Dear mike,
Thank you for your explanation, which is the best I’ve seen so far.
I’ll include it in my tumblog, if you don’t mind.
But just between you and me: aren’t you a bit over-zealous in categorizing me with Fred? I thought you already given me a special role among the trolls. But now, I have to live up the expectation of nearly always being as graceful and gentlemanly as Fred.
Ah! I see what you’ve done!
You devilish trickster!
Bart
IPCC used your second data set.
Eli Rabett:
Like many with interests in climatology, you and Kate seem unaware of the significance of a statistical population for an inquiry when this inquiry is “scientific” in nature. A sample drawn from this population provides the sole basis for the statistical testing of whatever generalizations are generated by this inquiry. Absent this statistical population and sample, generalizations such as Kate’s conclusion that “…if you draw a graph of the total amount of warming vs. total CO2 emitted, it will be a straight line…” cannot be tested. it follows that these generalizations lie outside science, by the definition of “science.”
Bart R:
Any government is bigger than any fossil fuel company. So who’s the bigger thief? And how is it theft to receive a market price, set by supply and demand, for a product – including fossil fuels?
There is a name for those of us who produce and have our earnings taken from us by the kleptocrats that rule our country and so many others. The name is SLAVES.
I believe CMP5 has a fundamental problem. That modern climate started in 1960-61. This is a common error. The starting date should be about 1905. Between 1905 and 1940 global temperature rose about 0.5C due to CO2. There was then a transport delay of about 30 years during which global atmospheric temperature actually fell despite higher CO2, but 100% absorption. After 1970 the earlier temperature rise had propagated through the oceans, producing the present atmospheric temperature. See my ‘An alternative theory of climate change’ at http://members.iinet.net.au/~alexandergbiggs.Obviously ignoring a large permanent chunk of heat pre-1940 would make prediction difficult.
Steven Mosher (May 11, 2012 at 3:55 am):
I don’t believe you can support your claim that “we know from fundamental physics that more Co2 leads to warming.” If you believe that you can, please present your argument.
@@gbaikie | May 22, 2012 at 11:11 pm says: ” US temperatures are big influence on how global temperature is measured and are a significant factor”
Unless the influence is by the number of cubic kilometers of air – instead by number of thermometers = = = ALL crap!
98 was ”declared” as the warmest” that has nothing to do with the reality. It was ”declared”, because was the year after Kyoto conference = to scare the hell out of the Urban Sheep, BOO!!!. It turned out as ”gift / water pistols to the fake Skeptics – to fight the Warmist. The Fakes never ask themselves: how do they look in the Warmist eyes when using 98 as evidence… lie concocted by the Warmist. Same as Johnny telling how stupid his father is, for saying that: we don’t need to build chimney for Santa – he will get in trough the window
3] “The Central England Temperature (CET) record is notable” for dishonest people as Vukcevic, Tony Brown and you. When the temp is monitored only on 0,0000000000000000000001% of the earth’s surface area / only for the hottest minute in 24h – using English data, only tells bout the users, not about the GLOBAL temp. gbaike, do you get a kick out of coning the people; or is it only for the money you are doing it? USA is 1% of the world’s surface area, 1%!!!
See David’s comment below. You misunderstand the entire exercise. If the world can only spend X amount of money, where should it be spent for maximum benefit to humanity?
Stephen Rasey | May 23, 2012 at 1:56 pm |
What you call resources not owned by anyone I regard as property never surrrendered by anyone.
And while you’re enjoying the luxury of confusing nonlucrative biological processes with lucrative economic ones, this is no more valid than claiming I owe rent if my shadow falls on your front lawn while I walk along the public sidewalk outside your white picket fence.
J is the carbon cycle. …
J is not keeping up with CO2 emissions;
J is therefore scarce
(Groan) Well, maybe if J is a carbon cycle capacity it can be scarce. But are you implying that it cannot grow?
, and it is rivalrous Only if the capacity of the carbon cycle must be rationed and not grown.
And that brings us back to square one where we must believe either
(1) a bunch of big government kleptocrats armed with buggy computer models with insufficient data who tell us high CO2 will mean the end of life as we know it and that handing over our freedom and treasure will solve that sky-is-falling problem, or
(2) the Rocks — Which tell us, “Been there before. What problem?”, or
(3) the Plants — who collectively say, “Good! the CO2 drought is over!”
Jim Cripwell | May 23, 2012 at 2:30 pm |
We’ve had this CO2 signal discussion before.
Frankly, you’re misrepresenting the case.
http://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/personal-incredulity
You’ve goalpost-movingly, impossible-perfection-demandingly denied plausible answers to your challenge in such a way that makes it patent you never will accept any answer to it.
