According to Treasury figures the ETS would cost $12 for every $1 of projected benefit. But the ETS would not change the climate so there would be no benefit http://jennifermarohasy.com/2013/08/why-the-ets-will-not-succeed-peter-lang/

Treasury estimates the cumulative net cost of the ETS to 2050 at $1,345 billion. It would almost certainly be much higher.

$1,345 billion amounts to over $100,000 per working person and about $200,000 per family of four.

Once we accept these figures, can we, with integrity, advocate to put such a huge cost and debt on future generations - all for no benefit?

>>In the speech itself he referred to many people who think climate change is potentially disastrous as having a "sanctimonious tone">>

I think that is a very big problem.

The climate change issue has been hijacked by a pretty nasty bunch of actual Stalinists, like Lee Rhiannon, and her acolytes.

The Green supporters are a motley crew of self-righteous, sanctimonious narcissists who's understanding of science is minimal.

None of this negates the facts. When we adjust temperatures to account for such factors as El Nino / La Nina cycles and the amount of heat buried in the deep ocean we see that the planet is heating up. The oceans are acidifying and the consequences are unknown.

We need to take the ideology, especially the Greens ideology, out of this and regard climate policy as an exercise global risk management

If Howard didn't really think climate change was important, could his willingness to jump on board the bandwagon in '07 indicate that he had lost his command of the narrative, and his replacement as PM was entirely justified?
Over the long haul, I question if there will be a triumph of hope over sense. But I also question if throwing money at the emerging climate changes will help. If the global climate is changing, the effects will be too big to deny forever, and we won't be buying our way out of the situation either.
Mines are being planned for Greenland. Oil wells for the Arctic. Seat belts, anyone

stevenlmeyer
"We need to take the ideology, especially the Greens ideology, out of this and regard climate policy as an exercise global risk management"

Bravo. Then in that case, we also need to take out the ideology that the government automatically and intrinsically knows best, and in assessing the risk, we have to assess the downside as well, which no green or warmist ever does.

This means we have to assess the risk that governmental action will make the situation worse, in its own terms. This effectively disposes of the entire argument.

Furthermore, that assessment must not be done by any government or government-funded body, nor must any of the data used be gathered by anyone with a vested interest in the operation, as this will create a conflict of interest in assessing the risk.

That effectively disposes of the entire argument twice over.

Let those who are worried about increasing temperatures buy themselves a hat - with their own money.

People fretting that adverse weather events are caused by man's sin need to take a good look at themselves in the mirror.

just waiting for the alarmist to cash in on the Philippines.

If there were not very significant economic advantages to be gained by decarbing the economy, one might be able to actually understand some of the opposition to the science.
The worst storm in living memory has just ripped through the Philippines! How any more of these events, and just how much worse do they have to become, before some people will finally listen to the consensus of most climate scientists, who say that man made climate change is real and we need to do something about it.
When it is far too late?
Use less energy?
Well no, that's not required!
Use more expensive energy?
No, that's not required either!
You see we have choices like cheaper than coal thorium, and the use of bio-digesters, that can turn our own waste into 24/7 on demand, and very local, much more reliable, vastly less costly energy.
We have the option of converting all our traffic into gas powered electric vehicles, through the medium of inboard ceramic fuel cells, which by the way, do not produce very much carbon as the exhaust product, just mostly water vapor.
Moreover, the energy coefficient of 72%, of the gas fired ceramic fuel cell, should make it the very cheapest source of electrical energy ever!
And we have around 700 years worth of gas, if only we don't sell all of it to an energy hungry world; that in turn, also drives up the local price!
But instead, use it to give our own local manufacturing a healthy edge against all international competition!
And think, this easily refueled in just minutes, gas/ceramic fuel cell combination, could be used in trams, trolley buses and trains, instead of inordinately expensive overhead wires!
Rhrosty.

Fuel cells using hydrocarbons (methane) produce the same amount of CO2 as combustion.

Thorium, yes, and the sooner the better we get onboard the better.

The very worst thing we could do, would be to establish an ETS!
This has proven elsewhere, to be totally non effective; and, just churns money, all while making the cost of doing business, far more expensive.
Haven't enough or our corporations already gone to offshore destinations, where the energy choices may be cheaper, along with the labour, but vastly more polluting as well.
This is a Clayton's lose/lose solution, and one we should never ever adopt, unless we want to shut down manufacturing in this country altogether.
Oh sure, tourists can come and replace all those lost jobs.
Sure all our boiler makers, welders, metal stampers etc, would just love to have their current take home pay packages reduced to just one third of what they earned previously and additional hours that rob them of their weekends and social events!
If only we could have the same financial paradigm applied unavoidably, to accountants, lawyers, college professors and other professionals, maybe some of the more moronic obtuse demands would cease.
We could actually put a price on carbon by placing a tax on it. Not all of it, just that above a sensible cap.
That cap could be what we produce now!
The tax could then be used to fund tax credits for all those who had reduced their carbon footprint?
And to claim those credits; claimants, would also have to provide credible evidence!
It's just too easy!
Or, should we all just learn to sing, hey Mr tally man tally me banana, daylight come, anyone go home? etc/etc.
Rhrosty.

There is a wonderfully elegant disproof of AGW here:

http://www.theminorityreportblog.com/2013/10/18/canadian-geophysicist-calculates-the-greenhouse-effect-for-the-first-time-exposing-climate-change-as-a-trillion-dollar-fraud/

Kalmanovitch simply uses Hansen's famous definition of the Greenhouse effect from his 1981 paper expressed thus Te = [So(1-A)/4σ]1/4 where So is TSI and A albedo and σ the SB constant with Te is the Greenhouse effect..

Since TSI and A are known and σ is a constant Kalmanovitch simply used the values for So and A between 1980 and 2010 and shows the Greenhouse effect, Te, has reduced over that period despite increases in CO2:

1980 Ts = 288.2 K Te = 252.64 K greenhouse effect = 288.2-252.64=35.56°C

2010 Ts = 288.6 K Te = 253.18 K greenhouse effect = 288.6-253.18=35.42°C

So there you are; using Hansen's definition of the GHE, and the known values of the formula the Greenhouse effect is conclusively shown to have declined.

"So far, the link has not been made from the bush fire record in Australia. But these are early days, and it is entirely possible that in future the links between climate change and bush fire characteristics will become clearer."

And it is entirely possible that the absence of any link will become clearer. So until we know one way or the other we should act in the same way as responsible scientists and consider the null hypothesis -- that there is no link -- to be confirmed. Lobbying to base government policy on what some scientists may or may not confirm at some unspecified time in the future is mere lunacy.

Let's not get too excited about the "super" Typhoon. Andrew Bolt has some interesting intelligence. It appears it was only a category 4, and weaker than Cyclone Yasi that hit Queensland two years ago. It appears that someone saw wind speeds in kilometres per hour but rendered them as miles per hour, making them about a two-thirds faster than they really were.

It says something profound about the confirmation bias in meteorology that no-one queried the high reported wind speed at the time.

Now we will be over-run with carpet baggers and rent seekers quoting the wrong figures.

Simple logic tells us that you could prevent many bushfires and subsequent damage if you could
1. Stop firebugs 2. Clear trees around power lines and 3. Allow people to clear larger distances around their houses. Climate change of 3/4 pf a degree is an insignificant contributor.

Natural disasters affect more people now because there are simply more people especially in areas which were formerly barely inhabited such as near national parks etc.

.75 of a degree increase since 1850 could NOT cause a massive increase in bushfires.

'The worst storm in living memory has just ripped through the Philippines! '

so predictable. Pity their forecasts aren't nearly as accurate. So blinded by their articles of faith.

Peter
The Libs introduced the GST basically a tax on everything except food and real estate which raises some 250 Billion a year. So at a rough estimate between now and 2050 this iniquitous tax on just about every thing will cost Australians about 9250 billion dollars or around 310,000 dollars per person in today's dollars ( nearly a million dollars per family of 4.)

Once we accept these figures, can we, with integrity, advocate to put such a huge cost and debt on future generations - all for no benefit? when instead we could impose tax on pollution which would help to keep the air and water of this great land clean and fresh while paying for all the government services we enjoy.

warmCO2; CO2 is NOT a pollutant and that includes what you exhale; I can't say the same about your comments.

I really hope AbbottAbbottAbbott continues to smash the green/AGW parasites. The howls of outrage will be very enjoyable as they revert to their right place in the order of things: at the fringe and not on the public purse.

GrahamY, thanks for pointing out Andrew Bolt's WUWT spiel - interesting, but not unexpected.

Others may find NASA even more revealing (and less cherry picked).

http://phys.org/news/2013-11-nasa-super-typhoon-haiyan-strength-philippines.html

It would appear "carpet baggers and rent seekers" are indeed picking cherries and over-running OLO.

Chris Keys asked why John Howard initiated "Carbon Pricing Scheme" if he did not believe in human induced global warming, suggesting that Howard was up to no good. Then Keys answered his own question, and completely destroyed his own implication that Howard was doing something sinister. Nice one, Chas.

After destroying the reader's confidence in his ability to use logic in his opening statement, Chas made it worse. He sneered at Howard for basing his new opinions about climate change on literature written by a non scientist. Equating premises, why should the readers of OLO base any of their opinions about climate change on anything that Chas keys has written, since he is not a scientist either?

Chas then adopts the very sanctimonious tone which John Howard warned us about. He continued his rant as if Human Induced Climate Change (HICC) is a scientific fact, and the scientific debate is over, when it clearly is not. From this position, he likens people who oppose his "science" as akin to religious believers.

Note to Chas. The scientific debate is not over. Only recently, Professor of Mining Geology at Adelaide University, Tim Plimer, gave an interview to "The Australian" newspaper claiming that HICC was not scientifically supportable.

Before Poirot pipes up and claims that Plimer is biased because his income is based on denying climate change, could I suggest that this works both ways? If Geologist scientists who support coal and petroleum mining, and who oppose HICC must be therefore be considered partisan, then exactly the same premise must also apply to climate scientists who's pay checks are also dependent upon promoting HICC.

LEGO,

Great analysis.

Yep, the warmists have a funny love hate relationship with geologists. If like Pilmer they question the orthodoxy its "what would a geologist know,it's not their field". But if they write for that much linked to warmist site Skeptical Scientist, they are the fount of all knowledge and wisdom.

Cohenite
There is a huge deference between burning fossil fuel and breathing, we exhale water vapour and co2, but burning fossil fuels produces large amounts of pollutants from heavy metals, numerous carcinogens, acid producing gases, small amounts of radioactive active chemicals, and lung damaging particulates which all end up in the air or the water. Comparisons between breathing and burning fossil fuels are totally inappropriate.

Altering the level of CO2 in the atmosphere will and does affect climate, because it alters the way heat escapes from the surface. Further to that we have the problem that CO2 combines with water to produce a weak acid in the oceans unfortunately this is starting to interfere with the ability of marine creatures to produce shells.

http://www.princeton.edu/grandchallenges/energy/research-highlights/ocean-acidification

http://www.nasa.gov/content/goddard/haiyan-northwestern-pacific-ocean/

"Super-typhoon Haiyan, equivalent to a Category 5 hurricane on the U.S. Saffir-Simpson scale, struck the central Philippines municipality of Guiuan at the southern tip of the province of Eastern Samar early Friday morning at 20:45 UTC (4:45 am local time). NASA's TRMM satellite captured visible, microwave and infrared data on the storm.

Haiyan made landfall as an extremely powerful super typhoon, perhaps the strongest ever recorded at landfall, with sustained winds estimated at 195 mph (315 kph) by the Joint Typhoon Warning Center. Previously, Hurricane Camille, which struck the northern Gulf Coast in 1969, held the record with 190 mph sustained winds at landfall. After striking Samar, Haiyan quickly crossed Leyte Gulf and the island of Leyte as it cut through the central Philippines."

LEGO,

I wouldn't dream of interrupting more than I just have.

With WUWT, Andrew Bolt and John Howard being bandied around as some sort of guide to climate science...well.....

Poirot, it is no surprise that 'fake sceptics' shoot from the hip at anything that moves - just to confirm their own bias.

It's pathetic that these 'fake sceptics' (including the editor of this site) will 'down-play' the tragedy and intensity of this typhoon.

It wouldn't surprise me one bit that these 'fake sceptics' will now accuse the World Meteorological Organisation, the U.S. National Hurricane Center, the Joint Typhoon Warning Center, NASA, etc. of partaking in a global conspiracy to upgrade the severity and intensity of the typhoon.

Despite commentary from experts like Brian McNoldy, a Senior Research Associate at the University of Miami's Rosenstiel School of Marine and Atmospheric Science in Miami, Florida, who noted that on the morning (EST) of Nov. 7;

"Haiyan has achieved tropical cyclone perfection. It is now estimated at 165kts (190mph), with an 8.0 on the Dvorak scale... the highest possible value."

ozdoc,

Yes....

Here's a post from Greg Laden on November 9 says it better than I could:

http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2013/11/09/wuwt-science-denialist-blog-hits-new-historic-low/

"At this moment, there is a guest post over at WUWT blog downplaying the size, strength, wind speeds, overall effects, and even the death toll of Super Typhoon Haiyan. Even as the monster storm steams across the sea to it’s next landfall (probably as a huge wet tropical storm, in northern Vietnam and southern China), Anthony Watts and his crew are trying to pretend this monster storm didn’t happen, and instead, that it was a run of the mill typhoon.

At the moment, nobody is really saying that Haiyan’s strength, size, power, or even existence is specifically the direct result of global warming, although it is of course impossible to remove the effects of global warming from ANY weather event because global warming is part of climate change and guess what … weather arises from the climate. The climate has changed, so ALL of our weather is affected by climate change.

This offensive post is preemptive denial, but it is denial that throws the lives and suffering of millions of people … of which thousands have lost relatives … under the bus. So that Anthony Watts and his guest poster Paul Homewood can … can do what? Feel smart? Take a shot at the reality of climate change? Pretend severe weather does not matter?...."

the faithful gw alarmist still comforting each other with their articles of faith. The article is that we as humans are arrogant enough to think that we can control the weather. We read of a flood a long time back where people where just as arrogant and ignorant.

Ozdoc

As bad as the "fake sceptics" are, the CLIMATE CELEBRITY CIRCUIT (CCC) does more damage. People like Flannery, Gore, Suzuki and the idiot crown prince of England poison the well with the exaggerated claims, weasel words and self-righteousness. I'm with Howard on that. With friends like that climate scientists don't need enemies.

And don't get me started on the Greens! With their my way or the highway fervour they're the closest approximation there is to the Tea Party Republicans.

You cannot prove or disprove global warming from single events. It's as much cherry-picking or shooting from the hip as Andrew Bolt, WUWT and some of the more ferocious posters here.

But you raise an interesting question about our editor.

Graham, you're a journalist. While the basic fact of AGW is about as far beyond doubt as it is possible to get, there are still interesting questions to explore. Here are some.

--What is the time table? How long have we got? Does the recent discovery that excess heat is being buried down to a depth of 2,000 metres give us more time?

--Is some global warming and some extra CO2 in the atmosphere actually good for us? See:

"Why climate change is good for the world" in the Spectator:

http://www.spectator.co.uk/features/9057151/carry-on-warming/

I happen to think that Ridley and Tol are wrong because I don’t think they've priced risk. But at least they're not trying to deny some pretty basic and well established laws of physics.

--Maybe this also gives us more time.

"Stadium Waves’ Could Explain Lull In Global Warming"
http://www.news.gatech.edu/2013/10/10/%E2%80%98stadium-waves%E2%80%99-could-explain-lull-global-warming

Above all, Graham, you're a journalist. Why don't you speak to actual climate scientists? Why don't you phone up the Royal Society and ask them why they're calling for a reduction in emissions in spite of all the "elegant" disproofs (so-called)in junk websites like WUWT?

As it happens I have regular correspondence with actual scientists working in the field. Instead of getting your info from junk sites why not try that

Runner, let me guess - you're a 'bible-bashing-believer'?

Did you actually read the article? The author says:

Howard also argues that politicians should not be intimidated or browbeaten. Quite so. But they should listen to evidence, query the methods used in providing it and weigh it up - without prejudice, preconception or bias. Politicians are practised in dealing with lobbying. Howard's government provided subsidies to car manufacturers who periodically threaten to abandon Australia if their efforts are not subsidised. Is this 'intimidation'? Of course it is! It is also part of the industry's normal modus operandi, and dealing with such things is integral to the operation of government.

A sensible society considers where it might be going. It plans for its future, both the short term and the long, by soberly evaluating its strengths and weaknesses, the opportunities it might exploit and the threats it faces. It does not work from the basis of weak logic, the selective plucking of evidence or the unreasoning denial and denigration of expert opinion.

John Howard does not perceive the bigger picture. He is not serving us well here."

The author said it well.

Stephen.
I have to disagree; Tony Abbott & Co are closer to the American Tea Party Republicans - but I can understand why some 'small-L' liberals would not want to admit that.
Everything else you say I can agree.

warmCO2air obviously you don't know that of the total CO2 produced by humanity the proportion from exhaling is 8.99%; the calculations are here:

http://micpohling.wordpress.com/2007/03/27/math-how-much-co2-is-emitted-by-human-on-earth-annually/

Given that the human population is increasing and emissions from the burning of fossil fuel declining in the West that proportion will be increasing.

AGW is a lie and its supporters fools.

"I have to disagree; Tony Abbott & Co are closer to the American Tea Party Republicans...."

Ain't that the truth!

ozdoc,

runner doesn't bother with reading articles. He usually just parachutes in to climate threads and deposits a dollop of fundamentalist "Christian" sentiment, backed by nothing and resting on a pediment of denial.

No wonder he's a fan of the Abbott govt....much in common with vacuous Tea Partiers.

But it seems even the deniers and Republican Tea Party members are losing influence in America.

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2013/nov/06/global-warming-science-denial-losing-position

"In yesterday's Virginia governor's race, Terry McAuliffe's win over anti-science Republican Ken Cuccinelli is showing that being a climate-change denier is a losing political position. Certainly the election was about many issues, but climate change was the most striking difference between the two candidates. Virginia's voters clearly rejected Cuccinelli's attacks against climate scientists and his head-in-the-sand views.

Ken Cuccinelli has a history of not only discounting scientists but spending taxpayers' money to actively attack them. In 2010, he began a witch hunt and accused climate scientist Dr. Michael Mann of fraud. In the end, Cuccinelli's crusade wasted hundreds of thousands of hard-earned taxpayer dollars – waste that Virginia voters did not forget."

Considering Australia lags the US in many of these respects,(for instance, we've only just elected our version of Georg W. Bush) we'll have to wait a while for succor.

Poirot,

According to Pew Global, even in the US 40% of those surveyed saw climate change as a major global threat. Not the only major threat but a major threat.

http://www.pewglobal.org/2013/06/24/climate-change-and-financial-instability-seen-as-top-global-threats/

In Australia the number is 52%

In China the number who see climate change as a major global threat is 39%.

In reality I think most decision makers in most serious countries are convinced of the reality of global warming. They may not know what to do about it and more immediate concerns usually take precedence over a more distant threat; but few seem to doubt the essential correctness of the science.

I wouldn't draw too many conclusions from Virginia. Both candidates were considered so disreputable that no major Virginian newspaper was prepared to endorse either one. Guardian pundits often engage in wishful thinking.

The truth is that de-carbonising economies is entirely possible and, if done correctly, not especially expensive. New technology is making it cheaper all the time. The biggest obstacle is vested interests.

'Tony Abbott & Co are closer to the American Tea Party Republicans. '

I certainly hope so. We saw Labour embedded with the Greens religion which blew a huge surplus into a big deficit in no time flat. The Tasmanian sucking on the productive states is testiment to Greens ideology and religion. Give me the tea party any day compared to the extreme green religous zealots who stop at no propaganda in order to deceive the gullible.

Yes, Steven, you have a point.

Nevertheless, Tea-Partyesque political fervour played a big part in Cuccinelli's conduct and his demise.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/mr-cuccinelli-has-himself-to-blame-for-loss/2013/11/07/d8b8cc54-47da-11e3-bf0c-cebf37c6f484_story.html

"The Cuccinelli record had nothing to do with job-creation or the state’s economic well-being or alleviating deepening transportation problems, all of which are central to Virginians’ well-being. It was mainly about bashing homosexuals, harassing illegal immigrants, crusading against abortion, denying climate change, flirting with birthers and opposing gun control. A hero to the tea party and a culture warrior of the first rank, Mr. Cuccinelli lost because he was among the most polarizing and provocative figures in Richmond for a decade. That made him the wrong candidate for Virginia."

"....The biggest obstacle is vested interests."

Yes, and their "think tanks", front groups like Heartland and the NIPCC, and their acolytes who disseminate garbage that passes for science.

Where are we going Ozdoc? Well, the western world is going Muslim, and is probably headed for dozens of Lebanon style civil wars with the Muslims, but you could not care about that. And if the Muslims win and the west becomes part of the Caliphate, I could not care less if the Earth got ten degrees hotter.

Poirot

As I said in my previous post, most decision makers in most serious countries now accept the reality of global warming. Of course adding CO2 to the atmosphere, when combined with some well understood feedback effects, will cause temperature rises. Except to the scientifically illiterate that's fact.

To me the more interesting questions are these:

--How long will it take? It seems the ocean has a greater capacity to store heat than we thought. This may give us some breathing space.

--Do the benefits of SOME global warming outweigh the costs? This is a contentious issue.

I don't know the answers to these questions and I don’t think anyone can give definitive answers. There is no reason to believe that pre-industrial CO2 levels are in some sense optimal. It could be argued that the warming and CO2 additions to the atmosphere THUS FAR have been a net benefit.

On the other hand if we overshoot we're stuck with high atmospheric CO2 levels for decades. The trouble with the economists, like Richard Tol, who argue that we could do with a bit more global warming, is that they put no price on risk.

The prudent response is to slow down emissions and keep doing the science and keep developing the technology for carbon-free energy. The progress in the latter has been nothing short of astonishing.

"Slow down you're moving too fast" may not have the same resonance among wannabe eco-warriors as a call to arms but it has the advantage of being based on solid evidence.

When I said there is no point in engaging with the scientifically illiterate that also applies to greenies.

As I tell my right wing ex-friends:

Some things are true even if it's Comrade Senator Lee Rhiannon saying them.

And as I tell my left wing ex-friends

Some things are true even if they appear in the Spectator

And as I again urge our editor, get your information from real climate scientists. Avoid both the junk websites and the climate celebrity circuit.

Cohenite

Using your somewhat dubious site in the worst case a human produces 330 kg of co2 per year due to breathing.
The current world population is about 7.046 billion which is increasing at about 1.6% per year, so we are looking at an extra 0.0372 billion metric tonnes due more humans just breathing.

On the other hand we know that humans produced some 35.6 billion tons of CO2 from burning fossil fuels which is increasing at a rate of about 2.5 to 3 % a year. CO2 emissions from burning fossil fuels is currently increasing by about 0.89 to 1.068 billion metric tonnes per year.

Emissions of CO2 from fossil fuel burning is about 0.97/0.0372 or some 26 times faster than that produced by the increase in exhaled CO2 by more humans. This proves your claim below is irrelevant.

“Given that the human population is increasing and emissions from the burning of fossil fuel declining in the West that proportion will be increasing.”

Further to this as I believe has been pointed out to you before, the premise of this argument is any event totally wrong, for the simple reason that the exhaled carbon originates from food, which has previously been removed from the atmosphere in the form of CO2 by the process of photosynthesis.

Oh, I agree warmair, humans are good for the planet; what a fool Ehrlich is.

Anyway the point is the increase in human CO2 emissions is not from the West but from the developing and 3rd world:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/11/08/the-durban-game/#more-50828

And that isn't going to change:

http://www.eia.gov/oiaf/aeo/tablebrowser/#release=IEO2013&subject=0-IEO2013&table=10-IEO2013&region=0-0&cases=Reference-d041117

For those interested in whether Typhoon Haiyan is linked to global warming, Nature sums up the current understanding.

See: http://www.nature.com/news/did-climate-change-cause-typhoon-haiyan-1.14139

NB: The Nature editorial is aimed at the scientifically literate and there would be an understanding that no single event can be linked to global warming. The question whether Haiyan is part of a pattern.

Cohenite

Your last post sounds like a schoolboy saying "It never happened and I didn't do it."

No matter where the emissions of CO2 originate, the effect is the same. The policy response may be different.

On the other hand, what could I expect from someone who thinks breathing has any net effect on atmospheric CO2 levels

How patronising of you steve; most alarmists sound as though they missed school all together and went straight to the indoctrination camp.

Warmair and you obviously think human contribution to CO2 levels is neutral because humans are simply putting back the CO2 which had been sequestered in plants previously; I used a similar argument when the alarmists accused cattle of producing greenhouse gases; see Tom Quirk:

http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=8238

So, if humans and cattle, which most alarmists equate, are carbon neutral, why aren't fossil fuels also carbon neutral since we are merely reintroducing older carbon which had been previously sequestered? After all I'm sure the plants and the natural process today will be glad to see the re-emergence of that old CO2.

LEGO, while not mutually exclusive - you (like runner, cohenite, One Under God, and others here on OLO) conflate and confuse religion with science.

What I am saying, Ozdoc, is that I find it strange over the fact that people like yourself are totally apathetic about the Muslim colonisation of your own country, even though the evidence is clear that it is accelerating and the consequences for western democracy will be catastrophic, yet go into hysterics over the concept of human induced climate change, even though the scientific jury is still out.

Not apathetic at all LEGO.

You may not comprehend the article by Chas Keys but it has got nothing to do with Muslim colonisation, despite how much you want it to be.

LEGO, you can rant and rave as much as you want, but changing the goal posts won't work with me.

"Changing the goal posts"

"Bait and switch"

"Red Herrings"

Tactics employed by 'fake sceptics'

I'm sure others could elaborate.

Here's something....

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2013/11/global-warming-since-1997-underestimated-by-half/

"A new study by British and Canadian researchers shows that the global temperature rise of the past 15 years has been greatly underestimated. The reason is the data gaps in the weather station network, especially in the Arctic. If you fill these data gaps using satellite measurements, the warming trend is more than doubled in the widely used HadCRUT4 data, and the much-discussed “warming pause” has virtually disappeared."

@Poirot,

Here's something even more interesting --and tell!

So now, Poirot, you say the records/readings had been indicating a stalling in the warming trend over the last 15 years but new, more recent records show there was no such hiatus, it was an error/oversight.

But here's the rub!

A couple of months back when asked to confirm there was a hiatus,you refused to acknowledge it: you ducked, you weaved, you did everything to avoid owning up to the possibility that the trend might have petered out.

It should be pretty clear to all and sundry it aint about "the science" it's about spruik AGW --what ever it takes,ay!

Poirot,

Interesting link. Thanks. I'd missed that one

It's actually even worse than it looks.

See this graphic:

http://skepticalscience.com/graphics/ENSO_Temps_500.gif

The last El Nino year was in 2005. 2009 was not the hottest year on record but it was the hottest La Nina year on record. Ditto 2010 was the hottest neutral year on record while 2012 was the second hottest La Nina year.

So even without the correction from the missing Arctic weather stations the "pause" was largely illusory.

The graphic I linked comes from Skeptical Science, an Australian website maintained by John Cook.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/

Skeptical Science is the site I recommend for people who seriously want to learn about the science of climate

LOL SPQR

I have some sad news for you.

I hope you're sitting down while you read this.

Here it comes ready or not.

The laws of physics don't care how many debating points you score with Poirot or anybody else.

In fact the laws of physics are supremely indifferent to SPQR.

Unfortunately it's the laws of physics, not your skill as a debater, that determine whether adding CO2 to the atmosphere causes the Earth to heat up.

C'est la guerre.

Poirot, and others interested in climate science.

Ocean acidification may turn out to be a more intractable problem than global warming.

http://phys.org/news/2013-11-expert-ocean-acidification-percent-century.html

On the other hand most marine populations turn over quite quickly so there may be scope for evolutionary adaptations.

The bottom line that we're running an experiment in which the risks are unquantifiable.

Incidentally I wonder whether this is a CYOA piece by Melbourne's perpetually angry young man, Andrew Bolt.

Don’t think this warming pause is permanent

http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/dont_think_this_warming_pause_is_permanent/

Lately our Andrew has taken to punting the line that global warming is happening but it's good for you. That's more interesting question than blanket global warming denialism.

Hi Stevenlmeyer,

You're missing the point.

My comment was not so much about the validity of AGW as the integrity of many who spruik it on OLO.

We had an incident a number of months back where Rajendra Pachauri was quoted in the media as saying that temperatures hadn't risen in 15 years [regardless of what has happened/been found since, that was the thinking at that time]

And at that time I and a few others sought clarification and answers from the true believers on OLO --principally Poirot. She dodged or denied it, it wasn't so.

Now, since she thinks she might have found a excuse she comes with something to the effect of: "Hey guys remember that hiatus we talked about, well this might explain it". It harks of dishonesty.

If it were about "the science " they ought to have been able to say "Yep, there is an unexplained hiatus but the researchers are doing a recheck". A scientist acknowledges inconvenient findings, a political hack hides them.

Incidentally, Poirot is somewhere left of Lee Rhiannon.

What a load of rubbish, SPQR.

You "skeptics" sure can spin it.

Here's an article which I routinely post when you lot raise Graham Lloyd's misrepresentation of Pachauri's view.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/australian-pachauri-global-warming.html

"So the reality is that global warming continues unabated. Despite this reality, an article by Graham Lloyd in The Australian (paywalled) claims that the chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), Rajendra Pachauri agreed that there has been a 17-year pause in global temperature rises. Unfortunately we don't know exactly what Pachauri said on the subject, because Lloyd did not quote him directly (which is a red flag).

The IPCC communications office tells Skeptical Science that The Australian has not provided a transcript or audio file of the interview for verification, but it does not accurately represent Pachauri's thoughts on the subject - namely that as discussed in this post, global surface temperatures have plateaued (though over the past decade, not 17 years), and that this in no way disproves global warming.

Despite the lack of useful verifiable content, the story headline has nevertheless gone viral. This is not the first time Lloyd has been caught misrepresenting climate science in The Australian - in January of this 2013 he wrongly claimed that a study had found no link between global warming and sea level rise. Oceanographer John Church, who was co-author on the misrepresented research in question and also Nuccitelli et al. (2012) from which Figure 1 above originated, set the record straight, and The Australian was forced to retract the article."

Note this:

"Again note that the story is paraphrasing Pachauri rather than quoting him directly. Had he said that global surface air temperatures have plateaued and that this doesn't disprove global warming, he would be 100% correct..."

So your little burst of lament is bunkum.

It's the "surface air temperature" that "appeared" to have plateaued.

Scientist maintained that the oceans were/are continuing to warm.

The above article: " Approximately 90% of global warming goes into heating the ocean...."

Have a good read - you might learn something.

Poirot the parrot witlessly links to the Kowtan and Way paper which has allegedly found a cooling bias in the HadCRUT 4 global temperature data. Poirot will never read or understand this paper, or any other paper she links to, which makes her a typical AGW groupie.

K&W employ the technique of kriging to interpolate missing data. Kriging is informed guessing used by geologists. Kriging is based on a spatial correlation between samples, in this case temperature. The technique for for kriging uses a variogram, which divides samples into pairs separated by increasing distances; in addition, the pairs at increasing distances are generated using relatively narrow directional windows around the three orthogonal planes [that's 3 dimensions Poirot you klutz]. After being plotted on paper and taped into a 3-d model, it is fairly easy to determine the spatial orientation of the oblate spheroid [the Earth's shape] of the sample correlation as well as the distance of the major, minor, and intermediate axes.

Typically the correlation degenerates with distance despite attempts by AGW believers to introduce the concept of teleconnection or similarity of climate anomalies over vast distances. But K&W haven't even used correlation points; their main point is that the cooling bias is because the Arctic is excluded from HadCRUT 4 and the Arctic is warming faster than any other place on the planet.

How they can say that when by their own admission the Arctic is devoid of surface temperature measurements is overcome by a myriad of interlocking statistical methods which are then compared on the basis of a hybrid union between UAH satellite and surface data in areas where the surface data exists.

They then extrapolate to the Arctic where UAH does have coverage. But UAH coverage of the Arctic is confounded by ice over water and significant temperature inversions which would give false warming biases!

Furthermore kriging cannot work over disparate surfaces such as land, water and ice.

Great work Poirot

Poirot

In this case I think cohenite MAY have a point.

