In the same way* that accuracy on the gun range can be expected to improve as distance from the target increases, or that small errors in interest charged disappear when the sums they are applied to go over the million dollar mark....
“Projecting changes in climate due to changes in greenhouse gases 50 years from now is a very different and much more easily solved problem than forecasting weather patterns just weeks from now. To put it another way, long-term variations brought about by changes in the composition of the atmosphere are much more predictable than individual weather events.” [from page 105, 2007 IPCC WG1]
A climate model...
... must model more processes than in a weather model (such as biogeochemistry of vegetation on land and plants in the ocean; sea ice dynamics; aerosol processes; ocean circulation; ground freezing and thawing; snow accumulation and melt and sublimation, etc. - see). For some of these climate processes (which involve physics, biology and chemistry) they are modeled, as with a weather model, by a dynamical core and by parameterizations. These include sea ice dynamics and ocean circulation, which both have advection, pressure gradient and gravitational parts, as well as the parameterization of other effects (such as turbulence, phase changes of water). Some of the climate processes, such as biogeochemistry and biogeography have no dynamical core, and are completely parameterized models.Thus, a climate model involves more parameterizations with their tunable components than for a weather model, as well as additional new state variables (such as salinity, ice, snow, vegetation type and its root depth etc) for which initial conditions are required for all of these variables.
The climate model also has no real world constraint such as supplied by real-world initial conditions (and for a regional model lateral boundary conditions). This real-world data constrains its predictions. Instead, the state variables required for the dynamic core of each component of the climate model (i.e. the state variables for the atmosphere, land, ocean and continental ice) must be generated from the parameterizations!
The claim by the IPCC that an imposed climate forcing (such as added atmospheric concentrations of CO2) can work through the parameterizations involved in the atmospheric, land, ocean and continental ice sheet components of the climate model to create skillful global and regional forecasts decades from now is a remarkable statement. That the IPCC states that this is a “much more easily solved problem than forecasting weather patterns just weeks from now” is clearly a ridiculous scientific claim. As compared with a weather model, with a multi-decadal climate model prediction there are more state variables, more parameterizations, and a lack of constraint from real-world observed values of the state variables.
Thus concludes today's scientific consensus moment.
Thankyou.
A couple or three years ago, when global warming was less the realm of fanatacism, I asked my son (who has a Batchelor's Degree) how people could be so sure of the coming apocalypse when the same people had such difficulty predicting next weeks weather. He explained to me thusly, "It's different science, Dad." So naturally, I have understood ever since.
Cheers. Eric
Back some 30 years ago they were predicting GLOBAL COOLING and a NEW ICE AGE and now its just the oppisit its this global warming. Its all a fruad and a lie being perpatrated by unscrupluous people wanting to control our lives like enviromentalists wackos liberal left-wing poloticians and the UN and CFR scoundrels
Kate, you left out the paragraph that summarizes the findings. "When combined with and in tune with the "Supercalifragilisticexpialidocious" entity, there is an Um diddle diddle, um diddle ay ending to it all. Now it all makes sense to me, but then Im precocious.
so the real question is . . what will be the Next Big Scare they will come up with ?? Since the recent (1970's+) warming period is now waning the enviro jihadis will need to invent some new PR campaign to keep the Fear Factor up there where the moonbats still donate lotsa money to the cause.
What will be their NBS ? ET's ??
http://www.crichton-official.com/speeches/speeches_quote04.html
A good review of Dr. Crichton's speech can be found here.
Fred...naw...it won't be ET's. They are to smart. More like they'll be after forest fires because they release CO2. Or maybe they'll go after idiots that build on flood plains (New Orleans) and the whine because they get some water in the basement. IMHO,all eco-nuts would serve a better purpose if they put their money where their mouth is,ie. become fertilizer themselves.
An opened letter to Greg Weston. Also posted on smalldeadanimals.com
Greg, in response to your Toronto Sun Article "Federal Finishing School".
" If you have the misfortune of getting a position in the climate-change department of Environment Canada, be sure to hide your scientific qualifications from the minister and his staff. The Harper government is deeply suspicious of anyone with actual knowledge of global warming."
