Having said that, I now feel compelled to suggest the following as required viewing, listening, and reading before the conference in Copenhagen:

http://www.hootervillegazette.com/LordMonckton.html

Reply: Boa tarde, desculpe, nós não falamos muito de Português aqui. ~ charles the moderator

These plots show the corresponence of temperature and CO2 levels. The first is used to predict a rise of 2.5C from average 1961 to 1990 levels (I do not claim this to be accurate)
http://img133.imageshack.us/img133/3140/tempvsco2logfit.jpg
And this is a simple zoom on the proxy/real data
http://img523.imageshack.us/img523/2696/hadcrutnhvsco2.jpg

Excellent comments Indur – thank you.

Bill,

In science, first there is Hypothesis, then Theory (Evolution) and finally Law (Gravity).

Catastrophic humanmade global warming is still only a hypothesis, and I would suggest it is already a failed one. All evidence suggests that the sensitivity of Earth temperature to CO2 is at most 0.3C for a doubling of atmospheric CO2 from 280 to 560 ppm. This is not a problem for the planet.

The sensitivity might be even lower – there has been no net global warming since 1940, in spite of an 800% increase in humanmade CO2 emissions. The only noticeable impact is that we have made little plants happy.

Regards, Allan

1. Several commentators – jeez, bill, Paul, Bill, Mike T, Alexej Buergin, WakeUpMaggy, Eve – got into a discussion of heat- and cold-related deaths. The differences in the number of deaths during the colder months versus warmer months in the US, UK and a number of European cities have been discussed previously in a number of posts on WUWT. See:

• 95,000 Excess U.S. Deaths during the Cold Months Each Year, (12/22/08).

• Follow up to Questions on Deaths from Extreme Cold and Extreme Heat, (12/20/08). The information provided in this post is broadly consistent with Eve’s information. The comment thread on this one also provides a link to a study by Deschenes and Moretti (2007) which estimates that 8%-15% of the total gains in life expectancy experienced by the U.S. population over the past 30 years may be because of ongoing migration from the cold Northeastern states to the warmer Southern states.

• The Deadliest U.S. Natural Hazard: Extreme Cold, (12/18/08).

• Going Down: Death Rates Due to Extreme Weather Events/.

2. With respect to the 2003 European heatwave, a critical question from the policy perspective is how many of the tens of thousands of those deaths could have been avoided had the Kyoto Protocol (or any other greenhouse gas emission reduction scheme) been fully implemented by all its signatories (including the US, which signed the Protocol but didn’t ratify). The answer is, unfortunately, virtually zero.

I contend that if European countries had spent a fraction of the resources they expended on the ineffectual Kyoto Protocol on adaptation instead, they could have avoided thousands of deaths from the 2003 heatwave. See An Irrelevant Europe – Best for the World?

3. Ron de Haan (08:29:16)

RESPONSE: I agree. Time frames used in projections of impacts are way too long considering the uncertainties in the assumptions and inputs used in the modeling exercises for reasons laid out at: http://goklany.org/library/Richer-but-warmer%20RV.pdf. Moreover, ignoring secular technological change, which virtually all impacts assessments do, probably overestimates impacts by several fold, if history is any guide.

4. bill (09:19:15) :
I have looked at all evidence with an open mind and I believe that on balance AGW is a fact.

RESPONSE: I doubt you not, but I think you are confusing fact with theory/hypothesis. GW is a fact, assuming surface temp data are not fatally contaminated. [Anthony’s surfacestations work raises the possibility that the US surface data might be fatally contaminated, and it is plausible that no matter how good US data might be, other countries’ data is probably worse.]

[One may ask: what about satellite data, don’t they show warming? Indeed they do, but I am skeptical – yes that word! – that 30 years worth of data is long enough to establish a long-term trend in the climate, particularly considering that there seem to be large scale natural cycles of longer periodicity.]

