Ludwig-
Yes, that's me of Economia. See more stuff at http://betternature.wordpress.com/ .

bonmot -
Yes, thanks for the link to the summary of 'climategate', which has further links. I think this deserves to be known as the greatest beat-up of modern times, the Big Lie of the 21st century, the greatest and most consequential fuss over the least significant words.

Tom Tiddler -
Yes, do you think you're the only one to think of that question? Most of the modern tree-ring data do correlate with instrumental records. One small group did not, so the scientists set about figuring out why.

Geoff, don't be so coy. Please name the tree rings (with their locations)that correlate with instrumental temperatures at those locations since 1960. If there were any I am sure we would have heard about them. As there were and are none, end of story.

There seems to be some well informed folk here maybe someone can answer a question for me?

Something that puzzles me and I have not been able to find anyone who seems able/willing to answer is;

For many millions (maybe billions?) of years plants have been dying and laying down deposits of coal, oil, peat etc.
Humans come along and dig all this stored energy up and “use” it in various forms.
Much of this produces “waste” heat (ie IR radiation) that is released close to the surface of the earth.

If the warming that has occurred in the last 100 years is about 0.7 degrees C per century (I seem to recall this is the current estimate) – how much of that can be attributed to the energy that has been stored for a long time in the earth and released in the last 100 years or so?

Is anyone aware of how (if at all) the climate science orthodoxy take this into account in their theory/models?

I can see implications for both sides of the debate - I look forward to informed explanation.

James

I'm afraid that my day job is interfering with my online pontificating.

Ludwig,

Thank you for your kind words.

I'll respond to the rest as soon as possible

JacobusZeno, interesting point about the constant production of heat due to the burning of fossil fuels.

I don't think I've ever seen this mentioned before. The whole kaboodle has been about the greenhouse radiation-trapping effect of CO2, and CH4, H2O, etc.

I've got no idea of whether the direct release of heat energy could be significant. But I can't imagine how the release of all this stored up carbon, over such a tiny timeframe geological speaking could possibly not be having a very significant greenhouse effect on temperature and climate.

I'd be interested to hear more about 'waste' heat. But not overly so. Even if some expert asserts that it is or isn't significant, we can't be sure, and someone else will probably produce a conflicting opinion and data set.

As I've said, we should just be well and truly erring on the side of caution regardless, unless we absolutely know that AGW is not significant, which of course we don't and won't be able to.

This is a toned down alarmist support article, and pretends to be even handed.

Let us look for the weasel words which are inevitable in this type of article.

Here we are; “The case for anthropogenic global warming (AGW) has not been made beyond all reasonable doubt; but the preponderance of evidence points in the direction of human induced global warming”

What is wrong with this statement?

We are talking about science, here, not evidence in a court case. No one asks for proof beyond a reasonable doubt, and these words infer that it has been so asked.

Science works by putting forward a proposition, in this case AGW is the proposition, then looking for ways to prove, or disprove it. There is no “preponderance of evidence”. There is either evidence for the proposition or there is not.

While our hero implies from his words that there is such evidence, there is in fact no such evidence.

When the IPCC put forward its guess (not science) that AGW was “very likely”, it announced that the data from the satellite instruments would enable proof. The data would show a “hotspot” in the troposphere, which would be the “signature” for AGW.

Their estimates, upon which they based their guess assumed that there was a measurable effect from human emissions. They were wrong, so there is no hotspot, no signature, and not a skerrick of proof for AGW.

He is reminiscent of the opponents of Gallileo who thought that a heavier weight had to fall faster than a lighter weight. All that CO2 from human emissions, they thought, must have an effect.

Well, no, not according to actual measurements. All the smooth flowing “explanation” Steven gives, does not make any difference to reality. There is no evidence, preponderant or otherwise, for AGW.

The IPCC said, in effect,that, if AGW existed, it would be proved by the satellite data. Why does the reverse not apply, so that the instruments are proving that there is no AGW? The IPCC, when asked, thought there might be some problem with the instruments.