Greg, with respect, I am afraid you have been watching too much AGW on TV and reading too much about it in newspapers.
Anyone, such as Dr Patrick Moore www.greenspirit.com may also be very suspicious of anyone in the Climate Change Dept. They have been indoctrinated, by the likes of Suzuki and Gore, with half truths, and even no truths.
A prime example is the infamous Mann/UN 'hockey stick graph'. It is the reason we have all this AGW nonsense. The graph has been proven a fraud a long time ago. And so is Kyoto. IMO.
I will give you some benefit of the doubt though. I hope that in your statement " ...... is deeply suspicious of anyone with actual knowledge of global warming" , you intentionally left out the 'man made' part. The 'A' in AGW.
I have seen this tactic in the media for years now. No one is doubting the Earth has warmed this century. It has cooled other centuries. It will cool again. Has been happening since time began. How do you think Canada got covered with a kilometer of ice, just 10000 years ago ?? And it then warmed up. A lot warmer than today and melted it. Imagine, melting glaciers !! Good thing for Canada, I would say.
But what so many in the media do, is intentionally confuse the issue. The so-called "deniers" are people, such as Patrick Moore, who KNOW that Kyoto science is hokey, but in no way deny that the climate changes. Always has.
Some jurnos may still be fooling the TV/newspaper crowd, but they sure as hell are not fooling the blog sphere. There is years of evidence out there in case a liable suit is ever instigated :)
So then, Greg, please tell me, what is wrong with unwinding all the propaganda the Kyoto Kult has been indoctrinating the Environment Department with ??? Or is a policy of falsehoods the way to go ??
I have sent many emails such as this to many of your colleagues and for the most part have received no argument. Is there none ??
Cheers
Ron, in Kelowna
"“Projecting changes in climate due to changes in greenhouse gases 50 years from now is a very different and much more easily solved problem than forecasting weather patterns just weeks from now."
Ahhhhh yes.., Chief, this is the old guessing is more accurate than seeing ploy eh? I can discuss it futher but only in the cone of silence.
Signed
Maxwell Smart
Ron: you say "I have sent many emails such as this to many of your colleagues and for the most part have received no argument. Is there none ??"
I can agree with this statement since I have made many posts on this site offering to discuss the science and time and again I get no response. So, let me ask you a simple question.
The premise of AGW is that:
1) CO2 absorbs infrared radiation,
2) We are responsible for the current rise in CO2.
Which one of these do you disagree with?
Regards,
John
Even if climate warming, doesn't mean manmade. Prescriptions that focus on CO2 only, or are politicized like Kyoto, are doomed to failure,no matter what caused warming. A proper holistic approach to environment, as Patrick Moore advocates is way better.
As for getting off carbon fuels, yes, but everybody, not just West. If China and India modernize using fossil fuels, even with modern efficiencies, there will be an environmental mess. Just look at Bejing air quality now, what hapens when 350 million people (Chinese middle class) start consuming earnestly.
Since we know they're going to modernize with fossil fuels, let's develop new clean technologies here, where we have the resources, leadership and will. That's better than credits, where money meets good intentions, even if we give away the technology, which is fine with me.
The real environmental movement (not the fake neomarxist anti progress ones), has got our attention in the West and we have agreed something needs to be done. They shouldn't ally with Kyoto moonbats, who have another agenda entirely.
Kyoto does nothing to ensure whole world moves off fossil fuels in realistic timeline, it just satisfies some kelptocrats and world power zealots. No way any politican can sell this thing in Canada, no matter how easy ride they get from press.
John, the answer to your question is that it doesnt matter, Since water vapor has by far the greatest influence in regards to GW. The increase in carbon dioxide is minute in comparison to its total in the make up of the atmosphere.
Lee: Two questions for you:
1) Can you put a number on minute?
2) What is the main governing factor for water content in the atmosphere?
Regards,
John
Weather, that silly galloping hippopotumus dancing around the globe in a wild and random frenzy, while clinging climatologists scream out whoah! stop! please slow to a straight walk so we can be scientific about this. = TG
John:
1) no i cant exactly, but i believe its in the range of .0001%
2)Heat
Is this a test or what? If you want to debate, then go ahead and debate.
Lee: I was just trying to establish a basis from which we can debate.
In regards to your first point, I have never heard the number 0.0001% quoted (although on re-reading your post I am not sure what you are saying with your 0.0001%). Water is more common in the atmosphere than CO2, but the effect is much greater than your value. Generally it is accepted that water is about 3 to 4 times as important a greenhouse gas as CO2.
Now, lets say that we add some CO2. This will cause a given amount of warming. THis warming will allow more H2O to enter the atmosphere which will cause more warming which will allow more H2O to enter the atmosphere .... This is why H2O vapor is generally called a feedback.
Thus the issue is not that water is more important, it is that CO2 will cause more water to enter the atmosphere.
Regards,
John
[The premise of AGW is that:
1) CO2 absorbs infrared radiation,
2) We are responsible for the current rise in CO2.
Which one of these do you disagree with?]
Once more with feeling.
The combined effect of these[all of them] greenhouse gases is to warm Earth's atmosphere by about 33 ºC, from a chilly -18 ºC in their absence to a pleasant +15 ºC in their presence. 95% (31.35 ºC) of this warming is produced by water vapour, which is far and away the most important greenhouse gas. The other trace gases contribute 5% (1.65 ºC) of the greenhouse warming, amongst which carbon dioxide corresponds to 3.65% (1.19 ºC). The human-caused contribution corresponds to about 3% of the total carbon dioxide in the present atmosphere, the great majority of which is derived from natural sources. Therefore, the probable effect of human-injected carbon dioxide is a miniscule 0.12% of the greenhouse warming, that is a temperature rise of 0.036 ºC.
***!!!! Put another way, 99.88% of the greenhouse effect has nothing to do with carbon dioxide emissions from human activity. ***!!!
And if, IF we warmed Canada a little, a LITTLE, would it be so bad if, IF, January 12, 2098 was minus (-)24.0 degrees instead of minus (-)24.4 degrees ??
And to answer the non-pertinent questions;
1) yes CO2 absorbes infared radiation but very little.
2)We are resposible for very little of the rise in CO2. A volcano ?? Now we're talking !! Put a cork in IT.
I know what buggs the Kyoto Kroud. Me too, to some extent.
We shouldn't waste hydro carbons. For many reasons. Pollution (real, not esential CO2).
Waste of money.
Upward pressure on gasoline prices.
Crouds our streets and highways.
Scooters !! But first we would need some law n' order out there on the road.
"Thus the issue is not that water is more important, it is that CO2 will cause more water to enter the atmosphere." JC.
How do you know that ??
The 'runaway greenhose effect' has never been proven.
It, however, has been proven to be effective as a fearmongering agent :)
Just like Y2K and Silent Spring and the hockey stick graph and Malthus food shortages and killer bees and alien crop circles and Martians and frankenfoods and SARS and the Earth Charter and ...
Ron: DO you have a reference for your 95% number? If so, is it this site?
On that site, the 95% number is based on not understanding a paper from where it was taken. I can provide references on request.
Your 3% number for anthropogenic CO2 is also wrong. We are currently responsible for about 100 ppm of the current 380 ppm which works out to about 26%. There is no question about this number and I have presented the argument on this site, but if you wish to question it, I would be willing to go through it Once more with feeling.
Regards,
John
ron, in that case, it is good that I never mentioned a "runaway" greenhouse effect. Positive feedbacks do not need to be runaway. In this case it is indeed a convergent series.
Regards,
John
CO2 debate is one thing.. doing something could be useful too..
[ PEV] Plug-in Electric Vehicle The *free-ride* car we want but . . . . . . . can not find yet in Canada. [Hated by Big-Auto. No ICE]
[Phybrid] Plug-in hybrid. Much better tan simple hybrid. You . . . . . . . . can plug in and use much more battery energy.
[Bhybrid] Bio-fuel hybrid. Better than simple hybrid. You have . . . . . . . . bio-fuel mobility during a *No Gas* emergency
[Hybrid] Small battery pack that gains energy on braking but . . . . . . . is wholly dependant upon gasoline or diesel. This product keeps Big Auto, Chevron and Exxon-Mobile happy.
Any Hybrid is really two autos in one and needlessly complex.
A PEV is limited in range from 130 to 250 miles but is ideal for 90% of drivers who drive less than 50 - 60 miles daily.
EV motorbike owners enjoy total freedom. No gas, No plate, No Driver License, No insurance and almost no safety, but that*s the aggressive culture of us who drive gas guzzlers. = TG
Tony, could you please post more often about the benefits of electric vehicles? It would be great if you could post endlessly on this topic, jumping on any feeble excuse, making the same points over and over again, because we're all really obtuse and just don't get it.
Oh, and don't forget the too cute "=TG" because otherwise we might think someone else is doing it, someone who lacks your insight.
Perhaps I can help answer your question, John, as to putting a number on minute: 1 Minute = 60 Henrys per Ohm.
John:
Even if i accepted the co2 caused Gw theory (which i most assuredly do not), Canada produces 2% of the worlds production of co2.
To what extent are you willing to bankrupt our country to reduce, even in part, our contribution?
1 Minute = 60 Henrys per Ohm.
Ouch, only an engineer would see amusement in that! Of course I am one so it did bring a smile to my lips!
...another dam[p]ed engineer!
One of the problems with the IPCC is that what they say is facially true. Long term predictions tend to be better because they can cancel out noise in the signal, while short term changes are liable to be washed out by random variations: it's applying sample size concerns from statistics.
The problem comes when you are changing the system's parameters when you extend the time scale or expand the group size. This can happen accidentally or on purpose, and I'll bet the IPCC is doing this on purpose. Predicting the temperature in front of your house in 2 minutes is hard, while in 4 hours it's pretty easy, and for 2-3 days. The changes are at the level that we can detect and predict in the few hours to few days - cloud movements, night/day cycles... Too short a time frame and you need to know the exact details in a small area around you - we can't do that. Too long and you are climate modeling and chaos kicks you because we can't predict exactly where convection will throw the next storm.
Climate modelers like to think that they've got all of the important variables nailed - but that's highly unlikely since they can't account for observed past behaviour nor can they do good medium term predictions on the variables that they "know".
I do like the runaway greenhouse gas people - they're hinged to a low probability chance that huge this system that existed for billions of years will be competely thrown out of whack by a tiny % change in one parameter. Catastrophe theory shows it can and does happen, but in a system this large and with this many buffers it's rather unlikely that the failure point is so incredibly close to our preferred median. It's like they've never done calculus or seen how biological or climate systems react to asymptotic reactions...
lee: I think that it is a moot question since we can not agree on the science. If you are correct about AGW, then there is very little cost justified. If I am then there is more so. My argument is always about the science which I think should form the basis of decisions.
However I will note that I do not think that it has been shown that Kyoto will cause economic harm to Canada (at least not with the same rigor that global warming has).
Regards,
John
Dean Spencer,
The information posted said nothing about benefits.
The post could save someone considering a hybrid a ton of money.
What constructive or helpful post have you made lately? = TG
"Projecting changes in climate due to changes in greenhouse gases 50 years from now is a very different and much more easily solved..."
The projecting is easier; it's the being right that's harder.
Let it be about the science, then...
Consider the simplest limiting cases:
What was the pre-industrial CO_2 level?
What is the current CO_2 level?
If we burned all the natural gas, oil and coal on the planet, what would the CO_2 levels be?
What percentage of IR radiation originating from the earth’s re-radiation of energy is trapped in each case?
In each case, what is the average global mean temperature?
John Cross,
Your two points are relatively meaningless. CO2 absorbs IR at a very narrow bandwidth. The CO2 effect is logarithmic, not linear. If the present addition of 100ppm caused an additional 0.6 or 0.8 or what ever number you choose, another 100ppm will not cause the same rise. That would take 200ppm, then 400ppm, etc. According to that reconing, it would require a total of 700ppm extra CO2 to raise the global temperature by 1.8 degrees over "pre-industrial" Hockey Stick levels.
That is if all other things are equal, and they are not. It does not take into account changes in solar flux, clouds, cyclonic storms, destruction of rain forests, etc.
Even if you look at CO2 as a simple blanket, we all know that after a point, adding more insulation does't produce any more heat trapping. At any rate, it follows the law of deminishing returns.
