For want of something better

I get the impression, reading around, that the scientific community is getting tired of hearing from Dr. Hansen and like ilk about co2 eating the polar ice. With almost casual disdain, in Nov., Prof. Ollier (below) slapped him down. Prof. R. M. Carter gave award winning anxious Al 's award winning fact or fiction presentation, AIT a lambasting in court in August. The IPCC is also overdue some comeuppance. I fear it will take one helluva lot more than pointing out to them that they are wrong. They are slippery customers. They shift the goal posts at the slightest threat to their security. Climate change now encompasses anthropogenic warming causing cooling. Just in case. (That is a fair assessment of their confidence.) With methane in the wings waiting to be played.
In a casual knee to the vitals, found at Icecap, Prof. D. Evans presents the latest science confirming yet again that co2 is innocent. The short paper as a PDF file is introduced with the following abstract;

Carbon Emissions Don’t Cause Global Warming.
Our scientific understanding of global warming has gone through three stages:
1. 1985 – 2003. Old ice core data led us strongly suspect that CO2 causes global warming.
2. 2003 – 2007. New ice core data eliminated previous reason for suspecting CO2. No evidence to suspect or exonerate CO2.
3. From Aug 2007: Know for sure that greenhouse is not causing global warming. CO2 no longer is a suspect.
The paper discusses how the ice core changes, missing greenhouse signature in the real data and the recent waning of the warming all suggest that carbon emissions are not behind the changes we have experienced in recent decades.
In a more elaborate rendition, Monckton has compiled the same conclusion over at SPPI.
In World Climate Report, those evil physical science scientists are at it again, telling the truth.
There is no detectable trend in European storminess looking back over 200 years. It is as changeable as the weather, always has been, probably always will be. No matter how unusual you have been led to believe its behavior by feather wavers, nothing unusual is happening, there is in fact an average (co2 produced) decline.
In the US: One tenth of one degree Celsius for an enormous economic hit—the EPA calculated that S.280
(ref to a graph) (Lieberman-McCain) would lower the U.S. GDP annually by 1.1% to 3.2% ($457 billion to $1,332 billion) by the year 2050. EPA’s analysis of the economic effects of the other bills has not been completed yet (see here for updates).
- that was also courtesy of Climate Report. I wonder what the UK figures are?
Lord Nigel Lawson, former Tory MP, at a lunch speak in Sydney;
"Despite the posturing of politicians throughout much of the world, despite the declarations that global warming is the greatest threat facing the planet, despite Kyoto, and despite innumerable international gatherings of the great and the good, little in practice has been done and global carbon dioxide emissions continue to rise," he said.
(But don't let little things like that slow the orgy of public spending.)
Observed at Jesus and Mo
Reality should show more sensitivity towards people's deeply held religious beliefs.
'Biofuels look good in climate change terms from a Western perspective, said Dr Spracklen, but globally they actually lead to higher carbon emissions. "Brazil, Paraguay, Indonesia among others have huge deforestation programmes to supply the world biofuel market", he said.'
Reported in the Guardian August.
But it seems through highly myopic self-interested government, we are going to be stuck with biofuel. That then leads to another interesting conundrum for the anally retentive doomsters. Hemp produces 10 times more ethanol than corn per acre, needs less fertilizer. Screw the atmosphere or legalize hemp. I love these corners they back themselves into.
Lots of noise around about peak oil. Seems to me every time there is a price rise on the horizon, the tired peak oil myth gets another airing.
At Chris Monckton's accommodation, John McLean gives a pronouncement of reasons for the death of the IPCC .
(Slow strangulation please.)
My idle mind wanders. Now that co2 is proven harmless, can the government be taken to task for legislating under false pretenses? That would keep the Bar well heeled for a decade or so. They couldn't back out by saying the IPCC misled them, the IPCC has never claimed it was anything more than a hypothesis. Poor old Brown, that really would be the last nail in his coffin after all the NE troubles.
Arctic sea ice, what did it? Warm water and wind. Not a co2 molecule in sight.
"The winds causing this trend in ice reduction were set up by an unusual pattern of atmospheric pressure that began at the beginning of this century,"
Nghiem (of NASA's JPL, not GISS) said.
As co2 increase begins to decline, before the empty drum bangers try to claim it is due to legislation and carbon trading, La Nina is persisting (PMEL). There is a rather interesting graphic at NASA's site. La Nina is the cold phase contrasted with El Nino being the warm phase. That means co2 is being sucked up by the Pacific and as the current swings around the tip of South America, it will add cooler water to the Antarctic current, and so facilitate the expansion/thickening of sea ice. 2006 was a record for sea ice, expect 2007 to exceed it.
Looks like a cool winter is in the offing for the UK followed by a wet summer again. Of course the jet stream could jolly things up but that's unpredictable. Australia has already benefited with much needed rain, and more forecast.
And some vids. Prof David Archibald shows some graphs telling the co2 story. Part1 of 4, part2, part3, part4. Titled Past & Future Climate Change.
Thanks to Cryosphere Today, c
urrent, as of 01 Dec 07, the sea ice expanse: