Buy

Books
Click images for more details

Support

 

Twitter
Recent comments
Recent posts
Currently discussing
Links

A few sites I've stumbled across recently....

Powered by Squarespace

Unthreaded

We do know that the MWA was not caused by CO2.
We do know that the recent warming was caused by CO2.
There seem to be a large number of holes in that logic or am I missing something important?

There are no holes in this logic. Or why not point to them?


Post hoc non ergo propter hoc mainly, BBD.
We are pretty convinced that CO2 did not cause the Roman Warm Period or the Mediaeval Warm Period and we don't know how much of the lift out of the LIA is natural. So it seems a remarkable leap from that to "we know CO2 is causing the 20th century warming".
That's about it.
Except that since we have fairly good evidence that at least the last two Warm Periods (and possibly previous ones) were not caused by CO2, there is therefore a heavy burden of proof on those who see CO2 as the villain to come up with evidence -- and pretty solid evidence at that.

Jul 31, 2011 at 9:32 PM | Unregistered CommenterMike Jackson

@BBD: "We do know that the recent warming was caused by CO2.
There seem to be a large number of holes in that logic or am I missing something important?


There are no holes in this logic. Or why not point to them?"

Is that all of recent warmind caused by CO2? Because if that's what your saying theres a hole as big as the Mersey Tunnel in the logic. I don't know of anyone who attributes all the warming to human induced CO2 in the atmosphere, not even the IPCC, who claim that around 50% of the warming can be attributed to natural causes and because CO2 has risen it must be CO2 that's caused the other 50% That may be true, but if we are to tax ourselves out of our industrial society, where unprecedented prosperity exists for all our people, I'd like to see a bit more skin on the bones of that theory.

Jul 31, 2011 at 8:12 PM | Unregistered Commentergeronimo

@Mike Jackson: "So we don't know how much of the recent warming is due to rebound from the Little Ice Age.
We do know that the MWA was not caused by CO2.
We do know that the recent warming was caused by CO2"

We don't know that the recent warming was caused by CO2, although it may have been. It is not science to say A is rising, B is rising, then A causes B to rise. It's a good starting point, but then, in normal science and engineering you have to produce a function which describes the relationship so that you can observe and test your theory. Without that equation you are making an assertion. There is no such equation because the system is too complex to make one. It probably true that increased CO2 in the atmosphere will cause heat to be retained but after billions of dollars have been given to climate scientists to find the cause they haven't been able to come up with an equation that allows us to test this assumption.

For the record I personally believe that increase CO2 will increase temperature, but I'm not sure. I don't believe that an increase of 1, 2, 3 or 4C will be disastrous, and I don't believe anyone in the climate science community has any more ability to predict the future than "Madam Belladonna" at the fairground can predict the future of individuals. That's what we're up against. Richard Betts has come onto this blog, and he's as modest as the Team were in their original papers about what they know and what the uncertainties are, but as Prof. Kelly's comments show he believed that the IPCC distorted the rather more modest statements in the published papers. Presumably he was unaware that the characters showing modesty in their published papers were one and the same characters who forecast doom and catastrophe in the IPCC report:

"Up to and throughout this exercise, I have remained puzzled how the real humility of the scientists in this area, as evident in their papers, including all these here, and the talks I have heard them give, is morphed into statements of confidence at the 95% level for public consumption through the IPCC process. This does not happen in other subjects of equal importance to humanity, e.g. energy futures or environmental degradation or resource depletion. I can only think it is the 'authority' appropriated by the IPCC itself that is the root cause."

Jul 31, 2011 at 8:04 PM | Unregistered Commentergeronimo

From the Ecclesiastical Uncle, an old retired bureaucrat in a field only remotely related to climate, with minimal qualifications and only half a mind.

Mike Jackson Jul 31, 2011 at 4:42 PM

Yes yes.

No, not off your rocker. Exasperated, maybe. And IMHO right to be cynical.

And of course this old bureaucrat knows that the environmentalists would want the tremulous uncertainty of the () sentence replaced by an unmistakable assertion, but is not at all persuaded.

The thought was put to acknowledge BBD’s explanations that

(1) there is agreement that mankind’s activities influence climate thro’ carbon dioxide etc, and
(2) actions to influence climate will need to be impossibly drastic.

BBD

But, reference the HSI, What about the statisitics the papaleoclimatologists seem to have to do?