Does climate change? Yes, and it always has, just ask the Vikings who had to leave Greenland or the people who mined the high alpine in Europe before the LIA.
"the evidence of a human fingerprint on the global and regional climate is incontrovertible as clearly illustrated in the National Research Council report and in our research papers" - Rodger A. Pielke
Thus concludes Kate's unintended ironic moment.
Ted,
Care to site a reference for that bit from Pielke?
My search didn't produce that gem.
An idea whose time may have come. Electric bicycles!With the current improvements in disc brakes for bicycles and suspention shock absorbers there is no reason not to increase top speeds for electrics to 45 or 50 kph.Now if that happens bicycles will blow the doors of cars during rush hours all across north american cities.
John,
I've tried to get other supporters of AGW to answer these questions. Universally there has been no definitive response. Maybe you would like to give them a try. The answers need to be specific.
Approximately 12,000 ybp there was an ice sheet covering most of North America. In southern Canada and the northern portions of the US it was upwards of two miles (3.2 kilometers) thick. Approximately 10,000 ybp there was no ice sheet covering these mentioned areas.
1) Why did this ice sheet melt and retreat?
2) What was the average mean temperature at approximately 12,000 ybp that caused the ice sheet to form?
3) What was the average mean temperature at approximately 10,000 ybp that caused the ice sheet to melt?
4) Over those 2,000 years what was the rate of change of the average mean temperature?
5) Was the rate of change in the average mean temperature between 12,000 ybp and 10,000 ybp linear or variable?
6) What was the carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere at 12,000 ybp?
7) What was the carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere at 10,000 ybp?
8) Was the rate of change in carbon dioxide levels over those 2,000 years linear or variable?
9) Was that change in carbon dioxide levels between 12,000 ybp and 10,000 ybp caused by activities of man?
10) How does the highly variable rate of advance and retreat of that period of continental glaciation compare with the advance and retreat rates of glaciers that is being observed today?
After we get done with that period of continental glaciation (and of of it's related surges and retreats over that 2,000 year period) we can then address all those other periods of continental glaciation that have occurred prior to that. How many of those would you propose were caused by human-related activities?
Then we can move on to the concurrent warming of the other planets and the human-induced affects there.
John Cross,
"However I will note that I do not think that it has been shown that Kyoto will cause economic harm to Canada (at least not with the same rigor that global warming has)."
What harm has global warming caused to Canada? Are you refering to the massive retreat of ice 10000 years ago that made it possible for us to live here? So far I haven't seen any downside to the current warming.
John, if we assume that your assumption that increasing CO2 levels will increase temperatures which will increase evaporation, then increased atmospheric H2O is just as likely to lead to more clouds which will increase the earth's albedo and decrease amount of heat absorbed by the earth.
If the AGW adherents are so confident in the ability of their models to predict the earth's climate 50-100 years in the future, then surely they must have data showing how well these models predict climate in past years. Before embarking on what may be the most expensive and misguided venture in human history, I think it would be prudent to see how well the models work. I have yet to see any evidence that the models can predict the climate from say 1950-2000 which would be a time when there was extensive worldwith climatological data which could be used to test the model. Weather is chaotic and thus can't be predicted more than a week or so in advance. The crucial question here is whether climate is chaotic; if it is, then there is absolutely no way that climate 50 years in the future can be predicted with any certainty.
My guess is that climate is also chaotic.
loki said:"My guess is that climate is also chaotic."
No need to guess. It is written in the rocks. Four plus billions of years of geologic history says it is, in fact, highly variable, and that that variability is chaotic.
jnicklin,
The link you are looking for is here:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=186#comment-4426
You might want to look at the pdf he references at the end of his comment - it adds context.
Question for John :
Who was responsible for increase in CO2 level
one thousand years ago when temperature
in northern Europe was much higher than it is now ?
John Cross
The CO2 absorbs IR radiation. In fact it absorbs in roughtly the same bands as water vapour. As water vapour has several orders of magnitude higher concentrations your piling pebbles on a mountain and claiming the mountain is growing.
