On 28/11/2011 15:57, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Martin Brown wrote:
On 25/11/2011 16:17, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Martin Brown wrote:


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


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

But if you look at the data it is pretty clear that the net effect
observed so far due to GHG predicts something around 2K/century going
forward. It is splitting hairs to haggle over how much of that change
is driven by exactly which greenhouse gas.

No it really is NOT clear. It depends utterly which data you cherry pick.

You seem inclined to believe the anti-science disinformation campaign.

If you actually look at the palaeontological record, its less than maybe
1C for all the CO2 we are ever likely to produce. Says a latish study..

Or if you look back to the last time CO2 was this high ~400ppm about
15My ago the seas could be headed for an equilibrium height of 5-8m
higher and temperatures 3-6K higher than they are now. See for example:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...1008152242.htm

I don't think it will be that extreme, but we have already set in train
considerable future warming even if we stopped all emissions tomorrow (a
completely impossible scenario anyway).

And that is consistent with NO multiplier effect being added.

Which then leads to the question the IPCC never asked 'if its not CO2
that drove 1950-200 temperature rises, what did?'

Some of it is almost certainly related to oceanic currents. There are
some cyclic components that are not adequately understood at present. I
think they are related to tidal forcing as did Keeling & Whorf.

The influence of low level clouds is MASSIVELY more significant than any
amount of CO2. We really dont know what drives clouds in any but the
broadest detail.

Low level clouds cut both ways. Daytime they relfect sunlight back into
space with a cooling effect but at night they severely limit the escape
of heat by radiation from the ground so that the net effect is much
smaller and finely balanced than you might suppose. High level thin
clouds can give powerful warming effects because they don't stop much
light inbound but they do stop radiative losses at night.

We haven't had the kit in orbit to monitor cloud and albedo very long
either.


I mean there was a hugely detectable drop in night time temperatures
post 911 when all nearly US aircraft activity ceased. High level cloud
including contrails acts more as a night time greenhouse layer than low
cloud, which tends to act as a daytime sunshield.. and if temperatures
tart to rise its not very far fetched to assume that low level cloud
will increase as mire water vapour hits the atmosphere. Acting as
NEGATIVE feedback.

That was Lindzen's iris hypothesis but it has been found wanting in
experimental tests based on all the observations to date.

Clouds are very complex beasts, in formation, and in effect. Really the
IPCC mdoel is nowhere near as sophisticated as it really should be, if
we are going to decide the fate of nations on it. That's always been
known, but the POLITICAL requirement to present a clear strong unified
message has totally ridden rough shod over ALL the caveats the real
scientists wanted in it.

That cloud modelling is inadequate is a fair criticism, but just because
the models are imperfect does not mean that you can ignore them
completely just because you don't like the answers.

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' .

Of which the most obvious is that we are sat on a planet covered with
70% oceans. Make the air warmer and it holds more water vapour which
is itself a potent greenhouse gas. And although Lindzens iris theory
which claims more water gives more clouds and counteracts AGW sounds
plausible it has so far been refuted by observations.

Well no it hasn't. All that we can say is that over the past 50 years
there is good - but actually not VERY good, correlation between
increased CO2 and increased temperature. Go back further in time and the
the lambda factors that worked for the last 50 years (or the last 500 if
you utterly ignore the mediaeval warming period and the little ice age)
are being shown to be utterly WRONG.

There is strong paleological and ice core evidence that historically CO2
in the atmosphere has acted to amplify the tiny variations of the
Earth's orbital elements that give rise to the Milankovitch cycles. We
are now in a position to generate sufficient man made CO2 to invoke the
same mechanisms as have happened naturally in the past.

Now if it wasn't so politically sensitive, this is the point where
scientists would keep open minds, and do more and better research. But
any research that comes up with any disagreement with the current
received wisdom gets shunned. And doesn't get funding. Its terribly
dangerous.

Not true. Any credible research that demonstrated that the prevailing
theories were significantly defective and had demonstrably better
predictive power would be accepted. What is not acceptable is to have
various fossil fuel sponsored conmen going round the world telling
people not to worry it is all the big bad scientists on a gravy train. I
can't think of anyone in academic research for the money.

The tricky bit is guessing the mix of clouds - aircraft contrail
released cirrus are a rather potent net warming force. The grounding
over the USA post 9/11 allowed that signal to be detected.

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.

Not true. The "deniers for hire" would certainly like you to believe
that and have executed a very effective public disinformation campaign.

That charge can equally be applied to the warmists, frankly. Warmistw
are for hire and have been hired by very powerful commercial and
political lobbies.

Who are in it for purely selfish motives.

They don't come any more selfish and greedy than oilmen and politicians.

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'

My reading was that if they are right we probably have a bit longer
before things will turn really nasty. There are a lot of very
important global population centres that are only a modest height
above sea level and will become very vulnerable to flooding as sea
levels rise.

But sea levels are NOT rising.

Yes they are. Slowly at the moment. One thing you have to bear in mind
is by adding CO2 to the atmosphere we are decreasing the rate of heat
loss from the planet long term. It will take many decades before the
system comes to equilibrium for the CO2 that we have already emitted and
we are still emitting it at an ever increasing rate.

Or not by anything like what the model says they should be.

Actually it isn't far off and permanent sea ice is vanishing at a fairly
alarming rate. And losing white ice fields makes a very serious change
to net albedo in the summer time polar regions.

http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/

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

That is certainly a risk. Governments these days don't seem to be able
to get anything right. Look at the useless lot we are lumbered with.

Precisely. Why should we trust ANY powerful lobby group on whose a
opinions huge sums of profitable money are being made, or lost?

We are stuck with the bankers

There is SO MUCH evidence that the renewables lobby is essentially
perpetrating a fraud, irrespective of AGW or not. They NEED AGW to

Wind turbines can pay their way if installed in the right places, solar
is pretty much a lost cause at our latitude but would work OK nearer the
equator. We should be having a "Save It" campaign on at least the same
level as that of the OPEC induced oil crisis of the 70's.

British Petroleum.


And what IS their line? they seem to have spun all their solar power
into an easily diversifiable company they can ditch when it is worth
something and before it becomes worthless.

BP isn't following climate change, its following MONEY and as long as
governments throw stupid sums at renewables they will be in that
business if its profitable.

That is not unexpected, but they are saints compared to Exxon.

Although I don't support any form of CO2 cap & trade policy - that
will just become yet another chip for the casino bankers to gamble with.

The correct way to reduce CO2 is to tax carbon fuels. End of story. Then
whatever becomes the cheaper way to not use them, is what gets built.

I agree. But not with trading in worthless bits of derivative paper on
the back of it. Such a tax would not be popular with petrolheads for
instance and other taxes would have to be reduced. The fuel escalator
didn't last long against concerted popular opposition.

Of course everybody knows what that is is nuclear power.

Local combined heat and power would make sense in some places too.

Which would leave the renewables industry dead in the water. Which is
why they are all united against it.

We have to build new nuclear *now* it is the only carbon neutral way
forward and the UK government has probably prevaricated on this for far
too long already. The old reactors are on their last legs and cannot be
run for much longer without risks of unexpected failures (and that would
do the global nuclear industry's somewhat tarnished reputation no good
at all). The triple reactor MFU in Japan after the earthquake has made
politicians rather nervous about nuclear power again.

Don't hold your breath while they make the decision(s). And expect the
new plants to be built only on existing nuclear sites and very probably
supplied by foreign manufacturers as turnkey systems.

Regards,
Martin Brown