I say "MAY" because I suspect he simply copied or paraphrased what he wrote from some website without acknowledgement. I've seen no evidence that he is capable of such a sophisticated analysis.

So I'll rephrase. The author(s) of whatever website cohenite copied or paraphrased has a point.

As it happens I am familiar with kriging. In fact I knew Danie Krige who invented the technique. I think this use of kriging is a bit of a reach. Cowtan and Way may be correct. In fact I think they probably are. But I don't think this proves it.

We have to live with the fact that there are both temporal and spatial gaps in our data. Over time these will be filled in and we'll have a more complete picture.

SPQR wrote:

>>If it were about "the science " they ought to have been able to say "Yep, there is an unexplained hiatus but the researchers are doing a recheck". >>

That is exactly what scientists have been doing. However when we adjust for El Nino La Nina cycles there does not seem to have been a pause at all.

There is also the Argo data which suggest the oceans are better at burying heat than we once thought.

Ha, what a supercilious nong you are steven; I did paraphrase other sources; firstly Cowtan and Wray's paper and wiki's definition of kriging which I looked up.

That's the typical thing with the smarties who support AGW; they assume people who don't are stupid. That condescension is a ubiquitous attribute of religiosity and faith; which of course are the dominant qualities believers in AGW have. When you have faith intelligence is irrelevant and just sophistry.

Instead of admitting that there is just as likely a chance that the areas not covered by temperature records at the moment may be cooler C&W assume the opposite and proceed on that basis; is that simple enough for you steven?

Stevenlmeyer commented:
"SPQR wrote:
>>If it were about "the science " they ought to have been able to say "Yep, there is an unexplained hiatus but the researchers are doing a recheck". >>
That is exactly what scientists do"

Maybe, but that ain't what Poirot does.

This was her a few months ago:
A question from Loudmouth:"So you're prepared to agree that temperatures have risen barely an inch in a century, sea-levels by barely an inch in a century, and that average world temperatures have not risen substantially in fifteen years ?"

Poirots response was: "[Loudmouth]You know next to nothing about this complex subject..."(then went off on a tangent)

I tried the same question:
"Just answer the question, Poirot.
Surely it's either yes of no!"
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=6023#172648

Again she avoided it.

And that wasn't the only time she,like some faithful member of some fundamentalist faith, dodged the issue.

And for her to now imply she already knew/acknowledged it, as in:"Here's an article which I routinely post..."
Is shown-up as a nonsense by her post above where she says:
"Here's something....'A new study by British and Canadian researchers shows that the global temperature rise of the past 15 years has been greatly underestimated...'

Ahem! why is it of note if it was old news to her?

Stevenmeyer I might be able to find some so sort of meeting of minds with you but never with Poirot & co. Be aware that when you run and lie down with the alarmist mutts you're sure to get fleas

The first thing to note is that SPQR doesn't come on climate threads to discuss questions of climate.

SPQR's self-appointed mission is to pop along for his regular shot at Poirot.

Firstly, Loudmouth, while appearing reasonably intelligent, has an extremely limited repertoire when jumping on board to question climate scientists and their conclusions.

He maintains a stock standard collection of a few simplistic strawman questions which he regularly rolls out - supposedly to confound the experts. He then demands a "yes or no" answer to them.

Sometimes scientists are stupid enough to take his questions as genuine, and will attempt to answer them. bonmot did so once, taking the time to give him a lengthy post in reply - and this was what Loudmouth said to me in response:

"I certainly don't dismiss what someone writes - witness my responses to your constipated friend Bonmot above."

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=13951&page=0#241476

And he finishes of that particular post to me in fine form:

".....See, I'm assuming you're not one of those latte-sipping wa.nkers, that you have ideas :)"

(Scroll up for prior conversation)

Loudmouth isn't genuine in his enquiries. He has a stock of repeated simplistic questions which he employs ad nauseam as a cover to have a go and sling insults at his opponents.

SPQR, I think you're tad mixed up. The article which I claimed "I routinely post" is this one on Pachauri's misrepresentation by Lloyd.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/australian-pachauri-global-warming.html

You say:

"And for her to now imply she already knew/acknowledged it, as in:"Here's an article which I routinely post..."
Is shown-up as a nonsense by her post above......"

Where?... acknowledged what....

I did not acknowledge that global warming had stopped. There is an acknowledgement that as far as the record goes that "surface air temperatures" had/have plateaued.

This article: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2013/11/global-warming-since-1997-underestimated-by-half/ posited something new.

I was merely linking to it because it was new and interesting.

It wasn't old news to me.

Unlike your penchant to chase me around the forum critiquing my style whilst ignoring the subject at hand.

@Poirot,

<<Unlike your penchant to chase me around the forum>>

Only in same way that a good civic minded citizen who happened to spy a shifty looking character swinging nunchucks and mumbling obscenities walk through the town square, might have a penchant to poke his/her head around the corner to see what the character was up to.

Hmmm cohenite

I googled with the words "cowtan, way, uah, kriging, temperature, inversions" and came up with Judith Curry and WUWT. From the similarity in language I suspect you summarised from WUWT which is based on Judith Curry's blog.

However I think Judith Curry says it best. Here's a link for those who are interested.

http://judithcurry.com/2013/11/13/uncertainty-in-sst-measurements-and-data-sets/

>>Instead of admitting that there is just as likely a chance that the areas not covered by temperature records at the moment may be cooler…>>

There are several reasons for thinking they may be warmer. These include:

--What we know about weather systems which suggests that polar regions would be most strongly affected by global warming (Spare me the taurine fertiliser about AGW being a myth)

--The continuing reduction in Arctic ice mass

--Well documented changes in vegetation in near Arctic regions such as Alaska.

SPQR (this concerns you too cohenite)

I do not "lie down with the alarmist mutts." I avoid members of the celebrity climate circuit (Flannery, Suzuki, Gore, the idiot crown prince of England, etc). I tend to get my information from actual working scientists who are quite ready to admit all the uncertainties and difficulties.

If you can convince me that:

--Certain well established laws of physics are wrong; and

--Certain well understood weather dynamics are wrong

I'll concede that AGW may be a myth.

If you can convince me that some well established facts about chemistry are wrong I'll concede we aren't causing ocean acidification.

In the real word there is no uncertainty about the FACT of AGW and ocean acidification.

What is interesting, and uncertain, is:

--The timetable. How fast is it happening? Is it an urgent problem or do we yet have many decades?

--What are the consequences? Are we headed for near term catastrophe? Could some global warming and added CO2 be beneficial?

--What are the RISKS?

--What are the best policy options for Australia?

These are the questions we should be discussing. We really need to ditch AGW denialism – any yes it is denialism.

"taurine fertilizer"? That's a bit esoteric steve; do you have shares in the method?

