happens, surface temperatures will jump - as they have in the past.
The only observation that would seriously challenge our understanding of anthropogenic global warming would be to see a sustained cooling phase, both surface and ocean, which would indicate that the previous rises were merely part of a larger natural cycle. However, no such cooling has been seen - the opposite is expected, given our calculations of the greenhouse effect.
That seems highly excessive, even allowing for fuel and Canadian winter heating costs. I find it hard to believe that energy costs outweigh food and/or housing.
Australian households' average expenditure on energy represented 5.3% of total gross weekly household income (2.0% for dwelling energy and 3.2% for fuel for vehicles).
Well, if everyone could see it, it wouldn't be a study lol
The novel part is they present data to confirm it, and their analysis is peer-reviewed - that's the difference between a real study and something that "everyone can see".
What I was actually referring to was the models being incomplete, which isn't news to anyone. Fyfe et al 2013 just demonstrate this, and suggest some of the likely missing factors. TFA goes further, and gives data on a new factor (the deep-ocean current).
I'm curious to see which fundamental assumptions made by current models you believe to be contradicted by this paper. To me it looks like they're simply pointing out a deep-ocean cycle that could soak up heat from the surface - not unlike the well-known ENSO, PDO and AMO cycles, which most models don't attempt to predict. Unless you think that "incomplete" means "fundamentally assumes that no other factors can exist"?
Your linked study really just shows what everyone could already see - the climate models are missing something. This of course isn't a surprise; they're missing lots of things, many of which are called out in the study (ENSO, AMO, volcanic activity, unexpected stratospheric aerosol variation or solar variation, etc). There's a lot of details we can't predict, but climate models are still useful even when we know they're incomplete, just like every other kind of model.
Still, I appreciate the link, even if (as you say) it doesn't invalidate any "sketchy science".
Slashdot Mirror
You are rather backed by your opinions and guesses ABOUT science... Now those opinions might be reasonable and the guesses could be educated... but they are not science.
They are not "opinions" or "guesses". They are probabilities, backed by a great deal of evidence - like virtually everything in science. Higgs Boson existence? Probability. The Big Bang? Probability. Quantum mechanics? Yeah, a lot of that. To be scientific, a theory does not have to be a certainty at all; the probability just needs to be carefully quantified, and backed by observation and/or experiment.
...you have overstated your reasonable degree of confidence on issues for political gain. This has been done repeatedly which is why many of the IPCC reports have come under such savage criticism
Citation needed. The IPCC reports all state their conclusions in probabilities, which are carefully quantified, and are backed by citations of peer-reviewed studies at every stage. The vast majority of the evidence presented in the IPCC reports has proved under very close examination to be solid (NOT absolutely certain, but of sound scientific methodology). This is why they are accepted as, not the gospel truth, but the best information on the subject that we have, by every major scientific institution and government, as well as by the great majority of scientists (and nearly all climatologists).
It is THAT which is ultimately causing most of the controversy. Not the science but rather the political solution to the science.
I do agree that this is the source of the controversy. Solutions are indeed often political, but unfortunately all too often, peoples' political views about some of the solutions contaminate their views of the science, which usually leads to claims that the science itself is being politicised. I disagree with that.
Or you must sit down and talk about solutions we can all find palatable.
If only we could do that. Unfortunately, there are still far too many strident voices still trying to undermine the science, which blocks any reasonable discussion of solutions. If those voices actually had any peer-reviewed evidence of a quality that could convince a reasonable number of experts, that would be fine, but sadly these dissenting voices tend to rely on volume instead.
I'm also of the opinion that many people misunderstand the solutions that have been proposed (for example, see all the claims that a phased transition to a carbon-neutral economy would be a disastrous burden on society, whereas many economists are seeing it as an opportunity for actually reducing the many existing external costs of carbon emissions).
It's not just creation cost, it's storage cost. If every tree is different, you need a complete dataset for every tree.
Notice how they didn't tell us how big any of those scenes were? The only number they mentioned for a laser-scanned scene was 3 terabytes (presumably after their compression), and I don't see anything close to that making it into a consumer release.
Still nicely done tech for professional fields; I just take issue with their whole "infinite detail! polygons are DEAD!" hyperbole.
