catallaxy files

catallaxy in technical exile

socialist gets skeptical

with 71 comments

if a french socialist can’t believe the hype of man-made global warming, who can? article

the article contains a number of other links and tidbits of information i will be reading with interest.

the problem with the preacher’s position is that no matter what evidence comes out (even if the globe cools for the next seven years) they will just say we caused that as well and propose some brain dead government policy to make us all poor.

Written by Admin

November 23, 2006 at 8:33 am

Posted in Uncategorized

71 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. You obviously have a high and very trusting opinion of French socialists if you are willing to use some rubbish one of them comes up with to support an argument (whether for or against).


    November 23, 2006 at 9:09 am

  2. I think c8to just has an ideological precommitment to underplaying global warming.

    Just a guess 🙂

    Jason Soon

    November 23, 2006 at 2:15 pm

  3. no i have a commitment to not having the wool pulled over my eyes…

    don’t listen to jason, he doesn’t have any of the facts and is relying on an argument from authority…namely press without reading any of the articles…


    November 23, 2006 at 2:17 pm

  4. c8to, care to comment on this paper?


    November 23, 2006 at 2:46 pm

  5. A very good paper.

    No c8to’s getting a grasp of the appalling reasoning behind the alarmist ‘science.’

    He’s always pretty quick on the uptake for these things.

    He asked a question at fatty-Lamberts. They made their excuses and he smells a rat no doubt.

    I will be showing just how ridiculous is the science behind the scare over the next few weeks.

    But that would still leave us needing the research to actually predict how the climate will change in-reality as opposed to the bollocks we are getting from the alarmist-denialists.

    I mean just because these people are talking nonsense that doesn’t quite mean that we don’t have to get the science right this time… and see if there are any untoward surprises down the track.

    And I’ll be able to show to the laity how you would go about figuring that out as well.


    November 23, 2006 at 3:09 pm

  6. i dont know who summa development limited or archibald are so i have no idea what his paper is like…

    id rather rely on known solar cycle data from nasa, the russians, and various universities and academics…


    November 23, 2006 at 3:10 pm

  7. pretty quick…i was the first on the block!


    November 23, 2006 at 3:11 pm

  8. c8to, what do you think the effect of CO2 concentrations of 500ppm would be?


    November 23, 2006 at 3:22 pm

  9. JohnZ. Who really cares about CO2 concentrations ?
    There are many other emissions and particles that supposedly contribute to warming.

    There are many other factors that affect climate.

    There are also many other sources of C02.

    Most of the alarmism is based on computer simulations, formed upon unrealistic assumptions, combined with a pessimistic worst-case interpretation of results.

    And finally, what kind of negligible impact would we make if we were to meet the demands of the climate change alarmists and halve our economy ?

    Are you saying that a dynamic economy cannot adapt or take advantage of changing temperatures ?

    e.g Some farmers will experience increased crop yields under warmer temperatures.


    November 23, 2006 at 3:42 pm

  10. i suspect not much john…but i dont have enough information yet…the reports seem to state 3 degrees warmer for 2xCO2

    im not sure how they actually determine climate sensitivity to CO2 whether its historical or modern day experiments…

    i assume the reason CO2 traps more heat is because of its increased density although there are probably other (quantum) factors that contribute to its receptivity to electromagnetic radiation…

    if CO2 sensitivity is determined historically, we don’t know yet which way the causation occured…and i don’t know whether they net out solar activity or whether this is even possible…

    these are the baseline questions one should ask before using any CO2 sensitivity in a model…


    November 23, 2006 at 4:16 pm

  11. Virtually nothing in the context of a time-span wherein the solar cycles were both below and above the longer-term average.

    If the solar cycles were on an upward build however I’d expect the CO2 would cause an overshoot.

    But of course I don’t KNOW this since the bad “research” and general idiocy of the alarmists has crowded out the good reasearch.


    November 23, 2006 at 4:17 pm

  12. “i suspect not much john…but i dont have enough information yet…the reports seem to state 3 degrees warmer for 2xCO2”

    Nice if it were true.

    But the reasoning behind this supposition is just so idiotic it beggars belief.

    If we are talking in decades rather then millenium we would expect the effect to be far less then this.


