I’ve not found much of interest to write about tonight, and story submissions have been a dry hole lately

Not me you silly – that’s a quote from WUWT. And as if in answer to his desperation, along comes The effectiveness of CO2 as a greenhouse gas becomes ever more marginal with greater concentration, a deeply stupid post.

It starts with a nod towards pretending to have a clue:

According to well understood physical parameters, the effectiveness of CO2 as a greenhouse gas diminishes logarithmically with increasing concentration… This inconvenient [sic] fact is well understood in the climate science community…

…because not even WUWT readers are going to fall for the idea that it’s a surprise that CO2-effectiveness-is-log. He does feel obliged to pretend IPCC has “hidden” the obvious, although I’m not sure why – a token gesture to stir up the unwashed masses, or a feeling that since its a post at WUWT it really needs to have some obvious lies in it? But its unconvincing, as a commentator writes:

The sentence in chapter 2 AR4 “Note that for CO2, RF [radiative forcing] increases logarithmically with mixing ratio” is so very well hidden. You would never know it was there if you didn’t read it.

But, that’s not the main reason I want to take the piss out of this particular article. That is reserved for:

From the present concentration of atmospheric CO2 at approaching 400 ppmv, only ~5% of the effectiveness of CO2 as a Greenhouse Gas remains. This can only give rise to a maximum of a further of ~+0.21°C. Thereafter beyond 1000+ ppmv the effect of increasing levels of CO2 can only ever be absolutely minimal even if CO2 concentrations were to increase indefinitely.

Yes, really. He thinks the log function is bounded above. Truely this is the level of sophistication expected at WUWT. I can only echo commentator “Janice Moore” who enthuses:

WAY TO GO, WUWT SCHOLARS!!! YOU ARE THE BEST.

However, this stuff is so obviously drivel that not even all the WUWT readers fall for it. The fourth comment points out its all wrong. A little lower down, “Phil.” tries to rescue WUWT commentators well deserved reputation for stupidity with a high-scoring “But at higher concentrations it will transition to a square root dependence which will give a higher sensitivity” (its the other way round: CO2 goes linear – squareroot – log, though I forget at what levels [Update: my commenters seem to be telling me I’m wrong about that. Ah well. I don’t believe it leads to higher sens, though]).

Refs

* CO2 – An Insignificant Trace Gas? Part Seven – The Boring Numbers – the best on-line ref for “its log” that I could find. Understanding Atmospheric Radiation and the “Greenhouse” Effect – Part Twelve – Curve of Growth looks to be good for linear (which is obvious) and square root (I didn’t trouble my pretty head with the details). Calling Eli…

The Carbon Bubble: All we have to do is decide to not commit civilizational suicide – and the markets crash?

That’s over at P3. But I’ve seen it elsewhere. The idea is that because we’ll need to keep unburnt oil in the ground to hit (or rather, to not hit) a 2 oC commitment, a pile of oil companies are wildly overvalued, leading to… well, who cares what it leads to, because it doesn’t matter.

Via AS I find Tol saying

As soon as the “market” expects that new regulation will seriously devalue an asset, its price drops. Bubbles only arise if the “market” is misinformed. The “market” is by no means infallible when it comes to pricing risk, but an expectation of “not much climate policy any time soon” strikes me entirely realistic

which is pretty well what I was going to say, so I won’t bother re-say it (note, BTW, that I’m of course not saying that I think sticking within 2 oC wouldn’t be a good idea. I think it would be an excellent idea. I’m just dubious about its plausibility). He continues with some econ-type stuff about how even if it were true it wouldn’t have the effects claimed, which seems plausible too, but I’m less interested in that. The Economist says about the same.

P3’s writeup says:

There’s a huge amount of evidence that… mainline financial analysts around the world are taking the argument on-board, and in a big way.

That’s hard to make sense of. If true, why aren’t the stock prices of oil companies tumbling? But I boldly plough on, to the report itself (Unburnable Carbon 2013: Wasted capital and stranded assets). And don’t find much. Perhaps I missed it; its quite long and I only skimmed it.

Refs

* David Appell is even harsher than me.
* Brian is still pushing it at Eli’s; pointer is to ‘Carbon bubble’ threatens stock markets, say MPs.

Frolic and detour

It’s the law, it seems. And a suitable title for a misc post.

I’ve been busy, which accounts for my pathetic lack of posts recently.

* I ran the Brighton marathon (3:46).
* We entered the Town Bumps at Oxford, in IVs!
* I ran the Head of the Cam again.
* I’ve discovered that Yahoo and Flickr are fuckwits. Mind you, scienceblogs is unimpressing me at the moment with its more than glacial slowness.
* Some folks at work pointed out that my posts are incomprehensible. Such is life, but I do have a glossary. I just added CAGW, in case you were wondering what that was. The ScienceBlogs Great March onwards to the WordPress platform broke most of the old links. Sorry about that.

But enough about me. On with the misc.

Early Warning points out that global crop yields continue their inexorable rise; anyone claiming *current* crop disaster from GW needs to examine that pic carefully.

Richard Dawkins and God to star in 70s-style sitcom it seems:

“In the first episode, God manifests in a burning bush in the front garden and asks Mrs Dawkins in a booming voice if she needs anything from Asda. Richard comes out and she’s forced to invent an unlikely explanation involving a pack of confused Welsh nationalists and a political canvasser with a malfunctioning tannoy.

I’ve pretty well given up reading WUWT – it used to be fun, but it seems to me that the quality of rant has declined. Or maybe I’m just getting jaded. There have even been posts by the Looney Lord recently (see, I still read the snippets in the not-quite-late but lamented google reader). HotWhopper now does the job of reading the few that are interesting enough to be worth working out what is wrong with.