So we agree on 1, 2 & 3. Is that "wrong"?
As for 4, I don't disagree, but my point was there is no easy way to determine absoutely if any given study is "scientifically correct" - particularly if you are not an expert in the field. That being the case, "probably" right is usually all we can determine (as most scientists themselves will tell you). And the science in question has well over 30 years of peer-reviewed observation to back it up, so climatologists do have some knowledge on the subject.
In effect, you're saying you don't want to be open minded and methodical on the issue because you think your supposed consensus gives you license to politicize the issue.
I'm not sure why people feel compelled to drag politics into this issue in the first place. I certainly have no interest in doing so. And I'm happy to be open-minded to new evidence - if it's solid enough to pass peer review, for a start (peer review: consensus in action).
I have little time for anecdotal arguments however, and less for people that dismiss peer-reviewed studies (and authors of same) for being "politicised", particularly if they can't offer any more reason than "this is the same thing as said by other, politically-leaning people".
Clearly you don't know how the Argument from Authority works, if you assume it is automatically a fallacy.
Nobody is claiming that the consensus view is 100% unassailably correct, just because it's a consensus. Like Occam's Razor, it's merely an aid to choosing between uncertain alternatives. Any rock-solid evidence could challenge the consensus view successfully - if you could be certain it was rock-solid.
And therein lies the rub. Science is uncertain. 100% certainty does not exist, outside pure math. We will never see a study that is self-evidently absolute truth to any person who views it, because a study can only roughly approximate reality, and our ability to judge these approximations varies according to our expertise with that aspect of reality and the techniques used to approximate it. Failing to realise this is the hallmark of Dunning-Kruger.
In the absence of certainty, the consensus view is more probably correct, and is therefore the best view to take, at least until better evidence comes along. And if you believe there is already better evidence, then why has it not changed the consensus view? I've yet to hear an answer for this that doesn't involve mass incompetence or mass conspiracy, either of which are far less probable than the remaining option of the "better" evidence not actually being better.
Also, you dodged the question: How do you (personally) know one specific scientist is right, and the others are wrong?
It's certainly possible, and has even happened.
What happens far more often is that studies that claim to overturn existing knowledge simply turn out to be wrong - usually bad methodology, where other factors have not been sufficiently controlled for.
Most of these get weeded out before publication by peer review. Most of the rest have their flaws pointed out by other scientists in the field. A few remain in limbo, where their evidence is unconvincing but not demonstrably wrong, and are not accepted until further studies add more convincing evidence.
The point is, how are you or I to know which is which? What looks correct to us may simply be our ignorance of the mistakes in the study, which aren't obvious until they are pointed out by more experienced people. And if 9 out of 10 experienced people say that such-and-such a flaw is fatal to the study's proposition, are you going to believe the one who claims it's still OK?
Answer me one simple question: How do you know one specific scientist is right, and the others are wrong?
Fact is, for any question outside our own fields of knowledge, only those suffering from the Dunning-Kruger effect can answer that with any certainty, What may seem obvious to you or I could be completely wrong, if we aren't aware of other evidence, or of all the details and factors and nuances and caveats that underlay any moderately-complex scientific statement. This is why we rely on those who have specialised in that field to make those judgements for us.
Science isn't done by consensus - but correctness is certainly decided that way. In mathematics, your new proof may look bulletproof to you, but it's not accepted as fact until your peers have examined and judged it. A single study won't overturn a whole field of knowledge until it's accepted by the majority in that field. This is an essential aspect of the scientific process, and is crucial for weeding out plausible-sounding studies that turn out, on closer examination, to be wrong.
Not seeing any connection with consciousness there?
Speculation, and only relevant if we want to duplicate human consciousness. And even then, lower levels of virtual sensory input may well be sufficient for those purposes.
For much of the Singularity's predictions, non-human intelligences with varying levels of consciousness would be enough. We don't need to make a submarine swim like a fish for it to be useful.
Australian here. See above; QuickFlix has to pay for the AU regional licenses for whatever paltry content the owners are willing to spare, while Netflix only pays for the US license (cheaper per view & much more content) but collects a *lot* of AU viewers too.