    November 23, 2006 at 4:23 pm

  13. my current gut hypothesis is that CO2 is a red herring…

    the excess CO2 during warm periods is probably a result not a cause of warming…

    why has the climate being cyclical? most likely due to solar activity…

    although plate tectonic movements etcetera might cause differing amounts of carbon in the air, the temp ups and downs shown by the data look pretty regular…suggesting some type of astronomical cause…


    November 23, 2006 at 4:34 pm

  14. even if it gets warmer on average by 3degrees i see no cause for alarm…

    temperate poles and broad tropics is still very liveable…bring on the neo eocene…


    November 23, 2006 at 4:36 pm

  15. you have thoroughly been brainwashed by Bird, c8to.

    Jason Soon

    November 23, 2006 at 4:37 pm

  16. Jase

    Think what you like, but the Brid of prey does make one huge valid point. He is asking the howlers to present the evidence for disaster. Not even the evidence, just the science.

    We’re still waiting.


    November 23, 2006 at 4:55 pm

  17. what a load of shit!!!

    i was saying this from well before bird was even commenting here…


    November 23, 2006 at 4:59 pm

  18. jason you have absolutely no idea…you couldn’t even name one person for your “appeal to authority” belief…making it completely baseless…


    November 23, 2006 at 5:00 pm

  19. I just love the fact that you guys talk about how stuff “needs to be investigated” but ignore the fact that it has. At length.

    The ‘alarmist’ case is well presented in the IPCC report. If you want to challenge the consensus, start here.
    And please, provide references to the specific sections you are critiquing.


    November 23, 2006 at 5:02 pm

  20. plus…as someone who is skeptical of relativity you shouldn’t be surprised…

    there is way more of a consensus for relativity than for any theory of climate change…


    November 23, 2006 at 5:02 pm

  21. By the way.

    New and provocative post on my blog on this subject.

    By the way. We don’t need to speculate whether or not Cato is right.

    Because we already have the human history which says the warmer periods are the more liveable periods in history.

    Whereas on the lunatic leftist side of the debate all we have is lying, Lamberting, and ludicrous apocalyptic speculation.

    This whole thing is just a fucking disgrace.


    November 23, 2006 at 5:04 pm

  22. Three degrees would be only positive. We would barely feel it here unless by some hard to foresee change in weather patterns. But colder climates would tend to get much better.

    But the temperature isn’t the thing. The doubling of CO2 would bring enourmous benefits in terms of food production and water conservation.

    And an enhanced ability to collect and channel water so long as we assume continued capital formation.

    But we have the wrong mindset. Since the prognosis so far would have mid-century colder then it is now. Which will be quite nasty but may be mitigated the more CO2 we can get out there.

    Not so much by temperature. But by the resilience of plants to frostbite and arid conditions.


    November 23, 2006 at 5:05 pm

  23. c8to I cited the IPCC, I cited James Hansen. What the fuck does citing names have to do with what John Z says i.e. that all this has been THOROUGHLY INVESTIGATED.

    I actually know more about relativity than I do about climate science, I admit. Because I find it more interesting. But it doesn’t mean my appeal to the intellectual division of labour isn’t correct.

    I don’t know for a fact that the moon landing wasn’t faked. I haven’t studied all the documentary evidence that would show it was for real. Yet I have little doubt that a good working hypothesis is that the moon landing happened.

    Jason Soon

    November 23, 2006 at 5:05 pm

  24. “The ‘alarmist’ case is well presented in the IPCC report. If you want to challenge the consensus, start here.”

    No no. They’ve made idiots of themselves. Its a disaster of scientific crankery and hard-core stupidity.

    Its as if it was YOU JohnZ that were running it.


    November 23, 2006 at 5:10 pm

  25. “8to I cited the IPCC, I cited James Hansen. What the fuck does citing names have to do with what John Z says i.e. that all this has been THOROUGHLY INVESTIGATED.”

    No no. Hansens calculations are just risible. As are Annans.

    I tried to get Lambert to spell it out for you but he wouldn’t do it. And put under pressure he created a massive diversionary tantrum instead.


    November 23, 2006 at 5:15 pm

  26. Bird is a relativity skeptic too btw. You two should have a lot to talk about. Be careful about the road you’re travelling c8to 🙂

    Jason Soon

    November 23, 2006 at 5:16 pm

  27. I suspect that the reason so many libertarians bang on about this is because they

    1) Hate the left and see AGW as a leftist cause.
    2) Hate the idea of public goods.

    Bird – produce an argument, not an assertion.


