Since there has been a lot of discussion about Monckton here and elsewhere, I’ve offered him the opportunity to present his views here. – Anthony
Guest post by Christopher Monckton of Brenchley
At www.scienceandpublicpolicy.org I publish a widely-circulated and vigorously-debated Monthly CO2 Report, including graphs showing changes in CO2 concentration and in global mean surface temperature since 1980, when the satellites went on weather watch and the NOAA first published its global CO2 concentration series. Since some commenters here at Wattsup have queried some of our findings, I have asked Anthony to allow me to contribute this short discussion.
We were among the first to show that CO2 concentration is not rising at the fast, exponential rate that current anthropogenic emissions would lead the IPCC to expect, and that global temperature has scarcely changed since the turn of the millennium on 1 January 2001.
CO2 concentration: On emissions reduction, the international community has talked the talk, but – not least because China, India, Indonesia, Russia, Brazil, and South Africa are growing so quickly – it has not walked the walk. Accordingly, carbon emissions are at the high end of the IPCC’s projections, close to the A2 (“business as usual”) emissions scenario, which projects that atmospheric CO2 will grow at an exponential rate between now and 2100 in the absence of global cuts in emissions:
Exponential increase in CO2 concentration from 2000-2100 is projected by the IPCC on its A2 emissions scenario, which comes closest to today’s CO2 emissions. On the SPPI CO2-concentration graph, this projection is implemented by way of an exponential function that generates the projection zone. This IPCC graph has been enlarged, its ordinate and abscissa labeled, and its aspect ratio altered to provide a comparison with the landscape format of the SPPI graph.
On the A2 emissions scenario, the IPCC foresees CO2 rising from a measured 368 ppmv in 2000 (NOAA global CO2 dataset) to a projected 836[730, 1020] ppmv by 2100. However, reality is not obliging. The rate of increase in CO2 concentration has been slowing in recent years: an exponential curve cannot behave thus. In fact, the the NOAA’s deseasonalized CO2 concentration curve is very close to linear:
CO2 concentration change from 2000-2010 (upper panel) and projected to 2100 (lower panel). The least-squares linear-regression trend on the data shows CO2 concentration rising to just 570 ppmv by 2100, well below the IPCC’s least estimate of 730 ppmv on the A2 emissions scenario.
The IPCC projection zone on the SPPI graphs has its origin at the left-hand end of the linear-regression trend on the NOAA data, and the exponential curves are calculated from that point so that they reach the IPCC’s projected concentrations in 2100.
We present the graph thus to show the crucial point: that the CO2 concentration trend is well below the least IPCC estimate. Some have criticized our approach on the ground that over a short enough distance a linear and an exponential trend may be near-coincident. This objection is more theoretical than real.
First, the fit of the dark-blue deseasonalized NOAA data to the underlying linear-regression trend line (light blue) is very much closer than it is even to the IPCC’s least projection on scenario A2. If CO2 were now in fact rising at a merely linear rate, and if that rate were to continue, concentration would reach only 570 ppmv by 2100.
Secondly, the exponential curve most closely fitting the NOAA data would be barely supra-linear, reaching just 614 ppmv by 2100, rather than the linear 570 ppmv. In practice, the substantial shortfall between prediction and outturn is important, as we now demonstrate. The equation for the IPCC’s central estimate of equilibrium warming from a given rise in CO2 concentration is:
∆T = 4.7 ln(C/C0),
where the bracketed term represents a proportionate increase in CO2 concentration. Thus, at CO2 doubling, the IPCC would expect 4.7 ln 2 = 3.26 K warming – or around 5.9 F° (IPCC, 2007, ch.10, p.798, box 10.2). On the A2 scenario, CO2 is projected to increase by more than double: equilibrium warming would be 3.86 K, and transient warming would be <0.5 K less, at 3.4 K.
But if we were to take the best-fit exponential trend on the CO2 data over the past decade, equilibrium warming from 2000-2100 would be 4.7 ln(614/368) = 2.41 K, comfortably below the IPCC’s least estimate and a hefty 26% below its central estimate. Combining the IPCC’s apparent overestimate of CO2 concentration growth with the fact that use of the IPCC’s methods for determining climate sensitivity to observed increases in the concentration of CO2 and five other climate-relevant greenhouse gases over the 55 years 1950-2005 would project a transient warming 2.3 times greater than the observed 0.65 K, anthropogenic warming over the 21st century could be as little as 1 K (less than 2 F°), which would be harmless and beneficial.
