Questions on the evolution of the GISS temperature product


Blink comparator of GISS USA temperature anomaly – h/t to Zapruder

The last time I checked, the earth does not retroactively change it’s near surface temperature.

True, all data sets go through some corrections, such as the recent change RSS made to improve the quality of the satellite record which consists of a number of satellite spliced together. However, in the case of the near surface temperature record, we have many long period stations than span the majority of the time period shown above, and they have already been adjusted for TOBS, SHAP, FILNET etc by NOAA prior to being distributed for use by organizations like GISS. These adjustments add mostly a positive bias.

In the recent data replication fiasco, GISS blames NOAA for providing flawed data rather than their failure to catch the repeated data from September to October. In that case they are correct that the issue arose with NOAA, but in business when you are the supplier of a product, most savvy businessmen take a “the buck stops here” approach when it comes to correcting a product flaw, rather than blaming the supplier. GISS provides a product for public consumption worldwide, so it seems to me that they should pony up to taking responsibility for errors that appear in their own product.

In the case above, what could be the explanation for the product changing?

About these ads

551 thoughts on “Questions on the evolution of the GISS temperature product

  1. It certainly changes the “best-fit” curve line for temperature trend, upwards naturally of course!

    I note that in the latter graph, temp red line is omitted at 1880, bringing temp down not appear to extend passed 2005, so why it is labelled US temps to 2008 I cannot think!

  2. These adjustments add mostly a positive bias – what you mean is, these adjustments mostly remove a negative bias.

    As for why the numbers might change years after the event – one thing that happened after 1999 was improvements in how to correct for urbanisation effects. Correcting urban stations in a different and hopefully better way obviously changes the data. Would you rather they didn’t seek to improve the data, and instead never re-examined it and just left it frozen in a potentially flawed state?

  3. RW,

    So UHI provided a negative temperature bias? I would think it would have provided a positive bias to past urban stations.

  4. You will notice that the change moves the 1990’s peak annual temperature from well below the 1930’s peak, to either equal with, or just above the 1930’s peak. Fascinating.

  5. One explanation I have heard is that many stations lack a value for one or more months. These values are filled by using an average over time. This average is recalculated every month. So the temperature of a station (or nearby stations) reported this month can change the average value that is used to “fill” missing values in the past.

  6. My bifocals need recalibration. The fact that it is not known why the numbers have been changed is the primary concern. The rant who what when why and where is all about standards with version control. Without standards on data and programs archive this flippant disregard for science will continue. The cost is immense.

  7. “Would you rather they didn’t seek to improve(sic) the data”

    Yes.

    “Correct for urbanisation effects”

    How have recent temps in the graph got hotter, and ones from 1900 got colder if that’s the case?

    Look at the data!!

  8. From what little my little pea sized brain can understand it that most of the adjustments for UHI seem to more often than not to not change the urban stations to any useful extent down but to adjust the rural stations upward to match the urban set. I don’t know how you can adjust in any way temps from 50+ years ago with any accuracy or dependability for correctness in an unbiased way. especially since a considerable amount of the old rural stations have now been affected by urbanization. There are to many problems with the surface stations to give them a pass at this time. If the stations in the U.S. are supposed to be the best in the world It makes me wonder about the rest of the world.

    Bottom line is that I don’t trust the method that GISS uses nor NOAA used to adjust for urbanization. There fore I shall wait for better science before I complete my mind set. It would be a shame to destroy the economy of the world to cure a non problem.

    Bill Derryberry

  9. Anthony,
    I have just written a summary of what you call the fiasco here.
    It ends with 6 questions regarding GISS, to which I have just added yours.
    1. How many other errors, less obvious to the casual observer, are there in the GISS data?
    2. Why does GISS not carry out any checks on the data before publishing it?
    3. Where and how did these errors arise? As you rightly say, blaming NOAA is no excuse.
    4. Why are there gaps in the GISS data, when the “missing” data is readily available?
    5. Why has GISS’s number of stations used dropped so dramatically in recent years?
    6. Why are so many of the remaining stations at airports? (Three quarters of the GISS stations in Australia are at airports.)
    7. Why does GISS keep adjusting past temperatures, as shown here?

  10. The GISS temperature record is a conflict of interest.

    How could a global warming advocate be in charge of a temperature record that is used by various organizations to set policy?? This is a equivalent of hiring Donald Trump to be in charge of the gambling addiction center. What’s really needed is an independent body to keep an expanded minimally adjusted surface temperature record using only quality stations that meet vigorous standards which is thoroughly gone over with a fine tooth comb to find any inconsistancies, such as those that have been occuring over at the GISS, not just recently, but in the past as well and must be transparent to the public.

    The GISS simply does not meet these standards and should be discarded, overhauled, or have new folks put in charge.

    Let’s go over why such an organization is needed.

    1. Independent body.

    There needs to be a surface temperature record kept by an organization that publishes the data without little caveats such as “2007 would have been the warmest year on record is not for (that damned) La Nina.” or “We expect 2007 to be the warmest year on record due to the ongoing el nino event” (remember that one from the HadCru guy at the beginning of January last year?)

    2. Minimally adjusted stations

    This one should be easy. What the temperature says is what the temperature is. With all the hoopla continuing about the latest GISS October 2008 Siberia gaffe, one can compare the temperatures entered into the GISS analysis and those from weather wunderground and notice that the GISS repeatedly adds 1-2°C to the monthly averages for many stations used in their analysis. Of course, this also ties into #3 which is using data from quality stations that meet vigorous standards. In fact, one can eliminate #2 is using data from these quality controlled stations instead of contaminated ones either by UHI effects or being placed by buildings, A/C units, parking lots, or by a groove of young trees that will eventually grow to shade out the temperature sensor.

    4. Gone over to find any inconsistancies.

    Obviously this is a problem for the folks over there at GISS

    Excerpt from Gavin Schmidt on RC in response to a comment

    “Current staffing from the GISTEMP analysis is about 0.25 FTE on an annualised basis (i’d estimate – it is not a specifically funded GISS activity). To be able to check every station individually (rather than using an automated system), compare data to the weather underground site for every month, redo the averaging from the daily numbers to the monthly to double check NOAA’s work etc., to rewrite the code to make it more accessible, we would need maybe a half a dozen people working on this. With overhead, salary+fringe, that’s over $500,000 a year extra”

    It would appear to me that not only are they under budget, but they’re also understaffed. Apparently, the GISS isn’t equipped to handle the job properly. So why is it that an under budgeted, understaffed organization is put in charge of publishing one of those most important record keeping endeavours in western society today. With all that hangs on global warming – taxes, policy, future of the economy – wouldn’t we want to have one of the more pestigeous (in the eyes of policymakers, environmentalists, governing bodies, etc.) record keepers of global temperatures be an efficient and well-organized group of independent scientists rather than a mistake prone, non-transparent, metric run by an advocate?

    5. Expanded network of stations.

    Quoting Gavin Schmidt once again

    “There were 90 stations for which October numbers equalled September numbers in the corrupted GHCN file for 2008 (out of 908). ‘

    Only 908 stations used for the October 2008 GISS analysis whereas some 40 yerars ago there were double the number of stations used to derive an average global temperature. The stations used are becoming more and more spare and mysteriously, certain stations are being left out of the analysis. Why is there a different number of stations used from month to month and why do certain stations report one month but not another. This would qualify the GISS dataset as non-homogonous and therefore worthless. But it will continue to be trumpted as the most often cited dataset of the global temperature record by alarmists, despite all the past errors found, all of which artificially inflated temperatures.

  11. crosspatch (09:15:04) :

    One explanation I have heard is that many stations lack a value for one or more months. These values are filled by using an average over time. This average is recalculated every month. So the temperature of a station (or nearby stations) reported this month can change the average value that is used to “fill” missing values in the past.

    Therefore, if we are alledgedly warming, and those warmer values are used to skew the past missing data, then the previous data would be rounded up by this “adjustment”.

    Better take a second gander at the graphs.

  12. Does anyone know if the original, unadjusted, uncorrupted temperatures for all stations over the years are still available? I believe it is very likely that all the garbage that Hansen tosses into the soup will be shown (eventually ) to be seriously flawed. Is there a record anywhere of the temperatures actually recorded at each site.

  13. I wrote a piece on this topic a few months ago for The Register. It appears that the period from 1930 onwards was transformed by a counter-clockwise rotation, as can be seen in the video below. That creates the effect of older temperatures becoming colder, and younger temperatures becoming warmer.

    http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/05/02/a_tale_of_two_thermometers/

    A few moths ago someone on Climate Audit suggested Hansen’s law of temperature conservation. “If the present refuses to get warmer, than the past must become colder.”

  14. I think it oerfectly obvious why the old data changed:
    We know that the earth is in thermal equilibrium,
    and since Hansen’s old temperatures keep going down,
    so his newer temperatures HAVE to keep going up.

    It’s the same reason that North Canadian and Alaskan temperatures show cooler temperatures: all of Hansen’s (unavailable, unaudited, un-maintained, un-standardized, and inconsistent) Siberian thermometers keep going up.

  15. Alan the Brit,
    True, on the 1999 example the red line shows that the 1880 anomaly was zero or very near to zero. The 2008 simply does not show it. Of course the many adjustments have changed the trend, but still the 2005 graphic shows a mere .1 or .2 difference from high in the ’30s. Also as you mentioned, the 2008 is not current, which would put us within a whisker af 1880. Can someone please explain to me again why this warming is so catastrophic?

    “Oh what a tangled web we weave, When first we practice to deceive”. Sir Walter Scott

    Is it a deception, or a carefully prepared scientific reconstruction of temperatures for the edification and benefit of mankind?

    “All other things being equal, the simplest solution is the best.” Occam’s Razor

  16. Anthony

    This ‘anomaly of anomalies’ has been known for some time. It is part of the continuous uppdating of historic temperature data which is the hallmark of James Hansens strivings.

    (Another quicker blinking version already appeared some years ago, in 2005)

    But it gets even better. Look here:

    An even earlier version of that graph was published by Hansen in his 1999 paper on GISS- temperatures, see Fig 6 p37.

    I suspect that the reason for publishing this was that 1998 was so warm (due to the major El niño event, although they state the opposite.

    1998 is when US-temperatures reached the highest level since 1934 (but still trailing by ~0.6°C)

    In the 1999-version of your graphs, this distance had shrinked to about 0.25°.

    However this wasn’t quite good enough for Hansen et al. Shortly after a new (recalculated) version appeared in 2001, where 1998 essentially had caught up with 1934 (at least in the US). This is the second version of the same US-temperature data, shown in the blinking figures. In this paper Hansen et al also purport to present a rationale for adjusting up later temperatures, and adjusting down earlier ones.

    There, essentially, you can find the official answer to your questions.

    1998 hade essentially caught up the entire 0.6° it had been trailing behind 1934 earlier, and solely by Hansens ‘updating’ of the temperature record!

    In comparison, the entire observed global warming trend over last centurey was about 0.6°, regardless of how much of this might be attributed to AGW

  17. Steven Goddard (09:49:06) :

    It appears that the period from 1930 onwards was transformed by a counter-clockwise rotation

    You know, sometimes it all snaps into clear focus.

    The imaginary number “i” is a rotation operator!

    Temperature data, meet imaginary numbers!

  18. Anthony: Does the GISS change reflect the differences between the USHCN versions 1 and 2? I believe the switch was made in 2007.

    It appears to me, based on the dates of the references, that the USHCN (Version 1) was “corrected” per the following prior to 1999.

    http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/ushcn/ushcn.html

    It also appears that the USHCN (Version 2) was introduced after 1999, but again, there’s no clear date listed on the following webpage.

    http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/ushcn/

    This one helps clarify when the change took place.

    http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/ushcn/hcntmptrends.php

    But are these the changes reflected by your graph?

  19. The purpose of GISS in my opinion is propaganda. It’s quasi scientific and so complicated that it’s hard for the mainstream media to assess the quality of the claims being made. It gets the job done though for the alarmist cause…

  20. I’ve characterized this phenomena, and it is surely a natural phenomena unrelated to any human intervention, but one not realized until recently, as Temporal Teleconnection with The Past. It’s a quantum-effect kind of thingy.

    I’m working on a Properly Peer-Reviewed Paper for an Approved Climatologists-Type Journal having an extremely high Impact Factor. That’s how Science Works and that’s what Scientists do.

    I’m also hoping that a bunch of Not-Certified Climatologists don’t find a problem with the concept before I get it published. I didn’t have time to check my results.

    The Owner may snip at will, of course.

  21. Bill Marsh – if, before 1999, urbanisation effects were over-corrected, an improved algorithm would reduce the correction. Your problem seems to be that you are so blinkered and prejudiced that you can’t possibly think about the issue in a scientific, objective way.

    Bill in Vigo – “From what little my little pea sized brain can understand it that most of the adjustments for UHI seem to more often than not to not change the urban stations to any useful extent down but to adjust the rural stations upward to match the urban set” – your candour about the size of your brain is admirable. Urban adjustments work in precisely the opposite way to what you described.

  22. ANTHONY, BETTER CHECK THIS ONE, ESP LAST PARA. ~ EVAN

    We all know it has cooled and has done for quite a while.
    For the scientific community in more normal times it would be just a matter of noting changes up or down and what if anything it was telling us lomg term..if at all.

    However these grapths are nothing to do with the fate of the world.

    By closing the argument on the theory of AGW from the start and going as far as calling sceptics “Holocaust deniers” the “Warmers” have raised the stakes against themselves.
    Every bit of data is in fact about the long term future of all leading AGW scientists, their lifestyle and importance…and of course the excuse for politicians to use AGW as a means for taxation and for the various stock exchanges to trade in carbon offsets.

    How on earth have we got to this stage?

    Well…..using climate models that put in the positives of the argument and ignoring the negatives is a good start but so much more.

    Do not expect the Hansens and Gore’s of this world to admit they are wrong…early retirement or a low profile will be the order of the day.

    PS
    [snip] not relevant to this discussion – please don’t post on this topic contained in the [snip] again – Anthony

  23. Why does this look like a page from George Orwells “1984”? Revisionist…… rewriting history to support the present policy. This makes me ill.

  24. Braden, I think the quote that may be most relevant here is:

    He who controls the present controls the past. He who controls the past controls the future.

  25. What troubles me is not that errors occur, it’s the possibility that erroneous data may be used to determine future economic and public policy.

  26. What I find amazing is that the chart is based around +/- 1 degree C. How many mercury thermometers are accurate, or at least readable, to less than 1 degree C?

  27. “if, before 1999, urbanisation effects were over-corrected, an improved algorithm would reduce the correction.”

    They certainly were overcorrected if you need to keep the alarmism going. Since every adjustment seems to result in more warming, we are correctly skeptical. Do you have any evidence that urbanization effects were overcorrected before 1999, or are you simply making it up to let Hansen off the hook?

  28. RW

    Take a look at the data. Your hypoothesis that UHI was overcorrected before 1999 simply doesn’t hold water. What you need to postulate is that in 1999 it was discovered that UHI was:

    Undercorrected for 1880-1900
    Overcorrected for 1900-1968
    Increasingly undercorrected after 1968

    Sounds pretty plausible, yes?

  29. Record high temperatures by continent:

    Interestingly, none of these were in the ’30s, and none of them were more recent than 1974.

  30. As I suspected. Watching the blink comparator there was an obvious “kink” in the adjusted data circa 1964. Then Jonas N. provides a link to an early Hansen paper where, sure enough, there is a “kink” in the adjustment in 1964. See Fig 3. p35. Indefensible.