    November 23, 2006 at 5:18 pm

  28. phlogiston was thoroughly investigated, epicycles were thoroughly investigated, god has been thoroughly investigated…

    you have a brain, why not use it, or shut up…

    if all youre going to contribute to the debate is that some other people think this, who cares?…thats useless information…you’re a proselyte for a cause you know nothing about…

    me and bird are sighting actual reasons to be skeptical, hence adding to the debate

    heres some starting questions?

    1) why did previous periods of warming reverse?
    2) did mammals thrive or die off during the eocene?
    3) what is experimental evidence for an increase from 280ppm to 320ppm CO2 causing temperature change? how large is this change?
    4) are there any scientists saying otherwise?

    those are fruitful avenues of discussion.

    if all your going to say is i believe some made up consensus then ok, your position has been duely noted and the debate can progress…


    November 23, 2006 at 5:19 pm

  29. libertarians hate everyone who wants to waste their money…

    its interesting because its a classic case of media, government and some scientists distortion of known facts…

    second because people are proposing things that will cost a lot of people a lot of welfare…and i’m more interested in human welfare than i am in the CO2 level in the atmosphere…


    November 23, 2006 at 5:22 pm

  30. My position is that trained professionals have produced large reports on the topic.

    The IPCC is a well researched scientific paper. It’s not enough to simply say “it’s crap”. The burden of proof is on YOU to show which sections you disagree with.


    November 23, 2006 at 5:23 pm

  31. Yea, Thanks for the input, John. Now troddle off back to leftwrites and try to be uselful there. As much as one can be useful at such a site.


    November 23, 2006 at 5:24 pm

  32. special relativity is almost content free…theres certain situations that make no sense and general relativity is needed to mobilise a relativistic understanding…

    the problem with GR is its pretty damn complicated and so hard to crack into…


    November 23, 2006 at 5:25 pm

  33. i disagree with the section that says warming/change is caused by man…there are at least 60 scientists (probably not all climate scientists) who think otherwise…

    i disagree with the policy prescriptions since they don’t pass cost benefit analysis…

    i disagree with their largely misleading statements that say not one paper has been published disagreeing with their position…its certainly not the case now in 2006…(i’m not sure exactly which ipcc reports were published when, but either way, theres reasonable research that should lead one to be skeptical)


    November 23, 2006 at 5:28 pm

  34. Either you think increased atmospheric CO2 will

    a) increase average global temperature
    b) reduce it
    c) have no change
    d) you don’t know.


    November 23, 2006 at 5:30 pm

  35. which is it?


    November 23, 2006 at 5:31 pm

  36. No no.

    Don’t talk shit now you too.

    None of you can come up with even a skintilla of evidence for catastrophic global warming on the basis of industrial CO2 use.

    None of you.

    You’ve witnessed me go over and over and over this again.

    And you are being nutball cranks about it.

    You have no evidence.


    And yet you believe it.

    Because you are mindless sheep.

    In the whole time we’ve talked about this. Not one post has come up with any sort of evidence for catastrophic warming on the basis of CO2 release.

    And you guys are just so gullible and stupid that you don’t see anything amiss at all.

    Its embarrassing.

    And you should be ashamed of yourself.

    Annans a bit of a moderate right?

    Go see his pdf from earlier this year.

    I swear you will not find any evidence there for catastrophic warming or even for his proposition that doubling CO2 will lead to a 3 degrees increase in temperature.

    You won’t.

    But do it anyway.

    Its actually quite shocking.


    November 23, 2006 at 5:40 pm

  37. Produce evidence for what?


    Produce evidence for WHAT?


    Come on you fucking idiot?

    Produce evidence for what.

    You have never produced any evidence for catastrophic global warming ever.

    Or any evidence that the IPCC or the Hansen or the Annan soothsaying has any basis for it at all.

    You are such a fucking asshole fella.

    Now you stop being fucking dishonest or fuck off.

    The last time you were hear you were busted for lying.

    So you owe me a retraction.



    November 23, 2006 at 5:44 pm

  38. “Either you think increased atmospheric CO2 will
    a) increase average global temperature
    b) reduce it
    c) have no change
    d) you don’t know.”

    No fuck off.

    You produce evidence for something.

    Anything at all you fucking idiot.


    November 23, 2006 at 5:46 pm

  39. It’s not as easy as that Jonzee. It could actually be a,c,d.

    This is good reason why the science is nowhere near complete.

    Since DNA mapping we thought that we knew everything there was to know about the human genome. Then after reading this piece it becomes obvious we don’t: in fact it could be the begininning of the beginning.

    Climate science is no different in it’s complexity, yet some of us are prepard to throw trillions at it without having the wealth or the science to do so.

    Most of the leading people supporting action are total fucking frauds. When i say this Agore comes to mind. Think what you like of the movie. The one huge thing missing in his list of solutions was the one thing that would go to solving a big part of this. Other than adding costs to the economy through a tax, he doesn’t support nuke enegy which is the one thing that would cut emissions over the relatively short period of time.

    He doesn’t support nuke energy.

    Think about that for a second. His solution is a mix of wind, sun and coal. Terffic, first rate thinking here by the Goremeister. He was always a bolivating dope

    The reality is that the left simply wish to turnkey the economy by making enegery more expensive . that’s it. that’s what you are getting from the leading lights of the left.

    So in answer to your question. yes. I oppose the left’s handling of AGW.


    November 23, 2006 at 5:47 pm

  40. Graeme
    You’ve admitted yourself that increased CO2 leads to warming. The difference is you think it’s a good thing. Or are you contradicting yourself again?

    Jason Soon

    November 23, 2006 at 5:47 pm

  41. You got evidence for catastrophic global warming.


    You got any evidence of arguments in favour of the idea that the IPCC’s reasoning is sound?

    Or Hansens?

    Or Annan’s


    No you haven’t.

    So why do you believe what you believe unless you are a complete idiot?

    What is wrong with you people?

    Its embarrassing.


    November 23, 2006 at 5:49 pm

  42. So you’re now saying that CO2 doesn’t lead to warming. is that correct, Graeme? Everything you’ve written about CO2 leading to warming is obsolete? Am I hearing you correctly?

    Jason Soon

    November 23, 2006 at 5:50 pm

  43. No Jason I’m not contradicting myself.

    We’ve gone over this a number of times and you persist in your idiocy.

    Now can you find any evidence that a doubling of CO2 will cause around about 3 degrees warming?


    Have you READ Annans report alledging this?

    Can you find any evidence in the report for this contention?

    You WILL NOT find anything.

    What is wrong with you zombies.

    Will salty food help?


    November 23, 2006 at 5:52 pm

  44. the change humanity has made to CO2 levels i dont think will change average global temperatures much…

    but how are you going to find this out without isolating the factors in an experiment…

    looking at a graph with a correlation proves nothing…its like slaughtering virgins so the sun comes up…


    November 23, 2006 at 5:53 pm

  45. bird will love this:


    November 23, 2006 at 5:54 pm

  46. It doesn’t end there either. I could never accept the left agreeign to nuke because I think it would be done in bad faith anyway.

    They would attempt to regulate the shit out of nuke energy until it cost so much we would be all afraid of turning on a friggin light beacause of the cost.

    I bet if nuke was done without undue regulation the it wouldn’t cost a lot more than coal. it is regulatory costs which makes it so expensive.

    Nuke engery with the left around? see ya later.


    November 23, 2006 at 5:54 pm

  47. c8to

    November 23, 2006 at 5:54 pm

  48. c8to, no experiment hasn’t been done to ‘prove’ evolution either. are you a creationist?

    there are some things you can deduce from some other obserations which have led to established facts. one of them is that CO2 traps heat.

    you don’t need an experiment involving pumping out CO2 on some other earth. that’s ridiculous.

    Jason Soon

    November 23, 2006 at 5:56 pm

  49. exactly what i said to some bonehead lefty on the weekend JC…

    he didnt listen though…just continued to shout platitudes and fuck off every now and again…

    nuclear is expensive because it pays the life cycle cost of pollution…coal doesn’t and pumps tonnes of radioactive isotopes and plenty of shit into the air…

    we discovered the greatest source of power ever 50 years ago, clean high tech and safe, and we’re still burning lumps of shit we find in the ground to generate our power…

    viva la france!


    November 23, 2006 at 5:57 pm

  50. “So you’re now saying that CO2 doesn’t lead to warming. is that correct, Graeme? Everything you’ve written about CO2 leading to warming is obsolete? Am I hearing you correctly?”

    There is no historical evidence except MAYBE in the last two decades of the twentieth century that the net effect is anything but tiny. Absolutely tiny.

    Its possible that over centuries the difference could be far more.

