Powered by TypePad

« Afghanistan Up | Main | Malthus Lives! (But Not Here - Dismal Reporting On The Dismal Science) »

October 24, 2009


Buford Gooch

If I recall correctly, increased carbon dioxide has always led to increased food production. 350 is a low point, not a high point.

Steve McIntyre vs Ben Hale.

This whole business is the most preposterous piece of fantasia ever. The effect of CO2 is utterly unknown, since it acts in an immensely complicated system with as yet unguessed feedbacks and forcings. The earth is a huge analogue computer processing the solar and geothermal energy input(only 2%) and the reason we may never adequately model the climate is a well-worn question: But why turbulence?

Charlie (Colorado)

...the reason we may never adequately model the climate is a well-worn question: But why turbulence?



In the Jurassic period CO2 concentrations were 1800ppm and during the Cambrian they were as much as 7000ppm.

The planet flourished with life then, but for some reason a slow accumulation to levels much lower than this will result in devastation for the most technologically advanced species the planet has ever known.

Steve McIntyre vs Ben Hale.

Just under 300 ppm is considered the estimate of CO2 conc. before industrialization contributed anthropogenically to the atmosphere. We've increased the concentration by about a third.

Scroll down a little to the missing the point thread in the LUN for yesterday's discussion about the Yamal business. There's much, much more at climateaudit.org recently including a link to a fine music youtube.

I'm kind of proud of that 'what', Chaco.  You're hard to fool.  There is more than turbulence wrong with the models..

Chaco, I understand relativity, God, but why turbulence.

Are we shaking the Champagne before popping the cork?

Yep, chip, more and more the argument is being made that CO2 is more likely beneficial than harmful. The truth is we don't know its effect. It is not hard to show that its role in climate has been exaggerated by the alarmists, but it is not easy to demonstrate its real effect. On crops, it is clearly a plus, but not all of plant life is limited by CO2 conc. On the flip side, it certainly is a factor in all plant life.

And what's good for the plant kingdom is good for the animal kingdom. Again, betting with the odds. No numbers or careful research here.

Charlie (Colorado)

In the Jurassic period CO2 concentrations were 1800ppm and during the Cambrian they were as much as 7000ppm.

And the four foot dragonflies were kinda cool.

Captain Hate

some prominent scientists and economists focusing on climate policy said the 350 target was so unrealistic that the campaign risked not being taken seriously

That risk was already realized long before this 350 nonsense.

Barack the Magnificent


Joseph Brown

I tell you, when they start growing Kentucky Blue on Everest I might start believing their global warming crap.
Until they do, include me out.


The caps lock key can be turned off!


Here we go again. I remember when the tribes were fulminating about silica levels. "Keep using flint at these levels,robbing Mother Earth,who ever that is,of her precious resources,knapping away making luxury axe heads and scrapers and the Moon Goddess won't rise again",the Shaman used to say,pointing a bony finger at the sky .
"Well if you think we are going back to chewing deer hides to get the fur off",our womenfolk said,"You can sleep with the dogs outside the hut".
We gave the Shaman a real feast,then strangled him and threw him into a bog.Seem to work like a charm,we do it every year now.Never any more trouble with the Moon Goddess.

They burned them to make salt to preserve the herring caught in overabundance.

What druid told you burning those black rocks would change the weather?

He doesn't understand that socialism in housing made this mess.

If Cap and Trade isn't a socialist mop, then that budget isn't a socialist mess.

Free Radical

We gave the Shaman a real feast,then strangled him and threw him into a bog.Seem to work like a charm,we do it every year now.

When are you going to get around to giving the arch-druid (ahem) that treatment?

Barack the Wise

I know there is debate about this issue. In recent days, there have been misguided criticisms of this plan that 350 parts per million is unrealistic, that it's just words.

Others say 7000 parts per million would be fine; it worked before.

I have always said the notion that Western countries alone will solve all of the problems created in the previous administration is wrongheaded. That is why I am announcing a new multimillion dollar technology fund for Muslim nations. I am confident that these scientists will join with me in taking the courageous, bold position, standing up to the ideologues on both sides.

Together, we will add 350 and 7000, and yield some 7350. We will cleave the figure in two. Our goal is 3675 parts per million.

Link under name for those holding their breaths.

Watts Up has pictures of the massive 350 demonstrations.


Free Radical.What Old Archbishop Swampy? He's in some new fangled religion or other.Seems to involve wearing frocks.


That was embarassing, specially coupled with the Memeorandum link by Matt Cooper,
that poor fellow, I didn't have the heart
to follow Rick Ballards's advice, when I was at CPAC. He's made me reconsider that decision every day since then.

Al Gore

Mr. Bush, I congratulate you on your victory tonight.


Cocoa the Dog responds to allegations that his carbon footprint is as big as a Hummer.


Yo, Cocoa, way to go. Michelle was licking her chops, looking at me.

Free range rats; now there's a delicacy.

Don't turn your back; sometimes she looks just a little Asian around the eyes.

Rick Ballard

I would like a "700 or Bust!" bumpersticker for my SUVs.


Very funny, PUK!I thought you were too busy shaving that 350 in your tresses to post.


These people are beyond satire, you would think we put the foot in their mouth, but
that was entirely there own doing. I think
Otters' line in Animal House, "It's Time to do something pointless and selfdestructive, and we're just the ones to do it"

Gregory Koster

350, bunk. It's obvious that 666 is the magical figure, which will bring on the End Times, as opposed to the Pain in the End times we are living in until 2013.


I really think this should be shown in every school room. Please watch it and pass it around. It is the presentation of Lord Christopher Monckton, at Bethel University on Wednesday, October 14th, from beginning to end.

It reminds me of PUK and his wicked humor telling the absolute truth about GW. I promise all of you...you will enjoy it.

Man-made Global Deceit ~ Man-made Global Mega-Theft ~ Man-made Global War

The subject: a treaty, planned for December signing by all parties, for the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change -- and what this really is: warfare against America, by Man-made Global Marxism -- and High Treason, planned by Barack Obama, et. al. The enemy are "transnational progressives" who are "breathing together" around the world, to bring America and Americans down, financially, militarily, politically, and in the process, to destroy our personal, "popular" sovereignty and our national sovereignty.

but for some reason a slow accumulation to levels much lower than this will result in devastation

You've probably seen some of those pictures of Al Gore when he .. wasn't on a diet. Imagine if food were even more plentiful than today, folks like Al Gore would balloon to immense proportions .. a return of the dinosaurs .. and they would look just like Al Gore.

The horror .. the horror.


.. and this "350" thing .. why not "300" ..
Because this is Sparta !!


I won't hold my breath for snoopes.com to post anything like this ...

I contend that the belief in human-caused global warming as a dangerous event, either now or in the future, has most of the characteristics of an urban legend. Like other urban legends, it is based upon an element of truth. Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas whose concentration in the atmosphere is increasing, and since greenhouse gases warm the lower atmosphere, more CO2 can be expected, at least theoretically, to result in some level of warming.

But skillful storytelling has elevated the danger from a theoretical one to one of near-certainty.


"THis is Madness, No this is Sparta" it fits
either way, that last part about Al Gore, I saw in that terrible adaptation of "The Sound of Thunder"


“The effect of CO2 is utterly unknown”

According to ingenious natural experiments of Idso (of CO2science.com fame), climate sensitivity is about 0.3 degree C per doubling of atmospheric CO2, or ten times lower than IPCC crooks are claiming. And, of course, no tipping points and run-away effects.

Turbulence is classic example of chaotic process – just like climate. Chaotic processes are impossible to model or predict beyond very short time interval (for weather theoretical limit of accurate forecast is about 10 days; currently we can predict for 4-5 days), and this is just common sense, it was mathematically proven. What climate modelers are doing is, in simple analogy, forecasting share price of each S&P 500 companies for every day of 21 century, averaging it, and predicting that in 2100 S&P will be 10 000.

“…not all of plant life is limited by CO2 conc…”

Increased atmospheric CO2 concentration improves plant’s water usage efficiency. No less than 80% of terrestrial plants are water-limited.

The London Times is reporting that Obama won't go to Copenhagen.

My own sense of it is that Idso's close, though the real climatic effect of CO2 is going to depend upon the interaction of feedbacks, which are unknown.

Yes, turbulence is cool. In the GCMs, convection is inadequately parameterized, as are probably all the oceanic and atmospheric circulations, all of which are turbulent. The models also inadequately deal with cloud formation and really with all the phase transitions of water. There main problem, though, is the assumption that Water Vapor is a large and positive feedback to the initial forcing by CO2. I like your analogy with the S&P value in 90 years; it's an easily understood picture of the pitifully inadequate state of the models.

Thanks about CO2 fertilization; I didn't know that.

Thanks for the links Ann and Neo. Lord Monckton and Roy Spencer are two of the giants in the skeptical world.



Someone needs to boil this carp down to the government thinks it is toxic for you to exhale.

Yet, Clinton's response was that he never inhaled. ...

So, Obama's response should be that he never exhales....

Sabotaging common sense again!


“The Thermostat Hypothesis” – interesting take on role of water and turbulence in atmosphere, under the LUN.


Ann, fimally someone mentions the elephant in the room!
We all exhale CO2.

I've been reticent to bring it up, in case it gives the one-world fascists reason to promote population control.

Well, the above comments handle that, too.
Plant life, food supply increases with CO2.

I'm choosing a green avatar for this comment :)


I envision new oases springing up in the Sahara and the interior of Australia. Lots of space for everyone.

Did you ever wonder where all the increased number of spirits are coming from? Earth has been featured as a wonderful vacation spot elsewhere in the universe. And to play here and really enjoy all the fun sensations, one needs a body :)


I love these avatars!
Greens.com and Bluegreenmarble.com gave me exactly what I wanted! This one is lionsinthenight.com!


And one of the greatest sensations is laughter, the kind where your knees spontaneously give in under you :)

Here's one: Ask your wife or a girlfriend to throw a see-through Hawaiian sarong over her head and then put funny sunglasses on over it. Don't look until she appears and see the effect on you :)

In Celebration of the Arrival of The Avatars

I Bless the Rains Down in Africa

YouTube by Toto.


What if Co2 levels rise as a result of warming caused by the sun and other factors? See comments of an EPA analyst cited in NY Times in late September


I've got no problem with Kyoto, as long as it's actually Kyoto that does the Kyotoing.

How bout we just make all the Japanese in Kyoto quit using wooden chopsticks as of tomorrow, and from here on out it's Korean Metal chopsticks forever. Or knife and fork. That'll save a gazillion carbon eating tree's, the whole planet will be happy, and Kyoto will have shown us how to get back toward that magic 350. If they need a little more reduction, then no more Japanese wooden toothpicks either---Dental floss only. And nix the Bento Box's for Bento-Bags. That's good for a couple less carbon-parts per zillion as well.

Sure this sounds severe, but you have to remember they've already half neutered themselves by playing baseball with artificial bats, so going whole hog Gaia for the rest of us ought'a be easy.

And the Geisha's at Kyomizu Temple in Kyoto? Plastic fans only from here on out, and flip flops no more wooden clogs. I'll still think you're ootskooshi (beautiful) even in Croc's! And if that doesn't give us the magic 350 Carbonie's, then you Dutch guys gotta' give up wooden shoes also.

I'm excited about this plan!


The real problem is not CO2, but the high level of greens. Over a certain percentage of greens in the population and predictions of global warming is a certainty.
The solution is the simple Shaman/strangle/bog (SSB) method,used systematically this reduces the prognostications of doom significantly.


are a certainty


Nuclear Energy Becomes Pivotal in Climate Debate

The Senate this week will kick off three committee hearings on legislation to cap greenhouse gases from power plants and large industrial facilities, with an intent of cutting them about 80 percent by 2050.
I judge the honesty of globull warmists by their sense of urgency regarding the need for nuclear power, and they always fail.


What we really need is to beat these idiots at their own game.

We need a pro-global warming forum, that vows to undo any reduction in CO2 and other green house gases that are reduced by environmentalists.

Its kid of like a drinking game. Every time I hear someone mention global warming, I flush my toilet, start the SUV and run it for 5 minutes and belch and pass gas!


This would work similar to the pro health care for non-immigrants forum.

Sure there are those that are cheap and stngy and probably racists for ONLY supporting healthcare for illegal aliens.

Our groups does them one better, we pay for healthcare for people who are still in their home countries who apply for US citizenship legally. If the left won't pay for healthcare for people following the legal process and wants to limit healthcare to just those who break the law - they are clearly racists criminal lovers while I am a law-abiding legal immigrant lover.!!

Therefore, since I have shown much more compassion then them - I get to tax them to pay for my program.


I love it, Daddy, Pukky and Pops!

climateaudit.org still slaying zombie hockey sticks.

AL @ 1:41 AM. I think there must be something to the 'Thermostat Hypothesis'. There has been remarkable stability of climate as you note. More recently, the climate seems to go back and forth in a range between two limits, a high one where we are now, and a low one when we are glaciated.

There are other researchers who wonder if an increase of CO2 leads to a decrease in water vapor, making the net effect of CO2 on temperature zero.

There is so much to learn. We've barely scratched the surface and the paradigm that CO2=AGW is just way too simple for the way the earth works.

The business about breathing out CO2 can be negated by the understanding that what we breathe out is not fossil CO2. That CO2 was atmospheric until captured by the plant that made the food you eat. The analogy is to corn into biofuel. The biofuel still produces CO2, but it is CO2 recently taken from the atmosphere.


Newt was being a fool again, on Fox and Friends, sticking up for the 'conservative' Scozzofazza, throwing every line against Hoffman, not directly attacking Sarah, but casting doubt on anyone who would doubt this sterling choice.

Now as for AGW, it may be a problem, just as that VF '2005, that had Washington underwater, 80,000 years ago, must have been the wolly mammoth C02 output, you all saw "Ice Age"


Quite simply,we should demand Greenies display a sincere belief in their faith.

The Green Manifesto.

Greens must,to be taken seriously,forego any use of fossil fuel.
No vehicles,no planes,no trains,whether diesel,steam or electric. No forms of transport which involve the use of fossil fuels in the construction thereof.

Greens shall have no:-
Televisions,computers,cell phones,telephones,electronic games or other electronic devices,lighting ,incandescent or florescent,

Greens shall have no:-
Materials made from hydrocarbons. No plastic or man made fibres.Any drugs or chemicals derived there from.

Greens shall not:-
Eat food which cannot be grown on the family plot,have no more children than the family plot can sustain.

Greens shall not:-
Use any form of energy source which is not renewable.
Any devices used in the generation of power should not be,wholly or partly, constructed of or involve in any part of the manufacture thereof any of the forbidden processes above.

Happy Trails - I hope their wives have strong teeth.


Alinsky - Make them abide by their rules.

Birkenstocks have plastic components,no?


What they are really pushing is something like the "Anti Technology Laws" suggested in the series ending episode of the outer
limits, and some of Ben Bova's most recent
work. Which is ironic that this comes from
the progressive side of the aisle, but not
really. What's more natural than uranium and petroleum, the last is dinosaur mulch.

Woot, woot.  Toot, toot.

Well algae cell walls, really. But Sinclair was big in our yoot.

Tom Bowler

This idea that CO2 causes a greenhouse effect is utter BS. An actual greenhouse gets hot because the glass panes prevent the air from rising higher into the atmosphere to where it will cool down. So called greenhouse gases cannot and do not have any similar effect.

A couple of German scientists/academics, Professor Gerhard Gerlich and Professor Ralf D. Tscheuschner, published a paper on it called Falsi fication Of The Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Eff ects Within The Frame Of Physics

My personal inflammatory speculation on it LUN.

Tom Bowler

Interesting. That link I just gave you doesn't take you to the beginning. This one does.


The greenies will not cope when the lights go out.

Progressives on an escalator.

Check out Miscolzi, too.

Tom, G&T is very controversial, and I'm not physicist enough to understand it. I suspect their thermodynamics is missing on one cylinder, but I've long maintained that even if they are not exactly right, that they help destroy the overly simplistic conception of the greenhouse effect that the IPCC holds. It is little known, but there is no proof from first principles of the IPCC's conception of how CO2 is supposed to warm the earth.

This whole charade is built on a foundation of shifting sand.


The Green Manifesto

Great post, PUK.

The real problem with the IPCC's conception is that it is way too simple..

And yes, Greenhouse Effect is a poor term. As you point out, greenhouses work by stopping convection, greenhouse gases work by reradiating toward earth energy which was being radiated from earth.

The term was picked because the greenhouse effect supposedly traps more energy on earth by selectively blocking the long wave radiation from the earth but allowing through the shorter wave radiation from the sun.


Thanks Extraneus.
The first draft.Some of the specifics need tweaking,the language put into lawyerese.Then print it out and make the greenies sign it.
If they won't,they are heretics,deserving to burn in Hell,or some other power station.


CO2 was chosen because it is the one that they can tax. End of story.

A precious conceit of the Western elite.

Yes, PuK, there is much hypocrisy amongst the greenies.

Solar is too expensive, too land intensive and not energy dense enough to ever have anything but specialized uses. Wind is too expensive, too land intensive, not energy dense enough and too unreliable to ever have any use except to drive electric utility load managers nuts. Solar at least peaks when demand is highest, during hot, sunny, afternoons. Nuclear power is beginning to be understood as the only 'clean' solution to our energy needs, but the only thing fundamentally 'dirty' about fossil fuels is the CO2, which I've maintained is probably more beneficial than harmful.

Encumbering carbon will bring a social holocaust to the undeveloped world, as raising the price of energy will inevitably retard their progress into our modern way of life. The Chinese, the Indians, and the Brazilians understand this perfectly well, and will refuse to limit their own CO2 production or else risk domestic unrest of epic proportions. Instead, at Copenhagen, they intend to try to guilt trip the developed nations about their past carbon use, and seek 'reparations' for past use. It's all a big charade, because CO2 is not the bogeymen the tranzis want you to believe it is.

It's still nip and tuck in Congress and at Copenhagen. It just amazes me that such a scientific fraud can be heaped upon the polity. What would be happening to us if Ma Gaia hadn't decided to take a breather and sit in the shade for awhile, cooling us down very recently? It would be very hard to push the skeptical point of view if we weren't actually cooling.

And on such chances the world turns. It's a cautionary tale. We can't count on Mother Nature unveiling the next Politico-Scientific charade. We were lucky this time.


Surely they should forego burning or even cremation entirely.


Well we don't want them hanging about the place giving off methane.So unless we make Soylent Green out of Greens..?



Couldn't the Green Manifesto be shortened to:

Kill yourself, greeny, for the good of the planet?

There is an organization already in place with such a worthy credo but too few committed enviros. I'm sure one of the folks here can recall its name.
The earth is dying for want of enough greens with the courage of their convictions.




The Great Global Warming Swindle.




Yes,but we don't want any loopholes,Greens are Nazis.


Even pet eugenics.
"A new book by Robert & Brenda Vale, entitled, 'Time to Eat the Dog'. They believe owning a dog or a cat is as damaging for the environment as driving a gas guzzling car, according to a controversial new book. They say people should be discouraged from owning some of Britain's favourite pets or at least share them with other families.

Owning a medium size dog has the ecological impact as driving 6,000 miles in a 4 x 4 such as a Toyota Land Cruiser. Having a cat is the equivalent to driving the same distance in a VW Golf. The next time a parent considers keeping a child happy by buying a hamster, the Vales say, they should remember that having two of the animals is as bad for the planet as running a plasma television. The authors estimate the carbon 'pawprint' :lol: :lol: of a range of pets in terms of the type of food which they eat and the amount of land needed to produce it. Meat-eating swells the damage dogs do to the environment, and cats are not much better."

Go check out Cocoa the Dog, who tears up the Vales.

PuK, @ 10:48. That is an excellent column by Christopher Booker, a fine skeptical journalist. I urge everyone to read it; it's absolutely right on. And it mentions PHIL JONES, the joker who now claims the dog ate all the temperature records on which his series is based.

hit and run

Even pet eugenics.

Well, here on these very pages, I have http://justoneminute.typepad.com/main/2007/08/gonzales-quits-/comments/page/5/#comment-6a00d83451b2aa69e200e54ed48fbe8833>suggested something similar, though really more related to not raising livestock for food. But, it does come around to pets.

"Fido and Fluffy save chickens and cows from slaughter and Gaia from destruction!"

Tom Bowler

The term was picked because the greenhouse effect supposedly traps more energy on earth by selectively blocking the long wave radiation from the earth but allowing through the shorter wave radiation from the sun.

G&T do get into the long wave vs. short wave radiation in their paper, and since I'm not a physicist I'm not going to claim to understand their formulae. But I don't think you have to be a physicist to understand that climate models which ignore the effects of convection can't be reliable.

I'm also familiar enough with computers to understand the time tested GIGO rule which states, "Garbage in, garbage out."

Ooh, that alliteration will get you every time.  That's why Maunder Minimum.  Jack Eddy liked words.

I'll say it again. Please read PeterUK's 10:48 link. It is an excellent precis of the pickle we are in. I'm not kidding. I know I've a fondness for hyperbole, but we are in real danger here, and Booker's bit is a Baedeker.

For being relatively innumerate, it shocks me how well I can understand.

Yes, Tom, that is excellent commentary. I think, in fact, that G&T err somewhere on their thermodynamics(perhaps that is why this one you link is v.4), but their critique of the failings of the IPCC conception are generally correct, and devastating.

Comment #5 is exactly my thinking.

If you want to see the latest grotesquerie of great greasy garbage, see the controversy over David Appell's article purportedly resurrecting the Hockey Stick in the November Scientific American. He claims a new study by Tingley and Huybers replicates the hockey stick and uses an improved statistical method, Bayesian, too validate that Mann's work was not incorrect.

Steve McIntyre and crew are hot at work dissecting it at the Link Under Name, but it seems that Bayesian or not, the operative stuff in the study are discredited series, one of which is even Mann's. GIGO Galore. A great gem is David Appel's own post on his own blog Quark Soup on 10/24. Just read it and you can see how pitiful has become the rhetoric of the alarmists. I'm not being hyperbolic; judge for yourself.


Interesting to note,"But easily their most influential allies were the scientists running the new IPCC, led by a Swedish meteorologist Bert Bolin and Dr John Houghton,(now Sir) head of the UK Met Office(and Hadley Centre for Climate Change"

The Met Office,despite its new superconfuser consistantly gets weather forecasts very wrong. This year the MO predicted a "barbecue summer".Sadly this year was as shitty as last year. Now the MO claims that it is very good on shot term and very long term forecasts.ie.stick your head out of the window and "WGAF we will all be dead" forecasts,but not so good on the medium term,ie, should we stay in bed tomorrow.
Now this would not matter,just another dipstick government agency but,the MO is one of the major contributors to Global Warming data. So the agency which cannot tell its barbecue from its bum is responsible for committing the West to spending untold billions to committing suicide.
The bog beckons.

I've said I hope it ends in ridicule not anger.

Heh, Superconfuser. That's a keeper.

By the way, the revolution does seem to be on. The tide of commenters everywhere is swinging to the skeptics, and more and more and more of them know exactly what they are talking about. They have lit the torches, and lifted the pitchforks; it's on the blogs, which beckon.


Sorry Kim. Only anger will suffice.Too many will die,this will be no better than all the other Scientific Socialist Holocausts.

It's not the end of civilization, but it is a trial.

I truly am afraid you're right. There are already damages.


A new book by Robert & Brenda Vale, entitled, 'Time to Eat the Dog'.

Clearly some people have too much time on their hands.


Ironically Robert and Brenda Vale did not calculate the "carbon footprint" of their book. These things are lost on greenies.


Save the planet...eat an environmentalist!


Did you know that if you put a wick in Al Gore's head it would provide enough light for a small town?

'Chicamauga', a pleasant Sunday afternoon read.

OK, 'Oil of Dog' was kind of inevitable.

Tom Bowler

Thanks for the links, Kim. I would expect G&T to be considered controversial, certainly by the global warmist crowd. But they make a point that resonates, which is this. The concept of an average global temperature is meaningless.

It boggles my mind that we take anyone seriously who would take "a 600 year surface temperature reconstruction for high Northern latitudes based on tree ring, ice core, and lake sediment core data" and compare it to current "average" global temperatures. The result will be whatever they want it to be. Crisis, naturally. One that will require massive sums of grant money to study, and at least half of all national treasuries to avert.

Quark Soup just gets thicker and thicker.

It's a terrible thing to watch. That study hasn't even been peer reviewed yet let alone published, and Appell's article is just now arriving in November's Scientific American, yet both of them lie in shambles just in the last 48 hours from exposure on the slopes of Mt. McIntyre. Yet millions will read Scientific American and believe, and the study will be peer reviewed by the echo chamber of paleoclimatologists and get published in Nature or Science. It's just monstrous.

The comments to this entry are closed.