Deltoid

In the "Whatever Happened To..." department, I'd like to point out that today is the two-year anniversary of Jennifer Marohasy's promise to explain to Tim how to graph temperatures. I'm sure Jennifer will get to that any day now. Let's just hope Tim gives her a nice, prominent link.

Meanwhile, in other breaking news, it's now been eight months and eight days since UberGeek Hero Eric Raymond bought a new computer for that "Data Against Demogogues," project, where they're planning to do a little amateur climate modeling. It must be hell setting up those dual-core machines, since they still apparently haven't progressed beyond the "playing with hardware" phase.

Posted by: Bruce Sharp | August 27, 2010 10:26 AM

Tim occasionally has something on DDT, so I thought this report on insecticides would be of interest:

Seems colony collapse disorder is probably linked to neonicotinoid insecticides:

http://environmentalresearchweb.org/cws/article/news/43568

Posted by: Paul UK | August 27, 2010 11:48 AM

Here is something to listen out for on Monday. The BBC’s Roger Harrabin is doing a 2 part radio broadcaster called ‘Uncertain Climate’. The first part is trailed as follows:

In a special Radio 4 series the BBC's Environmental Analyst Roger Harrabin questions whether his own reporting - and that of others - has adequately told the whole story about global warming. Roger Harrabin has reported on the climate for almost thirty years off and on, but last November while working on the "Climategate" emails story, he was prompted to look again at the basics of climate science. He finds that the public under-estimate the degree of consensus among scientists that humans have already contributed towards the heating of the climate , and will almost certainly heat the climate more.

OK so far, but then it goes on:

But he also finds that politicians and the media often fail to convey the huge uncertainty over the extent of future climate change. Whilst the great majority of scientists fear that computer models suggest we are facing potentially catastrophic warming, some climate scientists think the warming will be restricted to a tolerable 1C or 1.5C.

That paragraph sounds like it could have been written by a denialist blogger. Harrabin interviews Blair, Nigel Lawson (why?), Bob Watson, Crispin Tickell and Steve McIntyre.

Sounds like it is going to be another case of false balance to me. Maybe part 2 will be better.

Uncertain Climate

Posted by: lord_sidcup | August 27, 2010 12:07 PM

@8

Yeah, I have been listening to the trailers on Radio 4. It's just after the Today programme.

It could be worthwhile bookmarking the BBCs complaints form page.

Wait until episode 2 or just fill the form in after episode 1?

Posted by: Paul UK | August 27, 2010 3:36 PM

Talking of BBC Radio 4...

Was listening to 'Open Country' this morning about a farmer opposing a path through his farm. But the interesting thing was that he also was trying to prove that there was a public path that once went across the Thames and through the houses of parliament. A historian pointed out the Thames use to be very shallow in places, quite calm and people could walk across. eg. it was a lot easier to freeze over in the past than it would be today.

Which brings us to the denial 'mini-ice age' meme and paintings of the Thames freezing over. The point being that temperatures wouldn't need to go so low in the past as they would today in order to freeze it.

Something to think about.

Posted by: Paul UK | August 28, 2010 4:50 AM

Bjorn Lomborg is up to his usual tricks: http://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/lomborg63/English

Claims a 20 foot rise in sea level would result in only 16,000 square miles lost. Bullshit. A 2 foot rise would lose 10,000 sq. miles. And he ignores the land and cities lost to storm surges. He also ignores that much of the land lost will be fertile deltas and would have massive impacts on food production.

In a strong field of deniers and liars, I think I despise Lomborg the most....

Posted by: DavidCOG | August 28, 2010 1:30 PM

I'm having fun with the morons over at climatechangefraud.com - the repetition of long-discredited denier talking-points is a hoot.

Has anyone besides me noticed that the same ol' memes, now all several years old, are still considered current by denier blogosphere dorks? It's hilarious.

Posted by: Derecho64 | August 28, 2010 1:49 PM

Well it is intersting that SLR has slowed over the last several years.The data shows the long term rate is still less than 2 mm per year.Another interesting snippet is that satellite photos show that the Bangladesh delta is growing!

Posted by: warren | August 28, 2010 2:01 PM

Paul UK:

I didn't finish my "Indeed." And smaller, low-level islands are simply going to be lost completely - or become non-tenable because of salt water poisoning their fresh water supplies. Those people have nowhere to go.

Posted by: DavidCOG | August 28, 2010 2:21 PM

From the blog of John O'Sullivan. Emphases mine.

Thanks to that learned sceptic number cruncher, Lord Monckton, the former advisor to the British government, top lawyers are now perfecting their legal briefs to derail the eco-fascist juggernaut. The Al Bore's of that green world refused to heed their courtroom lessons from before and will now face even sterner consequences upon the emergence of the 'Climategate' scandal. [...]

Now we get to delve into a conspiracy that is a theory no more. For once proof of a data fraud has been established we then look at the shady beneficiaries who have garnered academic privilege and government grants from such mischief. [...]

This was always going to be for the greens a loose coalition of unlikely accomplices ranging from the extreme left of the communists at Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth and the far right of the rich elite of Bilderberg, the Club of Rome, the Murdoch-moneyed mainstream media all cozied up with those self-serving politicians. We were able to expose the fragility of that axis of evil after Climategate and now on the world stage in Copenhagen the scam is unravelling in front of the eyes of the whole world.

O'Sullivan has a LinkedIn profile.

Posted by: frank | August 28, 2010 2:35 PM

Warren, you do realise that one way to play rubes is to confuse them with the peaks and troughs of noisy variation and cherry picking specific favourable points in order to do so?

But once you understand what trends are you can rise above such cheap barnamism.

Now can you please answer my points in the CO2 thread.

Posted by: chek | August 28, 2010 2:47 PM

Chek,the long term trend is 1.8mm per year.What can I say?The rate may rise due to glacier melt in Greenland etc,but again the rate is up for grabs.We dont know.However,greenland bore holes have shown that during the Holocene maximum,which lasted 4,000 years,greenland did not melt away.The high guesstimates by the IPCC are not accurate in my view. PS I will go back to the CO2 thread and answer your questions.

Posted by: warren | August 28, 2010 3:00 PM

http://sealevel.colorado.edu/current/slibns_global.pdf

Posted by: Martin Vermeer | August 28, 2010 3:24 PM

Sea level rise

Posted by: Martin Vermeer | August 28, 2010 3:31 PM

Martin,thank-you for that data.The SLR rate did rise in 2008/2009,and as of 2010 it may be falling again.I imagine that the recent El Nino had an effect on thermal expansion.

Posted by: warren | August 28, 2010 3:39 PM

warren, look at the long term trend. The wiggles are immaterial (yep, ENSO among other things).

So, over the last century the rise was 1.6 mm/yr, and now we are already at 3 mm/yr. You really want to believe it will stop there? Remember what they told you in school, about what makes ice melt and water expand? There's more of that where this came from.

Posted by: Martin Vermeer | August 28, 2010 3:50 PM

FWIW, sea-level data from Oz (CSIRO):

http://www.cmar.csiro.au/sealevel/slhistlast_15.html

Rate +3.2 mm/yr.

I think warren may be citing some misinformation that he may have read on Pielke Snr's blog, something which ThingsBreak (rightly) took Pielke to task for:

http://thingsbreak.wordpress.com/2010/02/12/hoisted-on-their-own-petard/

Posted by: MapleLeaf | August 28, 2010 11:10 PM

Martin,I stand corrected on the recent rate increase.However it is only 16 years of data,and the longer term trend is yet to be seen.The rate drop of 2003-2008 was there to be seen in the data,however I do concede that it has increased since 2008.My overall point however,is that SLR wont be a probelm even at these higher rates.

Posted by: warren | August 29, 2010 4:22 AM

"However it is only 16 years of data,and the longer term trend is yet to be seen."

And again we see the tooth polisher state that when the trend is not in his favour, the 16 year period is not long enough, yet when the trend is apparently in his favour, there's no problem with 7 years, that's PLENTY of time to draw a valid conclusion.

Maybe we ought to call him Juno, the two-faced one. Twice the number of teeth to polish, though! Result!

Posted by: Wow | August 29, 2010 5:10 AM

Warren:

In any case,if we take the higher number-3mm per year,then what does that mean for this century?It means 27cm by 2100.This is not something to panic about,it is almost irrelevant.

1. The prediction is that the rate will increase. Given the changes in ice extent, glaciers etc. that seems reasonable.

2. If it does remain at 3mm (that is a world average) it doesn't remove responsibility of current generations for their actions that cause future generations problems regarding sea defences and relocation. I don't think you have a right to drown millions of peoples homes, whether that happens sooner or later.

Posted by: Warmcast | August 29, 2010 5:36 AM

WOW,the trend I always referred to was the long term trend of 1.8mm per year.I did not say that 2003 to 2008 was a trend.But,I have heard it said that climate trends are supposed to be 30 years or more.If that is so,then why is it wrong that a 16 year data set is not yet conclusive? JAKERMAN,yes things may get worse,but the data[3mm per year]does not suggest that.You give a figure of 1-2 metres by 2100,so what must the rate be for this to happen?The rate is not 3mm per year,but 16 mm per year!!More than 5 times the current rate!Now if you have some numbers that show that 16mm per year is likely then I am with you.Your serve.You say my opinion is utterly baseless,completely unsupported and worthless.No it is not.Your own data source says so.[3mm per year]

Posted by: warren | August 29, 2010 8:13 AM

Warren said: "but the data[3mm per year]does not suggest that"

One side effect of the melting sea ice at the poles is that there's less mass to buttress and hold the ice sheets on the landmasses there. This summer saw a 250 sq.Km chunk of glacier calve off Greenland, with plenty more where that came from.

Denialists cling to a lot of assumptions that trends will remain linear and manageable with no good reason.

Posted by: chek | August 29, 2010 8:43 AM

re: warren@42

That would be 13mm on top of the existing 3mm. Or a 4.3 fold increase on top of the existing rate. All this in 90 years.

From what I can gather sea levels were rising at about 1mm in 1920. So between then and now the rate has increased by 2 fold on top of the then 1mm, to 3mm.

So the last 90 years has doubled and the next 90 years is predicted to at least quadruple.

I'm not sure that is so amazing given what is expected to happen in the next 90 years if we don't cut emissions. The dynamics are changing in the areas and regions that matter, so the smaller changes that happened in the last 90 years are unlikely to continue in a linear fashion into the future.

Posted by: Warmcast | August 29, 2010 9:21 AM

Open thread and all, may I ask a question about politics? What is going on in Australia now?

As you probably guess, australian politics do not occupy the center of attention in the media of other countries.

Posted by: IM | August 29, 2010 9:28 AM

That doesn't looks good for Labour then, right?

Perhaps they should have kept Rudd

Posted by: IM | August 29, 2010 9:58 AM

And just to add to the fun, one of the 73 nominated as coalition states definitely that he's not part of a coalition, he's WA National Party. He's opposed to the mining tax - but he's not said what his attitude is to the broadband network. Methinks someone's trying to have his cake and eat it too.

And the other independant, not part of the 3 amigos, is now stirring the pot talking about the Iraq war.

By the time this is done it'll look like the aftermath of a 5 year old's birthday party. Cake and jelly on the walls, burst balloons in every corner.

Posted by: adelady | August 29, 2010 10:56 AM

Warren, there are predictions which try to take all the factors into account, but as the uncertainty range shows, there are wide variations of possibility.

For example until it actually happened, nobody could have foreseen 10 years ago if that latest glacier block would be 1, 10 or 100 sq.km in size, until we saw 250sq.km break away.

Posted by: chek | August 29, 2010 11:47 AM

@48, Aussie politics:

Well it's definitely a "hung parliament". As of today we're no closer to a result. No matter which side eventually gets to govern (assuming another election isn't called), they'll be a minority Government and will require the support of the "Independent" House members to pass legislation.

Certainly no-one was particularly happy with either major party. The Labor vote suffered due to factors (in no particular order) including: poorly executed economic stimulus packages, dumping climate action, late leadership coup just before the election where the PM was ousted by his own party, and some State politics.

Liberal (ie, conservative) Party vote wasn't that great considering the Labor instability they could've capitalised on. Many people see their leader, Abbott, as too far to the Right, and a bit of a religious zealot. Not a great look down under. Conservatives will of course vote for their party anyway, but many voters feel he's not the ideal choice.

Greens got a seat in the House of Reps for the first time ever.

The incumbent PM, Julia Gillard, continues to run the country until either side can convince the Governor General that it has the numbers to form Government (ie, has the support of the independents).

Posted by: Mike | August 29, 2010 8:01 PM

What has happened to John MacLean's PhD? Does anyone know who his supervisor (if any) is ?

Posted by: davidp | August 30, 2010 1:42 AM

Hey Derecho64 #14 - Ever noticed that those who don't hold with the 'global warming' line don't need to change their story every week to latch onto any given weather event that they can pin some fresh alarmism on ? And, can anyone please tell me when it will start getting warm again. This current version of 'global warming' is all too cold for me ! :-) And Tim I ain't goin away, it's too much fun to see how much you guys try justify your myopic view.

Posted by: Billy Bob Hall | August 30, 2010 2:48 AM

"Ever noticed that those who don't hold with the 'global warming' line don't need to change their story every week to latch onto any given weather event that they can pin some fresh alarmism on ?"

No, but we've noticed that denialists will latch on to any cold weather as proof it isn't warming, even if it's only in their back garden.

And as for alarmism, look at all the shock stories about how AGW mitigation will send us BACK TO THE STONE AGE!!!

Heh, denialists. What loons, eh?

Posted by: Wow | August 30, 2010 4:53 AM

My last comment should have been:

Billy Bob Hall:

Ever noticed that those who don't hold with the 'global warming' line don't need to change their story every week to latch onto any given weather event that they can pin some fresh alarmism on ?

and then:

And, can anyone please tell me when it will start getting warm again.

Does your foot hurt? Only you could be so incompetent.

Apologies to Lord Sidcup!

Posted by: Paul UK | August 30, 2010 5:00 AM

Sorry my last post referred to Billy Bob Hall and not Lord Sidcup.

Apologies to Lord Sidcup.

Posted by: Paul UK | August 30, 2010 5:02 AM

Billy Bob Hall,

Do you think you sound intelligent, original, challenging?

You sound like another sad deluded denier spouting the same crap without a single reference to back up their tired old arguments.

Posted by: MFS | August 30, 2010 6:08 AM

Billy Bob Hall -- "Ever noticed that those who don't hold with the 'global warming' line don't need to change their story every week..."

Beg to differ.

Week 1: "It's the Sun!" Week 2: "It's cosmic rays!" Week 3: "It's.... not warming!"

Posted by: J Bowers | August 30, 2010 6:17 AM

My comment @ 64 was supposed to be a response to Billy Bob Hill.

Apologies to Lord Sidcup for the error.

I did write a response but for some reason my comment did not appear and awaits moderation??

Posted by: Paul | August 30, 2010 9:22 AM

WOW,I have heard the expression acceleration in regards to sea level rise,but it really appears to be more of a step change around 1993,just when the satellite data started.But,whether there is an acceleration of the rate WITHIN this step change will have to be determined.

Posted by: warren | August 30, 2010 11:34 AM

"I have heard the expression acceleration in regards to sea level rise,but it really appears to be more of a step change around 1993"

Ah, there you go again, assuming that your visual cortex shapes reality.

"But,whether there is an acceleration of the rate WITHIN this step change will have to be determined."

Nope, it's already determined.

And are you finally going to recant your "and as of 2010 it may be falling again." in post #30, since there isn't even a whole year of 2010 yet?

Hmm?

Posted by: Wow | August 30, 2010 11:38 AM

I see the IAC review of the IPCC is out. What a contrast between a detailed, nuanced, constructive report and the knee-jerk reactions from various media around the world.

The report expresses confidence in the achievements of the IPCC: "The Committee concludes that the IPCC assessment process has been successful overall and has served society well" but no-one reading any of the articles I've looked at so far would have any idea of this. 'Report slams IPCC' is the message being pumped out.

Posted by: Heraclitus | August 30, 2010 1:39 PM

Thanks Dave R @ 77 for that update.

Another attack on science defeated.

Posted by: Paul UK | August 30, 2010 2:16 PM

Bjorn Lomborg is doing a U-turn with his next book, sorta kinda maybe: http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/aug/30/bjorn-lomborg-climate-change-u-turn

Hat tip: http://dymaxionworld.blogspot.com/2010/08/turns-out-bjorn-lomborg-is-danish-for.html

Posted by: Holly Stick | August 30, 2010 6:56 PM

The Australian Acadamy of Science has just published this concise summary of AGW.

Posted by: jakerman | August 30, 2010 9:22 PM

Ken Fabos @69 Sadly I agree with you. The only way out that I see is for investment in nuclear electricity generation to succeed in making it cheaper and more acceptable than coal. Meanwhile China is building lots of mediocre nuclear plants and lots of coal power plants, and Iran is working hard to enhance the linkage between nuclear power and nuclear weapons. :-(

I'm sad that so many "greens" hate nuclear more than AGW. While the nuclear industry has been rent seeking and deceptive for most of their history, it seems the only globally applicable low greenhouse power solution. Mining and even contamination of Kakadu will do it less damage than 4 degrees of warming.

Posted by: davidp | August 31, 2010 2:45 AM

funny post over at the loon pond - Lomborg, Hanlon, Bob Carter, Bolt, Blair, something for everyone!

Posted by: Andrew | August 31, 2010 8:08 AM

No, we don't.

However, I didn't start it, did I?

And, frankly, the venting of some other guy about how they don't like to hear pro/anti nuclear comments isn't going to change anyone's mind, is it.

Posted by: Wow | August 31, 2010 9:32 AM

"Dump the IPCC process, it stands in the way of more global warming, which is what I and the others at the Interfaith Stewardship Alliance want."

Posted by: J Bowers | August 31, 2010 9:45 AM

Hmm, I don't know if this is significant in the denialosphere, but Bjorn Lomborg is no longer a climate skeptic?

Heads will explode :)

Posted by: Rixaeton | August 31, 2010 5:35 PM

silburnl, I changed my position in the last month or so, and want to work it through.

wow, 1. Everything in our economy is non-renewable so will run out. We need solutions for the next 50 years first. 2. Tide wrecks tidal esturies which are important for birdlife, so specific tide projects get opposed on environmental grounds too. If we can find ways of making geothermal work economically in lots of places in most countries it can be part of a long term solution, but it's really immature at the moment except when the heat is really close to the surface, so I don't think it will be a serious part of the solution for 20 years at least, although its great for Iceland, NZ, and other countries with easy geothermal.

Posted by: davidp | August 31, 2010 6:35 PM

Spencer's choice of language and his countenance of the comments on his IPCC post show him to be a less-than-credible source for science.

Clearly, his political (and religious?) agenda has leaked into his scientific posturing.

Posted by: Derecho64 | August 31, 2010 7:06 PM

Try again!

The Science Show

Posted by: Dean Morrison | August 31, 2010 8:22 PM

Coldest winter in a half century in the Southern Hemisphere

http://www.tinyurl.com.au/mnx

cold and wet in oz,

http://www.tinyurl.com.au/mnv

ice cap"s" melting ? NUP !

worldwide GW ? NUP !

http://www.tinyurl.com.au/mnw

( I really doubt the red in that ! )

COME ON !!!!! where is all that massively accumulating greenhouse trapped heat ?

hahaha.... maybe it's lurking at the bottom of the ocean ? just waiting for the human weighted see-saw to gather a little more mass to explosively boil upwards in a pyrolytic apocalypse and fry us all to hades........

oooooh, chewing nails.........

Posted by: sunspot | September 1, 2010 12:14 AM

i don't have one jonny, but as i have said before...

"i do think it's time to revisit some of those old debunked patents."

nice graph this, if you can understand it ?

http://sc25.com/index.php?id=232

Posted by: sunspot | September 1, 2010 12:30 AM

yes adelady....

my family was driven from boundry bend because of drought, mouse & locust plagues and flooding from the murray, it can be tough on the land.

we've had mannnnny droughts,

http://www.tinyurl.com.au/mo0

I have to head out into cold sleet and rain now, brrrr......... bye

Posted by: sunspot | September 1, 2010 12:51 AM

Yeah, I know about droughts. Spend most of your childhood summers in the Southern Flinders and you know about heat, dry, dust and drought.

One of my grandmothers was born during the 1896 drought, so her sensitive, thoughtful family named her N.... I.... Drought, I kid you not. (And to add insult to injury, her 10 brothers ignored her first 2 perfectly nice names and called her Druth, pronounced like Ruth. Horrors!)

Posted by: adelady | September 1, 2010 3:03 AM

"Rixaeton, Interesting that now they call him "climate change sceptic" "

"they" being denialists who like to point out how Lomberg's a skeptic.

Yes?

Posted by: Wow | September 1, 2010 3:36 AM

Jakerman:thank you for that summary from the AAC.Being a sceptic,I have my doubts about some of its conclusions.The reason is the language that the report uses.For example, The word 'model'is used 21 times.The word 'likely' is used 22 times.Added to this are a very generous sprinkling of the following words:'could,expected,probably,may,suggest,projected,potential,uncertain,chance,estimate'.

Posted by: warren | September 1, 2010 5:53 AM

"For example, The word 'model'is used 21 times."

So? Scares you, does it?

you love models that turn satellite radiation intensity measurements into temperature profiles, though.

You like the cars that are designed by model. you like your computer which is designed by model. You accept the model of gravitation every time you decide not to jump out the office block window.

You accept the model of thermodynamics every time you boil a kettle. You accept the model of bulk strength of materials every time you are standing more than 4 feet above a solid surface or under a suspended surface weighing more than 500lbs.

But the mention of model 21 times in a report scares you???

"The word 'likely' is used 22 times."

So you have doubts because you've read "likely".

Crossing a busy road is likely to get you run over. It isn't certain.

Walking through Harlem with an offensive placard will likely get you stabbed and walking through Central Park at midnight with a wallet in your hand is likely to get you mugged.

Do you walk over busy roads because it's only "likely", walk in harlem dissing blacks and walk around Central Park at midnight flashing the cash because it's only "likely"?

Then again, if there weren't such words, you've said in the past that you cannot accept a report because it hides the uncertainties.

You insist on whatever requirement means you can deny a report you don't like.

"Being a sceptic"

No, you're not a skeptic. You're a denier.

Posted by: Wow | September 1, 2010 6:11 AM

Hey Wow, the venting hasn't started yet and I was hoping to forestall it, but since you are set on getting up for DavidP's tango I can't stop you.

Kudos to whichever of you who manages to come up with something that hasn't already been seen said a zillion times before, but I'm not holding my breath on that.

Regards Luke

Posted by: silburnl | September 1, 2010 7:06 AM

"WOW,you used the correct word-MEASURMENTS"

Here's some measurements:

Global warming

CO2 rising

And we have a mechanism

"Gravity is not a model my friend,it is a law."

Nope, that model was created when they still thought they could know everything and called it a law. But it is a model.

I'm not surprised you have no clue about science, mind.

"And the reason to not jump out of windows is because of the EVIDENCE of what happens to people who do"

So only after we've destroyed the planet will you say "OK, my bad"???

What an arrogant arsehole you are.

"Yes but walking in front of speeding car does make it certain."

No it doesn't.

Car could miss.

So it's safe to walk in front of a speeding car because it could miss.

Go ahead, play with the traffic.

"I also dont see that we have problem due to global warming,whatever the cause is."

Aye, this is because you're in denial.

As well as being an arrogant arsehole you're a misanthrope. "I'm all right, hang the rest". THAT is your basis for your fervour and denial: YOU are OK and YOU will have to possibly pay for change and YOU don't want to.

Selfish, self-centred arrogant arsehole.

The complete denialist.

Posted by: Wow | September 1, 2010 7:25 AM

"Hey Wow, the venting hasn't started yet and I was hoping to forestall it"

Hey, apologist slime, why did you not take davep to task when he attributed to OTHERS "their" thoughts and feelings rather than himself (the only person he has authority to explain the thoughts of)?

No, you waited until someone cut his arguments down then went all "moderate troll" to shut it out because the argument was failing.

Tough titty, kiddo.

Posted by: Wow | September 1, 2010 7:28 AM

I also dont see that we have problem due to global warming,whatever the cause is.

Aye, this is because you're in denial.

I am not in denial about this at all.

Warren is either a liar, or in denial of his denial (or both).

Posted by: jakerman | September 1, 2010 8:14 AM

Car could miss-Yes,but I would not like to conduct the experiment based on the odds.

That's precisely the stance of many climate scientists. One concern is that significantly negative consequences that can't be ruled out to any reasonable degree of certainty; indeed for some of them the chances seem to be somewhere between fairly and rather likely based on the current understanding we have. Contrast that with you [my emphasis]:

Please give me an example of a problem we have now that is due to global warming.

...which you seem to think means we have no concern at all due to global warming.

It's a bit like the mechanic telling you that his model of brake wear indicates that unless you change the pads shortly you're going to lose braking power and my even crash - and you blow him off by saying "that's OK, right now my brakes still work".

(And that's without even discussing the now.)

Posted by: Lotharsson | September 1, 2010 8:38 AM

WOW,you have to look at the probabilities of the 2 separate events.The history of pedestrians being killed by cars is extensive and well documented.The history of climate change is neither well understood nor well documented.The opinion is divided.Believers think the risk of CAGW is fairly high.Us sceptics think the risk is pretty low.There is no agreement on whether we will have a problem in the future.

Posted by: warren | September 1, 2010 9:15 AM

"WOW,you have to look at the probabilities of the 2 separate events"

You do too.

Try it.

It's 50% likely that the earth will warm by more than 3C per doubling of CO2.

"The history of climate change is neither well understood nor well documented"

Really?

"I see no ships"

It's VERY well documented. You just don't like the results.

"Believers think the risk of CAGW is fairly high."

Only in the sense that believers in the heliocentric system think the risk of the sun coming up in the morning is pretty high.

Because there's actual evidence for that position, just like with AGW severe enough to mandate avoidance.

"Us sceptics think the risk is pretty low."

Only in the sense that Fundie Christians think the risk of them being caught out on the ground when The Rapture comes along is pretty low.

Based solely on personal preferences and bigotry, just like your insistence that AGW is no serious threat at all.

Posted by: Wow | September 1, 2010 9:37 AM

"WOW,so where did you get the 78% number from.I would like to verify it."

Will you answer my question if I do?

"As for the recent heatwave in Russia,it was due to the persistence of a stationary high pressure system over the continent"

Indeed it was. This often results in a heatwave.

Very infrequently a record breaking one.

"it is impossible to ascibe the cause to .75 degrees of warming over the last 150 years."

So when it gets hotter, this doesn't affect a heatwave?!?!?!?!

Posted by: Wow | September 1, 2010 9:59 AM

"If so,then the answer is that the 3C idea comes from models"

It's been said before No it isn't.

The models get the same as measurements do as their best composite guess.

"On the other hand we have measured results that suggest sensitivity is only a fraction of this."

Except those results require COMPUTER MODELS!!! and also do not stand up to scrutiny.

Funny how you specifically have been told this before, but on a different thread have "forgotten" it.

Funny how your memory works, isn't it.

Always forgetting the facts that prove you wrong...

Posted by: Wow | September 1, 2010 11:08 AM

Steve Easterbrook stops a wrongly worded news story dead in its tracks.

Climate scientists should not write their own software, says researcher

His polite response

Posted by: J Bowers | September 1, 2010 11:40 AM

On the otherhand,Lindzen and Spencer have started off with real world data and then tried to interpret it.

And as I pointed out earlier, they don't appear to have interpreted it correctly. You appear unable to show that they are correct, or that the criticisms of their interpretations are unfounded, and yet you continue to imply that they are right. How do you know this?

On the other hand we have about a dozen different lines of evidence that point to equilibrium sensitivity of about 3 degrees C, and you are thus far unable to show why those are wrong, other than to imply that they are all based on models, which you appear to assert without evidence are inherently of no value. How do you know this?

Posted by: Lotharsson | September 1, 2010 11:48 AM

"Which one is right?"

Well your exhortation of 0.5C is outside even that huge range.

And models may give that range, but measurements constrain that figure to within 2C and 4.5C per doubling.

And Schwartz' output agrees with a 3C per doubling.

Posted by: Wow | September 1, 2010 12:23 PM

When you find your figures I've asked for.

What is the number of extant species at one time in the paleo record when CO2 levels were much higher and what is the peak number of species in the Holocene (past 8000 years).

As asked for here

Posted by: Wow | September 1, 2010 12:47 PM

"WOW,I have already told you that I dont have those numbers,and I have never claimed that I know them or have them."

Then I ask again How do you know that this:

"But it does not change the fact that most plant species evolved during peroids of higher CO2 levels"

is true?

If you don't know the numbers, you cannot claim that statement as "FACT".

Therefore it's merely supposition on your part.

Posted by: Wow | September 1, 2010 1:27 PM

I thought you knew this stuff? You always seemed so certain...

Now you're saying it was all a sham??? That you really don't know what you're talking about???

Is this why you want me to do your homework for you???

At least you've admitted that this:

"But it does not change the fact that most plant species evolved during peroids of higher CO2 levels"

Was just unreferenced supposition on your part.

Posted by: Wow | September 1, 2010 1:48 PM

Journalists have again forgotten what journalism is.

There was a very similar problem IMO with "Climategate" as I've mentioned here before.

Much of the media's relish in throwing Phil Jones under the bus was because to fail to do so would put a crimp in the FOIA which journalists had put so much effort into getting on the books.

Therefore CRU had to be attacked for (legitimately) refusing FOIA vexatious requests. Why? Because if it was admitted FOIA was easily open for abuse, restraints could be gotten for it.

That the FOIA was trivially ignored "legitimately" by parliament and the Labour government of the time (e.g. blacking out residences of MPs on their expenses forms, blacking out the expense items themsevels "for security") may have made them oversensitive to any more loopholes to avoid it, but strangely enough, not much was done about these abuses of "security" exceptions.

The CRU, however, a much easier target. No chance of Tony hounding you out of your job there.

And the same going on here in the USA.

Posted by: Wow | September 1, 2010 5:22 PM

It seems to be confirmed that the unusually cold winter experienced by the US and Northern Europe was just a bit of a fluke:

Huge snowfall caused by rare clash of weather events

Some news reports took the extreme cold weather as evidence against climate change. By analysing 60 years of snowfall measurements and satellite data, researchers concluded the anomalous weather conditions were caused by an unusual combination of an El Nino event and the rare occurrence of a strongly negative North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO).

Who'd have thunk it?

Posted by: lord_sidcup | September 2, 2010 4:51 AM

Wow, strange as it may seem you had already risen to davidp's coat-trailing by the time I read the thread. I tried to be even-handed in my initial intervention in order to cool the situation off but clearly I failed to communicate my intentions properly and I apologise for my failure.

Anyway your beef is with davidp and he seems happy to engage, so I'll bow out and let you two get on with it. He claims to have only recently come to his current position; if that's so, then you have an opportunity to reason him out of it.

Regards Luke

Posted by: silburnl | September 2, 2010 6:45 AM

...the problem is,is that the model results are all over the place.

Yes, that's indeed a problem. For one thing, the sensitivity may turn out to be really high - which would really suck.

You still refuse to understand that a number of separate lines of evidence (not just GCMs) which all suggest the most likely value is around 3C, but it could be as low as maybe 1.5C if we're really lucky or as high as 8-10C or more if we're rather unlucky. Instead you claim that sensitivity is low (or even really low), based (as far as I can tell) on no robust evidence at all - and in opposition to a significant amount of evidence. The best explanation based on the evidence we actually have must go with the weight of evidence, not your wishful thinking.

Posted by: Lotharsson | September 2, 2010 8:54 AM

"I tried to be even-handed and not point fingers in that first post."

You may well have tried.

You didn't succeed.

Nothing about the insertion of "hate" into the psyche of others done by dp. Just "no nuke discussion, dude".

If you want to limit JUST to the nuke discussion then you were IN THAT EXTREMELY NARROW WINDOW even handed.

But that's a bit like looking at Adolf's love for his Alsatian dogs and saying he was a lovely man.

Posted by: Wow | September 2, 2010 10:43 AM

Not if it shuts that thread down, Stu.

And Adolf DID love his dogs. Therefore, through that very specific window into his life, he was a good man.

Hence the use as an analogy here, Stu.

Posted by: Wow | September 2, 2010 11:25 AM

Not if it shuts that thread down, Stu.

Ah, the end justifies the means! (I'm being facetious, it's hardly the most nefarious 'means' ever ;-D)

Chris, Phil Plait sees himself as a debunker, communicator and educator rather than just a commentator, which is probably why he'd prefer people to not be dicks because emotions then dominate the discussion rather than cool logic.

On the other hand, people being dickish makes these discussions much more interesting. You can be outraged by dicks with opposing views and be dickish along with those you agree with. In some forums, that's pretty much an unspoken rule lest you be accused of tone trolling! I don't necessarily agree with that, but it is fun.

Posted by: Stu | September 2, 2010 11:52 AM

Be wary of people setting themselves up "moderate". If they're not lying, chances are they're wrong.

Interesting stance. I believe I have a moderate view of nuclear power. It's not ideal, but it does work and we're going to have an energy gap here in the UK that renewables wont be able to fill in the requisite timeframe. So I'd rather have new nuclear power plants than new fossil fuel power plants, even though I don't really like nuclear power.

Does this position make me wrong, or perhaps does it not fall under your definition of moderate?

Posted by: Stu | September 2, 2010 12:57 PM

warren:

what we dont have is a verifiable number for how much of the recent warming is due to CO2.

So what, pray tell, has caused any significant part of the warming since 1975 apart from GHG increases? And please, don't give us crap about solar or cosmic ray variation. The Sun's output and cosmic rays have virtually zero trend in the past 50 years.

Posted by: Chris O'Neill | September 2, 2010 2:22 PM

Wow,

From the perspective of someone who has been following this debate and so far refraining from commenting, you do sound a bit like the majority of Australians of generation x and y: conditioned against the use of nuclear power. Your arguments so far have come across as ideological rather than scientific.

While currently nuclear power (in a deregulated market with no subsidies) is not competitive against coal and gas, it comes close to oil, and is very competitive against the current price of renewables.

Ask yourself a simple question. Try and detach yourself from any prejudice you have against nuclear power: what is the most important objective currently? Is it to cut carbon emmissions as quickly as possible without causing undue economic distress, or is it to equally propel renewables forward into the economically competitive arena?

If the goal is only to achieve cuts in carbon as quickly as possible, then to ignore nuclear power is simple denial. If you attach equal importance to forcing renewables to become competitive here and now, which is indeed a necessary (though arguably longer-term) outcome, then that changes the equation altogether, but with concommitant (and arguably unnecessary) economic pain.

As to what's better for the planet, look at Pripyat these days. The fact that it's totally unsuitable for human habitation has done wonders for the environment.

Posted by: MFS | September 2, 2010 7:22 PM

MFS, my opposition to nuclear power owes nothing whatsoever to conditioning, but is based on proper analysis: nuclear power is uninsurable, which means the risks are carried by the taxpayer and therefore not factored into the costs of nuclear power generation.

Decommissioning is not factored in, either, and it is a process which takes decades.

And emissions of radioactive waste is not factored in as a cost either - neither the daily emissions of "low-level" waste nor the less frequent emissions of untreatable "high-level" waste. And as that waste remains untreatable, the nuclear industry fails to factor in that as a cost either. You only have to look at the long-running hyper-expensive failure of the Yucca Mountain Repository - so far the world's only supposedly long-term nuclear storage site for high-level waste - to see that we are a long way off being able to deal in any meaningful way with high-level nuclear waste.

Not only that, but the companies that run nuclear power plants then hide from public scrutiny of their operations behind a facade of "national security".

If you compare the long list of known unknowns that apply to the nuclear industry to the spectrum of clean renewable options, it is astounding that any responsible government would continue to underfund research into these alternatives.

The pro-nuke fanatics are desperate to lock the taxpayer into an industry that will enable them to milk us dry, and they feel very threatened by an industry that can generate power without ultra-expensive technology and fuel, so that's why they come up with the smokescreen of bullshit such as "renewables can't provide baseload power" and so forth.

Posted by: Vince Whirlwind | September 2, 2010 9:27 PM

"nuclear power is uninsurable, which means the risks are carried by the taxpayer and therefore not factored into the costs of nuclear power generation."

It also means that the risks are too high for anyone to take on. Hence offload it to a future generation, suckers that they are.

Improve the ones we have by replacing them with better designs. Work on better designs, one of them may become the solution. But the solution of nuclear is decades away. And decades is decades too late.

Cheapest option is USE LESS. In fact it has a negative cost: you get to keep money you would have spent otherwise.

Posted by: Wow | September 3, 2010 3:59 AM

Fail

trying again...

Posted by: Wow | September 3, 2010 4:17 AM

Wow,

Try and detatch yourself from your nuclear generation schtick.

I'm not sure what generation you think I am, but don't jump to conclusions or you run the risk of being woefully wrong. I was born in the late 70s. Also don't box me into a stereotype. I don't know enough about nuclear power generation to have an opinion about it. Much of what little I know comes from pro-nuclear or green propaganda, and both are equally worthless.

But if I do, is this because a) the majority of Australians of generation X and Y and myself are wrong or b) you're conditioned to be FOR nuclear and technological panaceas.

Nice strawman. Why the insistence on black and white? You're building up a fallacious argument with only two possibilities, one at each extreme. That the majority of Australians are opposed to nuclear power does not make them 'wrong'. Nor does it make people who are ambivalent like myself 'wrong'. You sound as if having anything other than your opinion is 'wrong'. The question about whether there ought to be a debate on the merits of nuclear power is a political one, not a scientific one. My opinion is that opposition to French hegemony in the Pacific (and nuclear testing) has a lot to do with the political expedience of condemning all things nuclear, and conditioning a generation to distrust it.