    But heretofore no-ones been able to dig such a slow-building (hypothetically) difference out of the data.

    For my part I suspect there will be some warming.

    I hope thats not wishful thinking. Its simply on an A Priori basis that I say that. So tiny is whatever effect it is that its not showing up except as stated earlier.

    I suspect the above because it looks like it IS showing up in some specific areas. That is to say in those land areas where the conditions are arid.

    Now I’ve kept this basic best guess business for months.

    And this tenth time you’ve lied and pretended I’d contradicted myself.

    Don’t fucking do it again.

    Now where is your evidence?

    Because its just irrational to believe things that there is no evidence for.

    And also its entirely bogus to suggest that there will be net costs to warming when all of history contradicts this.

    So that is two areas at least where you reasoning has shut down.


    November 23, 2006 at 6:00 pm

  51. AGW and now denial of general relativity? Could this be a case of “german physics”?


    November 23, 2006 at 6:00 pm

  52. and to continue …

    you can plug these facts into models. a lot of science is actually based far more on models than direct observation, including evolution and economics,

    if you throw these out you have nothing much left.

    Jason Soon

    November 23, 2006 at 6:00 pm

  53. From Catos Link:

    The merits of the carbon injection process are very obvious for everyone to see. If we don’t get this right, we will simply not have a chance of saving the world from dangerous climate change.”

    However, WWF scientist Gilly Llewellyn said she was concerned about the plan to bury carbon dioxide in “leaky” rock formations beneath Barrow Island.

    In the Environmental Impact Assessment document prepared by the Gorgon developers, eight out of 20 potential failure scenarios, resulting in the unplanned release of carbon dioxide, were assessed as “possible” or “likely”, she said.

    WWF was particularly concerned that previous wells drilled around the formation, and the presence of a natural fault line, may cause the carbon dioxide to leak, which would add to Australia’s greenhouse gas emissions, she said.

    Do you need more proof that the green left will attempt to turnkey the economy at every possible turn? These loathsome animals hate humans. The despicable bitch is turning a low probability estimate into a 90 confidence factor by alluding to problems by sequestration.

    Fuck, I hate them.


    November 23, 2006 at 6:01 pm

  54. “viva la france!’

    Look, fella. we know you’re dating a french chick or something but you don’t have to say that on this blog.

    Jason Soon

    November 23, 2006 at 6:08 pm

  55. Jason.

    Our belief in evolution only comes from convergence.

    Without convergence from all these various FORMERLY independent fields of study we wouldn’t have shit.

    The alarmist crank-scientists have no convergence. They have the theoretical idea that CO2 will block some part of a band of infra-red light from dispersing into space.

    Then they make a single one-step APRIORI leap in reasoning.

    So far so good.

    That single A PRIORI leap is reasonable.

    But when the evidence comes back there is no convergence between how the CO2 deals with Infra-Red radiation and on the leap of imagination which told them they ought to get a substantial warming effect.

    So this is where A Priori didn’t work out for them. And they decide to stop there and dress the whole thing up in fancy statistics, bad reasoning, political action and Lamberting.

    They have no evidence.

    And if it were TRUE that the warming was anything more then marginal on the global level they would be FUCKINGOVERFLOWINGINEVIDENCE.

    We can say with quite a lot of confidence that any such warming must normally be very slight and/or mostly just localised and/or take a very long time to manifest itself in its entirety.

    Otherwise the evidence would be flowing in.

    They would be absolutely fucking-awash in evidence.

    But they aren’t.

    And yet they persist with their bullshit.


    November 23, 2006 at 6:11 pm

  56. No no Jason you are talking bullshit.

    No science heretofore has been based on computer models that don’t backtest.

    Computer models that don’t backtest, don’t work. And have never before been considered as EVIDENCE.

    So we can get that right for starters.

    In fact if anything they are rather more convincing as evidence that they are getting things horribly wrong.


    You know you were talking nonsense don’t you.

    Yes you do.

    You cannot give us any examples can you?

    No you can’t?


    November 23, 2006 at 6:16 pm

  57. People.

    I’m going to have to go over it again.

    Those guys are simply assuming we face warming and think things must be done.

    Well we face warming and cooling and warming and more cooling and more warming and so on.

    They have to specify a time period. And then we will see if we have any evidence for warming or cooling specifically during that time period.

    Because of this how can they suggest to sequester carbon. That is madness. But warming or cooling more CO2 in the atmosphere is a good thing and we know this from natural history.