The GCM models do not track water vapour, the most important green house gas. They are trying to make a puzzle with 85% of the pieces missing. They are doomed to failure.
So here are two statements for you:
1) The sun is the primary source of all incoming energy on Earth
2) The suns intensity waxes and wanes
And out of all this discussion back and forth, I think the PRIMARY point of all this is that the science is entirely NOT settled. Given this, should we put our limited resources into:
A) curbing our output of greenhouse gases which may or may not have any affect on global warming;
b) developing infrastructure to deal with changing climate (including energy efficiency technologies that could help (a)
c) continue the genuine science of climate change rather than the politics and propaganda (both ways) of climate change
Yoop - don't expect definitive answers to your questions too soon:
Take the ice core data, for example. CO2 levels are inferred from gas diffusion/trapping based on firn (compressed snow) models mapped against deposition ages (delta-age calculations), which are themselves inferred via isotope correlation against consensus dates for these temporal signatures, and matched against one another. Landing on the moon was easier.
Presently accepted (!) modeling approaches purportedly separate "natural" forcings from anthropogenic ones, immediately biasing the treatment by predisposing decoupling, and treat the natural forcings in a simplistic and grossly incomplete manner (H2O, clouds, etc). The model is thus constructed on a value system, rather than on observation and prior validated theory. Is it any wonder that tautology arises?
One cannot even extract broad agreement on a simple asymptotic analysis of the global warming potential of CO2 concentration alone, without half the field (hyperbole warning!) obfuscating rather straightforward calculations with either outright nonsense or unfounded dogmatic insistence that limiting cases aren’t.
The science is far from settled...
Ted,
Did you read the referenced article? Pielke is talking about factors other than CO2, mostly surface disturbance and urbanization. We see the human fingerprint in the urban heat island effect and in clearing forests to plant beans and sugar cane to make ethanol, the future fuel that will starve the world.
The original post in this thread was about GCMs not being readily capable of predicting greenhouse gas related warming. Pielke's paper does not deal with that except in a passing fashion, his concern is more about other things that we are doing to the planet that Kyoto does no cover, things that we may be able to correct if we are not spending all of our money chasing CO2.
John
*******Ouch, only an engineer would see amusement in that! Of course I am one so it did bring a smile to my lips!*******
you an engineer????sure had me fooled
I would have thought after his first few comments here some weeks ago that it is obvious that John is an engineer, but perhaps we engineers just have some sort of sixth sense for detecting other engineers.
I don't agree with John's conclusions on the degree of risk to assign to (in particular) human-produced atmospheric CO2 vapour, but his is a good, reasoned, calm argument. I would much rather spend a few days discussing the many factors relevent to the debate with him than with many of those who ostensibly agree with me and yet do nothing but spout platitudes.
I suspect that in such a discussion we would find that we actually agree on most of the component issues and are a just seeing a different perspective on the risk conclusions because of the various individual personality inputs in our decision processes. After all, we both appreciate the beauty of the Henrys per Ohm phenomenon, and the two definitions of minute pun.
Anyway, the problem is, we can't really have that discussion via this medium, because of its limited inter-personal bandwidth, and because of the generally low overall signal to noise ratio. So I'm not going to try.
As always, I wish you all well.
Is that 26% figure derived from an argumentum ad ignorato ("I dunno where it comes from, so it has to be caused by us")?
Vitruvius makes a good point about assignment of risk to various parameters being a personal decision rather than based on hard science. This very important bit of information is neglected by the MSM who have a propensity for concentrating their coverage on the most disatrous scenario. Probably a headline stating "oceans to rise 200 feet" sells more papers than "sea level likely to stay the same for the next 50 years" even if former scenario has a miniscule probability of occurring.
My expertise is not in engineering (I wanted to be an engineer but somehow ended up in medicine) and I do not trust any medical story that comes from the MSM. As an example, consider the furor over COX2 NSAIDs. These are very usefull drugs and far safer than the old COX1 NSAIDS which kill about 1500 people/year in Canada primarily as the result of GI bleeding. Viox was banned and Celebrex is one of the few COX2's on the market now. There were stories on how Celebrex increased the risk of heart attacks and when I looked into this area, I found it to be a very minor risk and, strangely enough Ibuprofen is as equally likely to cause MI's as celebrex. One hears nothing about ibuprofen in the media probably because of the amount of money the company that makes Advil spends on TV advertising. Ibufrofen is significantly more dangerous than Celebrex and is available without a prescription.