Temperature: How, then, has observed, real-world global temperature responded?
The UAH satellite temperature record shows warming at a rate equivalent to 1.4 K/century over the past 30 years. However, the least-squared linear-regression trend is well below the lower bound of the IPCC projection zone.
The SPPI’s graph of the University of Alabama at Huntsville’s monthly global-temperature anomalies over the 30 years since 1 January 1980 shows warming at a rate equivalent to 1.4 K/century – almost double the rate for the 20th-century as a whole. However, most of the warming was attributable to a naturally-occurring reduction in cloud cover that allowed some 2.6 Watts per square meter of additional solar radiance to reach the Earth’s surface between 1981 and 2003 (Pinker et al., 2005; Wild et al., 2006; Boston, 2010, personal communication).
Even with this natural warming, the least-squares linear-regression trend on the UAH monthly global mean surface temperature anomalies is below the lower bound of the IPCC projection zone.
Some have said that the IPCC projection zone on our graphs should show exactly the values that the IPCC actually projects for the A2 scenario. However, as will soon become apparent, the IPCC’s “global-warming” projections for the early part of the present century appear to have been, in effect, artificially detuned to conform more closely to observation. In compiling our graphs, we decided not merely to accept the IPCC’s projections as being a true representation of the warming that using the IPCC’s own methods for determining climate sensitivity would lead us to expect, but to establish just how much warming the use of the IPCC’s methods would predict, and to take that warming as the basis for the definition of the IPCC projection zone.
Let us illustrate the problem with a concrete example. On the A2 scenario, the IPCC projects a warming of 0.2 K/decade for 2000-2020. However, given the IPCC’s projection that CO2 concentration will grow exponentially from 368 ppmv in 2000 towards 836 ppmv by 2100, CO2 should have been 368e(10/100) ln(836/368) = 399.5 ppmv in 2010, and equilibrium warming should thus have been 4.7 ln(399.5/368) = 0.39 K, which we reduce by one-fifth to yield transient warming of 0.31 K, more than half as much again as the IPCC’s 0.2 K. Of course, CO2 concentration in 2010 was only 388 ppmv, and, as the SPPI’s temperature graph shows (this time using the RSS satellite dataset), warming occurred at only 0.3 K/century: about a tenth of the transient warming that use of the IPCC’s methods would lead us to expect.
Barely significant warming: The RSS satellite data for the first decade of the 21st century show only a tenth of the warming that use of the IPCC’s methods would lead us to expect.
We make no apology, therefore, for labelling as “IPCC” a projection zone that is calculated on the basis of the methods described by the IPCC itself. Our intention in publishing these graphs is to provide a visual illustration of the extent to which the methods relied upon by the IPCC itself in determining climate sensitivity are reliable.
Some have also criticized us for displaying temperature records for as short a period as a decade. However, every month we also display the full 30-year satellite record, so as to place the current millennium’s temperature record in its proper context. And our detractors were somehow strangely silent when, not long ago, a US agency issued a statement that the past 13 months had been the warmest in the instrumental record, and drew inappropriate conclusions from it about catastrophic “global warming”.
We have made one adjustment to please our critics: the IPCC projection zone in the SPPI temperature graphs now shows transient rather than equilibrium warming.
One should not ignore the elephant in the room. Our CO2 graph shows one elephant: the failure of CO2 concentration over the past decade to follow the high trajectory projected by the IPCC on the basis of global emissions similar to today’s. As far as we can discover, no one but SPPI has pointed out this phenomenon. Our temperature graph shows another elephant: the 30-year warming trend – long enough to matter – is again well below what the IPCC’s methods would project. If either situation changes, followers of our monthly graphs will be among the first to know. As they say at Fox News, “We report: you decide.”
>>Sexton
>>CO2 levels existed prior to 1960. I know, it’s strange, but true nonetheless.