However, the causes of GW are not facts. They are based on hypotheses and theories. One can develop hypotheses and theories as to the cause(s), and try to falsify them. In fact, to the best of my knowledge there has never been a showing that the null hypothesis that GW is due to natural causes can be rejected with 95% confidence (a standard scientific/statistical criterion). Once having done that, then one can try to figure out:

(a) what fraction of the GW is due to AGW,
(b) what fraction of AGW is due to well-mixed greenhouse gases (e.g., CO2, methane, nitrous oxide, etc.), and what fraction is due to other causes (soot, land use and land cover changes).

Until this is done, one can’t be confident that CO2 reductions will have much benefit, if any.

5. In the previous thread [part 2 of 3], Francis (21:52:57) commented:

This is an estimate (of deaths) based on old computer forecasts …from older climate data. We now have more recent climate data (some of which has already advanced beyond its projections in those old forecasts).

RESPONSE: I would appreciate getting references. In fact, since life is short, I would appreciate receiving the reprints/preprints. My contact information is available at goklany.org. Thanks.

6. CknLitl
… am I free to print and distribute it in it’s entirety? …

RESPONSE: Be my guest. Just indulge me, and give credit. Thanks. Talking of credit, Anthony came up with the “Civilization” graphic – a most inspired move! One more reason to thank our host.

• 95,000 Excess U.S. Deaths during the Cold Months Each Year, (12/22/08).

• Follow up to Questions on Deaths from Extreme Cold and Extreme Heat, (12/20/08). The information provided in this post is broadly consistent with Eve’s information. The comment thread on this one also provides a link to a study by Deschenes and Moretti (2007) which estimates that 8%-15% of the total gains in life expectancy experienced by the U.S. population over the past 30 years may be because of ongoing migration from the cold Northeastern states to the warmer Southern states.

• The Deadliest U.S. Natural Hazard: Extreme Cold, (12/18/08).
• Going Down: Death Rates Due to Extreme Weather Events/,

2. With respect to the 2003 European heatwave, a critical question from the policy perspective is how many of the tens of thousands of those deaths could have been avoided had the Kyoto Protocol (or any other greenhouse gas emission reduction scheme) been fully implemented by all its signatories (including the US, which signed the Protocol but didn’t ratify). The answer is, unfortunately, virtually zero. I contend that if European countries had spent a fraction of the resources they expended on the ineffectual Kyoto Protocol on adaptation instead, they could have avoided thousands of deaths from the 2003 heatwave. See An Irrelevant Europe – Best for the World?

3. Ron de Haan (08:29:16)

RESPONSE: I agree. Time frames used in projections of impacts are way too long considering the uncertainties in the assumptions and inputs used in the modeling exercises for reasons laid out at: http://goklany.org/library/Richer-but-warmer%20RV.pdf. Moreover, ignoring secular technological change, which virtually all impacts assessments do, probably overestimates impacts by several fold, if history is any guide.

4. bill (09:19:15) :
I have looked at all evidence with an open mind and I believe that on balance AGW is a fact.

RESPONSE: I doubt you not, but I think you are confusing fact with theory/hypothesis. GW is a fact, assuming surface temp data are not fatally contaminated. [Anthony’s surfacestations work raises the possibility that the US surface data might be fatally contaminated, and it is plausible that no matter how good US data might be, other countries’ data is probably worse.]

[One may ask: what about satellite data, don’t they show warming? Indeed they do, but I am skeptical – yes that word! – that 30 years worth of data is long enough to establish a trend in the CLIMATE, particularly considering that there seem to be large scale natural cycles of longer periodicity.]

However, the causes of GW are not facts. They are based on hypotheses and theories. One can develop hypotheses and theories as to the cause(s), and try to falsify them. In fact, to the best of my knowledge there has never been a showing that the null hypothesis that GW is due to natural causes can be rejected with 95% confidence (a standard scientific/statistical criterion). Once having done that, then one can try to figure out:

(a) what fraction of the GW is AGW, and

(b) what fraction of AGW is due to well-mixed greenhouse gases (e.g., CO2, methane, nitrous oxide, etc.), and what fraction is due to other causes (soot, land use and land cover changes).

Until this is done, one can’t be confident that CO2 reductions will have much benefit, if any.

