tassied

The atmosphere is a) warming, b) cooling or c)static

Eliminate c) as highly improbable under any circumstances.
The gw models predict warming and the physical evidence is consistent with warming.
The gw predictions are in line with the evidence... encouraging...

So... are the models good or is it just coincidence

Liam, the reason I can state with certainty that the IPCC did not consult with industry groups is because I was the member of the Australian Forest Growers National Executive who had specific responsibility for greenhouse accounting issues. I was also on the NGGI's Consultative Panel on Landuse Change and Forestry but can confirm that this process was already fatally politicised back in 1997/8.

And by the time people began to look seriously at the implications of all this stuff, the rules had already been locked in. Your own links confirm that departmental people have simply rounded up the most obvious subjects while ignoring some of the most relevant considerations, like the postponing of natural emissions from decay.

It may not be obvious to a punter but an expert forester can see the dead hand of green ignorance all over the documents.

Two things come to mind regarding agenda.

1. Follow the money... carbon trading, taxes, etc. = LOTSA DOUGH.

2. Employ useful idiots... media, politicians, ideological pundits, talking heads, chattering classes, gossips and so on.

Oh yeah and dont forget to disguise one's own denial in accusations of denial.

Mark would have us laugh at the models. Lets see:

1. Mark derides the models uncertainty: “temperature forecasts range from 1.1C to 6.4C over 100 years. Right!” Is this dishonest or hasn’t he read the summary? The 1.1 figure is for the scenario where we’re all greenies, the 6.4 figure is when we all behave like Exxon, Mark. The fault isn’t with the models but with knowing how people like Mark will behave.

2. Mark laughs at IPCC stubbornness: “One can almost hear the panel scientists gritting teeth, “Oh alright! Part of the increase is natural (ie due to solar heating)”. Well, they concede 5% over 250 years. They start 110years into Mark’s little ice age. It took the sun 250 years to get to 5% contribution, but CO2 has really only taken 50 years or so(because its contribution escalates) to get 20 times bigger. As time goes on the sun’s percentage gets smaller compared to emissions. Which means the “laughable” models get, surprisingly, more and more accurate into the future.

3. Mark wants us to dismiss the models because “A small error at the beginning could make nonsense of the end result.” For instance the IPCC suggests “aerosols remain the least understood component”. But let’s look at this uncertainty? Firstly, the worrying aerosols, those due to dirty smokestacks, will reduce with time. Like me the scientists are technological optimists (why even discuss it if you aren’t?). Secondly, if you look at the error bars (did you do that Mark?), you find that if scientist understood aerosols better things would only look bleaker. Why? Because aerosols mask the effect of CO2, etc. If scientists are mistaken over aerosols the chances are very much weighted to their underestimating how much the aerosols are saving us from the full greenhouse effect.

I am not sure if this thread remains active so I will leave it there. The models may be laughable but if they are, for too many reasons to list here, it will be because they, like Mark, are underestimating the problem

Richard, as I am of a scientific bent, the least impressive feature of the evidence for global warming is the global average temperature. This average is a sophisticated amalgamation of local observations and working out what it actually was in the past is doubly difficult. It is always going to have a degree of uncertainty to it and be open to revision. I would liken it to assessing all the gold reserves, say, in the world. To be sure of getting it right you have to be determined to drill holes in less and less accessible places and to a finer and finer scale and once you have done it, what does it actually prove? It satisfies your critics, may be?

What gives me certainty is the bigger picture. Look at the temp of the moon; compare it to the Earth’s. Why is there a difference? Compare Earth to Venus? Why is there a difference? Here’s an interesting figure for you, and it doesn’t matter whether it’s up or down a little bit: current global annual consumption of oil: one cubic mile. Try to imagine that, a huge tank rising into the clouds and much of it being turned into CO2 which is measured in part per million! (and this figure does not include coal, etc)

The greenhouse gases with their absorption bands are the only game in town from my perspective. Don’t be distracted by the bulls*it on the internet! Isn’t that what you are saying is the modern problem?

As they say, statistics lie: don’t trust them. Statistical types love playing with them. Fair enough, theories in areas like economics will (may be) never good enough, so you need statistics as a back up and to keep you honest. But it seems to me that the people at places like climateaudit live in their own little world. They’re trying to work out if someone’s cooking the books by looking at the shadow of the smoke. If you are in to conspiracy theories, that’s your bag. I don’t buy it. Sorry, out of time and word limit

The article does not mention the fact that there has been no global warming since 1998, and in fact there has been some cooling of the globe. The cooling has been small, being one twentieth of a degree.

Considering that the total warming since 1900 is one half of one degree, I believe it is significant, and it surprizes me that it has not been a major factor in the discussion.