>> http://www.anenglishmanscastle.com/180_years_accurate_Co2_Chemical_Methods.pdf
>> http://www.junkscience.com/images/paleocarbon.gif
I presume those high CO2 readings in the 1930s were due to outgassing from the oceans. The 1930s – 40s were a warm period, when the oceans could not hold as much dissolved CO2.
ie: Atmospheric CO2 concentrations follow temperature, and not vice verse.
.
In answer to R. Gates, I did not state in my posting that the CO2 concentration graph for the past ten years was “linear”: merely that it was “very close to linear”.
Summing the absolute differences between the monthly NOAA data and the corresponding points on the least-squares linear regression trend generates a very substantially lower value than similarly comparing the monthly NOAA data and the IPCC’s lower-bound exponential curve.
Furthermore, I did not confine the analysis to the linear regression trend. I also determined the exponential curve over the past decade that would give the closest fit to the NOAA data, and, as I explained in my posting, that curve would reach 614 ppmv by 2100 – not much above the 570 ppmv towards which the linear trend is heading.
My conclusion was, and is, that if the current decay of the NOAA data from true exponentiality – which has persisted now for a dozen years – were to continue, a substantial fraction of the anthropogenic warming that would otherwise have been expected to occur over the 21st century on the basis of the IPCC’s methods will not in fact occur. That is the central point demonstrated by our CO2 graph.
Vorlath says:
August 14, 2010 at 8:28 am
(…)
I think the alarmists are really using the recent and relatively smooth CO2 trends for all its worth. Great if you want to show exponential correlation, especially backward in time with ice core samples for example which would prove completely unreliable.
——-Reply:
Or more to the point, they like to EXTRAPOLATE current trends forward to support their inane hysteria regarding climate change. A serious look at the past 150 year’s worth of CO2 records obviously destroys any reason to extrapolate, rendering their hysteria as bunk.
john edmondson says:
August 14, 2010 at 4:43 am
Hard to argue with any of that.
As the Pacific cools over the next decade, there will be a repeat of the 1940-1970 dip in global temperatures.
======================================================
Which was preceeded by the dust bowl in the US.
Exactly like we are seeing in Russia this time.
@ur momisugly Duckster,
I checked out your NOAA link and it looks a LOT more linear that curvilinear to me.
Curious thing about atmospheric CO2 concentrations, from several decades of observation we can pretty accurately calculate what the concentration will be next year. But if we approach it from the other direction and calculate what it will be based on the estimated amount of CO2 mankind emits into the atmosphere we consistently overestimate.
Mankind has been generating commercial electricity and operating internal combustion engines for only a little over a hundred years. Think back to the year 1920 and consider all the technological advances mankind has made in 90 years. Now…how likely do you think it is that we will be producing and using energy the same way we do now 50 or 90 years in the future? Energy availability it tightly correlated with better standards of living, greater average life expectancy, technological innovation, reduction of famine and disease and cleaner environments. How many life changing technologies have come out of central Africa or the Amazon rain forest? We need energy now…right now. As energy becomes more abundant, mankind advances and new technologies are created.
In my mind, CO2 is all but irrelevant. Lord Monckton has demonstrated that even if we shut down ALL anthropogenic sources of CO2 for 30 years it would make no demonstrable difference in climate, however over half the human population would perish and we would be freezing in caves worrying more about how to feed ourselves than exploring the world around us.
AGW theory had more than a fair run. As it was “studied” it morphed into a political and financial fraud. They can’t prove squat and the time to leave it in the heap with phrenology is long past.
Also, many thanks to Lord Monckton and Robert Ferguson for SPPI.
GeoFlynx says:
“The contention and absolute burden of proof, that the continued artificial alteration of the Earth’s atmosphere is harmless, remains with those who would continue that alteration. Sadly, the changes wrought on this planet in the last half century have rendered that position untenable.”
A classic example of an argumentum ad ignorantium: because we can measure a change in a tiny trace gas, there must be a harmful alteration. Why? Because we can’t think of any other answer.
The answer so far is: there is no problem. If there is a problem, then where is your testable, replicable evidence?