  31. RW: “Your problem seems to be that you are so blinkered and prejudiced that you can’t possibly think about the issue in a scientific, objective way.”

    Then please explain to us in a scientific, objective way how it happened that they apparently over-corrected for UHI from 1970 onwards as well as before 1900, but apparently under-corrected between 1900 and 1970?

  32. “Change” for the Worse
    By Alan Caruba Friday, November 14, 2008

    Previously I have written that the global warming hoax was essentially dead and that the many Green organizations advocating all kinds of programs to wreck the nation’s economy were “desperate.”

    I was wrong.

    The Sierra Club, the Friends of the Environment, and the countless other Green organizations are euphoric and they have reason to be.

    The election of Barack Obama and a Democrat controlled Congress has put the Greens in the driver’s seat and we face at least four and possibly eight years of executive orders, legislation, and regulation based on a scientifically baseless lie that will introduce Americans to what life is like in Third World nations where electricity is both costly and unpredictable.

    http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/6277

  33. People can say whatever they want, but in my opinion the keyword in all this is “fabrication”. I have been critizised for my position on this but I maintain that with all these “brilliant” and “professional” scientist it has to be next to impossible to screw things as they do. Considering a declared goal to prove global warming and AGW, one can only become hugely skeptic about what´s going on when temperature readings of earlier times are consequently being corrected downwards and at the same time the temperatures of the last few decades are consequently being corrected upwards. It just doesn´t match up.

  34. If you watch it, you can see that the updated graph tends to flatten out the older data while the newer data gets a more steeper slope.

    Frigging bogus is you ask me. Maybe they are trying to help Mann’s hockey stick II.

  35. janama (11:48:30) :
    “What I find amazing is that the chart is based around +/- 1 degree C. How many mercury thermometers are accurate, or at least readable, to less than 1 degree C?”

    As an ancient weatherman, I can truthfully state that every official mercury thermometer I used was quite easily read to the nearest tenth of a degree with no more error induced than plus or minus one-tenth of a degree.

  36. For me, the message is somewhat diluted by having the two graphs show different data: The 2008 version drops the 5-year trend for the leftmost section of the graph (around 1805), and adds-in the extra data post 2000.

    This effectively creates a strawman for people trying to distract the discussion from the changes in the data. Any chance that someone could repeat the graph using the same data periods (only)???

    REPLY: Unfortunately the 1999 data in raw form is not available to redo this. But if anyone knows of it, please advise. – Anthony

  37. M White (11:51:40) :Climate change ‘to halt ice age’

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7722300.stm

    A future post perhaps.

    I have to say, the second paragraph stands out for me.
    “Based on geological history, the Earth would be expected to enter a new ice age in 10,000 to 100,000 years. ”

    Lets assume that the 10,000 years is correct, I think it’s a little far fetched to even assume mans influence on the planet then. I feel this is another nonense report on behalf of the BBC.

  38. So according to RW since a whole string of unsubstantiated, undocumented and darn unlikely conjectures explaining the historic changes might be true, we should just accept these changes. We should not question them or ask how they came about, we should just BELIEVE!

    Heck they might be true and I might win powerball tomorrrow. The second of the two is a higher probability, though I haven’t bought a ticket.

  39. Why is all of this so important? The Massachusetts v. EPA Supreme Court decision in April 2007 apparently held that CO2 was an “air pollutant.” Using that decision, the Sierra Club succesfully appealed a permit granted by EPA on the basis that the EPA failed to apply “BACT” or best available control technology to limit CO2 emissions from a second waste-coal-fired electric generating unit at Deseret Power Electric Cooperative’s existing Bonanza Power Plant near Bonanza, Utah. Permits for over 100 new coal-fired plants and expansion of refineries now appear to be in legal limbo, pending a decision by the new administration over what the BACT would be. The EPA appeals board, in a historical understatement, said: “In remanding this permit to the Region for reconsideration of its conclusions regarding application of BACT to limit CO2 emissions, the Board recognizes that this is an issue of national scope that has implications far beyond this individual permitting proceeding.” http://yosemite.epa.gov/oa/EAB_Web_Docket.nsf/Recent~Additions/C8C5985967D8096E85257500006811A7/$File/Remand…39.pdf

    IIRC, coal supplies about 50% of our electricity and no new refineries have been built in decades – only existing ones have been expanded. Since CO2 is now apparently classified as an actual “air pollutant” AND this decision may now serve as a precedent requiring control of CO2 emissions, ANY future emissions of CO2 will probably now be required to be regulated. No mention is made of how this will affect future political campaigns or oratory in Congress.

  40. It is not necessarily a nefarious scheme to increase the warming trend:

    Giss does make retroactive changes to in filled data based on monthly averages that are, of course, always changing as more data is collected and averaged.

    Plus, doesn’t Giss retroactively remove stations in the past if they find a problem with, or lose one today? I think I read that somewhere. Now, I dont like their method, but:

    These retroactive data revisions would cause chaotic changes to the historical temp graphs over time.

  41. I think it’s time to put a lawyer on this case.
    Find a professional GISS data user in Europe too and start the lawsuit on two fronts.

    It could put a legal bomb under the whole AGW scam that will cost as all deerly because Government policies are based on the data.

    Let us all put some dollars on the table, find a good lawyer few interested parties and let’s sew them.

    I also believe there is a certain congressman who has spoken out against the AGW hysteria?

  42. @M White (11:51:40) :

    “Climate change ‘to halt ice age’

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7722300.stm


    Well spotted. It’s looking like the mighty BBC AGW lobby is getting nervous!
    They’ve seen their bolthole- and it has two faces :
    (1) CO2 may be less of a factor in ‘Climate Chaos’ than originally thought – But that doesn’t mean we should use more fossil-fuels!
    or
    (2) Thanks to recent advances in Climatology – spurred on by NASA funded ground-breaking research – Negative aspects of decreasing Global temperatures can be painlessly mitigated by swift, unified action!

    Ach weel- whatever

  43. radar (14:46:43) :

    Think of it this way. You conduct an experiment. After you conduct the experiment, you find out that (a) some of your instruments were either miscalibrated, defective or improperly located, (b) external factors that you did not take into consideration or measure at the time the experiment was running have affected your measurements, (c) some of the measurements during the experiment were not recorded, (d) you used different instruments to record measurements over different time periods at different locations during the experiment. You find all of this out AFTER you have been running the experiment for many years. Then, instead of throwing out the data as hopelessly compromised and starting the experiment over with these factors corrected, you (a) do a study estimating how miscalibrated, how defective and how improperly located your instruments were and apply adjustments to all past data to “correct” the improper reading, (b) you do a study to estimate the effect of the external factors at the time you discover the problem and apply adjustments to all past data to “correct” the effects of the external factors even though you have no idea what the effect of the external factor actually was for a given instrument at the time the data was recorded, because you only measured the effect years later and then at only some locations, (c) you “fill in” any missing data using data from other instruments and/or from other measurements by the same instrument, (d) you do another study to determine how best to deal with measurements from different instruments over different time periods and at different locations and apply adjustments to all past data to “correct” for differences between readings from different instruments over different time periods at different locations. Then you continue running the experiment, while you continue applying all of your adjustments on an ongoing basis to all past data as new measurements are recorded. Finally, you believe that all of your data has been meticulously recorded with great accuracy and any uncertainties are minimal. Then you proceed to use the results of your experiment to justify changing policies for the entire world at a cost of many trillions of dollars, with the unerring belief that your experimental data is completely reliable.

  44. Why are so many of the remaining stations at airports? (Three quarters of the GISS stations in Australia are at airports.)

    PaulM, one interesting factor concerning Australian airports is that a number have had irrigation installed. Geraldton, Western Australia is a good example used by GISS. On Google Earth you can clearly see the green grass around the terminal and runway, while surrounding areas are brown scrub. From memory the weather station is directly in front of the terminal right in the middle of that nice green irrigated grass.

    While UHI gets all the attention, I believe irrigation heat islands are much more widespread and have a greater impact on the temperature record. Due to the potent local greenhouse effect of water vapour.

  45. Why are the honest but gullible scientist not “jump ship” ?
    Sure risking carrier and live style is relevant, but honour and conciseness should overwrite fear! The politicians are very sensitive of the wind direction!!
    If a scientist aware of the political manipulation of any data, and not raise their voices they are guilty as charged for collaboration of this treason.
    What they are not releasing, is that, after the free World destroyed, the gravy-train is go with it!! Like cutting the tree branch one sitting on….
    And of rant :(
    Thanks Antony for your work.

  46. Jonas N!

    Your HANSEN article from 1999 also have another interesting content:

    Take at good look at fig 3, (The figures comes after the reference list way down)
    See something?

    UHI. Hansen is in 1999 actually counting UHI for 2 – 3 whole degrees Celcius in big towns. In general GISS reduces with 0,05 degrees today.

    Fact is, that there are many more urban temperature stations than rural.

    Hmmm?

  47. This is typically what the models predict/hindcast (GISS Model E):

    There is no temperature hump in the mid 20th century – so that, like the MWP, is a problem for the modelers.

    The hump in the US temperature record still exists – but it has progressively disappeared from the temperature record elsewhere.

    The 1975 National Academy of Science publication “Understanding Climatic Change” included a graph of Northern hemisphere surface temperature from 1880 to 1968 which showed a big hump in the northern hemisphere:

    This Northern hemisphere temperature hump and the 1940 peak, which appears to be some 0.3C higher than today’s GISS, is no longer there.
    See also:

    http://solarcycle24com.proboards106.com/index.cgi?board=globalwarming&action=display&thread=214&page=1#4567

    cheers

    Arnost

  48. And to get on my other schtick. We know that UHI and other anthropogenic effects are influencing temperature records. What we don’t know is which stations are influenced by which effects and by how much. The UHI is little more than finger in air guesswork and we know so little about the other effects like irrigation that no one has even attempted to adjust for them.

    The solution is simple. We only use stations remote from known and unknown anthropogenic effects. What I call pristine sites. This is the only possible way to measure any global (average) temperature change.

    Statistically we need less than a 100 sites to get an acurate measure of global temperature and a 100 pristine sites certainly exist.

  49. Mr. Watts,

    I wasn’t sure the best place to leave this question, but hope you find it here and can comment.

    With all the interest in the current sunspot cycle, I haven’t seen anything about the next cycle, #25. You, and/or your readers, may have seen this article on NASA’s website: http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2006/10may_longrange.htm

    This article says that, not cycle 24, but cycle 25 is supposed to be the real downer. I have seen nothing on it recently, and am wondering if this is still believed to be likely.

    Thanks,

    Bruce

  50. Looks like about 20% of the recent “warming anomaly” is introduced by the “corrections” . I think it speaks to how noisy our surface data set is really. Someone needs to quantify the “noise levels” of surface data with some statistical error bars. We know from Anthony’s work how many stations have issues & are collecting less than pristene data. I am sure surface data from around the world have similar problems. Anyway, if noise levels could be quantified, temp records could be displayed with error bars instead of just a single line. I would bet that the error bar would be at least half as big as the anomaly. I am sure there would be those who would complain that “it is too confusing” or “it is a distraction to those who don’t understand” (read : it makes it harder to support the AGW agenda with that display) . Well, this is science. Uncertainty needs to be quantified & understood. Not everyone is trained in math & science & they should not expect to understand (unless this is just about politics, then you can display whatever you want). This analysis sounds like something that might be right up Steve McIntyre’s / CA’s alley. I would be very interested to see that analysis. Does it already exist somewhere out on the web?

  51. It looks to me like they want to increase the R2 value of the overall relationship, by straightening it out. They achieved this by lowering the values from 1930-1950, including the anomalously warm values around the turn of the millenium, and then ending the plot before the recent cool-down… and yet they claim that you ‘can’t spin nature.’

  52. “Mike Bryant (12:49:39) :
    Record high temperatures by continent:

    Interestingly, none of these were in the ’30s, and none of them were more recent than 1974.”

    That link has an all-time high of 59F for Antarctica. But apparently it was 72F there only last month in spring-time!

    http://www.wunderground.com/history/station/88963/2008/10/28/WeeklyHistory.html

    Note GISS has the same monthly mean for the station for last month as Wunderground :)

    http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/gistemp_station.py?id=301889630008&data_set=1&num_neighbors=1

    [ btw several stations on the Antarctic Peninsula do appear to have genuinely had a record-breaking mild month in Sep though.
    http://www.antarctica.ac.uk/climate/surfacetemps/ ]

  53. Speaking of the head of GISS, where is Hansen in all of this? [snip]

    REPLY: Dr. Hansen typically stays above the fray, and Dr. Schmidt deals with the PR. – Anthony

  54. RE:

    Any chance that someone could repeat the graph using the same data periods (only)???

    REPLY: Unfortunately the 1999 data in raw form is not available to redo this. But if anyone knows of it, please advise. – Anthony

    For the purposes of this display, it would easy to digitize the data & create a new display with the same dates. If you are interested, send me the graph, I’ll digitize & send the data back to you. Obviously, this isn’t perfectly accurate, but for a visualization, there would be no visual difference.

  55. More on Base Esperanza:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Esperanza_Base

    “……The temperature trend since 1948 is……..”

    “……Built in 1975, the base houses 55 inhabitants in winter, including 10 families and 2 school teachers. Provincial school #38 “Julio Argentino Roca” was founded in 1978 and acquired independent status in 1997. The LRA 36 Radio Nacional Arcángel San Gabriel radio station started transmitting in 1979…..”

    “……The 43 buildings of the station have a combined space of 374,400 square metres (4,030,000 sq ft) covered; 18,000 litres (4,800 US gal) of fuel are used annually by the 4 generators to produce electricity for the station…..”

    “…….The Base has tourist facilities that are visited by approximately 1,100 tourists each year…….”

    Not urban heat effects again surely?

    c.f. http://www.geography.uc.edu/~kenhinke/uhi/HinkelEA-IJOC-03.pdf
    re: Barrow, Alaska
    e.g.
    “…On a daily basis, the UHI is best developed under calm, cold conditions and can reach hourly magnitudes exceeding 9 °C; this reflects the increased (anthropogenic) heat input at this high-latitude site…”

    Population of Barrow? 3,982.

    UHI applies whatever the population, whether it’s a large city, Alaskan village, or Siberian base.

  56. Nice illustration, Arnost.

    But remember, this is not fraud. I would never intimate such a thing. This is a rigorous scientific effort to refine the data.

    [snip] – ad hom – please refrain, Anthony

  57. In my line of work, this is known as cooking the books, and can result in a perp walk if discovered and prosecuted.

  58. Philip_B – if you go to weatherzone

    http://www.weatherzone.com.au/wa/central-west/geraldton

    and click on Full Climateology – top right in the bottom section, on the next page at the bottom is the coordinates for the weather station, copy and paste it into google and there you are. The Geraldton unit is not near the terminal and is not in irrigated land according to the google image taken april 18 2006.

    You can see all the sites in the system following this method.

  59. Note to readers.

    I often make sarky posts, such as the previous one. But I do take this all very seriously. I follow the science and study. It’s amazing how much I have learnt and how many preconceptions I have had to drop.

    However, I am that little boy who points out the nakedness of the emperor.

    Derision is necessary for these 6-figure salary high priests and their 9-figure cult leader, Al Gore. And their billion dollar multinational churches of Greenpeace, Sierra Club, World Wildlife Foundation, etc.

