***************************EXCERPT************************************************
Lawrie:
July 26th, 2011 at 2:18 pm
It is this sort of science and the publication of it that has Christine Milne so fired up. If you can’t agree with the bought and paid for government scientists then the people must be protected from such disclosure. Turnbull says we should respect science but is he referring to Jo’s science or of Will Steffen who speaks of “carbon pollution”. This battle has been won but the enemy don’t know they are beaten yet. There are more scientists speaking out and this is what is of concern to the adherents. The public are finding it hard to believe that an increasing number of scientists are wrong while the number of chosen tends to shrink.
Keep up the pressure because they are starting to falter. The more ridiculous their claims when opposed by considered facts leads to more questioning and demands for answers.
***********************************EXCERPT**********************************************
wes george:
July 26th, 2011 at 3:03 pm
Hang on a second. What about the logarithmic effect of CO2? Wasn’t the first 15% (or whatever) of anthropogenic CO2 we put into the atmosphere before 1945 far more effective as a GHG than CO2 we added later?
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/03/08/the-logarithmic-effect-of-carbon-dioxide/
The arrow “something caused seas to start rising” points right to the bottom of the Dalton Minimum.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dalton_Minimum
We might expect sea levels to start rising as it naturally warms coming out of the Dalton minimum. Then the warming stalls before taking up —right at the beginning of the Industrial Age!—a remarkably consistent linear upward trajectory…. It’s this remarkable timing and linear correlation between rising sea levels and rising atmospheric CO2 that seems fits the implications of the AGW hypothesis perfectly. Correlation isn’t causation, but it looks pretty suspect…
Yet while this graph, does seem to support the AGW hypothesis, it only supports the mild version, not its CAGW cousin, since extrapolation of the trend doesn’t cause catastrophic sea-level rises. Furthermore, in your last post (and in Jevrejeva figure 3 here) you show that sea level rise acceleration has plateaued, which is also what the logarithmic effect of CO2 would predict. There’s no more significant warming to come from adding more CO2 to the atmosphere. So extrapolating the past trend forward might even overestimate the rise in sea levels, especially if another downturn in the ~60-cycle was to coincident with a new minimum.
Obviously, I’m not an expert, but I see don’t see this data as evidence against AGW hypothesis, in fact, it’s data like this that the AGW hypothesis was first created to explain. However, it also seems to show that AGW is a minor climate phenomena of little threat to humanity or the environment, much less worth scuttling the world’s economy over.