Every scare blamed on CO2 has turned out to be baseless. Every one of them: droughts, Arctic ice, insect infestations, fast rising sea levels, toad extinctions, calving glaciers, Tuvalu sinking, killer hurricanes and tornadoes, floods, two-headed frogs, etc., etc.
Where is your evidence showing that CO2 has a measurable effect on these events?
I am not 100% against the precautionary principle [OK, maybe 99%]. But there is never any cost/benefit analysis, which would require some sort of quantification of an observed effect of the rise of this minor trace gas. Being scared of “what if” is the road to economic ruin.
Provide convincing, testable evidence that CO2 is causing problems. With a one-third increase in this minor trace gas, there certainly should be some real world evidence. Where is it?
@Julian in Wales
Not all gasses are “greenhouse gasses”. To be a greenhouse gas, a gas has to absorb infra-red energy at a wavelength somewhere around that which the Earth emits energy at (15 micrometers wavelength).
Think of the gas like a filter which absorbs a specific color – if the filter (gas) absorbs that radiation, the energy has to go somewhere, so it heats up the filter (gas).
The main gases which absorb around 15 micrometers are CO2 and H2O (vapor).
Water vapor is at much (MUCH!) higher concentrations and so absorbs much more. It is the principle greenhouse gas.
The AGW proponents realize that on its own, increasing CO2 concentrations are not going to make a huge difference, so they have to include other factors to multiply the effect a small temperature increase due to increasing CO2. Typically, they assume that increasing CO2/temperature will drastically increase the concentration of water vapor, and that will make the big change in temperature.
In terms of a systems analysis, they use water vapor as a positive feedback mechanism.
Feedback, in simplest terms can be describes thus:
Assume we have an amplifier (doesn’t matter what we are amplifying, but for the sake of simplicity, lets assume its sound). Now lets assume that the amplifier multiplies its input by 10x. So we put in a signal of 1 and we get out a signal of 10. Assume no feedback at this point (its an “open loop” system).
If we have negative feedback, we take some of the output, invert it (so that its exactly opposite to the input) and feed it back into the input. What this will do is to cancel out some of the input signal, so 1 in will no longer produce 10 out, but some smaller number.
Negative feedback has the effect of stabilizing systems. Its used in just about every engineering discipline you can think of to make systems controllable and stable.
Positive feedback on the other hand is not inverted. So it adds to the input signal.
So 1 in will produce more than 10 out. Systems can tolerate only a very (VERY!) small amount of positive feedback before they become completely unstable.
The most common manifestation is when someone holds a microphone in front of a public address speaker. A tiny noise is picked up by the mic. it is amplified and comes out of the speaker as a louder noise, which is picked up by the mic, and comes out of the speaker as a yet louder noise and the system goes into oscillation (the horrible squeal that we have all heard at some point).
Without this positive feedback, the AGW models are not at all frightening.
In truth, the Earth has seen temperature swings of much more than the AGW proponents are talking about, and if there really was positive feedback in the atmospheric temperature system, the Earth would long ago have “locked” into a frozen ball of ice, or a hot inferno, like Venus.
What happens in practice is that unlike CO2 concentrations, which are relatively steady over long periods, water vapor concentrations vary all over the place, in very short times, and the atmosphere has its own way of dumping excess concentrations (its called rain).
When H2O concentration gets high enough, water condenses out, forming clouds, which block/reflect sunlight (this is NEGATIVE feedback) reducing the temperature of the earth.
The fact that the climate on Earth has been stable enough to support life for millions of years strongly suggests strong negative feedback mechanisms.
So pumping H2O into the atmosphere (BTW, card dump MUCH more H2O than CO2 into the atmosphere) doesn’t have any real effect.
Don’t worry about your kettle!
The Mann hockey stick had not really been removed yet. They have found ways to “rehabilitate” it. See Andrew Monckford’s book (The Hocky Stick Illusion — a really good read!) for the full story.
>>Smokey:
>>Since the rate of increase in CO2 is not caused by the U.S.,
>>why are the eco-alarmists not organizing protests in front of
>>the Chinese embassy? Hm-m-m.
Ah, the primary conundrum of AGW, which (by your tone) I am sure you know the answer to.
Only Westerners can be evil bogey-men, in the eyes of AGW Greenies, while all other nations are as pure as the driven snow.
That is why you need to give all your wealth to the Third World, and become as poor and backward as they are. Technological progress is evil, while regression to poverty is pure rapture. All hail to the hair-shirt deity (made purely from natural fibres, of course.)
Oh, and can you can give up your property and land too, for you have no rights to this small locale. Property is theft, don’t you know. Squeeze up a bit there – room for another 7 billion……..
.
PS re CFCs: See this WUWT thread for a discussion of the paper I mentioned above:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/22/study-shows-cfcs-cosmic-rays-major-culprits-for-global-warming/
GeoFlynx says:
August 14, 2010 at 9:47 am
“The contention and absolute burden of proof, that the continued artificial alteration of the Earth’s atmosphere is harmless, remains with those who would continue that alteration.”
WRONG ANSWER!! The AGW theory holds that mankind’s emissions of CO2 are causing an increase in global temperature. Therefore the burden of proof lies with the proponents of the hypothesis. Ours is not to attempt to prove a negative.
Ralph says:
August 14, 2010 at 10:09 am
“I presume those high CO2 readings in the 1930s were due to outgassing from the oceans. The 1930s – 40s were a warm period, when the oceans could not hold as much dissolved CO2.
ie: Atmospheric CO2 concentrations follow temperature, and not vice verse.”
🙂 My thoughts also, but then the CAGW theory states we’re putting CO2 in the atmosphere causing the temps to rise. There seems to be a paradox in play here. Well, if we eliminate the possibility of the CAGW theory being incorrect, that is.
.
CO2 is increasing at a slightly exponential rate. It is growing at 1.97 ppm per year and that rate is accelerating at 0.0017 ppm per year. So, next year it should increase at 1.987 ppm per year.
These rates have been fairly consistent for the last 60 years but CO2 does increase slightly faster in warm (lets say El Nino) years (with a slight lag behind temperatures) and it increases less fast in cooler years. The last time CO2 actually fell was in WW II when it declined by about 2 ppm from 1940 to 1946.
So, the IPCC has two main forecasts (with lots of little versions within each main group) and the higher one, A2, has CO2 increasing to about 835 ppm by the year 2100.
The more realistic A1B scenario (which is the one more commonly cited when they say temperatures will be +3.25C in the Year 2100, they are using the A1B scenario) which has Co2 rising to 715 ppm by 2100.
If you take the current growth rate and the current acceleration rate, however, which has been fairly consistent throughout time – CO2 will only get to 652 ppm by the year 2100.
The other thing to keep in mind that oceans and plants are absorbing about 50% of our emissions each year and, as our emissions have increased over time, that 50% ratio seems to continue in place. The ability of oceans and plants to absorb CO2 seems to rise along with the concentration in the atmosphere. So, it is reasonble to assume that the current growth and acceleration rates of CO2 will continue (until we start running out of coal or new technology slows our emissions). If we do slow our emissions, it is reasonble to assume plants and oceans will then start to absorb more than 50% of our emissions each year because it is probably more the concentration of ppm in the atmosphere that determines their absorption rate rather than human’s year to year emission rate.
So, we are not going to get to the IPCC CO2 numbers (but it is going to go up until we cut our emissions by 50%), and then it will stabilize or possibly even decline slightly since the absorption rates by oceans and plants will likely be high enough to more than offset our emissions.
Very O/T. No need to post my heads-up but worthy of broad dissemination. Steve McIntyre received a heads up re a paper by McShane and Wyner, titled “A Statistical analysis of Multiple Temperature Proxies: Are Reconstructions of Surface Temperatures Over the Last 1000 Years Reliable?” Based on a quick scan, the conclusion is that they aren’t! After reviewing the authors’ CVs, their credentials as statisticians and modelers are first rate. Again, no need to post this but please check it out. Well worth the effort of one of WUWT’s or CA’s regulars to interpret for we non-statisticians!!! Off to read the paper in depth. Tks, RayG
climateaudit.org/2010/08/14/mcshane-and-wyner-2010/
Alexej Buergin says:
August 14, 2010 at 9:58 am
“If we look at liquid water that is boiled and escapes into the air, the answer is yes and yes. The water molecules replace others, mainly nitrogen (76%) and oxygen (23%), which makes moist air lighter than dry air; the replaced molecules have to go somewhere else (up).”