  60. I appear to have had posts rejected for the first time at RC. Does that mean I’m a “skeptic”? It sounds kind of nasty. I’d always thought of myself as, well, myself. Now it appears I may belong to a category! I blame a certain dhogaza for provoking me too much.
    Still, it seems the “dark side” has both a better sense of humour, and even the chance of free brownies (which blog was that at again, “where climate talk gets baked”?! lol – Lucia you have style!) so it could be worse.

  61. Kate (09:33:16) said

    “The GISS temperature record is a conflict of interest.”

    How about the UAH temperature record? UAH is a product of Spencer and Christy, who are well-known AGW skeptics.

    What’s good for the goose….

    IMO, the fact that GISSTemp and UAH agree so closely over the long run

    shows that even if either group has an “agenda”, the underlying temperature signal is still coming through, loud and clear.

  62. “UHI applies whatever the population, whether it’s a large city, Alaskan village, or Siberian base.”

    Oops, I meant to say “…..or Antarctic base.” But of course it applies to a Siberian base just as to the others. Perhaps I had Siberia on my mind….. Not to be confused with Iberia of course. Where at the closest operational rural GISS met station to Madrid (up on the sierra at Navacerrada) the mean temp was 6.7C in October. I mean such a figure in northern Siberia would be inconceivable in October right :)

    http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/gistemp_station.py?id=643082150000&data_set=1&num_neighbors=1

  63. (1) no codes released
    (2) no QA at NOAA
    (3) no QA at GISS
    (4) insufficient funding for QA
    (5) irregular records
    (6) crackers records
    (7) stations disappearing
    (8) stations badly sited
    (9) suspect inadequate compensation for UHI
    (10) weird retroactive temperature adjustments
    (11) lousy level of credits to WU & CA for ongoing audit work
    (12) antediluvian programming

    For the most hugely costly global project… standards that wouldn’t wash at high school level? Time for Woodward and Bernstein to testify methinks?

  64. Chris, nice link to John Daly’s pages.

    In honour of him, GRHS, his familly keeps these pages alive on the web.
    This was the first place I met someone who was as sceptical as I. Now people like Anthony, Loehe, Mceh, etc. are continuing the struggle for reason, and slowly gaining ground.

  65. “Vincent Guerrini Jr (16:35:47) :
    oh no!
    http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/current.365.jpg

    An appropriate moment to remember the following:

    (thanks Mike Bryant, and others)

    And perhaps I might also be forgiven here for recycling this recent post of mine from CA in the context of the poles:

    Chris:
    November 8th, 2008 at 4:36 pm
    It’s also interesting to note that according to RSS TLT, Oct 08 in the Arctic/highest latitudes (60.0/82.5N) at +0.452C was cooler/less warm than Oct 1980 (+0.883C), Oct 1981 (+0.680C) and Oct 1987 (+0.620C). Even given the Arctic is now post-tipping point and 5C above “normal”. (Apparently).

    While around Antarctica (-70.0/-60.0S) Oct 08 at -0.696C appears to have been the coldest October in the satellite record (i.e. since 1979). No wonder the ice has been slow to melt there with the approach of SH summer.

    ftp://ftp.ssmi.com/msu/monthly_time_series/rss_monthly_msu_amsu_channel_tlt_anomalies_land_and_ocean_v03_2.txt

  66. Phil:

    “Why is all of this so important? The Massachusetts v. EPA Supreme Court decision in April 2007 apparently held that CO2 was an “air pollutant.”

    My understanding ( I read the decision many months ago) is that the Supreme Court simply said that the EPA’s decision that it was not an air pollutant, based on the EPA’s then-existent reasoning, was erroneous, and remanded back to the agency. The Supreme Court did not decide that it was a pollutant – it doesn’t have that authority. It just said that the agency decision wasn’t legally supported. The EPA could still find that it is not an air pollutant simply by concurring that either there is insufficient evidence that CO2 significantly affects temperatures, or that there is no data that any climate change will be detrimental.

  67. Paul M:

    I’d add one more question:

    If the raw temperature data arranged over a time interval does not accurately reflect temperature trends over that interval, how is it possible to verify that the adjustments you make to that raw data DO accurately reflect temperature trends over that interval? In other words, what measurments are used to objectively verify that your adjusted data is in fact an improvement over the raw data?

  68. Robert – yes, I came across John Daly’s site some time ago when I was (innocently) looking into issues to do with global temperature records.

    I don’t share your optimism though. The “debate” was lost long ago. IMO ground could only be gained either through a prolonged period of flat temperatures/cooling forcing a revision of consensus assumptions, or through a genius taking climate science to another level. On the first point, at least the work of people like Anthony Watts means that such an outcome would be noted more widely for what it was. On the second point, well, John Daly was “still waiting for greenhouse”, but I’m afraid we’re all still waiting for a truly consensus-busting scientist. (Yes I know Spencer has written interesting stuff on clouds…..And if his logic was that overwhelming he would be a household name by now…….Not saying he’s totally wrong though, please note.)

    There is another point which is the whole philosophy of “alarmism”. I instinctively find it quite an unhealthy approach to life, but it’s hard to counter because it plays on not-quite-fully-defined fears – i.e. the fears that unsettle people the most, while being hard to rein in once they spread.
    Again I can’t see who might be able to shift the paradigm.

    Most likely the world will just “get on with it”, as it always has done, and people will muddle through the greenhouse issue like any other. There is something attention-seeking about “alarmism”, and as such perhaps the best approach is passive resistance or just simplying ignoring such people unless they present a balanced view. It’s bad enough if they get morbidly obsessed with the issue themselves, without more of us becoming forced to get obsessed with countering their obsession. Get out and enjoy life people! That’s what it’s about. There’s no point preserving it otherwise whether at 0C, 3C or 6C warmer….

  69. Chris V. (17:05:00) :

    How do you square your scary looking chart with this chart, posted on this site?

    Or with this chart? We can observe a more accurate metric by looking at the y-axis zero baseline from 1979 through mid-2008. Note that global temperatures fluctuate both above and below the zero baseline.

    Or with this chart, which decimates the claim that satellite temps are inaccurate; they closely track daily radiosonde balloons. It is the surface stations that have skewed temps due to the UHI, among other factors. Note that the entire 0.6 degC warming comes from surface station measurements, not from satellite or radiosonde measurements.

    I noticed the source for your chart. It’s an alarmist blog. Even so, it states:

    Although NASA GISS’s numbers look larger, that is just the result of choice in base period.

    GISS diddles with the base period [among other 'adjustments'] in order to convey the message they want. Despite your graph showing fictitious global warming, the fact is that global temperatures continue to decline. There is no “warming signal.” The Earth’s temperature has been flat to trending down.

  70. janama, I suspect either the location given for the Geraldton airport weather station is wrong or for some reason the Google satellite image doesn’show the green grass.

    Anyway, at the link below there is a picture of the Geraldton airport Bureau of Meteorology office. Note the nice green grass surrounding the building and the where the weather recording station is located (in the foreground).

  71. As a follow-up to Arnost’s comment, the 1940s hump in US temperature is due in part to the significant multiyear El Nino at that time. When smoothed with a 25-month filter that El Nino stands out above all others during the 20th Century.

    Unfortunately, as you’re aware, most GCMs, even coupled GCMs, do not account for ENSO, and those that do do a poor job of it.

    Globally, the Indian Ocean response to that El Nino is responsible for much of the hump.

    Arnost’s link to the Model E hindcast also illustrates how GCMs rely on volcanic aerosols to create inter-annual variability. Without it, the Model E simply creates an exponential curve.

    Here’s the same curve compared to global temperature anomaly.

    And here’s a graph of the Model E output with all forcings including volcanic aerosols compared to global temperature anomaly.