Hard to blame QuickFlix for feeling bitter, but it's the content owners that created the situation with the huge discrepancies between their region licenses.
1937 was the hottest year in US records, not globally. Please don't confuse the issue.
A) CO2 accumulates. Plants absorb it, they also release it. So does the ocean. And even though the ocean is absorbing more than it releases (making it more acidic), the amount we have been releasing into the atmosphere is still pushing CO2 levels higher and higher. This is easily measured.
B) CO2 historically has not driven temperatures, it's acted as a feedback, making warming temperatures even warmer. Orbital cycles or other factors cause some initial warming, which triggers higher CO2 concentrations, which causes further warming. This is also easily measured in a lab, and shows up in countless lines of observations. CO2 and temperatures have both been higher in the past, but now we're the ones releasing CO2, and we'll have to deal with the results. "Runaway" warming effects are unlikely, but what we expect is going to be plenty expensive enough.
C) Climate models are intended to predict trends, not short-term variation. Longer term trends are easier to predict than random fluctuations, as the random cycles all average out. Only those who don't understand the models (e.g. they're not "all feedback-based models") claim that they're not "working".
D) The effects are already here, you just haven't been looking. They're showing up, not in dramatic unheard-of catastrophes, but in increased likelihood of heat waves, droughts, and fires (in some areas), floods (in other areas), melting glaciers, reduced ice mass (arctic and antarctic). These things aren't new, but they're getting steadily more common, and the costs are already adding up.
Increased CO2 means global average temperatures rise, both on the surface and (more significantly) in the oceans. This has been happening for 150 years, as predicted. More rainfall in some areas, less in others.
There are many studies about the feedback effects of CO2 on plant growth. The overall conclusions are that this will affect the climate, but not very much.
The predictions have been made for decades and longer. They're coming true all around us. Only the deniers refuse to look and see for themselves, insisting that this or that one little thing hasn't changed yet, so nothing could possibly be happening. But a glance at the bigger picture shows overwhelming evidence, which is precisely why there is such a strong consensus among climatologists.
The *climatologists* see very little of that funding - they get a job with a moderate wage. Their scientific reputation, track record of published papers, is their biggest asset. If they could *solidly* show that AGW wasn't significant, with evidence such that a majority agreed with them - they'd be famous world-wide. The talk-show circuit alone would dwarf their wages. OTOH, deliberately fudging evidence to show something that wasn't the case is virtually guaranteed to kill their career stone dead.
Compare that to the vast amounts of money being made by the fossil fuel industry, all those jobs, and the trillions remaining in potential future assets. All that is threatened if climate change is politically accepted. There is a huge amount at stake for those people, and intense motivation to ensure the industry's survival, at any cost. We've seen that same scenario before too many times, more recently with the tobacco industry.
A) But water vapour doesn't accumulate over centuries like CO2 does (it rains out), so the long-term effect isn't there
B) Not true. CO2 has historically had a powerful positive feedback effect on temperature.
C) Climate models have only missed recent short term temperature fluctuations (as expected). Still important for long-term predictions.
D) So? We're concerned about how current levels will affect us.
The obvious answer is that Apple was farsighted enough to diversify its product line, and came up with some innovative music players and phones.
My monoculture comment was more aimed at the iPhone line specifically. It's been very successful but lost market share anyway, because many people want something different. Apple itself will likely continue to do well, as long as it can create entirely new product lines as the old ones fail (as the iPod is doing now).
Monocultures can be very successful. They do have associated risks though. Diversity usually wins in the end.
Apple of course are in no immediate danger, they're doing just fine. Though I do wonder why Apple fans point to their huge profits as a good thing.. Good for Apple, certainly; not quite so much for their customers.
I accidentally RTFA'd and realised the fatwa is actually against high-speed internet that isn't government controlled and censored:
All third generation [3G] and high-speed internet services, prior to realization of the required conditions for the National Information Network [Iran’s government-controlled and censored Internet which is under development], is against Sharia [and] against moral and human standards.
Thus I conclude that internet porn is just fine, so long as it's consumed slowly, scanline by scanline. He clearly wants you to enjoy the anticipation.
I think you're missing my point too. The models are only inaccurate temporarily. They're still quite valid for predicting longer-term trends.