Hmm, Alexej, I’m not bashing or anything, just trying to understand the implications of your statement. Isn’t the total H2O in the earth’s atmosphere basically fixed? Are you stating this moves the O and N out into space? Doesn’t that imply we’re making matter and the earth is shedding other matter to make room for it? I’m either not understanding your assertion or more clarification is necessary for me to accept it.
Thanks.
If youre going to compare two satellite records. start at the same start point otherwise it looks like cherry picking
[SNIP. You know why.]
GeoFlynx:
At August 14, 2010 at 9:47 am you assert:
“The contention and absolute burden of proof, that the continued artificial alteration of the Earth’s atmosphere is harmless, remains with those who would continue that alteration. Sadly, the changes wrought on this planet in the last half century have rendered that position untenable. Margaret Thatcher herself would agree that we have a duty and obligation, for the benefit of future generations, to end this experiment as quickly and thoroughly as we can.”
This seems to be a new meme being promoted by AGW catastrophists. Perhaps you could tell us from whence it originates?
Anyway, I recently answered it in another thread (at http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/08/10/study-climate-460-mya-was-like-today-but-thought-to-have-co2-levels-20-times-as-high/)
where I posted the following at August 11, 2010 at 1:12 am:
“GM:
Your series of postings are inflammatory, insulting and juvenile. Importantly, they are completely mistaken.
At August 10, 2010 at 9.29 pm, you say:
“Why is that I am the only one realizing the deep irony of a bunch of anti-science lunatic wackos criticizing me for not providing references for well known facts”.
OK. If that is your view then – in hope that you will start to discover the magnitude of your misunderstanding – I will present a series of “well known facts” and leave you to find the pertinent references (but I can provide them to you if finding them proves too difficult for you).
In science the null hypothesis is that nothing has changed unless a change is observed to have occurred.
The null hypothesis is the governing assumption unless and until empirical evidence of a change is obtained. Adoption of any other assumption is not science.
(In fact, adopting an assumption other than the null hypothesis in the absence of empirical evidence of a change is a denial of the scientific method).
So, what do we observe concerning climate change?
The global temperature seems to vary in cycles that are overlaid on each other. The cause(s) of these cycles is not known but some are associated with known phenomena (e.g. ENSO, NAO and PDO) although the causes of these phenomena are not known.
There is an apparent ~900 year oscillation that provided
the Roman Warm Period (RWP),
then the Dark Age Cool Period (DACP),
then the Medieval Warm Period (MWP),
then the Little Ice Age (LIA), and
the present warm period (PWP).
And there is an apparent ~60 year oscillation that provided
cooling from ~1880 to ~1910,
then warming from ~1910 to ~1940,
then cooling from ~1940 to ~1970,
then warming from about ~1970 to ~2000,
then cooling since.
These oscillations form a pattern of climate change over time.
And if this pattern continues then either
(a) cooling will continue until ~2020 when the ~60 year oscillation will change phase and warming will resume until global temperature reaches the levels it had in the RWP and the MWP
or
(b) the ~900 year oscillation will change phase and the globe will start to cool to the temperatures it had in the DACP and LIA.
There is no observation that indicates there has been any change to this pattern.
And, therefore, the only scientific conclusion is that the null hypothesis applies:
i.e. nothing has changed global climate behaviour in recent decades or centuries.
Only “anti-science lunatic wackos” and the mentally deranged would dispute this conclusion.
Richard”
Richard
“They see “everything” as absolutes; black/white, on/off, one/zero, right/wrong and believe there is nothing that can not be “digitized” and computer analyzed. And whatever comes out of the computer is sacrosanct!” – Milwaukee Bob
How right you are, and this extends well beyond Climate Science.
As it turns out, a large part of the problem at AIG can be traced to computer models.
Based on a three part series in the Washington Post, the site TPM writes:
“According to computer models devised by Gary Gorton, a Yale Business Professor and consultant to the unit, there was a 99.85 percent chance that AIGFP would never have to pay out on these deals. Essentially, this would happen only if the economy went into a full-blown depression, in which case, the AIGers believed, the counter-parties would be wiped out, and therefore would hardly be in a position to demand payment anyway. With the backing of Cassano, then the COO, Savage greenlighted the deals. Credit default swaps were born.”