"--The continuing reduction in Arctic ice mass"

? Various pro-AGW sources predicted no Arctic ice by 2013, Gore and the ABC said 2008 but the data says the Arctic ice is recovering:

http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/

Now both ice area and extent are both up so don't quibble about "mass".

I was interested in the C&W's paper's reference to possible factors contributing to Arctic warming other than just AGW; they say:

"The Arctic has experienced a very rapid temperature
change over recent years through a combination of polar
amplification of greenhouse warming, albedo change due
to both black carbon and snow/ice loss and possibly a
contribution from multidecadal variability (AMAP 2011;
Semenov et al. 2010)."

What has been happening at the poles is entirely consistent with Polar amplification;

http://www.princeton.edu/~cmngroup/13_Science_Editors_Choice.pdf

The C&W paper is detailed but predicated on assumptions which are in themselves biased in that they favour AGW.

cohenite,

"Now both ice area and extent are both up so don't quibble about "mass"."

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=82094

"Although the extent of the Arctic Ocean covered by sea ice is higher this September than it was in 2012, it does not indicate “global cooling” or a recovery of the Arctic sea ice. As shown in the plot above, the extent of Arctic sea ice has decreased in every season of the year since 1979."

"The Arctic sea ice cover today is much thinner on average than it was years ago. Satellite imagery, submarine sonar measurements, and data collected from NASA’s Operation IceBridge indicate that the sea ice thickness is as much as 50 percent thinner than in previous decades, going from an average thickness of 3.8 meters (12.5 feet) in 1980 to 1.9 meters (6.2 feet) in recent years. Older, thicker ice is being replaced by thinner, seasonal ice.

Most of the Arctic Ocean used to be covered by multiyear ice, or ice that has survived at least two summers and is typically 3 to 4 meters (10 to 13 feet) thick. This older ice has declined at an even faster rate than younger ice and is now largely relegated to a strip along the northern coast of Greenland. The rest of the Arctic Ocean is dominated by first year ice, or ice that formed over the previous winter and is only 1 to 2 meters (3 to 7 feet) thick.

“Thinner ice melts completely at a faster rate than thicker ice does, so if the average thickness of Arctic sea ice goes down, it’s more likely that the extent of the summer ice will go down as well,” said Joey Comiso, senior scientist at NASA."

And, of course, there's Andy Lee Robinson's excellent rendering to show us that little "recoveries" punctuate the inevitable decline in Arctic sea ice volumes.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WAMN3a6u91M

A nice visual that, thanks Poirot. Deniers get furiously excited at the upsurges but won't acknowledge the trend. Don't expect much impact upon the belief system of the OLO illuminati, but nice try.

When the continental ice follows suite, it will get even more interesting.

I'm waiting for one of them to explain the marriage between CO2 concentration and surface air temperature over the last 800,000 years (and most probably much longer) and why we should expect a divorce at this juncture in human history.

Poirot, as I've said, you do not read what you present, or if you do read, you perceive through your blinkers that AGW is indisputably real; your mind is closed to anything which contradicts this.

The IPCC 1990, FAR report incorporated a graph [see WG 1, chapter 7. Figure 7.19(a), page 224] of the Arctic ice levels based on pre-1979 satellite data which showed indisputably that Arctic ice peaked in 1979 and was at its lowest in 1974:

http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/far/wg_I/ipcc_far_wg_I_chapter_07.pdf

Here is the graph;

http://stevengoddard.files.wordpress.com/2013/06/screenhunter_170-jun-15-11-10.jpg

The point about this Poirot is that by beginning in 1979, the year of the highest sea ice extent in the Arctic, AGW has cherry-picked a date which means all subsequent years are lower; if it had started from 1974, most of the subsequent years would have been higher.

Your gullibility knows no bounds

I was thinking a professional science based response was required but given the shill's shrill, nope.

OLO is not the place to get your 'climate science'.

"The point about this Poirot is that by beginning in 1979, the year of the highest sea ice extent in the Arctic, AGW has cherry-picked a date which means all subsequent years are lower; if it had started from 1974, most of the subsequent years would have been higher."

"Cherry-pick", eh?

Educate me, cohenite.

I was under the impression that 1979 was when the satellite record began.

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/WorldOfChange/sea_ice.php

"Since 1978, satellites have monitored sea ice growth and retreat, and they have detected an overall decline in Arctic sea ice."

Poirot

Nice graphic. Thanks

Cohenite wrote:

>>Now both ice area and extent are both up so don't quibble about "mass">>

LOL

I guess I can understand why someone who thinks breathing causes a net increase in atmospheric CO2 levels may regard mass as a "quibble." I'll do my best.

The mass or volume of ice is the metric of interest because it tells us how much ice the arctic icecap contains.

The shape of the icecap will vary from year to year depending on the vicissitudes of ocean currents and winds. Some years it will be thinner and cover a larger area; in other years it will be thicker and cover a smaller area.

Now so far as I can tell the graphic you linked shows variations in area, not volume or mass. Volume, as Poirot's graphic shows, is in precipitate decline indicating that ice is melting faster in summer than it can be replaced in winter.

THIS IS WHAT LEADS US TO BELIEVE TEMPERATURES AROUND THE ARCTIC ARE RISING.

Capiche?

I'm guessing probably not.

The area of the icecap does affect albedo but that's another story.

AGW is real. Deal with it and move on. I suggest the interesting questions are the ones I raised in my previous post.

Luci says: “I'm waiting for one of them to explain the marriage between CO2 concentration and surface air temperature over the last 800,000 years (and most probably much longer) and why we should expect a divorce at this juncture in human history.”

Co2 and temperature post 1998, the highest temperature of the modern era

http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/from:1998/offset:-347/scale:0.008/trend/plot/rss/from:1998/trend

CO2 and temperature from 1959, when AGW supposedly accelerated:

http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/mean:12/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1959/mean:12/offset:300

CO2 and temperature over the 20thC:

http://notrickszone.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/Bastardi-CO2Temp.gif

CO2 and temperature since 1659 based on the longest thermometer record, CET:

http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2011/11/tbrown_figure3.png

CO2 and temperature over the last 25 million years:

http://s90.photobucket.com/user/dhm1353/media/Neogene.png.html

CO2 and temperature over geologic time:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1644060/posts

The CO2 and temperature graph used by such frauds as Gore to promote the ‘connection’ between CO2 and temperature is this one:

http://www.grida.no/publications/vg/climate/page/3057.aspx

This graph is a trap to the untrained or biased eye and is analysed here to show that there is no connection between CO2 and temperature:

http://icecap.us/images/uploads/CO2,Temperaturesandiceages-f.pdf

What a dope.