That you are not even willing to contemplate the possibility of nuclear power is telling, though, and only reinforces the appearance of bias. Maybe you know much more than the average person about the topic. Still, how can you truly have an open debate without putting all your options on the table?

You can tell people to use less till the cows come home. I'm not sure you'll get much of an outcome.

Posted by: MFS | September 3, 2010 4:50 AM

"Nor does it make people who are ambivalent like myself 'wrong'. "

No, but when you say things like:

As to what's better for the planet, look at Pripyat these days. The fact that it's totally unsuitable for human habitation has done wonders for the environment.

makes you wrong in your assertion that you're "ambivalent".

And that isn't the only statement you've made that proves that assertion wrong. There are plenty more. But your ideology requires you to be the sane on in any nuke discussion and anyone who doesn't admit that to be insane.

I'm not buying it.

Posted by: Wow | September 3, 2010 5:20 AM

"It [nuclear power] is one of many options. It needs to be debated, as you say, considering all the costs and all the problems as a whole."

And the debate ends when all the costs and problems as a whole make that option unfeasible.

Yet you, MFS, come around and wail that the option must be considered and then state that it is the only option possible, all other ones impossible.

That you decide that renewables are not an option (despite getting the cost of them wrong, when cost is one of the few stated reasons for discarding them) without a blink, but when someone does the same (with more solid reasoning), you complain.

You are not "ambivalent".

The only reason why you insist on this is either to play the "I'm more reasonable than YOU" card (or up the stakes in a tit-for-tat that waters everything down to uselessness) or because you feel you need to hide your partisanship on the issue.

You don't.

You WANT nuclear. You want MORE of it. This is partisan, but it is YOUR view.

In trying to kid on you're unpartisan on this issue, you are unable to admit the problems with nuclear power as an option, therefore you not only give away your partisanship, but negate any honesty over any of your other points because you so clearly lied here.

By having to refuse to acknowledge the problems of nuclear you also are unable to ameliorate or avoid completely those problems, ensuring that that option NEVER becomes viable.

As illustration, why is nuclear fusion off the discussion? Why not ignore completely nuclear fission with its cost, resource limits and security concerns and go for the "nuclear fusion is better than fossil fuels" option?

Fusion.

The ONLY answer.

Posted by: Wow | September 3, 2010 6:13 AM

Yes, I have MFS.

Didn't you?

Here's a couple of highlights:

...conditioned against the use of nuclear power. Your arguments so far have come across as ideological rather than scientific.

While currently nuclear power (in a deregulated market with no subsidies) is not competitive against coal and gas, it comes close to oil, and is very competitive against the current price of renewables.

This is wrong, remember?

Try and detach yourself from any prejudice you have against nuclear power:

or is it to equally propel renewables forward into the economically competitive arena?

They already are, remember?

If the goal is only to achieve cuts in carbon as quickly as possible, then to ignore nuclear power is simple denial.

Now, compare that with a later comment when you're backpedaling to seem "ambivalent":

It [nuclear power] is one of many options. It needs to be debated, as you say, considering all the costs and all the problems as a whole.

Yet you insist that if it's been considered and rejected, rejecting it is simple denial.

If you attach equal importance to forcing renewables to become competitive here and now,

they are.

And the horriffic

As to what's better for the planet, look at Pripyat these days.

of course.

Posted by: Wow | September 3, 2010 6:49 AM

Wow, I am confused by your nuclear fusion point. Could you lay out more clearly what you are driving at with this please?

Regards Luke

Posted by: silburnl | September 3, 2010 7:12 AM

Wow,

Comment in moderation, maybe too many links. Took too long to write to have another go tonight.

The short version says: Stop presuming you know who I am or what I think (you don't) and start reading what I actually said. Thanks for the links (I don't disagree with them) and I'm all for fusion when someone canmake it work.

Posted by: MFS | September 3, 2010 7:55 AM

WOW,2 questions 1]how many people have been killed by nuclear power? 2]Which is currently cheaper and more reliable.Nuclear or renewables?

Posted by: warren | September 3, 2010 9:11 AM

We dont know what has caused the warming since 1975 because we dont know how the system works.CO2 ofcourse should play a part,but how much we dont know.The idea that CO2 drives climate is an assumption.

Same denial tactic from this goose called warren.

Warren you are projecting your denial, but most people are not effected the way you are. Most people accept the evidence.

Posted by: jakerman | September 3, 2010 9:19 AM

The idea that CO2 drives climate is an assumption.

Just like the idea that light is a wave is an assumption. Both assumptions based on multiple lines of observed evidence.

Posted by: jakerman | September 3, 2010 9:24 AM

"There is no consensus!The Leipzig Declaration,The Manhattan Declaration, The Oregon Petition."

This is me, pointing and laughing.

Regards Luke

Posted by: silburnl | September 3, 2010 9:50 AM

More reading for Warren.

Did everyone catch the expose on Koch Industries in the New Yorker?

Posted by: jakerman | September 3, 2010 10:10 AM

"it has only risen .75 of a degree which you would not notice if it happened in your home or workplace"

Actually, I would. I have one instrument in my lab that makes a lot more noise when it gets a little warmer. It needs a lot of cooling, and even a 0.75 degrees increase is enough for its cooling to switch on more than at 0.75 degrees lower temperatures.

And 0.75 degrees increase is also enough to change a slightly damp and chilly room into a not so damp and not so chilly room, which I also notice (I checked, this morning I was cold behind my computer, but with a bit of sun the temp went up 0.5(!) degrees, which was enough for me to no longer feel cold.

Posted by: Marco | September 3, 2010 11:05 AM

warren:

We dont know what has caused the warming since 1975 because we dont know how the system works.

We know for certain that CO2 has directly produced a large fraction of the warming since 1975. You're saying that it's just an amazing co-incidence that the rest of the warming is produced by some completely unknown cause that just happens to come along at exactly the same time as the increase in CO2.

You can go on believing in amazing co-incidences if you want to but please, don't tell us that we are the ones who are believers. I think that word fits you much more accurately.

Posted by: Chris O'Neill | September 3, 2010 2:06 PM

Warren:

A couple of million dollars from Exxon as opposed to 50 BILLION dollars[and counting]from governments and others.

And what are you suggesting by that remark?

I vote for my government and participate in consultations etc. I don't get to vote for the Exxon board or any other company management. And most companies are run as dictatorships with a top down hierarchy form of governance. Have you ever told your boss that he has to change the way he works or else you won't vote for him again?

If you don't like democracy then find another planet to live on.

Posted by: Paul UK | September 3, 2010 2:48 PM

Wow,

And again, this time highlighted:

Is it to cut carbon emmissions as quickly as possible without causing undue economic distress, or is it to equally propel renewables forward into the economically competitive arena?

You're still trying to divine nefarious purposes in my posts. My post specifically sets it out like this because I CAN see scenarios where nuclear would not be an option, such as forcing more investment energy generation using renewable resources. Unless you have come to a conclusion that no further R&D is required to advance the area of renewables, then forcing investment by making ALL other options less competitive than they already are is one of the ways of achieving this.

Posted by: MFS | September 3, 2010 7:12 PM

Except, Warren, government money is paid to scientists from governments both conservative and liberal.

And except, warren, that government money primarily goes to understand the earth and its climate and weather systems, regardless of the extent and severity of AGW - for reasons that are blindingly obvious to most. In other words, your implication that billions of dollars are ONLY being directed to the science purely because of concern about AGW is yet another form of Curtin-like false-accounting.

Posted by: Lotharsson | September 3, 2010 10:22 PM

"And again, this time highlighted:"

And again, they have NOTHING TO DO WITH EACH OTHER.

And AGAIN, renewables are ALREADY cheaper:

Coal:

• Coal Supercritical: 10.554
• Coal Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle (IGCC): 11.481
• Coal IGCC with Carbon Capture & Storage (IGCC with CCS): 17.317

Alternatives:

• Biogas: 8.552
• Wind: 8.910
• Gas Combined Cycle: 9.382
• Geothermal: 10.182
• Hydroelectric: 10.527
• Concentrating solar thermal (CSP): 12.653
• Nuclear: 15.316
• Biomass: 16.485

Wind (Rewnewable) 8.91.

Nuclear (Nonrenewable): 15.316

Coal (Nonrenewable, reduced CO2): 10.554+

MAKE renewables commercial? They already are. The incumbents keep using their power to keep the new kid down.

Posted by: Wow | September 4, 2010 3:18 AM

Wow,

As I already said in post #181, thank you for your reference. I have already said I was not aware of it, why the persistence?

When I say in #200 :

"When you link to references as you did before pointing out that renewables like wind ARE more competitive than nuclear, that's helpful."

That means thank you for the reference... I accept what you're saying... Moving on...

My point in #200 is to defend myself of you accusations of making strawman arguments by showing that you misrepresented me and producing my actual quote to show this. I have not said or implied that renewable energy sources are less or more competitive than nuclear power since my original post, and I don't know exactly what you're trying to accomplish by continuing to imply that I have.

I'm not sure who or what I am in your mind's eye, but I assure you I am neither a concern troll nor a denier and I'm sure Lotharsson, Jeff, Bernard and others can attest to the fact, as we've wasted so much bandwith arguing together with the likes of Curtin and Brent. I am not a dog whistler nor interested in putting hidden messages on my posts.

If you could do me the favour of taking what I say plainly more seriously than what you think I mean we can all move on.

Posted by: MFS | September 4, 2010 3:43 AM

A couple of million dollars from Exxon as opposed to 50 BILLION dollars[and counting]from governments and others.

Where is this 50 billion dollars spent on climate change science?

Most of the science directly related to climate change is done on a shoe string. That's partly why the CRU got into trouble.

Yes a lot of money is spent on weather and climate science, but that isn't spent to prove AGW, it is spent to improve knowledge in general.

In any case if there was a conspiracy why would governments spend money on the CLOUDS experiment, which if skeptics are to be believed will prove AGW to be wrong!

Posted by: The Ville | September 4, 2010 4:11 AM

COVERT OPERATIONS:

An advertisement cast the event as a populist uprising against vested corporate power. “Today, the voices of average Americans are being drowned out by lobbyists and special interests,” it said. “But you can do something about it.” [...] “What they don’t say is that, in part, this is a grassroots citizens’ movement brought to you by a bunch of oil billionaires.”

Posted by: jakerman | September 4, 2010 5:31 AM

Chris Oneil:"we know for certain that CO2 has produced..." No,YOU know for certain chris,but unfortunatlely there is no emperical evidence to prove your claim.Even the IPCC admits that it doesn;t know for certain.IE "very likely"!!

Posted by: warren | September 4, 2010 7:40 AM

The difference is is that when you buy a product or service from a company,you will generally get value for money.Not so with governments,they take your money and give you something of less value in return.

So Paul's drawn warren into revealing his ideology, anti democratic ultra libertarian. Warren you have a lot in common with the Koch brothers.

Posted by: jakerman | September 4, 2010 7:50 AM

You have missed the point entirely.

No, you've just failed to make a coherent point. Instead you're making ideological platitudes.

Scientist are motivated by truth seeking. Why work for a modest scientist wage if you are brilliantly bright and predominately motivate by money? It nonsensical that people driven by truth seeking would work against their prime goal.

Posted by: jakerman | September 4, 2010 8:13 AM

Jakerman:Truth seeking,like Jim Hanson yeah?Like Tim Flannery yeah?Michael Mann,GavinSchmidt,Phil Jones,Pauchuri,Schneider.All splendid fellows,honest as the day is long.Paul Ehrlich? Whoops!

Posted by: warren | September 4, 2010 8:25 AM

Even the IPCC admits that it doesn;t know for certain

So warren falls back to the favourite denialist trope - "anything less than 100% certainty is meaningless". A.k.a. it's still safe to smoke cigarettes because some people don't get ill from them, and when driving don't bother braking until you're 100% certain you're going to hit something you don't want to hit.

I'd really hate to see that attitude applied to the professional services warren delivers to his clients. I sincerely hope he thinks more rationally in that arena.

Not so with governments,they take your money and give you something of less value in return.

That's certainly arguable - for one thing, some outcomes government can deliver that private enterprise simply cannot so for those the question of who provides best value doesn't even arise. As someone better known than the average mope once said (more or less):

"I like paying my taxes. With them I buy civilisation."

Furthermore, warren is using this argument to assert that government-funded research is inherently wasteful (and he implies it's huge waste, not a little bit). This argument is attractive on the surface (like "CO2 is plant food") until thought through a little bit.