AIGFP is AIG Financial Products, the group that wrote all those derivatives contracts. Cassano, who became head of the unit, had neither the training nor experience to verify this risk assessment of near zero, nor did he commission a second opinion. It was apparently too good to check.
Armed with his Yale calculation of near-zero risk, Cassano then cut loose his band of young, eager, Ivy League traders to wreak contracts of at least 60 trillion, including billions in profits and tens of millions in bonuses. Since there was “no risk”, at no time was a reserve established or rights to collateral sought.
In the annals of destruction caused by computer models, this one surely ranks above even those that informed Al Gore’s predictions of 20-foot sea level rises and iceless polar caps. The IPCC has only cost us several billion so far and we have got 160 billion into AIG, not including a few related matters. The 160 billion actually went through AIG and onward to Goldman, Deutsche bank and several dozen others to pay off CDS contracts, the failure of which would have been otherwise assured, Yale risk assessment notwithstanding.
In the old Soviet Mayday parade, the joke goes; one man marched alone after the battalions of soldiers and the ranks of tanks and artillery. When asked about it, an old hand remarked: “That is the economist; he has more destructive power than anything you have seen so far.”
Perhaps we should now update this old joke and include computer models.
When you compare the NOAA deseasonalized CO2 concentration to the UAH satellite global temps, how does that relate to the surface temperatures?
In other words, what should we be seeing on the ground as the sucessive progression of C02 increase keeps going down?
Ralph says:
August 14, 2010 at 10:26 am
Only Westerners can be evil bogey-men, in the eyes of AGW Greenies, while all other nations are as pure as the driven snow.
That is why you need to give all your wealth to the Third World, and become as poor and backward as they are.
====================================================
You have to laugh at the way the UN and IPCC stacked the deck, and then called a vote.
250 countries, all you guys have to say is that you believe in global warming, and that you need to be paid for damages.
OK, let’s vote. LOL
results: 250 to 15 in favor
Ralph says:
August 14, 2010 at 10:26 am
“Property is theft..”
Yes, that sounds familiar. Now where have I read that before…..hmm….well the name escapes me but I recall it was in really old German and rather lengthy.(A total of 4 volumes!) But the point is, the book said that “rent” was bad and didn’t add value to anything.
So, to alleviate your temptation to charge rent for the property you own, obviously the answer is to alleviate you of your property. You should thank them fellows for trying to help you!
have declared him Public Enemy No. 1 and have made him the target of some of the most vulgar personal abuse I have ever read, including the person who declared they would like to feed him a teaspoonful of DDT to punish him for his views on how to combat malaria.
That’s funny. When we were cleaning out my aunt’s house in preparation for sale, we came across a bag of DDT.
So, believing that I had an obligation to put my mouth where my money was, of course I had to sample a teaspoonful . . .
I was expecting it to have a salty taste, but, to my mild disappointment, it was rather bland.
In the two graphs comparing IPCC scenario A2 to NOAA data the IPCC data as presented by Lord Monckton are way above the NOAA data. If on simply overlays the NOAA data on the actual IPCC plot
, as done in this plot, one gets excellent agreement between the scenario and the NOAA data. The data sources a given in the image.
I would appreciate a comment by Lord Monckton on this.
Could someone on either side of the debate give me what weather conditions over an agreed period of time, that would then turn the observations so that they could be called climate, which would then either confirm catastrophic warming or confirm natural cause and variation. Until then I realise its just political wrangling for the money and control and will live my life as I chose taking the changing weather as the natural variation it has been since the beginning of the Earth’s weather up until Mr Mann gave us a dubious hockey stick.
Believe it or not, CO2 levels existed prior to 1960.
You are actually willing to accept Beck and Frieburg uncritically? Have you looked at their graphs? What would be the mechanisms for such a massive release of CO2, and then its reabsorption into environmental sinks – and in such a tiny period of time? Almost none of the other proxies even remotely reflect this massive amount of CO2. You’d need to do a lot of accounting for all this to show how it would work.