The reason for this is because of the cyclic nature of the ocean warming. ENSO, AMO, PDO etc are all natural cycles that shift heat between the ocean and surface. While heat is being transferred to the ocean (as currently), the models will over-predict surface temperatures. When the cycle reverses, heat is transferred from the ocean back to the surface - and the models will under-predict surface temperatures.
Because heat isn't created or destroyed, only moved around, the net effect of these cycles is zero, and does not affect the longer-term warming trend that the models show. If you take a longer-term running average of surface temperatures, they still come very close to the models' predictions.
Climate scientists already know that the models won't match the short-term noise created by these currently-unpredictable cycles - but that's OK, because they're not intended to. It's only uninformed laymen that insist that any short-term mismatch is a "failure" of the models, rather than simply using them for longer-term predictions only, as designed.
Luckily, the detailed impact of natural ocean cycles like this one (and ENSO, PDO, AMO etc) is not required to be known.
Because they are cyclical, any contributions they make to surface temperatures are by their nature temporary; at the other end of the cycle, the process and temperature contributions are reversed, and the net impact is zero. For the purposes of long-term forecasting, short-term natural cycles are irrelevant.
Global CO2 emissions are tightly locked to economic development
This is only assumed to be true, and only if fossil fuels are your sole source of energy. Investment in other sources of energy creates economic development in itself, as well decoupling this assumption.
it certainly seems insufficient to advocate massive global political and economic reforms.
Luckily we have many thousands of informed individuals in dozens of countries who have studied the matter in depth, and they're telling us very clearly that there is more than enough certainty to warrant reforming our energy sector.
If you don't feel there's enough to go on, perhaps the problem is that you don't have all the information?
We really don't care much what the temperature was 300M years ago - we care what it is now, while we're here to experience it. And particularly, we care when it changes suddenly and drastically.
That would be news, yes. While it's quite true that surface temperatures haven't increased much recently, ocean temperatures are still warming at least as fast as ever. Which is exactly what TFA describes - the extra surface heat is being moved into the oceans. All other examples of this effect have been cyclical - in the near future, the process will reverse, moving heat from the oceans to the surface. When that happens, surface temperatures will jump - as they have in the past.
The only observation that would seriously challenge our understanding of anthropogenic global warming would be to see a sustained cooling phase, both surface and ocean, which would indicate that the previous rises were merely part of a larger natural cycle. However, no such cooling has been seen - the opposite is expected, given our calculations of the greenhouse effect.
That seems highly excessive, even allowing for fuel and Canadian winter heating costs. I find it hard to believe that energy costs outweigh food and/or housing.
By comparison, in 2012:
Australian households' average expenditure on energy represented 5.3% of total gross weekly household income (2.0% for dwelling energy and 3.2% for fuel for vehicles).
Well, if everyone could see it, it wouldn't be a study lol
The novel part is they present data to confirm it, and their analysis is peer-reviewed - that's the difference between a real study and something that "everyone can see".
What I was actually referring to was the models being incomplete, which isn't news to anyone. Fyfe et al 2013 just demonstrate this, and suggest some of the likely missing factors. TFA goes further, and gives data on a new factor (the deep-ocean current).
If this paper were to turn out to be correct, current climate models are useless and will need to be completely reworked.
No model, in any branch of science or engineering, is complete and perfect; that doesn't mean they're useless.
I'm curious to see which fundamental assumptions made by current models you believe to be contradicted by this paper. To me it looks like they're simply pointing out a deep-ocean cycle that could soak up heat from the surface - not unlike the well-known ENSO, PDO and AMO cycles, which most models don't attempt to predict. Unless you think that "incomplete" means "fundamentally assumes that no other factors can exist"?
Your linked study really just shows what everyone could already see - the climate models are missing something. This of course isn't a surprise; they're missing lots of things, many of which are called out in the study (ENSO, AMO, volcanic activity, unexpected stratospheric aerosol variation or solar variation, etc). There's a lot of details we can't predict, but climate models are still useful even when we know they're incomplete, just like every other kind of model.
Still, I appreciate the link, even if (as you say) it doesn't invalidate any "sketchy science".