Martin Brown wrote:
On 25/11/2011 11:38, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Martin Brown wrote:
On 25/11/2011 10:42, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

But then I realised all the AGW tools would simply add 5 degrees and
troll..

Careful. AGW is real enough even if the enviros and greens overplay
it. The really bad guys are the deniers for hire that work for various
US ultra-right wing "think tanks" and have previous for doing big
tobaccos dirty work by convincing people to keep smoking. They use the
same disinformation and smear tactics against AGW and climate
researchers.

Its not a question of denying it, its a question of denying the
magnitude.

There are far too many deniers for hire paid to mislead the public.
Exxon has been sponsoring a fair number of players to spread massive
amounts of disinformation to the public. Bad enough that the Royal
Society got annoyed enough to write them an open letter to cease and
desist funding deliberate misrepresentation of the science.


Obviously CO2 does something: the question is what?, and how much?

Agreed. On this I prefer looking at model fits on the available data and
it looks pretty much like the recent GHG forcings have been of the order
of 1K/century (but with most of it in the last fifty years) with various
periodic terms and annual noise thrown in to make spotting the trends
harder. Atmospheric CO2 continues to rise at an ever increasing rate
from fossil fuels - sooner or later it will get to the point where
permafrost melting will cause a sudden positive feedback.

No it wont. Thats an assumption.


Since you are clearly good at data mining try passing HADCRUT or the new
longer global temperature time series though a low pass filter with a
sharp 11 year high frequency cutoff (11 year boxcar will do). This zaps
any solar sunspot cycle contributions and most of the inter annual
noise. I think you will be surprised with what is left. I was.

If you take out the fudge factors that are built in to make it fit the
curves (that are increasingly being challenged in their validity) the
answer would seem to be:

'it warms things up, but not by a noticeable amount: Other things, some
of which we don't really understand, make a far larger impact'

If you take out the fudge factor its about 0.25 C over the next century.

It is more likely to be around 2K but could be higher.


No. I said IF YOU TAKE OUT THE FUDGE FACTOR.

The WHOLE IPCC positions relies on the ASSUMPTION that any temperature
rise we cant account for MUST be accounted for by CO2 AND by 'positive
feedback factors' .

No one knows what these are, what value to place on them or wherther
they even exist.

The more the studies come out, the more they seem to NOT exist.

Vis the latest offering in 'Ccience' (Climate Sensitivity Estimated from
Temperature Reconstructions of the Last Glacial Maximum)


where they estimate that IF the sensitivity to CO2 was what the IPCC
says it is, the whole world would have frozen solid in the last ice age.
Oddly, it did not.

They are coming out with far lower temperature rises due to AGW. There
main conclusion is that its 'unlikely to be serious'



Hardly worth wrecking the world's economy for.

No. We have merchant bankers to do that for us by trading worthless
pieces of digital paper and then demanding massive taxpayer bailouts. So
long as they get their *BIG* bonuses they do not care.

At least AGW mitigation would produce real engineering infrastructure
jobs if managed correctly.

But it won't be, because its being managed by governments and lobby groups

I don't favour anything beyond no regrets
energy saving measures at present of the sort that were last seen in the
OPEC induced oil crisis of the 1970's "Save It" campaign.

http://www.clarewind.org.uk/events-1.php?event=32

is worth a glance to summarise some of the other possibilities.

I am a physicist by training I have a pretty good idea how to sort the
wheat from the chaff. My position on this is roughly in line with BP.

BP?