Jul 31, 2011 at 7:43 PM | Unregistered CommenterEcclesiastical Uncle

We do know that the MWA was not caused by CO2.
We do know that the recent warming was caused by CO2.
There seem to be a large number of holes in that logic or am I missing something important?

There are no holes in this logic. Or why not point to them?

Jul 31, 2011 at 7:29 PM | Unregistered CommenterBBD

Mike

Right!
So we don't know how much of the recent warming is due to rebound from the Little Ice Age.

No. What you need to do is find some (any) evidence that this supposed 'rebound' from the LIA actually persisted significantly into the C20th. I say it did not. Where's the body of work that identifies this 'rebound' and quantifies its duration?

Failing that, you must accept that the majority of the warming in the C20th and to date has nothing to do with this 'rebound'.

And I ask again - how does this 'rebound' cause energy to accumulate in the climate system? You need a mechanism, or it's all just talk.

Jul 31, 2011 at 7:27 PM | Unregistered CommenterBBD

(Of course, this old bureaucrat appreciates that only drastic modification of nett carbon dioxide emissions, and maybe also of land use, seem to offer means by which mankind might be able to influence climate trends.)
And would you believe it, uncle, that just happens to be what all those environmental activists that leech off the public purse and tear at our heartstrings with their lyin' pictures of polar bears would like us to do.
Back to the dark ages, guys. No more fossil fuels or any of the wonderful oil/coal/gas-based inventions of the last 200 years. Back to subsistence agriculture and in-breeding with the next-door village. And dying at 45.
And in case you think I'm off my rocker, I spent 20 years fighting against a group of eco-idiots who would have agreed with every word of that last paragraph and I can call the witnesses to prove it. (One of them even has an entry on the blogroll to your right but it's not up to me to name names.)
All the more reason to be not just sceptical but downright cynical.
Not that I'm suggesting conspiracy or anything like that, just that there is a remarkable coincidence at work here and the more the warmists bash on about CO2 and throw the mother of all conniption fits when anyone dare even hint that things might not be "worse than we thought" the more I wonder what is really going on.
I love the quote from Ralph Waldo Emerson:
The louder he talked of his honor, the faster we counted our spoons.
If you prefer the McIntyre version (paraphrased): "Keep your eye on that thimble at all times!"

Jul 31, 2011 at 4:42 PM | Unregistered CommenterMike Jackson

Stll, chin up, there is some good news - the grotesque subsidy scheme runs out at midnight tonight for solar powered schemes with a "capacity" of more than 50kW.

Subsidy farmers have been running around like blue rear ended flies the last few days trying to get their windfalls on-line before the axe falls.

Would that the axe would also fall, not just on subsidies, but on (fill in your choice of target here).

Must have a small celebration, maybe a tin of cold Guinness and a few crisps as the sun sails over 0 degrees.

Can't afford a treble anything these days.

Jul 31, 2011 at 10:20 AM | Unregistered CommenterBrownedoff

The Sunday Times, 31 July 2011:

"Russia eyes British power plants"

Anybody surprised that Hendry “welcomes new entrants to the British energy industry” - allegedly?

Could it turn out better for the peasants in the UK vis a vis Spain's entry into the "British energy industry"?

Trebles all round.

Jul 31, 2011 at 9:59 AM | Unregistered CommenterBrownedoff

From the Ecclesiastical Uncle, an old retired bureaucrat in a field only remotely related to climate, with minimal qualifications and only half a mind.

BBD Jul 30, 2011 at 7.44 PM

I, too, find I have to revisit.

My reading of your original recommendation to Science of Doom does not make clear if carbon dioxide was the only significant focus of concern, or if there might be factors that could lead to extremes of climate (ice ages etc or the reverse).

Now I think about it, the 281 pages described the influence of carbon dioxide, and maybe a restricted set of other factors, on climate. Climate science would be an altogether wider subject. Correct?

Accordingly, the active bureaucrat will want to know whether the arguments about all the positive and negative feedbacks, forceings, etc, not just those related to carbon dioxide, are wide open, or if they lean towards complacency or alarm?

(Of course, this old bureaucrat appreciates that only drastic modification of nett carbon dioxide emissions, and maybe also of land use, seem to offer means by which mankind might be able to influence climate trends.)

Thank you.

Jul 31, 2011 at 8:17 AM | Unregistered CommenterEcclesiastical Uncle

PostCreate a New Post

Enter your information below to create a new post.
Author Email (optional):
Author URL (optional):
Post:
 
Some HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>