So people just gave up.
Rob Starkey | May 23, 2012 at 2:07 pm |
I’m not really expecting the Chaos Theory explanation to carry much weight with reductionists. Some things just don’t reduce well. It doesn’t mean I have to support simpleton arguments when faced with oversimplified arguments.
Perhaps you’ll explain the tax ‘inefficiency’ in the context of the BC Revenue Neutral Carbon Tax?
It may simplify things for you, if you stick to facts and actual cases.
property never surrrendered by anyone.
I think this is a logical fallacy when the propery is not recognized to begin with. How can it be property own by anyone if they don’t know if it’s existence? At some point in man’s development we became aware of the air and only later became aware of its make up and later still, the model of the Carbon Cycle (actually not a tangible thing at all – just a concept).
claiming I owe rent if my shadow falls
But if you build a high-rise or billboard that deprives me of sunlight that I was using for my garden or solar collector, should that not be actionable?
Beth Cooper | May 23, 2012 at 11:24 am |
Yeah, I never was much of a fan of Kyoto, so don’t feel especially obliged to defend it.
If you want an efficient economy, you want a Capitalist Market. If you want a Capitalist Market, you must privatize all your scarce rivalrous excludable resources where administratively feasible.
The carbon cycle is no different from mobile phone bandwidth, in that sense.
This isn’t a climate question per se. It’s a simple question of managing the economy.
Until and unless we’re looking at level playing ground prices, how can any analysis deliver an objective basis for comparing costs of various proposals?
As it happens, I don’t disagree a lot of wind energy projects are scams. Even moreso are biomass projects, however, and tarsands are even more extreme scams by that same premise. Which I imagine means little to you. What Australia’s circumstances are, I’m too unfamiliar with to comment, so I generally don’t. Other than to point out, I’ve heard Australians generally back the Capitalist approach to economics.
Jim Cripwell wrote:
”
I have examined all the modern temperature/time graphs that there are, and none of them show a CO2 signal that can be positively identified as a CO2 signal.
”
That’s right – all there ever is to see are axes and data-points.
A “CO2 signal” would require a graph with little labels on each datum that say “I was caused by humans” or “I am perfectly natural warming” or “This month’s positive anomaly brought to you by methane”…
You never see that sort of thing.
Shame, really – climate science would be SO much easier.
”
The question I ask myself is, how long do we wait before we conclude that there is NEVER going to be any CO2 signal at all?
”
You’re already there.
The world will catch up with you when the laws of physics are voted off the island.
Here we go: fractal wave analysis, an example from the stock market.
http://blog.afraidtotrade.com/quick-elliott-wave-update-on-the-sp-500/
See how much more elegant an understanding can be developed?
Not saying it’s any more valid than trying to clumsily fit trig curves to non-trig data. Just that it shows how futile trigonometric approaches are to trends like one sees in the stock market, or the climate.
Stephen Rasey | May 23, 2012 at 2:51 pm |
(Groan) Well, maybe if J is a carbon cycle capacity it can be scarce. But are you implying that it cannot grow?
On the data? Even if it were growing, it’s not keeping up. It’s far more likely shrinking than growing, and really, all we need know for scarcity is that there is a limit, not its nature. The nature of the limits would be an issue of management and administration, which we’re just not there yet.
, and it is rivalrous Only if the capacity of the carbon cycle must be rationed and not grown.
If you’re proposing a geoengineering plan to grow the carbon cycle capacity, that’s also an interesting question. 
It’s entirely possible that simple botanical selection of deeper-rooting, or more root-mass concentrating plants and subsoil microbes _could_ expand the capacity of the carbon cycle up to sequestration limits.
Of course, then eventually we get to the hard geological limits of how fast we can precipitate carbon out of the biosphere and turn it into rocks. It appears to me that rate is pretty much fixed, and no one’s proposing a scheme to increase the rate would be cost effective.
And that brings us back to square one where we must believe either
(1) a bunch of big government kleptocrats armed with buggy computer models with insufficient data who tell us high CO2 will mean the end of life as we know it and that handing over our freedom and treasure will solve that sky-is-falling problem, or
Unless we let the Market decide by privatizing and pricing the carbon cycle, just like every other rivalrous excludable resource with capacity limits.
(2) the Rocks — Which tell us, “Been there before. What problem?”, or
When we were there before, the planet could sustain perhaps 40% as much biomass as it appears to at a stable peak of 280 ppmv CO2.
(3) the Plants — who collectively say, “Good! the CO2 drought is over!”
Except CO2 has been as low as 180 ppmv. The drought is in fixed nitrogen, which raising CO2 levels just makes worse.
Stephen Rasey | May 23, 2012 at 3:01 pm |