“Capiche” and “AGW is real. Deal with it and move on” declares steve.

Dopier

There are 2 measures of sea ice in the Arctic, extent and area; there is no ‘mass’:

http://arctic-roos.org/observations/satellite-data/sea-ice/ice-area-and-extent-in-arctic

Arctic temperatures according to RSS:

http://theclimatescepticsparty.blogspot.com.au/2012/01/rss-satellite-data-shows-no-arctic.html

That would explain why C&W used UAH.

And there’s Poirot arguing about satellites when I have given her chapter and verse links to her bible the IPCC which uses the pre-AGW satellite data.

Dopiest.

cohenite,

Sorry I can't match your impressive array of links : )

Here's something to chew on:

http://climatecrocks.com/2013/09/09/another-year-another-sea-ice-recovery/

Check out the "Arctic Escalator".

You'll like the bit that explains "How 'Skeptics' view sea ice decline".

cohenite,

explain why the marriage between Temp and CO2 Conc'n, http://simpleclimate.files.wordpress.com/2012/04/edc.jpg , will end in divorce, or are you just a little over-excited about a recent slowdown?

Furthermore, it's your responsibility to provide an explanation for forcing that reproduces the temperature record over the last 800,000 years, so do it. Until you do, we must exercise the precautionary principle on behalf of our children, not fly kites.

Explain why Arctic ice extent is a better measure of the amount of Arctic ice than its volume.

I'll look at anything in a peer-reviewed, credible publication, if that helps. None of this WUWT and plagiarism therefrom.

@ Poirot,

<<I was under the impression that 1979 was when the satellite record began.>>
Easy. So if it's so limited, don't hold it up as some definitive proof!

<<Educate me, cohenite.>>
You can only educate someone willing of learn. Across the board --on a range of issues--you have shown yourself to be locked into your narrow views.

Luci says: "Furthermore, it's your responsibility to provide an explanation for forcing that reproduces the temperature record over the last 800,000 years, so do it."

No kidlet, you're the AGW groupie, you prove it; read this first:

http://www.pnas.org/content/99/7/4167.full

Then read this:

http://vixra.org/pdf/1108.0032v1.pdf

It's the Sun stupid.

Arctic ice:

http://bprc.osu.edu/geo/publications/mckay_etal_CJES_08.pdf

http://www.the-cryosphere.net/6/1231/2012/tc-6-1231-2012.pdf

http://s1114.photobucket.com/user/Chief_Hydrologist/media/arcticice-1.gif.html?sort=3&o=92

Arctic temperature over the 20thC:

http://users.tpg.com.au/johnsay1/Stuff/Arctic_1.jpg

I've got CO2, you've got kites and lead balloons.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bjfMBUHJS9c

Sorry, you'll have to do better. My case is supported by peer-reviewed climate science, to which you have access, and you are also able to read the rebuttals of your position online with accompanying links to credible peer-reviewed journals.

You must account for the temperature record of the last 800000 years with a supported alternative hypothesis published in a credible peer- reviewed journal.

Explain why temperature has risen far more sharply, since 1970, than normal natural variation would predict. Also, explain why we should expect that a decoupling of the Temperature/CO2 concentration linkage of the last 800000 years to happen now.

You skipped the ice/extent/volume question.

Luci, you don't get it; the case for AGW is yours; you have presented no evidence; your 400K graph with CO2 and temp used infamously by Gore has been repudiated:

http://www.grida.no/publications/vg/climate/page/3057.aspx

Repudiation:

http://www.brighton73.freeserve.co.uk/gw/paleo/400000yrfig.htm

See also:

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921818112001658

Now present your evidence luci instead of declarations; for instance the relation between CO2 and temp over 800K years. Where's your evidence that CO2 is the driver of CO2?

And this:

"Explain why temperature has risen far more sharply, since 1970, than normal natural variation would predict."

Temps haven't risen more sharply since 1970:

http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2013/08/1895-1946_1957-2008_temperature-compare.png

Argue against that then we'll talk about temperature steps connected with the GPCS in 1976.

Luciferase

People who rely on cherry-picking junk science sites like WUWT are not amenable to reason.

There are signs that the link between economic growth and CO2 emissions is weakening.

From New Scientist 6 November 2013

First sign that humanity is slowing its carbon surge

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg22029422.800-first-sign-that-humanity-is-slowing-its-carbon-surge.html#.UogS-MRmim4

>>2012 may go down in history as a remarkable year. For the first time, the maddening pace of humanity's greenhouse gas emissions showed signs of a global slowdown.

[...]

The data show that global carbon dioxide emissions rose by 1.4 per cent in 2012. ...compared with an average of 2.9 per cent since 2000.

Importantly, the emissions rise is considerably less than the increase in global GDP of 3.5 per cent. "We see a decoupling of CO2 emissions from global economic growth," …

[...]

What is behind the slowdown? In most countries, the biggest factors are measures to boost energy efficiency, …

[...]

And cutting coal out of the mix is vital, adds Janssens-Maenhout. Burning natural gas instead results in half the CO2 emissions. ...
[...]

...China is on target to reduce emissions per dollar of economic output by between 40 and 45 per cent between 2005 and 2020. ….

[...]

…This year, China began working with the US on measures to fight climate change. ….

"The Chinese are becoming more energy efficient and developing renewables," says Niklas Höhne of energy analysis group Ecofys in Utrecht, the Netherlands. "One reason is to combat smogs from burning coal."

China has been vilified for building two new coal-fired power stations every week. That's now down to one, says Gambhir. With old plants being retired, the government plans to stop further increases in coal capacity as part of its targets to control energy consumption.

In place of coal come gas, hydro- and nuclear power. Almost half of the 67 nuclear power plants under construction are in China, and the country is also building hydroelectric facilities at a vast pace. Half of the 39 per cent global growth in hydroelectric capacity in the past decade comes from the country.>>

Some good news on the climate front for a change

While efficiencies in energy are welcome any impetus provided by AGW to energy replacement will inevitably result in inefficiencies simply because renewables are compulsory according to the prevailing Green ideology.

China is not going to use less coal; I wrote this piece in 2011; it still holds true:

http://joannenova.com.au/2011/03/the-silent-giant-coal-monster/

China is held up by renewable aficionados like steve but its investment in UltraSuperCritical coal burning technology puts a lie to that dream:

http://papundits.wordpress.com/2011/07/19/co2-emissions-reduction-a-radical-plan/

As for Hydro, the greenies will simply not allow any extra dams to be built.

You are not an honest broker steve when you suggest these and nuclear knowing full well Green ideology will oppose them; there is no good news about anything as long as Green ideology holds sway.

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/time-series/global
Nice website, just dial-up the cherries.