He doesn't seem to recall that the argument that government is less efficient (in terms of pricing) than private enterprise (disregarding the contested nature of those claims) generally rests on the "self-evident" notion that it's the competition amongst enterprises that leads them to be more efficient, there's no competition amongst governments, therefore government must be less efficient. (We'll leave aside the issue of competition between successive governments, and other mechanisms driving government towards efficiency.)

Warren doesn't understand that there is fierce competition amongst scientists (including competition for government funding). This suggests government-funded science is likely to be quite efficient on the whole.

Warren also asserts:

With that funding comes prestige,fame,first class travel,speaking engagements,extra staff yada,yada.

Warren, how many climate scientists can you name who travel first class using their research funding? Actual evidence please - not unsupported claims. FWIW, Brent (IIRC) could not name any when challenged on this point either.

And evidence for the rest would be good too. As far as I have noticed, science funding doesn't bring prestige or fame or speaking engagements to scientists - it is defensible scientific results that do that.

Most government-funded scientists could earn twice as much in private enterprise, and sidestep a whole bevy of funding pleadings and justifications and competition at the same time. They aren't in it for the money. They're in it because they want to understand how things work. Coincidentally, doing that is how you get acclaim from other scientists too.

However I agree that more funding would provide the means to hire extra staff. Warren seems to imply that's a bad or inefficient thing:

When it comes to taxpayers money,its a never ending party.

Trouble is, warren doesn't understand that to get funding you have to demonstrate that you're scientifically competent and are doing useful work. Remember that fierce competition for funding I mentioned?

Warren, have you ever tried to run a research group on government funding? Seriously? Or even looked at salaries for government-funded scientists? You imply you know a lot about it. I suspect you know nothing - perhaps less than nothing, because I reckon what you think you know is almost diametrically opposed to reality.

Posted by: Lotharsson | September 4, 2010 8:35 AM

All splendid fellows,honest as the day is long.

Ah, now we have the desperate ad hom. Warren just knows the people he listed are dishonest scientific fr@uds who are milking the public teat for all they're worth and stashing the wealth...somewhere so out of sight no-one has ever seen it, even if he can't prove any of it. He knows it so deeply he uses their names as (to him) self-evident illustrations of fr@ud and waste.

And warren knows so much about it that he doesn't even know that Pachauri is not a scientist but an administrator, and that it's Hansen rather than Hanson!

Posted by: Lotharsson | September 4, 2010 8:41 AM

After slandering Hansen et al, Warren just dug his hole of dishonestly even deeper over here.

Posted by: jakerman | September 4, 2010 8:55 AM

Warren, how many climate scientists can you name who travel first class using their research funding?

Well I know of one scientist (I think American) and his students that had to pay for their own air fares.

Posted by: The Ville | September 4, 2010 9:23 AM

Warren:

Not so with governments,they take your money and give you something of less value in return.

But by what standards is that judged?? And what government?

I have worked in the commercial and public sector. I also know a lot of people that do jobs in the commercial sector that have no real value and waste peoples money. Some commercial jobs even damage the health of people.

It seems Warren, you have characteristics that make you inherently suspicious of government but are unwilling to make the same challenges of the commercial sector.

What value does someone have if they phone a home owner with the goal of replacing that persons perfectly satisfactory window frames?

You talk of waste, but you are blind to the waste that is all around us, all in the name of creating jobs, for no reason at all.

That smacks of ideology rather than rational assessment of individual situations.

Posted by: The Ville | September 4, 2010 9:31 AM

JBowers:Your one example is pitiful.TRy this small sample of conferences where hundreds and thousands of open mouths go.Bangkok[2008,2009],Bonn[2008,3in 2009],Accra[2008],Bali[2007],Melbourne[2007],Tianjin[2010],UN[3in 2010],Copenhagen[March 2009].And there are many many more if you care to look.How does your 1 scientist and a few school kiddies look now?

Posted by: warren | September 4, 2010 10:27 AM

TRy this small sample of conferences where hundreds and thousands of open mouths

No idea what warren is referring to, but there's still no evidence of first class fares for working scientists out of research funding.

It cost the ozzie taxpayer $2million!All for a failure.What a lovely return on investment!

But it was a success in your ideology, warren - because you are sure AGW is nothing to be concerned about, so in your view any substantive agreement at Copenhagen would have been an egregious error.

Those mutually exclusive talking points are a real PITA to keep straight...

Posted by: Lotharsson | September 4, 2010 10:41 AM

warren:

"we know for certain that CO2 has produced..." No,YOU know for certain chris,but unfortunatlely there is no emperical evidence to prove your claim.Even the IPCC admits that it doesn;t know for certain.IE "very likely"!!

You've completely missed the point. I'm talking in that statement about the warming produced by CO2 on its own without any feedback. As Stefan Rahmstorf points out:

Without any feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 (which amounts to a forcing of 3.7 W/m2) would result in 1°C global warming, which is easy to calculate and is undisputed.

As I said, we know for certain that this is producing warming, and you want us to believe that the rest of the warming is just an amazing co-incidence produced by some completely unknown cause that just happens to come along at exactly the same time as the increase in CO2.

All you've succeeded in doing is showing that you're thoroughly confused by the science and that to dispute the science the way you do requires someone such as yourself who is thoroughly confused by the science.

Posted by: Chris O'Neill | September 4, 2010 12:29 PM

Here are some exclusive quotes by Kevin Trenberth: http://climatesight.org/2010/08/30/what-kevin-trenberth-has-to-say/

Posted by: Kate | September 4, 2010 2:59 PM

Dunno what planet Warren is on, but it's not the same one I inhabit.

Does he truly believe that private companies spend less on the conference gravy-train than governments? Yeah right. The thing my wife hates most about the corporate conferences she attends is that she can't play golf, and often feels left out!

Posted by: Mike | September 4, 2010 11:54 PM

JBowers:Was it 14 thousand people that attended COP15 at Copenhagen?I am pretty sure that figure is accurate.COP11 in Montreal was attended by 10,000.The one I saw in Bangkok was 400-500.Davos in Melbourne was a couple of hundred.How many were scientists,I dont know but I am going to track it down.As for first class,by that I would mean airfares and hotel accomodation.For example,in copenhagen they booked out every hotel in the city and some in sweden.They had to import limosines from Germany.That must have rough.Also many cities are fiercely bidding for these conferences because they are such a money spinner.EG Qatar and Seoul for COP18 in 2012.And all on the taxpayers dime.LaDolce Vita.

Posted by: warren | September 5, 2010 10:53 AM

Ramsdorf is talking also about the laboratory situation.In the lab,yes a doubling does leed to a 1C temperature rise.

You don't seem to comprehend that Chris was actually talking about the CO2-is-the-only-change effects - which can be seen in the laboratory. In other words, you can't decide whether you agree or disagree with him.

Posted by: Lotharsson | September 5, 2010 11:43 AM

If companies are spending money on conferences,then atleast they are spending their own money,not somebody elses.

Inconveniently, they tend to pass on their expenses to consumers, thus spending someone else's money.

You might argue that competition between companies will keep those sorts of expenses down - but even then there are key industry conferences where any serious player needs to attend. There is no effective real competition on those expenses, therefore consumers pay. And they can't even dump the company for another one because all companies are doing it.

And if shareholders dont like it they can dump the company.

Similarly, as I previously pointed out, if voters don't like the expenses incurred by government, they can dump the government.

BTW, I'm still waiting for some answers, warren.

And I assume that it's futile for you to recognise that there's no government-funded scientist "gravy train" for endorsing false science. For one thing the government would be deliriously happy if someone proved that AGW was merely a trivial concern - and the scientists involved would win actual fame and prestige and money in the form of a Nobel Prize - or two; and for another scientists get judged on the defensibility of their work. You might get away with faking outcomes for a few months or years, but you will eventually get caught out...

Posted by: Lotharsson | September 5, 2010 12:06 PM

Lotharrson:I did not say that their travel expenses were paid for out of their reseach funding.I said it eas paid for by the taxpayer.And I completely agree with you inregards to politics.The politicians would consume a far larger share of public wealth on this issue than the scientists.I also would not blame the majority of scientists,because afterall this is a government generated gravy train.I also did not say that scientists were endorsing false science.But along with the funding does come all of the perks I described.Ian Lowe went to Copenhagen,do you think he paid his own expenses?

Posted by: warren | September 5, 2010 12:50 PM

JBowers:8 members of Climate Scientists Australia visited parliament house Canberra 2009.Taxpayers expense.CSA members also went to KPMG lunches in Sydney and Melbourne.The guardian conducted a poll at the March 2009 conference in Copenhagen.They said they interviewed 250 experts.Atleast 226 scientists went to Bali 2007.COP14 Poznan attracted 11,500 participants.I have no break down on how may were scientists,but if we were to follow the indicators from Bali and Copenhagen,then it should be ATLEAST 250.

Posted by: warren | September 5, 2010 1:27 PM

248 warren -- "but if we were to follow the indicators from Bali and Copenhagen,then it should be ATLEAST 250."

Now demonstrate with evidence that there were 250 climate scientists, and they were paid for by the taxpayer.

Posted by: J Bowers | September 5, 2010 2:10 PM

JBowers:No I cannot demonstrate that.The information was that they were scientists or experts.Hundreds of scientists go to these conferences,but I am sure that you are not going to seriously suggest that they paid their own fares,booked their own accomodation,arranged transport,etc are you. And if they were not paid for by the taxpayer then who?One example is Ian Lowe who went to Copenhagen,and that was funded by the department of climate change in the Rudd government.

Posted by: warren | September 5, 2010 2:26 PM

Chek:Corporations pay as much tax as they are required to under the law.They are given tax incentives by governments to make investments and employ people.The government makes these laws to encourage corporations to keep re-investing their profits in the country.Businesses and companies create wealth and jobs,and the tax laws encourage them to continue doing that.

Posted by: warren | September 5, 2010 3:06 PM

254 warren -- "They are given tax incentives by governments to make investments and employ people."

So much for the free market being able to support itself, then. I see in Alaska the oil companies pay so much tax there's no need for an income or sales tax there. On top of that, the citizens get an annual payout from the taxes on the oil companies ($3,000+) for doing nothing. Isn't that better known as "redistribution of the wealth"?

Worldwide, fossil fuel gets $500 billion a year in taxpayer subsidies.

252 warren -- "Hundreds of scientists go to these conferences,but I am sure that you are not going to seriously suggest that they paid their own fares,booked their own accomodation,arranged transport,etc are you."

So you don't know either way, but make claims of gravy trains still.

warren -- "One example is Ian Lowe who went to Copenhagen,"

The hypocrisy burns! What were you saying about the example of a climate scientist paying for his and his students air fares to the Arctic? Oh yes, "JBowers:Your one example is pitiful."

Pitiful indeed.

Posted by: J Bowers | September 5, 2010 4:27 PM

Hey Warren, alternatively try and guess why most would rather stick a fork in their eye than divulge any personal information to creepy, two-faced Brent. This thread pretty much shows why Brent here is only slightly less trustworthy than a schizophrenic rattlesnake tweaked up on crystal meth, and this one illustrates the duplicitous creepiness. Enjoy.

Posted by: chek | September 5, 2010 7:32 PM

Brent #258 - You trot out the same old, sad distraction over and over.

It's a completely idiotic. Once upon a time I lived in an apartment in the city. For the last ten years I've lived rurally and are pretty self-sufficient. In a couple of years time, for various reasons, we'll probably need to move back to the city.

Meanwhile, the science, that you don't understand, is not influenced by my behaviour, and how I receive my electricity in an apartment continues to be about government policy not personal responsibility.

Posted by: AS | September 5, 2010 7:41 PM

Australian poltics is important. The big 4 countries fighting against AGW science for a while were the US, UK, Canada and Australia. On paper, 3 of the 4 have accepted reality, all but Canada. Australia is also a unique continent, and uniquely endangered.

Posted by: Marion Delgado | September 5, 2010 10:41 PM

Warren simply has no clue what value the community gets from scientists.

For a number of reasons I chose to work part-time several years ago, and I find now that I work about 2 unpaid hours for every paid one. It's just how science functions, and I worked extra hours too when I was full-time... simple limits to available hours lowered the 2:1 ratio in that case... I certainly had almost no recreational time then.

My friends in the corporate world watch the clock. Come the end of the day, they leave on the dot, and any extra minute is counted as overtime or time-in-lieu. And for the pleasure of having better hours, and doing much less intellectually-taxing work, they are paid about 2.5 times more per hour than am I.

Warren, if it wasn't for the fact that I love scientific work, and that I have a far greater desire to do work that benefits the environment than I do for work that benefits my bank balance, I'd be through the door in a nanosecond. I might be altruistic, but I'm not stupid, and like all scientists it is something other than money that entices me to work where I do.

If society paid scientists as well as they paid corporate executives and shareholders for the same degree of productivity, my colleagues and I would all be driving rollers and having Elton John sing at our Sunday barbeques.

Posted by: Bernard J. | September 6, 2010 2:59 AM

The psychology of human response to climate change is high on the Australian media agenda this week.

The ABC's "All in the Mind" program ran an interesting piece this week, and Stephen Schneider makes one of his last appearances on tomorrow's edition of "Insight" on SBS.

I see reflections of some of our trolls in both cases...

Posted by: Bernard J. | September 6, 2010 3:05 AM

I ask you a question I asked Brent a while ago.

I recall that due to these questions - and some followup to ensure he didn't dodge them - Brent ultimately admitted that the "government-funded gravy train" concept was not motivating climate scientists to endorse (explicitly or by omission) science they didn't agree with; if only because the "government-funded gravy train" for scientists does not exist.

Posted by: Lotharsson | September 6, 2010 5:38 AM

Mike:If companies are spending money on conferences,then atleast they are spending their own money,not somebody elses.And if shareholders dont like it they can dump the company.

It is shareholder investment returns which they fritter away with every cent wasted.

You seriously believe the shareholders have any clue as to how much wastage there is?

Posted by: Mike | September 6, 2010 6:50 PM

Bernard:

Further to my comment about the Insight episode that is airing tomorrow night

There's one comment there by Barbara Thomas I find particularly interesting. She says:

Should politicians establish that there is a need for a Carbon Tax, could someone please explain the nuts and bolts of this tax. An explaination to the Australian people as to just how they arrive at a level of taxation, ...

This is the "please explain the ETS" all over again. There was a lot of whinging about the lack of explanation of the ETS and exactly the same sort of whinging is going to happen with a Carbon tax.

Posted by: Chris O'Neill | September 6, 2010 8:58 PM

Jakerman:"Natural capital",Social capital"???? How about "fairy floss capital"? Funny but I have never scene any of those terms used on a profit and loss statement.

Posted by: warren | September 7, 2010 12:21 PM

The challenge of environmental accounting

Earth, Inc.

No, sorry, no fairy floss capital there.

Posted by: P. Lewis | September 7, 2010 12:43 PM

PLewis:It will still be fairy floss.The only REAL costs will be the ones that goverments impose on business through green legislation.Those costs will appear on balance sheets,and will then be passed on to the consumer.'Natural'and 'Social'will remain nebulous,warm and fuzzy ideas that bear no relation to the real world.

Posted by: warren | September 7, 2010 12:59 PM

Warren, my current trip is 100% funded from income generated from externally (industry) funded work. It is not costing the taxpayer a single penny. However, I also agree with other posters that attending a conference and then undertaking fieldwork is far from a "perk". Your conception of a gravy train remains utterly absurd.

Posted by: GWB's nemesis | September 7, 2010 2:35 PM

Frank:No frank,but the ecosystems of wealthier countries is better than that of poor countries.Nothing is more destructive to the natural world than poverty.

Posted by: warren | September 7, 2010 3:29 PM

Shorter warren:

Richer countries have better ecosystems, therefore we should destroy ecosystems in order to get rich.

Posted by: frank -- Decoding SwiftHack | September 7, 2010 6:40 PM

Good to know that Warren doesn't dispute that he wants "us to believe that the rest of the warming is just an amazing co-incidence produced by some completely unknown cause that just happens to come along at exactly the same time as the increase in CO2."

Warren can go on believing in amazing co-incidences if he wants to but please Warren, don't tell us that we are the ones who are believers. I think that word fits you much more accurately.

Posted by: Chris O'Neill | September 8, 2010 12:45 AM

Warren writes, "No frank,but the ecosystems of wealthier countries is better than that of poor countries".

This is pure garbage. On what basis do you evaluate ecosystem 'quality'? On the basis of a human-centered environment, and damn much of the native biodiversity that used to abound there? In the developed world we have ravaged our natural ecosystems; try finding a tree of primevel size in the eastern United States. It is virtually impossible. Try finding huge stands of tallgrass prairie in western North America. Overgrazing and introduced plants from Eurasia have ravaged the native biomes there.

Poverty in the south is largely the result of huge social injustices and disparities in wealth caused by overconsumption in the north. The current global economic system is more like a casino that is aimed to ensure that capital flows remain (or increase) in ways that increase poverty in the south but further enrich elites in the north. As leading African economist Samir Aman said at the World Social Forum at Puerto Allegre in 2003, the developed world is not so much interested in integrating the south culturally and economically into a world order as in looting their resources. This is what drives environmental damage in the underdeveloped nations. Influential planners and politicians from Kennan to Kissinger and from Brezinski to Nitze have openly talked about ways in which the U.S. should retain control over 'their resources' - meaning resources that just so happen to lie under the land masses of other countries in the south or in Eurasia. Kissinger and other senior U.S. politicians suggested 'depopulation' as a means of ensuring U.S. access to raw materials, whereas 'moderates' like Kennan argued that the U.S. would have to ignore noble ideas like 'democracy promotion' and 'altruism' in their foreign policy and think in terms of straight 'power concepts'.

Read declassified planning documents from the British government - as I have done - and the picture is similar. The real concern of these planners has been that governments in the south would embrace nationalistic governments that would interfere with the profit-making capacities of our corporations. Far from supporting democracy, these documents clearly show that rich, developed countries wanted to block moves that would bring true, bottom-up democratic reform, if this in any way threatened the exploitation of their resource base. Look at the Congo. One of the richest countries in terms of its mineral wealth, yet the vast majority of its population lives in absolute misery. Who controls the mineral wealth in the Congo? Thrity-eight coporations, all based in G-8 countries. This story is repeated throughout the south, where western governments support local elites who institute strict, 'top-down' forms of control.

Whenever I read Warren's posts, I cringe. Literally.

Posted by: Jeff Harvey | September 8, 2010 6:04 AM

Frank: You forgot to mention how CRUhack Tom then tied himself up in knots trying to defend his position at Only In It For the Gold, in the process exposing his very real lack of understanding of the processes at play in the Antarctic and a penchant for not reading his own citations.

Posted by: Chris S. | September 9, 2010 2:27 AM

Warren,

Please lujde to the arguments I made that were 'leftish hogwash'. I provided actual examples and quotes from real people; you clearly you do not know much history and therefore pick and chooose the ideas that suit you. Anthing outside of this in your little myopic world is 'hogwash', and damn the evidence.

As for the Imai study, I have put that to bed on the C02 thread. As I said, the world is not made up of plants for humans to eat. Asymmetic effects on plant growth and quality - based on association-specific changes in primary and secondary metabolities within food webs as well as on differential growth patterns that will also affect interspecific competition make the results of closed studies on plant growth mute. I can tell that you are no scientist, because you have a pre-determined view of the world.

What exactly is your profession? You conveninetly avoided answering that.

Posted by: Jeff Harvey | September 9, 2010 2:56 AM

Spotty, as usual you are way off,

Form Skeptical Science

Dr. Pielke - thank you for your comments. I am obliged to point out, with the greatest respect, that my argument seems to be validated by what you have written. Given the range of discussions regarding measurement, metrication and analysis, it is clear there is much work to be done, and that there is considerable uncertainty about ocean heat, its distribution and effects. On that basis, I must ask you how you come to make such definitive statements about one five year period. Your claim that the oceans did not gain heat during this period may be correct, but it is hardly proven, and certainly not representative of any consensus among those with sufficient expertise, such as Trenberth and von Schuckmann.

This point of course must lead to my second observation: you have not addressed here the remark that so concerns me, and that was central to my entire argument. If ocean heat is not yet well understood, and many other indicators of global warming show warming - the cryrosphere in particular - how can you claim, as you did yesterday on your own blog, that a disputed measure of OHC "...means that global warming halted on this time period". I do not find this claim at all convincing because you do not appear to have any evidence to support it (indeed the evidence, including your own comments here, suggest the assertion is flawed), and you have not addressed these points, which are the essential premises on which my argument stands.

Posted by: jakerman | September 10, 2010 7:59 AM

Anyone kn ow who this so-called 'climatologist', Anthony Cox is?

http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/stories/s3008509.htm

Posted by: Connor | September 12, 2010 8:25 AM

I posed my question directly to the Heartland Institute web site. Let's see what they do with it...

Posted by: frank -- Decoding SwiftHack | September 12, 2010 1:52 PM

Anyone kn ow who this so-called 'climatologist', Anthony Cox is?

Isn't that our very own lawyer-turned-climate-pundit "cohenite"?

The biographical link (click on the author pictures) claims he has a degree in climatology - one does indeed wonder what it was and how much he learned, given the crap he comes out with here from time to time.

Posted by: Lotharsson | September 13, 2010 12:39 AM

Now sod off onto your own thread.

Posted by: Wow | September 13, 2010 1:44 PM

I got as far as p16 where Montford even now makes an attempted issue out of "trick to hide the decline" and repeats false accusations of deleting data and misleadingly splicing temperature records.

At that point I judged I was reading the work of a pimped up and paid for McCarthyite wannabee and declined to waste anymore time indulging Montford's tricks.

Judith Curry is probably nodding sagely somewhere. Somewhere she doesn't have to deal with actual scientist's objections to a flat-out if expected hatchet job by a low-level apparatchik pushing a tired narrative.

Posted by: chek | September 14, 2010 7:48 AM

I’ve skimmed through the 'report'. It is basically a re-hash of the evidence that was submitted by the anti- group that so failed to convince the enquiries, with lots of bad-mouthing and attempted smearing of panel members and scientists thrown in for good measure. Montford contorts stuff beyond all credibility in his effort to make his case. Divergent tree ring data isn’t erroneous because the reason for tree ring divergence isn’t understood! The section on Yamal is particularly wierd. Failure to publish David Holland's "potentially libellous" evidence gets mentioned a lot, but the penny doesn't drop that libellous = untrue. It will be interesting to see how much converage the report will get in the mainstream media. Delingpole and Booker will cover it of course.

Posted by: lord_sidcup | September 14, 2010 9:44 AM

Everybody by now is well used to your fairly frequent and pathetic attempts to view everything through your tunnel vision.

Monckton pulls the same stunt with his equatorial glacier routine. Perhaps you're soul mates.

You should leave the science (which is a means of discovering how the world works) to the grown ups spotty, it's way over your head

Posted by: chek | September 15, 2010 7:23 AM

For anyone still following along at home, Suibhne has popped up again on the G&T thread to point out their response to Halpern et al's comment.

I took a brief look at the first couple of pages and (noting that I'm not a physicist, and have only reached some 2nd year undergrad uni physics) I can't see how they can argue those pages with a straight face.

I've only skimmed a couple of pages of the rest, but some of their language also appears quite inappropriate and unprofessional:

Let us start with Halpern’s favorite object of lust.

I imagine the reply to the reply - if anyone thinks it's worth bothering - will be interesting.

Posted by: Lotharsson | September 15, 2010 8:54 AM

I saw that. Looks positive. The one thing that perplexes me is his argument that we could have both a carbon tax and a trading system at the same time. Not convinced that's a very smart idea.

Posted by: adelady | September 15, 2010 11:17 AM

Interesting case for the two-faced stance of the religious right. Often complain of people being shut up because they're disagreeing. Look here about the bloggers who complain hugely about silencing criticism from themselves. Listen to the quotes from about 3:30. Especially 4:22. Fox should 'pro-actively undermine Rove given his obvious willingness to undermine "us"' (the conservative bloggers).

Posted by: Wow | September 16, 2010 4:22 AM

All Hail the Free Market! The Heartland Institute joins the Islamophobia scene.

Posted by: frank -- Decoding SwiftHack | September 16, 2010 12:03 PM

Shorter The Australian:

Business is who or what we say it is.

Posted by: jakerman | September 16, 2010 11:51 PM

The Oz's go to man is Michael Chaney director of Woodside Petroleum, the Centre For Independent [sic] Studies, And NAB.

Cheney says:

My concern about a carbon tax is that I'm not sure it would have much effect on your CO2 emissions," [...]"People may well just wear it. The price elasticity of petrol seems to be quite low. "There is a short-term effect when petrol prices go up, but people get used to it pretty quickly and they keep using what they used to be using.

That contradicts a lot of the free market fundamentalism pushed out by his CIS think tank.

But it is also contradicted by the effect of higher petrol pricing in Europe:

Driving one mile in the United States currently requires 37 percent more fuel on average than in Europe, due to both the larger average size of vehicles and to less efficient engine technology. McKinsey Institute 2007

Markets respond to price signals, and entrepreneurs and investors likewise. Choices offered to consumers will change as the price signal invigorates the market.