    Next we must remember that we are in an ICE AGE.


    We have been in an ice age for 39 million years and in its most severe phase for the last three and a half million years or so.

    There has NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER during this time been an incident of catastrophic warming.

    Yet MOST OF THE LAST three million years or so have been CATASTROPHICALLY.

    Now I keep saying what is fucking wrong with you people.

    To think that this context implies that we spend MONEY to try and make the planet colder is drooling drooling drooling drooling IDIOCY.

    Now you just simply must be fucking mad if you cannot admit to yourself that I’m right.

    And you should aspire to a better cognitive fucking performance then that.

    This is embarrassing.


    November 23, 2006 at 6:26 pm

  58. “There has NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER during this time been an incident of catastrophic warming.”

    How old is industrial civilisation, Graeme?

    Jason Soon

    November 23, 2006 at 6:28 pm

  59. “Because I find it more interesting. But it doesn’t mean my appeal to the intellectual division of labour isn’t correct.”

    No fella. Thats an appeal to denial. To mindlessly ignoring the evidence.

    And its a stupid appeal also since it would be valid were there a free market.

    You appeal to the freelance scientists if you want to lay that out-of-context anti-evidence division-of-labour JIVE.

    I think if you go with the free-lance non-tax-eater guys the authority appeal will have me winning on that score as well.

    What about the people who predict hurricanes free-lance?

    Who produce newsletters for the market?

    Why not use the appeal to the division-of-labour there?

    I’d accept that. And I’d win the argument on that basis as well.


    November 23, 2006 at 6:44 pm

  60. Industrial civilisation is not very old.

    And yet you STILL have no evidence for going with the side of the argument who themselves have no evidence.

    You might have thought RIGHT THERE by asking that question that you had some evidence.

    But you didn’t.

    Everything I said above is valid. And you found nothing to say that it wasn’t.

    You might have thought you did but you didn’t.

    And you should admit that my reasoning is entirely sound and virtually irrefutable.

    Since if I think you have found a frivolous way to divert attention I’m likely to just repost.

    Now you know I’m right in all the facts I cite right?

    And you don’t dispute any of the concrete facts right?

    Or the reasoning right?

    So who are you to be in such denial?

    You are fucking obliged, as a alleged reasonable man to go (albeit tentatively) where the chips fall.


    November 23, 2006 at 6:49 pm

  61. My point Graeme is that your constantly repeating that “There has NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER during this time been an incident of catastrophic warming.” is simply IRRELEVANT because AGW doesn’t predict that anyway. The fact that there has NEVER been doesn’t mean there won’t be. And the catastrophe is not just because of the MAGNITUDE of warming but its ripple effects on other things like MASS POPULATION DISPLACEMENT.

    Jason Soon

    November 23, 2006 at 6:55 pm

  62. C8to asks “what is experimental evidence for an increase from 280ppm to 320ppm CO2 causing temperature change? how large is this change?”

    C02 was 320ppm in 1964. Since then it’s gone up. But the measurements were made by taxeating scientists so feel free to ignore this.

    We don’t have another Earth to do experiments on, so you’ll have to settle for observational evidence. Sorry.


    November 23, 2006 at 7:01 pm

  63. No no.

    Its not irrelevant.

    Its of the UTMOST relevance.

    The UTMOST.

    So relevant is it that you simply have to keep it in mind all the time.

    If you surveyed averages for the last 65 million years…. lets say you averaged out every 5 million years.

    You would find the temperature steadily dropping all that time… For lets say 5 million year averages.

    Now we live on a planet hardwired for catastrophic COOLING.

    We have no reason to believe that this has changed.

    There is NO EVIDENCE that anything has changed since the industrial revolution.

    You didn’t find anything to say that things have changed since the industrial revolution.

    Not in any substantial way at least.

    The default evidence is that WE ARE STILL on a planet hard-wired for catastrophic COOLING.

    Now your LAST sentence.

    What are you talking about?

    What is the prediction you are making and for what time period?

    If you are predicting WARMING for what time period and on what basis are you blaming industrial CO2.

    You have a single A Priori idea. Reasonable at first but it turned out to be wrong. At least wrong in terms of the decadal assumptions about the magnitude.

    So what are you talkng.

    What is this prediction that is implied here and for what specific time period.

    And if you can specify this we can look at the evidence for this.