5. In the previous thread [part 2 of 3], Francis (21:52:57) commented:
This is an estimate (of deaths) based on old computer forecasts …from older climate data. We now have more recent climate data (some of which has already advanced beyond its projections in those old forecasts).

RESPONSE: I would appreciate getting references. In fact, since life is short, I would appreciate receiving the reprints/preprints. My contact information is available at goklany.org. Thanks.

6. CknLitl
… am I free to print and distribute it in it’s entirety? …

RESPONSE: Be my guest. Just indulge me, and give credit. Thanks. Talking of credit, Anthony came up with the “Civilization” graphic – a most inspired move! One more reason to thank our host.

The Dust Bowl (of the 30′s) was a regional situation of “drought, high temperature, and high winds”, compounded by “poor farming practices”. But, it was temporary.
Higher temperatures are projected for this future Southern California to Kansas Dust Bowl. And, they would be permanent.
I’ve heard this mentioned twice: from Copenhagen, and from some Harvard study. Being from Arizona, I wouldn’ wish its climate on anyone else.

I would turn your argument around. If we do nothing, there is a good possibility there will be no or only slight increase in temperature. There is every possibility the world will in fact be wealthier if we do nothing to impede economic progress and mitigate the effects of any warming. See the first two parts of this discussion. I really don’t agree with many of your conclusions or suppositions. Less dependent on oil. Fine — let’s drill our own, use coal, use natural gas, use nuclear. I’m with you.

On the other hand we may spend billions of dollars, or trillions, to reduce any warming by much less than 1 degree at the end of this century. And, to my point above. How much must we reduce CO2 to lower the temperature enough that we can be assured New Orleans will never again get hit by a cat. 3 hurricane? How much will it cost? What would be the alternatives. If it was me, money spent on proper levies might help me sleep better at night. There is no way you could reduce CO2 enough, to claim you would reduce temperature enough, to claim you were reducing hurricane strength, to make me feel any safer if the levies are bad.

The CO2 vs date curve is a bit lumpy – too many proxies and there is a hump at 1950-ish But here’s the result. Wasn’t expecting this. It’s actually a bit worrying:

http://img373.imageshack.us/img373/2696/hadcrutnhvsco2.jpg

approx 0.01degC per ppm increase.

Dave Wendt (12:54:58) :
I have a question for you which, I hope you’ll believe me when I say, is not meant to be sarcastic. It is simply what makes you think so? Or alternatively, how do you know that? As I have admitted here many times I have no particular expertise in any field relevant to climate, but I have spent a good deal of time exploring this topic and if I had to put forward one conclusion that I had to stand by it would be that people on all sides of the AGW debate seem to know a lot less than they think they do about any of it. Since more of those on the skeptical side seem willing to recognize and admit this, I have found their arguments more convincing, but I may be wrong and I’d be interested in knowing what evidence you’ve seen that caused you to conclude the opposite.

First all prejudices need to be forgotten not all pro-AGW/anti-AGW scientists are frauds. Go to blogs of both sides – which has the science behind it. BELEIVE NO ONE ABSOLUTELY, Check out proxies – glaciers/ice on ice off days/harvest dates/check temperature plots/etc
Not all data showing AGW has been fabricated.
Warmer climate is not going to be acceptable.
Then think of the consequences if your chosen side is wrong
AGW wrong – will cost money to clean up our act and become less dependant on oil. future generations will have more fossil fuels
No AGW wrong – sea level rise, north atlantic conveyor disruption = europe cooler, some places become unlivably hot, some places become desserts. storm increases failed crops. This will take decades to bring under control and a decade is a long time to survive.

I always ask whether or not a given catastrophe could have been prevented by lowering CO2. How much CO2 would we have to take out of the atmosphere before we could be sure New Orleans will never get hit by another Cat 3 hurricane? How much CO2 would we have to take out to be sure there would be no brush fires in Australia like this summer? What were the temps in France in summer 2003. Can we lower the level of CO2 to be sure France will never see such temperatures again? The answer is that, at tremendous cost, we could never remove enough. Better to fix the levies and clear the brush.

So far I can’t think of one instance that could be prevented in the future by limiting CO2 that couldn’t be done better, cheaper, and with much greater assurance by other means.