Posted by: jakerman | September 17, 2010 1:46 AM

I think its also interesting that a lot of companies want some sort of price signal on Carbon so that they can meet their social responsibility goals. Its not just a planning or energy security tool.

In terms of the often repeated line,

We should not be looking at a carbon tax or emissions trading scheme in advance of the rest of the world [...] It will reduce our competitiveness

BHP are saying the reverse. Kloppers said, that if we don't anticipate a global price for carbon now when taking long dated decisions, it will have a competitive impact.

Posted by: Andrew | September 17, 2010 3:26 AM

From the Butte County Republican Party blog, which is maintained by none other than (!!!) Anthony Watts:

You see, if I look at a ballot and I see the designation of "R" or "D," I may not know for sure what that candidate stands for, but at least I have an idea of their general views. Take away the designation and now I have very little to go on. The remedy to this of course is for voters to educate themselves better, but time is limited and the local races often go overlooked. [...]

With all of this considered, the Butte County Republican Party recently decided to get more involved in local elections. We have been actively vetting candidates to determine whether or not they match our values and deserve our support. We have already made some endorsements this year and we plan to make more. We will do our best to publicize our endorsements so that the voting public will know where we stand and who we support.

Posted by: frank -- Decoding SwiftHack | September 20, 2010 8:16 AM

The "Global Cooling" conspiracy threat has widened to include the Bildeberg Group, according to James Delingpole.

No, really.

Posted by: John | September 26, 2010 5:49 PM

For those who do not usually listen to ABC's Counterpoint, Aynsley Kellow was given a second chance to spruik his ideas, (and his book) today.

It appears that he holds the rather curious opinion that he knows better than the climate scientists who practise science... He most especially appears to think that he has a better grasp of how scientists should conduct themselves in the domain of scientific self-assessment, than said scientists themselves do.

Yes, this is the arts graduate Aynsley Kellow, the Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen co-author Ansley Kellow.

This is the very definitely scientifically under-informed Ansley Kellow.

A warning - if one chooses to listen to his spiel, do not drink any beverages whilst doing so, and most especially do not drink them near one's computer.

Posted by: Bernard J. | September 27, 2010 9:03 AM

Sunny, there is an authority which is inherent in relevant, intelligent analysis of a shared situation with verifiable parameters.

You don't seem to know the difference as referenced by any number of the rubbishy links you constantly offer up, having accepted them as authoritative yourself.

There is a difference, although it may not be apparent to you.

Posted by: chek | September 27, 2010 10:51 AM

chekieboy @ 331 said 'Sunny, there is an authority which is inherent in relevant, intelligent analysis of a shared situation with verifiable parameters.'

Dream on chekieboy

'Cognitive biases in a consensus seeking environment can produce groupthink. Groupthink is a type of thought within a group whose members try to minimize conflict and reach consensus without critically testing, analyzing, and evaluating ideas that would challenge the consensus. Members of a group may avoid promoting viewpoints outside the comfort zone of the consensus thinking.'

http://www.tinyurl.com.au/w1z

Posted by: sunspot | September 28, 2010 5:45 AM

Well that's where you have misunderstood me. I have mentioned neither removing the whole greenhouse effect, nor the magic 33C figure.

Well why are you asking me about YOUR model, Stu? I don't know what you are doing, do I.

I am talking about the 33C warmer that the earth is because of greenhouse gasses and their insulation effects.

If you want to talk about removing all CO2, then feel free, but I don't know what you're trying to do with it. If you want to run a complex model about feedbacks to find out what would happen if we changed CO2 alone, this has already been done and the response from denialists:

It's a computer model, therefore GIGO.

Well feel free to make a model up they will accept.

Me? I'll go with "we have 4x here in this atmosphere. Prove this is no longer the case". Which they may get 3x feedback, but they'll not be able to get 1x.

Posted by: Wow | September 28, 2010 7:49 AM

Wow, I'm of the opinion that YOUR model suffers because of the concerns I have raised.

I don't see how your proposition negates any significant portion.

If, for example, Lars had said it was "simplified", then I would have not responded because, yes, it IS simplified. But instead he went "over simplified" which asserts it is incorrect and quite severely so (pi is 22/7 is simplified, but is it wrong?), else there would be no need for "over".

It stands.

Perhaps I was right yesterday, when I said it really is too neat and simple.

You're probably wrong. You're asserting without proof that just because it's neat and simplified, "it's too good to be true".

Prove it.

The independent errors go up with the geometrical representation of the longest diagonal line between the first and last point, each of which is at a right angle to a dimension of all the other points.

sqrt(2) for two independent errors

sqrt(3) for three

sqrt(4) for four

and so on.

So simple, it can't be true, can it? Too neat to be right, right?

No.

All you have, Stu is "well, you're not taking out the CO2 and working out what happens". Absent a big hoover that can discriminate against CO2 molecules in the atmosphere, we can't do that.

What we HAVE is the current climate. Where CO2 (the most prominent greenhouse gas forcing) is 1/4 of the effect of all the other bits.

Which leads to a sensitivity of 4x.

Prove it wrong.

You'll likely find it gets more nearly close to 3x.

But that isn't "over simplified" if it can, in a range of 1.5 to 6 with a modal value of 3, produce a statistically insignificant different value.

But prove it wrong.

Funny thing, it works. Explain why it works but is "over simplified" or "too neat and simple".

Sometimes the simple things are right.

But feel free to do the work and prove it oversimplified.

Posted by: Wow | September 28, 2010 8:45 AM

Why is that wrong? The sensitivity to methane is much higher than for CO2. You don't have a problem there.

If you increase the Unobtanium Gas, then other things will change.

You can either manufacture the gas and see how that turns out.

Or run a model (with assumptions)

Or look at how the system currently acted when it put it all toghether and did its stuff before you got here.

And that would indicate that, absent any strong proof otherwise, that doubling any one would increase temperatures 8x what they do.

But they contribute 1/2 as much current warming, so your direct effect is already half.

Net difference? Nothing.

Posted by: Wow | September 28, 2010 10:55 AM

Why is that wrong? The sensitivity to methane is much higher than for CO2. You don't have a problem there.

And that would indicate that, absent any strong proof otherwise, that doubling any one would increase temperatures 8x what they do.

When you say "8x what they do", you mean 8x the warming from that gas alone before feedbacks, correct? If you do not mean that, please clarify your statement ("8x what they do" isn't 100% clear) and disregard the following.

How can that possibly be? Using your method, the less of the greenhouse effect a gas is responsible for, the more its pre-feedback warming is amplified by feedbacks!

The sensitivity parameter of the climate to longwave forcing is, to first order, independent of the type of gas that does the absorbing so long as that gas is a well mixed GHG. The gas provides a radiative forcing, and that's what the climate responds to, and is how the equilibrium temperature change is altered by feedbacks.

So all of a sudden, just by virtue of only being responsible for 1/8th of the greenhouse effect, feedbacks are able to amplify the effect of the radiative forcing by 8 times instead of 4? The photons don't know which gas they were absorbed and re-emitted by. Climate sensitivity is broadly independent of the cause of the radiative forcing.

Seriously, how does this work??

Posted by: Stu | September 28, 2010 1:18 PM

Well Stu, they're all coupled. So if you up the "Blue" CO2 it upps the "Red" CO2 as well, both up the H2O and therefore you get a "sensitivity" of 8x for running up "Blue" CO2.

So you're actually saying that the initial pre-feedback warming effect of, say, methane is amplified approximately 12x* by feedbacks? And yet the same feedbacks only amplify the pre-feedback warming of CO2 only 4x?

That's wrong. The pre-feedback warming is based on the blackbody response to the radiative forcing. The same feedbacks then act regardless of the source of the forcing. The sensitivity parameter is the same.

*using the approximation that methane is responsible for 1/12th of the greenhouse effect.

Posted by: Stu | September 28, 2010 3:19 PM

You know I'm not 'getting' this, so it would really help me if you answered the question I asked, as plainly and completely as possible; not just yes or nope:

When you say "8x what they do", you mean 8x the warming from that gas alone before feedbacks, correct? ....So you're actually saying that the initial pre-feedback warming effect of, say, methane is amplified approximately 12x by feedbacks?

Because if there's one thing I know for sure, it's that climate feedbacks will NOT amplify the initial warming from methane by a factor of 12. That would imply that if you put enough extra methane into the atmosphere to get a pre-feedback warming of 1C (or, to put it another way, enough to cause 3.7W/m^2 radiative forcing), you would get an equilibrium warming of 12C.*

*For clarity's sake: this is ignoring that methane decays to CO2. We will keep methane steady at the new level and let CO2 be altered by feedbacks, not decay.

Posted by: Stu | September 28, 2010 6:08 PM

When you say "8x what they do", you mean 8x the warming from that gas alone before feedbacks, correct?

yes.

So you're actually saying that the initial pre-feedback warming effect of, say, methane is amplified approximately 12x by feedbacks?

No.

Whisky Tango Foxtrot?

You make up a hypothetical case then extend it back to where it isn't a hypothetical.

Go read that post #342 again.

Posted by: Wow | September 30, 2010 4:10 AM

Good grief.

It's not 3am in the kitchen after a party, Stu. If you want some intellectual stimulation, stick to the already interesting and complex realities. There's real meat there to get stuck into.

This sort of stuff is far too reminiscent of the far too much time I've spent with philosopher friends with faculties impaired by the combination of booze and fatigue.

Posted by: adelady | September 30, 2010 6:55 AM

Look, Wow tried to convince me that the fact that CO2 makes up 1/4 of the greenhouse effect means that feedbacks amplify the initial warming 4x

Except that isn't what I'm doing.

I'm showing that the current atmosphere and climate we have leads to a 4x amplification and that this hurdle needs to be overcome by anyone saying "we don't know what the sensitivity to change is" or "the sensitivity is a lot less than 2x".

If you want, show me your own one, but all you've managed so far is "Nah, you're wrong".

You wouldn't accept that as an opposition to the IPCC report saying "it's 3x" would you? So why use it yourself?

Posted by: Wow | September 30, 2010 8:00 AM

Heavy snow across the world http://www.planetski.eu/news/2089

Posted by: sunspot | September 30, 2010 8:57 AM

Further to my mention of Ansley Kellow on Counterpoint this week, the transcript of the piece is now available.

He spends some considerable time misrepresenting a number of matters, from the investigations of "Climategate" and the IPCC's operation, to the Himalayan glacier error (which was correctly contradicted in subsequent paragraphs, if readers of the report were alert) and the garbage over the Amazon forest loss.

At one point there was this exchange:

Michael Duffy: There were concerns also with the way the IPCC responded when these errors were pointed out, weren't there.

Aynsley Kellow: Yes, Rajendra Pachauri, the leader of the IPCC, attacked the person in India who first pointed this out as practising voodoo science, and it was the usual kind of ad hominem attack. And of course there is this tendency to dismiss any critic as being a denier, which has politicised and made it difficult to conduct decent, critical scientific discussion, critical policy discussion, that you either accept the prevailing view of things or you get labelled a denier. Our former prime minister and our now former climate change minister used to use the word, and I've now got a rule of thumb that anyone who uses the word 'denier' should immediately not be listened to because they're not talking about science, there simply trying to use political rhetoric to marginalise dissenting voices, and that is not what science is about, it is inherently anti-science.

Quite simply, Kellow is blowing it from out of his backside. By Kellow's logic, if one engages a Creationist who denies evolution, and calls said Creationist on his/her denial of the science, then one is being anti-science.

Yeah, riiight...

Duffy makes much of Kellow's status as an expert reviewer of a Chapter of AR4. It is interesting to see the IPCC's response to Kellow's comments - do a search for 'Kellow' in the PDF and see how many times he was smacked down for his statements... Perhaps Kellow needs to walk a few minutes across the campus and talk with Nathan Bindoff, a quietly-spoken gentleman who was a coordinating lead author for the AR4 chapter on oceans, and who has rather a firm stance about non-scientists who presume that they understand science better that the scientists themselves.

Kellow would piss himself if he were to speak with Bindoff face-to-face. He certainly wouldn't have his crap left undeconstructed.

Posted by: Bernard J. | October 1, 2010 1:16 AM

And he has sort of alluded to the crucial caveat that CO2 is the primary driver, and all else is feedback that exists because we have CO2

Primary driver, yes.

"all else is feedback"?

No.

It makes no comment on that, merely waits for someone to come along and explain what is NOT feedback and how it affects that 4x.

NOT ONE OF YOU, not the denialists, not Stu, not Lotharius have managed to do that, never quantify the reduction (or, possibly, increase) to arrive at another figure.

NOT.

ONE.

OF.

YOU.

All you're doing is going "you're wrong" without explaining what's right.

It's a lot easier to kill ideas than to build ones of your own.

And the point of the measure I've given is to show how you need to explain what is wrong and what effect it has on the 4x sensitivity given in this simple example.

NOT ONE OF YOU complaining about it have bothered.

So, if this is the sort of proof you need,

Stu, you're wrong, your assertion about Methane is irrelevant. CO2 4x

Lotharius, you're wrong, your assertion of modicum of knowledge, you've never actually said anything of substance to prove it.

Posted by: Wow | October 1, 2010 4:17 AM

I'll probably regret this...

I guess so!

Wow, of course it's easier to kill ideas than to build new ones. But we aren't trying to kill your idea, simply trying to understand the ramifications of taking your idea to its logical conclusions. This is what we (well, me mostly) have been trying to do, but you have interpreted this as "Or, in most cases, making up what you think I'm saying then saying I'm saying it."

I think Lotharsson had a good point when he said:

But the way it's expressed it's really easy for most readers to think that you are [claiming that this "4x amplification" directly follows in your initial argument] - and rightly dismiss your argument as unsound - because you haven't laid out the argument for how you get from "the direct effect is 25%" to "so it's really hard to see how amplification could be much below about 3x, right?".

Which is of course the first thing I said to you on the matter! Shouting at us isn't going to help us understand you. I have asked and now Lotharsson has asked: what is the reason, expressed explicitely and set-by-step if necessary, that the 25% direct effect leads to amplification being at least 3x? It may be intuitive to you, but you cannot assume the same of everyone else. And, as an example of it not being intuitive, you say:

"Primary driver - yes. All else is feedback - no". That makes no sense to me. If CO2 drives the magnitude of the greenhouse effect, how can all else (okay, let's change that to almost everything assuming small secondary drivers) not be feedback? If it is neither driver nor feedback, what is it? I do not understand you! You can't be more interested in shouting at me than explaining it clearly, right?

Posted by: Stu | October 1, 2010 5:10 AM

There are two upcoming papers relevant to the feedback issue...

A companion study led by GISS co-author Gavin Schmidt that has been accepted for publication in the Journal of Geophysical Research shows that carbon dioxide accounts for about 20 percent of the greenhouse effect, water vapor and clouds together account for 75 percent, and minor gases and aerosols make up the remaining five percent.

However, it is the 25 percent non-condensing greenhouse gas component, which includes carbon dioxide, that is the key factor in sustaining Earth's greenhouse effect. By this accounting, carbon dioxide is responsible for 80 percent of the radiative forcing that sustains the Earth's greenhouse effect.

http://www.terradaily.com/reports/Carbon_Dioxide_Controls_Earth_Temperature_999.html

Posted by: Dave R | October 17, 2010 8:43 AM

Apologies - in the above read 'forcing' as 'total radiative effect of all GHGs'.

Posted by: Stu N | October 22, 2010 10:30 AM

If CO2 providing 1/4 of the total greenhouse forcing does not mean it has a 4x feedback factor, why should I have to explain why it isn't a 4x feedback factor?

And why did you present that as a full explanation for your argument in the first place?

I'm sorry Wow, you've reached new heights of incomprehensibility. For example, halocarbons provide maybe 1/50 of total GHG radiative forcing. The feedback factor to halocarbons should still be about 4x. Do I have to explain why it isn't a 50x feedback factor?

Posted by: Stu N | October 22, 2010 9:16 PM

You're right that Wow and I can't be too far from eachother on this issue, we both know CO2's initial effect is amplified by feedbacks.

However, we're working from the premise that CO2 provides 25% of the greenhouse effect and if it were the only non-condensible GHG that would mean it has 4x feedback (excluding albedo and, necessarily, carbon cycle changes). I'm wondering (please forgive me if this isn't true) if you have mixed up our assumed 25% direct contribution from CO2 with the 20% of the greenhouse effect that is left if CO2 is removed? Or some other reason why you didn't use 25% as the effect of CO2?

Because if CO2 is directly 25% of the greenhouse effect, and if you take it away 20% of the greenhouse effect is left, then doesn't that indicate CO2 has a 80/25 = 3.2x feedack factor?

That seems to be a fair way of estimating sensitivity, but note that to get a consistent answer you need to consider the proportion of the greenhouse effect that is left. It is not a matter of 1/4 = 4, which I maintain is too simple.

So, alluding to an earlier example, at the start of an icehouse earth scenario you might only have 20% of the greenhouse effect directly caused by CO2. Wow's method gives a 5x feedback factor. But if you remove all the CO2, you find that 34% of the greenhouse effect remains. 64/20 = 3.2x.

Obviously the error bars on this are determined by the errors on the estimate that CO2 directly makes up 25% of the current greenhouse effect and the estimate that 20% of the greenhouse effect would remain if there was no CO2. These errors would be fairly large and 3.2x feedback is just an estimate, but the only way to get a consistent answer if you want to apply this logic over a range of climates (which you surely do if we're dicussing climate change, yes?) is to consider how much of the greenhouse effect remains when you take out the CO2.

Posted by: Stu N | October 23, 2010 12:38 PM

Or some other reason why you didn't use 25% as the effect of CO2?

That came from the article I quoted:

A companion study led by GISS co-author Gavin Schmidt that has been accepted for publication in the Journal of Geophysical Research shows that carbon dioxide accounts for about 20 percent of the greenhouse effect

(the PDF for that is here, BTW).

The 20% left that they were talking about was due to the 5% forcing from the remainder of non-condensing GHGs plus the feedback on that.

Posted by: Dave R | October 23, 2010 12:49 PM

My main quibble with Wow's argument is that it's only roughly applicable right now because of the exact configuration of the greenhouse effect

No, you can approximate the feedback using 1 / {direct effect from all forcing GHGs} regardless of the proportions of the individual forcing GHGs.

If we had only two forcing GHGs, CO2 contributing 1/6 and CH4 contributing 1/12, that would still give 4X.

Because these problems are (IMO) fairly easy to see, I don't think it's a useful argument

Stated the original way we start from 5X and the "problems" bring it down to 4X. Cutting out the middle step we start from 4X and there are no problems. The end result is the same, the first way just makes them work for it a bit.

but they'll only crow 'GIGO' unfortunately.

To argue for a lower feedback by disputing the 20% (CO2) and 5% (other forcing GHGs) figures, they would have to argue for the direct effect of either CO2 or the other forcing GHGs (or both) being higher than we think, which is the opposite of what they usually claim. Although it would be nicer if we could get those figures in a luddite-friendly way.

Posted by: Dave R | October 23, 2010 10:41 PM

Cheers Stu. I don't know if Wow is still reading this but I think he could agree with that too.

Posted by: Dave R | October 24, 2010 8:58 PM

Wow was talking exclusively about CO2.

No, I was talking about denialists and their insistence that CO2 has a low feedback.

Still you don't get it.

Posted by: Wow | October 25, 2010 5:28 AM

Because you haven't explained why CO2 providing 1/4 of the total greenhouse forcing doesn't mean it hasn't got a 4x feedback factor.

Oh, okay. Here's why:

Other non-consensible greenhouse gases contribute to the greenhouse effect. This means that the total greenhouse effect does not scale on a 1 to 4 basis with carbon dioxide. How could it, when if you scale it down to zero there is still some greenhouse effect left?

Posted by: Stu N | October 25, 2010 5:55 AM

Wow:

If we had only two forcing GHGs, CO2 contributing 1/6 and CH4 contributing 1/12, that would still give 4X.

Prove it.

Go on.

Ok.

If you add the two together that gives you the total contribution from the forcing GHGs. 1/6 + 1/12 = 1/4. So it's a reasonable first approximation that the feedback factor is 4X.

That's exactly the same as your original point, except using a hypothetical example where the proportions of the individual forcing GHGs are different.

I used that example because I wasn't sure whether Stu objected to the idea that we could estimate the feedback using 1 / {total contribution from all non-condensing GHGs}. It turned out he didn't object to that.

In your original, we just had CO2 contributing 1/4 and no other forcing GHGs, which as you said, suggests a 4X feedback factor.

In the recent paper mentioned above, we have CO2 contributing 1/5 and the other forcing GHGs combined contributing 1/20. This also gives the same result: 1/5 + 1/20 = 1/4.

I don't think ANY of you understand a frigging word I've said, have you?

I don't think I've misunderstood your argument, which I thought was sound in principle.

It seemed from Stu's #371 that he accepted that too and just wanted all the forcing GHGs to be taken into account. Maybe I've misunderstood both of you. Or maybe you've misunderstood both of us. Who can tell anymore?

The only thing I don't understand is how you get your figure of a 25% contribution from CO2 "using only the measurements and basic science". Could you clarify that?

If you could use your method to get the same proportions as the paper mentioned above, or show that it is wrong, that would be even better.

Posted by: Dave R | October 25, 2010 6:53 AM

It seemed from Stu's #371 that he accepted that too and just wanted all the forcing GHGs to be taken into account.

And if he does that rigorously, then he'll get what..?

Now, is Roy Spencer doing this? No. He isn't even trying.

Posted by: Wow | October 25, 2010 6:59 AM

Maybe you can give your answer, rather than the (much easier) denial you have given so far.

I'm not sure if that's @ me, but if so then you've definitely misunderstood what I'm saying. I've stated enough times that I think this method is valid for this purpose and that it gives a value of 4X.

What is YOUR figure for the sensitivity?

"climate sensitivity is likely to be in the range 2°C to 4.5°C, with a best estimate value of about 3°C.".

And if he does that [all the forcing GHGs to be taken into account] rigorously, then he'll get what..?

4X. Neither Stu nor I object to that. And never mind the rigorously. Roughly will do for this, IMO.

Posted by: Dave R | October 25, 2010 7:25 AM

Me:

Neither Stu nor I object to [all the forcing GHGs to be taken into account]

Wow:

Uh, you'll need to read Stu's comments again:

Wow, earlier:

Because you haven't explained why CO2 providing 1/4 of the total greenhouse forcing doesn't mean it hasn't got a 4x feedback factor.

Stu, in response:

Other non-consensible greenhouse gases contribute to the greenhouse effect. This means that the total greenhouse effect does not scale on a 1 to 4 basis with carbon dioxide. How could it, when if you scale it down to zero there is still some greenhouse effect left?

Which is correct. If CO2 contributed 1/4 and the other forcing GHGs contributed 1/20, that would give 3.3X.

It appears that instead, CO2 contributes 1/5 and the others contribute 1/20, which does give 4X.

Posted by: Dave R | October 25, 2010 7:51 AM

Stu, in response:

Other non-consensible greenhouse gases contribute to the greenhouse effect. This means that the total greenhouse effect does not scale on a 1 to 4 ba

me in response:

Methane turns into carbon dioxide. Methane produced by decay of plants and animals that grew from sequestering hydrocarbons. Hydrocarbons produced from CO2 in the atmosphere.

Why I'm so pissed off is because people here aren't reading what I'm saying, but what they think I'm saying.

Therefore you can't just wave your hand and say "this is because of other gasses".

And, Stu, again, it's 66% H2O, 34% Other, making 3:1 sensitivity.

So, if you include non-CO2, you don't get 4:1.

Which is irrelevant anyway because that's not what I'm asking you to do.

E.g. if you had turned around and said "Well, I think it's even more likely if you take all non-CO2 forcings you get 3:1 and that is a better starting point than 4:1" I wouldn't have anywhere near the problem with you I have.

But no, you go "It's wrong.".

It's easy to tear down something as long as you aren't fussed about building anything in its place.

Ask any denialist.

Posted by: Wow | October 25, 2010 9:28 AM

Moving on:

I acknowledged your point about methane/carbon cycle in a post above. That much of the other non-condensible GHG longwave flux is feedback to CO2 is probably a reasonable assumption. I note, having had the time to read all of Schmidt et al., that their model does not use a carbon cycle. I also note that in the model they in fact do not let the model equilibriate after removing the CO2 - indeed, they only take the longwave flux over one year and find that it goes down by 14%; no doubt over time the reduction in water vapour etc would bring the total longwave forcing very significantly, but to what I don't know! And yet that elusive figure is still what I'm looking for.

The only hint is when they say

Indeed, a model simulation performed with zero GHGs gives a global mean temperature changes of about −35°C and produces an ice covered planet

but, d'oh, that includes albedo feedback too, which we don't want. And it dunnae tell you whether they forced the model to have no WV, or let that happen by taking out all the non-condensible GHGs.

Posted by: Stu N | October 25, 2010 12:47 PM

Grand - good stuff Dave.

Interesting for sure for understanding the greenhouse effect, but I realise how convoluted the thing I'm looking for is; no CO2 (or any non-condensible gases), but also no change in albedo. Such a thing of course is unphysical, but then so is calling the Earth a blackbody, which is just a tool/stepping stone to understanding radiation balance.

Posted by: Stu N | October 25, 2010 3:21 PM