    November 23, 2006 at 7:20 pm

  64. Graeme asks: Now can you find any evidence that a doubling of CO2 will cause around about 3 degrees warming?

    Well, not evidence no, because we’re talking about the future. But I can find reasons.

    Doubling co2 from the start of the industrial age would give us a “forcing” of 3.7 WM^-2. (Determined by formula dT = alpha ln (C/Co) where doubling means C/Co = 2 and alpha is 5.35.)

    That forcing is translated into increased temperatures by multiplying it by lambda (the sensitivity of temperature to forcing).

    As Hansen has previously shown, if we compare now with the past Global climate forcing was about 6 1/2 W/m2 less than in the current interglacial period. This forcing maintained a planet 5 °C colder than today.

    This implies a lambda of about 0.8 (a commonly accepted measure), which suggests a doubling of co2 will give about 3 degrees higher temperatures.

    Using a lambda range of 0.5 to 1 we get a possible temperature increase range of about 1.8 to 3.7 degrees. If we double co2 from a late 20th century benchmark instead of pre-industrial revolution then the forcing is 4 and the above temp range is 2-4. Some climate scientists think they can be more accurate and prefer a 2.5-3.5 range.

    The skeptical argument comes into play when you consider alternative estimates of lambda. Huang estimates 0.4 to 0.7. The National Acadamies Climate Change Science Report estimates 0.3. Roger Pielke Snr gets about 0.1 by looking at the 20th century change in temps and forcing, but that may be an underestimate because there is a time lag between forcing and temps. Sherwood Idso also gets something like 0.1.

    If we look at the temp changes using a lambda range of 0.1 to 0.5 then the possible temp increase with a doubling of co2 is 0.4 to 1.8.

    In my opinion these lower numbers aren’t very scary. There is some evidence that minor changes (less than 3 degrees) will create as many benefits as costs. Further, this all assumes that we continue to pump out co2 forever. I have faith in technology. Finally, even if we do see temp increases above 3 degrees the costs of action exceed the costs of inaction.

    Speaking of lambda, I was lead to believe that the Stern report used a lambda as high as 1.8. If that is true, then it’s a disagrace.

    John Humphreys

    November 23, 2006 at 8:20 pm

  65. Has anyone looked into the effect of the recent surge in oil prices on CO2 emmissions (less SUVs sold, etc).?


    November 23, 2006 at 9:28 pm

  66. JH: “I was lead to believe that the Stern report used a lambda as high as 1.8. If that is true, then it’s a disagrace.”

    Well, it’s not true. I wonder who it was that misled you?


    November 23, 2006 at 11:52 pm

  67. “I have faith in technology.”

    Good for you. However, faith is no guarantee.

    “the costs of action exceed the costs of inaction.”

    That depends. For example, increasing energy efficiency (according to some studies, can’t remember which) might be revenue/GDP beneficial, as opposed to being a cost.


    November 24, 2006 at 12:16 am

  68. Tim — can I presume from you lack of abuse aimed towards me that I have got the science roughly correct? I must admit I haven’t as yet paid close attention to Stern. I promise I will soon.

    ff — revenue/GDP is not the relevant indicator of welfare & while I have faith in your good intentions it would be more helpful if you could link to any study that shows these wonderful benefits from government intervention.

    John Humphreys

    November 24, 2006 at 1:33 am

  69. Humphreys. See my post on the other thread.

    This thread behaving strangely.

    Most likely Lambert tampering with it.

    Lambert. Make yourself useful and show us how the alarmists calculate the Watts per square metre in the first place.

    So we can all have a laugh at the crank-science.

    Imagine thinking that all Watts will have the same effect no matter what the context.

    Man thats dumb


    November 24, 2006 at 3:22 am

  70. “a lot of science is actually based far more on models than direct observation, including evolution and economics”

    Economics is not a science, Jason. As the Bard would say, economics is the stuff that wet dreams for anoraks are made on.

    As to global warming, I’m with Bird. it’s a complete and utter load of shite, made up by those onanistic little Mummy’s boys who were into nazi war insignia, comic books and science fiction at school. It’s all about jolly hockey sticks, which Richard Lindzen and his fellow skeptics have shown are complete and utter toss.

    Rococo Liberal

    November 24, 2006 at 8:25 am

  71. Tim Lambert: please explain or excuse the data smoothing which lead to the hockey stick graph.

    Mark Hill

    November 24, 2006 at 9:38 am

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: