Better Modeling Leads to Less Global Warming
“A newer, more sophisticated climate model has lost more than 25 percent of its predicted warming.

The change resulted from a more realistic simulation of the way clouds work, resulting in a major reduction in the model’s “climate sensitivity,”

which is the amount of warming predicted for a doubling of the concentration of atmospheric carbon dioxide over what it was prior to the industrial revolution,

says Patrick J. Michaels,
a senior fellow with the Cato Institute.
http://reason.org/blog/show/better-modeling-leads-to-less-globa

each individual item
is not particularly remarkable per-se,

and even a selected bunch of them taken together could be explained one way or another, and ultimately, considered as some kind of “lucky chance”.

After all, one could argue that Einstein’s relativity is a by-product of Ricci-Curbastro’s tensor calculus, or that tensor calculus appeared just-in-time as it was needed for relativity to be developed.

History of science is full of examples like that.

It is however of a much taller order to apply that line of reasoning to 30+ separate items.

Furthermore, there are items
here..[at link]..that defy all possible explanation.

http://omniclimate.wordpress.com/why-agw-is-logically-impossible/

http://omniclimate.wordpress.com/2011/01/25/climategate-or-the-self-destruction-of-climate-science-from-the-italian-translation-of-the-gwpf-report/

http://omniclimate.wordpress.com/2011/02/14/heres-what-gives-science-a-bad-name/

http://omniclimate.wordpress.com/2011/03/01/so-you-believe-in-computer-models/

http://omniclimate.wordpress.com/2011/01/28/the-scientific-consensus-on-the-mistreatment-of-climate-uncertainties/

One under god - while I admire your efforts to drag tensor calculus into the debate, a few reality checks. The only two greenhouse gases of any importance are methane and CO2 and methane is only important, despite its extremely low concentrations (parts per billion) because it is so effective. Methane concentrations in the atmosphere are far below even the lowest projections made by the IPCC in 2000. Although CO2 concentrations are at least increasing, on present trends they will not double by the turn of the century - look up the Mauna Lau observations for yourself and do a little arithmetic, if you don't believe me. Perhaps they will increase by 50 pc -if present trends hold.

So the radiative forcing is already well short of what is required for even mid-range forecasts. Then you have the problem that the radiative forcing by itself won't cause any of the big temp increases forecast. Those rely on a feedback mechanisms in the climate model and those feedback mechanisms depend on water vapour in the atmosphere.

Drop the references to tensor calculus and work out what's happening with water vapour.

Government has yet to announce anything other than its intention of introducing a Carbon Tax from 1 July 2012 which, over a 5-7 year period would be fixed and transit to an ETS. There are two fundamental reasons why the public should reject the conclusions reached by Geoff Carmody.

Firstly, in the absence of any other information from government, Mr Carmody can only have reached his conclusion by making a number of assumptions. What assumptions? What justification for making them? What arguments to sustain them? On all of these points Mr Carmody remains silent.

Very smart if he wishes to avoid criticism of his backflip on a Carbon Tax which he has previously supported, his arguments such as they are and the irresponsible conclusion reached. What is striking is how close his conclusion is to the position adopted by Opposition Leader Abbott – so close that one is obliged to ask if Mr Carmody has advised the Liberal Party or its members?

Secondly, Mr Carmody is not informed on the primary purpose of pricing carbon, the need to reduce carbon emissions (CO2, CH4) or the reasons for doing so. For this reason he ignores this all important aspect. He ignores the effects of doing nothing or pursuing business as usual. Those effects are well known, they are very damaging to our economy and so threatening that they make do nothing or BAU unacceptable options.

There are economists who are far better informed than Mr Carmody, who do know the very real dangers posed by global warming and ocean acidification, both primarily caused by human emissions of greenhouse gases. Professor Garnaut is only one of many economists aware of the growing urgency to curb our emissions and for other countries to also do so. His advice is clear and consistent. Price carbon, reduce emissions and do it now. He is informed and he is right.

Australia is a small greenhouse gas emitter, though per capita it is the largest in the world and its export of polluting coal is a world leader. If we do nothing, we can expect other emitters to do likewise and we are certainly in no position to demand they act before we do. We all hang together on climate change or we all hang the environment. Our children and grandchildren will pay a much heavier price than we will by taking preemptive action now.

im not about to go back to your previous link...BUT
i have its image in my mind

it showed a multicolour graph
just over half of it was co2
just under half was all the other gasses

now take just one of the gasses
methane...you seem to be fixated on rebuting
and lets call it 1/20 th the ammount of co2
[per bloody million/whatever]

so for every part per million parts
there are say 20 of methane..or 40 or whatever

here is my point
each opart per million
has its affect...

lets say carbon has a one to one affect
but know methane has a 100[plus] to one affect
that is it takes over 100 parts of carbon..
TO EQUATE THE AFFECT OF JUST ONE METHANE

al those other formentioned 'lesser grenhouse gasses'
might have lower numbers[lower parts per million]
BUT VASTLY BIGGER AFFECTS

each part [of the other greenhouse gasses]
equals over 100 carbon affects

im of the opinion the whole thing is a scam
from the science to the carbon tax cheaters
its all a scam

im just saying taxing carbon
is not even taxing the really bad gasses
thus isnt even trying to be a cure..in fact is a great danger
if we really have problems with ...''GREEN-HOUSE GAS's]""

it angers me how the specialists
generalise with the buzzords greenhouse gases
then FOCUS IN ON ONE..[carbon]
and taxing just one

when if we REALLY GOT A PROBLEM
[and im not convinced even of that]

but it it IS..
we SHOULD be taxing the f/ing lot

as we arnt
its clear its a scam

their mates dont pay tax
may keep their govt subsidies
[in excess of 12 billion ..RIGHT NOW]

but we mugs conned with numbers and spin

we do..
we MUST pay now
...same as usual

get all gasses
to pay

or none

or its a trick
spin

to get a big new tax
on us..and not 'them'

Dear Mr. Carmody,

It has already been noted on OLO that there appears to be a “softening” in your position on this topic and you would appear to be in good company.

The whole basis for AGW is yet to be tested but this is unlikely to be allowed by those in the advocacy block who have vested interests. Instead we must look for more nuanced changes.

It has been suggested on OLO that skepticism has it’s foundations in the fact that there is only one recognized global body with governance and policy advice for politicians, the UN IPCC. That this body has a single orthodoxy, AGW and the exclusive streaming of only that science which supports this single orthodoxy. To my knowledge, none of the IPCC reports has ever included contrary scientific papers.

So we have a single governance body with a single orthodoxy and single stream science.

This was challenged by Climategate, which came and went, all players were exonerated, nothing to see here folks, just move right along, perhaps not?

If, as we also speculated, it is political sponsorship that is holding together the AGW phenomena, this could be because of residual public sentiment lagging political pragmatism. The advocacy block well knows this and continues to boost this public sentiment, getting more vocal in direct proportion to the decline in support. As a result, politicians will continue to promote populist stances on AGW until and unless such values no longer risk votes.

If this is so, we should be able to see evidence of the political position changing whilst keeping the populist dream alive. Running with the Hare and hunting with the Hounds as it were.

Since Climategate the US has withdrawn funding from the East Anglia University and the UN IPCC, it has blocked the US EPA from legislating carbon dioxide emissions. The EPA seems to be the only body that has formally declared carbon dioxide a “pollutant”. The EPA also has sixteen “Litigation Hold Notices” issued against it in the US and cannot regulate CO2 without a visit to the Supreme Court anyway.

Continued: