I see the problem we face a little differently. I see it as one in which we have very unreliable ability to predict future climate, and that, at best, we can guess that future climate will be like past climate with about the same variability. At this point, in my opinion, the only thing we are able to model with some accuracy, yet imperfectly, is the effect of the non-condensing greenhouse gases in the absence of changes in other important climate affecting phenomena. Those other models, which assume various degrees of positive feedback to produce a result that agrees with preconceived notions, are so unreliable, IMO, that to use them to make predictions, upon which public policy is predicated, is an absurdity. We do have a fair, with large error bars, indication that there has been some warming over the past 150 years at a time when CO2 and other non-condensing greenhouse gasses have also risen. The temperature rise is, so far, negligible compared to natural temperature variability, and less than predicted by modeling the effects of rising non-condensing, greenhouse gases. There is no ability to reliably model other hugely important influences on our climate, clouds and water vapor, for example. And we certainly cannot accurately predict the future magnitudes, at a given time, of the various components that would have to be included in any reliable, comprehensive, climate model. We can't rule out the possibility that man is significantly affecting the Earth's climate, nor can we, at this point, rule it in! It's just a big guess. It is, again IMO, just as likely as not that we are affecting our climate by some mechanism other than CO2 emission. But unless that's true, AND we know the correct mechanism!, we can't be expected to create effective public policy. There is only one policy that would be effective independent of mechanism, and that is population control! Specific measures, such as carbon emission control, depend for effectiveness on having the mechanism right. Sadly, we do not yet have the mechanism right! The reason I can say that with confidence is that we have direct observations that are not in agreement with the proposed mechanism. A single observation of that nature is enough to justify the rejection of the mechanism. In the present case we have multiple observations that run counter to the proposed mechanism for catastrophic global warming! All we have are hypotheses, and among these the Hansen hypothesis seems to be wrong. Carbon dioxide concentration appears to be mostly driven by temperature rather than man's emissions, and the rise in CO2 concentration at the time of man's increasing his CO2 emissions appears fortuitous. The Hansen hypothesis is, by the way, not that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and that a rising concentration should cause some warming. There is general agreement on that. That's not his hypothesis at all. His hypothesis is that man's emission of CO2 is causing the Earth to warm and that the warming, via positive feedback, will cause temperature to rise exponentially rather than linearly, producing a harmful temperature excursion. All direct observational evidence so far indicates the Hansen hypothesis is incorrect. We should not base public policy on an hypothesis that has been shown to be incorrect! My best guess as to why the Hansen hypothesis at first seemed to be correct, but now appears incorrect, is that several assumptions made in the early models, models that seemed to be in agreement with Hansen, are wrong. One is that the turnover of CO2 is very slow. In fact, it is fairly rapid. (Biota responds almost instantaneously to changes in CO2 concentration.) Another is that the effect of a small increase of CO2 gets amplified by increasing water vapor and clouds. But it now appears that water vapor and clouds, our atmosphere's major greenhouse components, also have negative feedback contributions and that their overall effect is closer to neutral. They seem to have more of a moderating influence than one of amplification. Yet another source of error was very bad guesses at the magnitudes of natural sourcing and sinking of CO2 compared with the magnitude of man's CO2 emission. Consequently, we did not pay enough attention to the possibility that the correlation between rising CO2 and rising anthropomorphic emissions could be fortuitous. (This was well before we had much satellite data.) Another source of error, and this led us on a wild goose chase, was not recognizing that there were bigger natural sources of CO2 with the same isotope signature as fossil fuel CO2. I could go on. But I don't want to imply that we were doing bad science because we made these errors. It's just a very difficult problem to sort out all influences on climate and their relative magnitudes, because climate is dynamic and is always changing. It's been impossible to accurately model it and include simultaneously all the important influences. These early climate mistakes are completely understandable considering how difficult this problem is. As long as their are humans doing science we will have egos involved, but now we have politics and profits too. The issue has become unusually divisive, down to the point of name calling and insult hurling. Emotional involvement can blind us and destroy objectivity. I'm guessing, and I hope I'm wrong, that this climate issue will eventually be recognized as one of the great fiascoes of all time.
you already admitted you know co2 lags temperature? why are you lying to Piezoe now? why do you keep posting charts that prove co2 lags temperature change when you drill down into the data? here is the data created with industry accepted data.... NOAA and others. It clearly shows co2 matches but lags change in ocean temp...
If one googles "the hansen hypothesis" the only relevant hit is way down the page and is from LOL WUWT. https://www.google.com/webhp?source...pv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=the+hansen+hypothesis&start=0 If piehole has a link to this purported "hypothesis"- which is really nothing more than a logical extension of the known far-red absorptive qualities of CO2 and it's rising concentrations and was first proposed over one hundred years ago - I would love to see it. As it is, calling it the "The Hansen Hypothesis" is a clever way the doubt merchants have of both diminishing and ad homing the most basic foundation of AGW science. Of course piehole will now ignore the request for this as he has with every counter I have made to his absurd but impressive sounding arguments that he has made thus far. The existence of the greenhouse effect was argued for by Joseph Fourier in 1824. The argument and the evidence was further strengthened by Claude Pouillet in 1827 and 1838, and reasoned from experimental observations by John Tyndall in 1859, and more fully quantified by Svante Arrhenius in 1896.[12][13] In 1917 Alexander Graham Bell wrote “[The unchecked burning of fossil fuels] would have a sort of greenhouse effect”, and “The net result is the greenhouse becomes a sort of hot-house.”[14][15] Bell went on to also advocate for the use of alternate energy sources, such as solar energy.[16]
By their percentage contribution to the greenhouse effect on Earth the four major gases are:[21][22] water vapor, 36–70% carbon dioxide, 9–26% methane, 4–9% ozone, 3–7% The major non-gas contributor to the Earth's greenhouse effect, clouds, also absorb and emit infrared radiation and thus have an effect on radiative properties of the atmosphere.[22] We have increased the levels of CO2 by 40%, mostly by the burning of fossil fuels.
I did not realize it at the time, but apparently I (almost) coined the term "Hansen Hypothesis". I can't take much credit, because it is so obvious. It's just a nice way of summarizing Hansen's guesses as to how man's CO2 emissions might cause a dangerous temperature excursion. I hope others will pick up the term and start using it. It is very convenient. See my last post above, where I define what I mean by the "Hansen hypothesis." My definition is not at all what you say above, viz., "...which is really nothing more than a logical extension of the known far-red absorptive qualities of CO2 and it's rising concentrations and was first proposed over one hundred years ago." This statement of yours is not an hypothesis, it is accepted science. What an hypothesis is is a guess about something. You can then test it to see if it is wrong. If it isn't wrong, and you test it repeatedly, you can eventually accept it as correct until proven otherwise.
A LIST OF MANN’S SCREW UPS Mann’s Screw Up #1 – “Excelgate” Mann’s Screw Up #2 – Non-Robust Mann’s Screw Up #2.5 – 5% Mann’s Ego – Basis of Climate Change Evidence? Mann’s Screw Up #3 – Statistics is Scary Mann’s Screw Up #3 – Cherry Picking Mann’s Screw Up #3.2 – Rotten Cherry #1 Mann’s Screw Up #3.2 – Rotten Cherry #2 Mann’s Screw Up #4 – Hiding Results Mann’s Screw Up #4.1 – Covering Up Results Mann’s Screw Up #5 – Inappropriate Data Mann’s Screw Up #6 – Altering Data Mann’s Screw Up #6.1 – “Fixing” Data Mann’s Screw Up #7 – His “Trick” Mann’s Screw Up #7.1 – Semantics Mann’s Screw Up #8 – Hypocrisy Mann’s Screw Up #9 – Overstated Conclusions Mann’s Screw Up #9.1 – Nonsense Data http://hiizuru.wordpress.com/2014/02/10/a-list-of-manns-screw-ups/
This is something that can cause confusion. It seems FC is particularly bothered by the fact that I keep mentioning that the correlation between rising CO2 and rising CO2 emissions from man might be fortuitous. So I want to put this in equation form with the hope of better explaining how this is possible. let X = total natural sourcing of CO2 ; Y = total natural sinking of CO2 ; Z = amount CO2 emitted from man's activities. Net change in CO2 = [ (X + Z) - Y ] If X and Y are known with two significant figures and Z is also, but the magnitude of X and Y are 100-fold (or more) greater than the magnitude of Z, then Z may be neglected.
More vacuous horseshit. No I'm bothered by this completely ridiculous statement...one that a paid-for-whore working at a conservative think tank would make . Carbon dioxide concentration appears to be mostly driven by temperature rather than man's emissions, and the rise in CO2 concentration at the time of man's increasing his CO2 emissions appears fortuitous."
let's just say you are 100% correct, no questions asked. Man's co2 emissions are causing global warming. What do you want me to do about it? I already use as little energy as I can. I was brought up that way. My father would have a fit if anybody left a light on in a room that was not occupied. And I am just by nature conservative. Millions of poor people are suffering because they have no access to affordable reliable energy. In some places they have to sneak into national conservation parks to make charcoal just to cook their food. How many degrees of global warming are these people worth?