Most recently there was breathless coverage of a "study" regarding the dangers of Avandia, a drug used to treat diabetes. First of all, this was not a study, but a meta analysis in which all the studies in which Avandia had been used were lumped together and deaths from heart attacks were counted. (This is usually a statistically suspect methodology). Out of ~25000 patients in the studies there were ~20 extra deaths in the patients taking Avandia. Considering that diabetics tend to die primarily from heart disease it is no surprise that heart attacks occurred. If this was a significant effect, then it would have shown up by now in several large trials in which Avandia is being used to see if it has any effect of deaths from heart disease. I know about this not because I listen to the TV news, but because patients of mine have come in panicking because they now believe I've put them on a drug that is going to give them a heart attack. If a diabetic patient does get a heart attack (like they invariably do), they will blame a drug for it rather than the diabetes which they've encouraged by lack of exercise and overeating.
Based on my review of medical papers and media coverage of the same topics, I disbelieve anything I hear in the media when it comes to medicine. The MSM have also shown themselves to be completely ignorant of the internet so if there is a computer story in the MSM the best reaction is to disbelieve this also as the "facts" are likely erroneous. When it comes to climate change, I don't see the media doing anything different than they do in the areas of medical coverage and coverage of the internet so it is simplest to disbelieve them on this issue also.
To get back to personal assessments of danger, I happen to consider large chunks of rock in space to be a far greater danger to the earth's climate than anthropogenic CO2. NASA has a miniscule budget for discovering and tracking near earth asteroids and if one is looking for a place to spend lots of money, this would be it as we don't just have to identify potential problem asteroids, but also develop the capability to steer them away from the earth.
loki, exactly !!
Probably a dito for climatologists too.
And auto mechanics.
Airline pilots.
Farmers. (This group I know to be the case)
Housebuilders.
Equity brokers.
Foresters.
And .... well, all walks of life, except journos and some politicos. And, of course, the Kyoto Kroud.
Jnicklin: I guess I was confused. I thought that Kate reference this guy to show that the "consensus" about human caused global warming was a joke. I thought she was citing this guy because he was claiming that the computer models can't really be trusted. I though it was hilarious that he still was a "consensus" guy, albeit for different reasons. But as it turns out, I was just confused. Sorry to stir you.
Thanks for the active discussion. I apologize for the delay in answering but we generally have sunday night games with the family which I can't miss, even for excellent discussions on AGW. However, here are replies in no particular order. I hope I responded to everyone who had a comment but if not please bring it to my attention. (Yoop, I am going to hold off on answering your post since I need to put some research in on it.)
Jnicklin: I don’t agree with your logic (you ignore thermal inertia) but your results are actually quite close to what the IPCC gives. Now, in addition to your temperature rise of 1.8C from CO2, estimate the increase due to water vapour (hint, look at the water vapour saturation levels at say 15C and 16.8C).
In regards to implications for Canada, this paper is an interesting read: Long-Term Aridity Changes in the Western United States by Cook et al.
Loki, why do you say that? In fact, the best guess is that absolute humidity will increase but relative humidity will decrease (which only makes sense if you think about it).
Andrew: The CO2 levels 1000 years ago in Europe were lower then now. Best guess is that the sun was responsible for warming then.
DKJONES: Could you please back up your several orders of magnitude claim for water vs CO2 and when you do, please refer to the elevation levels in the atmosphere for which it is valid.
In regards to your 2 points, I agree with both. However we have seen no increase in solar activity that would account for the last 25 years of warming (the 25 year timespan is because this is how long we have been able to accurately monitor solar activity).
However I do not understand by what you mean by track water. They do include water vapour in the models.
Daniel M Ryan: No, the 26% has a firm foundation in theory and observations. IN regards to theory, we take the amount of fossil fuel burned in a year and convert it to CO2 and see how much of the observed rise it accounts for. This is backed up by CO2 isotope studies.
Regards
John