    I discussed the Model E in two posts here:

    http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2008/09/giss-model-e-climate-simulations.html

    http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2008/09/giss-model-e-climate-simulations-part-2.html

    Regards

  72. Chris: apparently I too, am now banned from Real Climate. ah, well, it will save me time to do things like…..well…..work, I guess. If I have too.

    Good catch on the Siberian numbers. I hope you have collected all the exchanges, to show to your grand kids.

    “…then, just before the great cooling, there was the time I found errors in NASA’s GISSTEMP, AND done by the father of global warming…now, what the heck was his name?”

  73. Bruce Pettingell (15:42:57) :

    This article says that, not cycle 24, but cycle 25 is supposed to be the real downer.

    Hathaway has revised his prediction many times as it so far refuses to fit the “great conveyor belt” model…but altho i doubt his and Dikpatis’ predictions the fat lady hasnt sung yet.

    Lots of others are predicting a far weaker SC24

    http://landscheidt.auditblogs.com/

  74. crosspatch (09:15:04) :

    One explanation I have heard is that many stations lack a value for one or more months. These values are filled by using an average over time. This average is recalculated every month. So the temperature of a station (or nearby stations) reported this month can change the average value that is used to “fill” missing values in the past.

    This is covered in

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/04/08/rewriting-history-time-and-time-again/

  75. Surely the world should have access to the raw data archive, together with an archive of supporting information relating to quality, calibration, validation?

    Then anyone can produce their own analyses and cross-check for sanity and bias?

  76. smokey:

    “How do you square your scary looking chart with this chart, posted on this site? Or with this chart?”

    I, for one, would love to see someone elaborate on this. A while back, I compared the monthly trend charts at NASA with the annual trend charts, and invariably I noticed the same seeming discrepancy. The monthly charts show little, if any trend, but somehow, when NASA averages the anomolies over the course of the year, you have this right-hand tail that shoots up.

    At first, I assumed it was just a random statistical artifact of where the annual cutoff points are. But when this distinction between the two charts continues, year after year, I can’t make any sense out of it. I don’t think it can be explained merely by scrunching the horizontal data points on the graph in th eyarly chart, nor does it make sense to say that the annual averages keep going up because all the monthlies are above average with respect to a baseline. The latter could occur for one year, but how does year number 2 beat the previous one when the monthly trend over the two years stays the same, or even drops?

  77. Smokey (18:25:13) :

    Where did I say that satellite temps were inaccurate? I said UAH and GISSTemp match very closely over the long run. My graph (and yours) both show that.

    So what’s your beef?

    My guess is that you object to my graph because it shows surface temps back to 1880, so it doesn’t emphasize the recent, short-term fluctuations.

    But looking at the big picture shown in the graph I posted, I see quite few time periods where there were five or ten years of flat or declining temperatures (including several during the satellite era) very much like what we’re seeing today.

    Yet after those time periods, the long term rise resumed.

    I have seen nothing anywhere to suggest that the most recent flattening is any different than (most of) those.

    Are these last few years the start of a new trend? Maybe. But right now they’re not much different than the short-term weather noise we’ve seen previously.

  78. Chris: That’s part of the problem. Both Hansen and the IPCC have said that CO2 forcing is now greater than natural variability.

    Obviously its not.

    Which raises the question: If the current negative trend is natural variability, how much of the previous warming was also natural variability?

  79. Chris V., you didn’t say satellite temps are inaccurate in your post, but the site you linked to did.

    In fact, surface station measurements show a significant warming, while MSU measurements do not. Despite the proven UHI effect, James Hansen relies on surface station measurements. Why do you think that is?

    And since you want a graph that goes back to the 1800’s: click

    We can see that the planet’s temperature fluctuates naturally, both above and below the zero baseline. There is nothing unusual happening to the climate. Nothing. The climate naturally fluctuates, and it is currently within its normal parameters.

    There is no cause for alarm.

  80. Could anybody teach me the present numbers of temperature data that are used to construct the trend graphs, for GISS and NCDC separately ?

    Any information on the historical change (certainly decrease) in the data numbers is very much appreciated. Thanks.

  81. Smokey (19:55:15) :

    The site that graph came from didn’t say the satellite temps are inaccurate; it does say that the satellite temps have their own problems (just like the surface temperature measurements).

    I’d be happy to discuss some of the problems with the satellite temps, if you like.

    As for the temperature trends for the satellite and surface station data (1999-2007):

    UAH: 0.14 degrees/decade
    RSS: 0.18 degrees/decade
    GISSTemp and Hadcru: 0.17degrees/decade

    All warming.

    Which one is correct? No idea, but I would say that the best evidence we have shows the 1999-2007 warming trend to be somewhere between 0.14-018 degrees/decade.

    Of course that doesn’t mean that trend will continue, but you can’t deny that the trend is there!

    Regarding the graph you linked to- are your sure thats a GLOBAL temperature? It looks to me like US temperatures (about 2% of the globe). The fact that it’s in Farenheit is suspicious…. ;)

  82. Les Johnson (19:49:05) :

    I assume you’re addressing me (I’m Chris V.- there’s a “Chris” who posts here too).

    I think they say that CO2 forcing is more powerful than natural variability over the long run. They do not dispute that natural variability can cause big short-term changes (like the super strong 1998 El Nino).

  83. Yes Philip_B – But that’s not the terminal – it’s another building on the same site. You can see the unit on google and it’s dry grass – I suppose it depends on the time of the year it’s taken.

  84. Chris V.,

    Check out Bill Marsh’s links above, then get back to us.

    I understand that you’re a sincere believer in AGW, but you really should look at what Hansen is trying to sell.

  85. Smokey (20:57:08) :

    Are the 1999-2007 trends I posted wrong?

    Whether Hansen is “trying to sell something” is irrelevant. The question is: do other researchers, using their own methods, get the same results as Hansen?

    We have four different temp anomaly sets, by four different groups, using two completely different data sources (surface stations and satellites), and they all get very similar results.

    If Hansen is fudging the data, he’s not doing a very good job!

    Also, if you think Hansen is trying to sell something, do you feel the same way about Spenser and Christy (who produce the UAH temps)? Spenser and Christy (well known AGW skeptics) are certainly as publicly vocal as Hansen. One of the two, I think, is even Rush Limbaugh’s “official climatologist”.

    And the temp graph you posted IS for the US only- ushcn is the US Historical Climate Network.

  86. Bill Marsh (20:44:40) :

    I dunno, Hansen’s projections look pretty good to me, all things considered.

    I would be interesting to compare Hansen’s projections from back then to some from the skeptical side (Gray, Lindzen, Spenser…?) and see who got closer to the mark.

    Remember, back then many on the skeptical side were saying there was no warming trend at all.

  87. Does anyone know if the original, unadjusted, uncorrupted temperatures for all stations over the years are still available? I believe it is very likely that all the garbage that Hansen tosses into the soup will be shown (eventually ) to be seriously flawed. Is there a record anywhere of the temperatures actually recorded at each site.

    Well, it’s sort of a complicated story.

    My understanding is as follows:

    NOAA/GHCN collects raw data and applies its own adjustments. The adjusted data is sent to GISS. GISS applies an algorithm that “unadjusts” the NOAA data (why they do not simply start out with GHCN raw data is unknown to me). Then GISS applies its own adjustments.

    So you would need the NOAA raw data. (But you would probably want the TOBS adjustment, making it semi-raw. That’s a very legit correction assuming it’s properly made.)

    But I have heard a nasty story that the raw historical data was deleted. If if anyone wants to comment on this, I’d appreciate the info. So I can’t say if what you need is available.

    (Even if it has been deleted, there’s the off-chance someone has copies.)

  88. What means TOBS, SHAP, FILNET ?

    Heads up! These are not in the Glossary and they definitely should be.

    TOBS = Time of Observation bias. Depending on what 24-hour periods you use, you can get some very interesting distortions of the data. The TOBS correction fixes this.

    SHAP = Station History Adjustment Program. This adjusts for station moves or urban creep. (Or else it doesn’t!) Bad/Incomplete SHAP is at the heart of the surface station problems.

    FILNET = A program that fills in a station’s missing data by means of an interpolation algorithm. A subject of great controversy. One of the great advanatages of automated collection of data is that it cuts out the “human element” and (in theory) leaves no gaps in the data record.

  89. One of the two, I think, is even Rush Limbaugh’s “official climatologist”.

    That would be Spencer. However, the “official title” is entirely unofficial – and jocular.

    The tongue in Rush’s cheek is nearly always lost on his detractors, including those who pride themselves on their fine-honed sense of irony. But such is the way of the wicked world. (Sigh.)

    They both hail from the same bolt bin as Hansen. Spencer and Christy share a 1991 NASA Exceptional Scientific Achievement Medal.

  90. UAH: 0.14 degrees/decade
    RSS: 0.18 degrees/decade
    GISSTemp and Hadcru: 0.17degrees/decade

    All warming.

    Which one is correct? No idea, but I would say that the best evidence we have shows the 1999-2007 warming trend to be somewhere between 0.14-018 degrees/decade.

    Whoah, Nellie!

    I have no doubt that the trend from 1999-2007 is positive.

    But 1999 – 2000 was the big la Nina immediately following the 1998 el Nino.

    Either you have to include both the 1998 AND the shallower, but longer 1999-2000 low (which cancel each other out near the left side of the graph) or else you have to plot from 2001.

    It should also be noted that there was a triple El Nino 5/02-3/03, 7/04-2/05, and 8/06-1/07. So to be “fair”, you have to include the La Nina that followed and carry forward through 2008 (and on after la Nina ended).

    And one should show all this and carefully explain what bumps are included IN and which bumps are included OUT. Otherwise one runs the risk of cherrypicking.

  91. I would also point out that to be even clearer, the trend from 1978-1998 (max gain) should be one graph, the 1998 – 2008 (max loss) graph be another.

    In order to consider a cycle, one MUST study it from low point to high point, and then from high point to low point or else you have a far less meaningful measure.

  92. kurt (17:53:19)

    I think it will probably take a few more years for this to play out, but, at this point, it appears as if this decision by the Supreme Court will end up having the effect of declaring CO2 to be an “air pollutant.”

  93. James Hansen at GISS, a life long demigog pontificating on political matters which will impact on all of our lives from the safety of a tenured position, is the reason why California voters approved term limits for politicians.
    We need term limits for civil service workers also.

  94. oops, my bad- those trends I gave are for 1979-2007, not 1999-2007.

    Oh. Alright, then.

    I agree that the trend is up. But also consider that we still don’t have a full cycle. We have a full “up” part (1979-98) and we have a stable part with all the main cycles in or about to be in warm phase (1998-2007). And Now we have the beginning of a cool phase starting sometime in 2007 as the PDO reversed and other cycles seem about to follow suit.

    When the cycle completes, we can judge underlying trend and (if it is higher) argue if it’s continuing recovery from the LIA or if it’s AGW. If it’s lower, we can argue whether AGW is wrong or else AGW is right but the dead sun is to blame.

    The GISS divergence is more apparent after 1998.

  95. Rod Smith (13:49:12) :

    As an ancient weatherman, I can truthfully state that every official mercury thermometer I used was quite easily read to the nearest tenth of a degree with no more error induced than plus or minus one-tenth of a degree.

    I have been working in nuclear power for 20 years and have never seen an analog thermometer with that kind of precision. We were always trained that one can read half the interval of the scale accurately. In other words, if the instrument is in 1 degree increments, it can be read accurately to 0.5 degree. We used to make fun of guys with a “calibrated” eye who claimed to be more accurate.

    That being said, there is a difference between precision, accuracy, and repeatability. Precision has to do with the size of the increments on an instrument. Accuracy has to do with the ability of the instrument to sense the parameter measured and display it correctly. Repeatability has to do with how closely the instrument displays a given temperature, for example, compared to every other time it has displayed that same temperature. I can have great repeatability and precision and still have an instrument that is not accurate (for example, the zero point is shifted 5 degrees). One other item an accuracy, all instruments drift over time and must be calibrated on a regular basis. If the stations that Anthony is surveying are not calibrated, the data is not defendable. Period.

    Something else that bothers me on the temperature measurements. The best resistance temperature detector (RTD) we can buy for a nuclear reactor has an accuracy of about 1% of the calibrated range. Most places in the U.S. would need a range of at least 100 degrees F to cover the temperatures experienced over the course of a year. That gives an accuracy of 1 degree for an RTD, probably less for a mercury thermometer. In my world, 0.4 degrees or less of variability is just noise in the data and we spend a lot of time and money to ensure accuracy.

  96. It seems visually clear that the climate temperature record consists of separate time segments each with completely different slopes.

    Any model that fails to explain and reproduce those segments is simply inadequate to predict the future.

    The first problem is our data coverage, span and quality is inadequate to qualify any model.

    The second problem is that we don’t understand the systems well enough to produce good models.

    The third problem is that even if we did understand them they would be too complex for the computing power available.

    The fourth problem is that even if we had enough computing power we don’t have enough information to initialise the models adequately.

    The fifth problem is that the systems are chaotic and we don’t know if the initial conditions determine long term outcomes.

    That’s not so different from traditional chemistry where the physical theory might all be known but the test-tube rather than mathematics is both the first resource and the ultimate arbiter.

    However, the sixth problem is that in climate science we can’t do experiments – at least at present. We can only observe those nature does for us.

    Humility would be a good start.

  97. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/earthnews/3458927/Himalayan-glaciers-could-disappear-completely-by-2035.html

    Daily Telegraph Uk has a story with pictures from 1968 an 2007 showing Rongbuk glacier from similar viewpoint. One showing snow covered mountains with glacier, other showing almost bare mountains with no glacier.
    Does anyone know if this happens seasonlly? Am sure glaciers don’t come and go like that.
    Are there other factors that affect this area? Like the humidity does for Kilimanjaro….?
    The web page does not seem to have the dramatic half page picture spread that is in the actual paper today.

  98. Chris…on “Antarctic” Base Esperanza 72F or 22C … Grouchomarxing it…
    If you don’t like that number I have others…:Tu Tiempo +4.6C That was on
    Oct 26 2008…They have Sept at -0.1C as opposed to your? link 0.0C! Second
    warmest September was 1984!!! Fate’s irony…-1.3C [TT 5 days missing]…
    So Weather Underground got their numbers from??? Captain Stormfield??

  99. A question about “the anomaly” the quantity on the Y-axis.
    I guess the anomaly is calculated by subtracting te long-year average temperature from the measured average of any given year.

    Between 1999 and 2008, the long year average apparantly hasn’t changed !!
    When you calculate a “new” long year average, including the warmer years after 1975, you will see more of the graph below the X-axis. When the average becomes higher, the anomalies become smaller and more negative.

    We all know why GISS doesn’t calculate a new long-year-average and new smaller anomalies.
    The graphs would turn out much less dramatic and alarming.
    It’s all politics.

  100. GISS’ extra UHI/adjustment/etc. temperature was compared to UAH between 1979 and 2007 only 0.068 degrees C, which is at most 0.25 degrees in 100 years.

    Isn’t that about as much economic affection on the GISS temperature record in the 20th century as Patrick Michaels and Ross McKitrick found in this research?

    http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=12492

    http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/jgr07/M&M.JGRDec07.pdf

    This, and bad weather stations and UHI, were a fraction of them is very bad, is of course not acceptable and shall be targeted, but an important question may be if the small (maybe) 0.25 degrees C offset error per century will increase (like a dragon who raise his neck…?) so that it can be used to “prove” say 1.0 degrees C temperature change the coming decades where there is no such temperature increase?

    I don’t think that. Certainly not if the NASA folks doesn’t get extremely creative and have extremely good intuition about how to set the scientific society under some deep hypnosis. They must probably be more vital than Beatles. I don’t think James Hansen has even a small fraction of Beatles creativity…

    But, anyway, maybe they can get a political decision from UN about +2.0 degrees C?

    No, I don’t like to speculate in conspiracy theories. We got to curb down the 0.2 or 0.3 degrees C per century, because it may be a problem in one or two hundred years, where alarmist environmentalists refer to this low quality biased science.

    That’s what I think. I doubt NASA can prove AGW in decades with a +0.05 degrees C bias…

  101. Steve McIntyre wrote:
    The principal reason for the change are USHCN adjustments developed by Dr Karl – primarily the TOBS adjustments – the introduction of which to the GISS record is reported in Hansen et al 2001 and have been discussed from time to time at CA.

    Is this the same “Dr. Karl” of the NCDC who never an academic Ph.D.?

  102. Chris V.:

    Are the 1999-2007 trends I posted wrong?

    Despite your correction above [and thanks for that], I should point out that using 1999 as a baseline year will produce a radically different conclusion than using a 1998 baseline.

    We all tend to cherry-pick to some degree to support our conclusions, but one factor that seems to be routinely ignored is the fact that the planet has been steadily emerging from an Ice Age for the past 11,000+/- years.

    This results in a continued natural warming trend. No one has provided any proof — only computer model prognostications — that this natural, mild warming trend has anything significant [or even measurable] to do with increases in carbon dioxide.

    Unless some reasonable, empirical evidence emerges proving that CO2 is the villain that alarmists claim it is [instead of what we already know: that more atmospheric CO2 is beneficial to plant and animal life], then the correct position to hold is one of rational skepticism regarding the AGW/CO2 hypothesis.

  103. What kind of empirical evidence do you need? I mean ,there are a lot of measurements of the CO2-induced greenhouse efect…

  104. Chris V. wrote:

    I dunno, Hansen’s projections look pretty good to me, all things considered.

    I think what you fail to consider in the graphs is that the Hansen projection that should be compared with GISS and RSS is Hansen A, which matches real-world CO2 levels. The Hansen B and Hansen C are based on the assumption of massive CO2 limits.

    Hansen A comparison

    Consider the red line.

  105. Sometimes it seems that the argument regarding continuous temperature adjustments on historical data sets are like arguing about how many angels fit on the head of a pin.

    On Oct 27, 1969, there was one temperature. Obviously, that temperature cannot change. So any model that produces continously changing “adjusted” data can’t be accurate. This isn’t to say that an adjustment to the data can’t be made, such as adjusting for UHI or other factors. But that’s not the same as saying “It’s 62degs today, so Oct 27th, 1969 must have been warmer than it was yesterday.”

    What am I missing? How can a model like that even exist? I know I’m not a scientist…but it just seems to be common sense, which I know isn’t always that common.

    Jim

  106. Did anyone catch the latest IPCC spin on soot? They’re conceding it’s worse than thought, but they’re still claiming brown clouds mask heating from CO2.

    This, even though over the Indian Ocean basin Ramanathan’s team found that sooty brown clouds enhance heating by half of CO2’s claimed effect, not masking it by half as had previously been thought. Ramanathan will let fly an amazing revelation & then has stood by to let the IPCC steer.

    http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5iiDlfwqOC5I71KgFjzSBuany-hrAD94EBGJ80

  107. Alan Wilkinson,
    I think that is the best summary I’ve read of the problems with climate models.
    Thanks,
    Mike

  108. Flanagan (06:01:32) And one quite indirect measurement of the CO2 effect on climate is the temperature record of the last seven years, and that measurement is strongly suggesting that the IPCC’s conception of climate sensitivity to CO2 is exaggerated.
    ====================================

  109. @leebert
    Looking at this paper Atmospheric Brown Cloads by Ramanathan et al published in 2008 http://www.unep.org/pdf/ABCSummaryFinal.pdf it states on page 11
    5. The combined GHG and ABC forcing is 1.8 W m-2 with a 90 per cent confidence, confidence interval of 0.6 – 2.4 W m-2. By comparing this with only the GHG forcing of 3 W m-2 (90 per cent interval of 2.6-3.6 W m-2), it is seen that aerosols in ABCs have masked 20 – 80 per cent of GHG forcing in the past century.

    This compares with the summary from nature http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v448/n7153/abs/nature06019.html which states in part
    We found that atmospheric brown clouds enhanced lower atmospheric solar heating by about 50 per cent. Our general circulation model simulations, which take into account the recently observed widespread occurrence of vertically extended atmospheric brown clouds over the Indian Ocean and Asia, suggest that atmospheric brown clouds contribute as much as the recent increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gases to regional lower atmospheric warming trends. We propose that the combined warming trend of 0.25 K per decade may be sufficient to account for the observed retreat of the Himalayan glaciers

    Why do I get the impression of confusion

  110. Anthony,

    Will you comment regarding the “right turn” in the graph? I seems to be quite “unnatural”…….

  111. Katherine (06:13:00) :

    I think that if you look into it, you will see that that Hansen’s “B” scenario is closest to the actual CO2 increase.

  112. Smokey (05:52:28) :

    I’m sorry Smokey, but I will have to disagree with you about the baseline. Changing the baseline only changes the absolute value of the anomalies- it shifts the ENTIRE graph up or down, but the trend (in degrees/decade) of the increase or decrease in the anomaly remains the same. And the trend is what matters.

    In regards to your statements about CO2, the fact that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and that increasing CO2 will produce warming, is accepted by virtually every scientist, including most of the AGW skeptics (Christy, Spencer, Lindzen…).

    Where the skeptics and “warmers” disagree is the “how much warming” part.

  113. evanjones (00:55:15) :

    WRT the “GISS divergence”:

    Looking at the inset (showing the 5-year averages), it looks to me like UAH is doing the “diverging”, from HadCru, RSS, and GISSTEMP.

  114. Chris V. (08:56:33) :

    Interesting slight-of-hand. I note that almost the entire UAH graph is below the others because of the dependence on a single point baseline (Jan 1979).

    What if you chose Jan 2000 as your starting point? Who are the outliers?

    And wrt Scenario B, that’s not looking too healthy right now either.

    Katherine (06:13:00) :

    On this, Chris V has a point. Scenario A had a lot of forcings from CFCs. That didn’t happen, although the HCFC replacements have picked up some of the slack. Scenario C was the cold-turkey slashing of CO2 emissions in ~2000. Interestingly, as I alluded to Chris V, 2008 will be well below B and may well fall below Scenario C too.

  115. Chris V´
    Looking at your graph I see a difference of less than 0.1°C. Hardly within the limits of statistical uncertainty.

  116. Brute,

    There is nothing “unnatural” about the ice graph. The interior portions of the Arctic are now completely frozen over, and further freeze can occur only in different geographical basins at lower latitudes.

  117. Come on Flanagan. What are these “there are a lot of measurements of the CO2-induced greenhouse efect”?

  118. John M (09:24:49) and Pierre Gosselin (09:36:52) :

    So you guys don’t see any significant divergence? I would tend to agree; whatever divergence there is, it ain’t much (at least over that time scale).

    But Smokey is the one who brought up the divergence issue, claiming that GISSTemp was doing the diverging. You should be addressing your comments to him, not me.

  119. Chris V: “In regards to your statements about CO2, the fact that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and that increasing CO2 will produce warming,”

    In much the same way, the fact is that a burning candle produces heat, therefore burning a candle will warm a room (even if you leave a window open on a windy day)

  120. “Chris V. (08:29:23) :
    Katherine (06:13:00) :
    I think that if you look into it, you will see that that Hansen’s “B” scenario is closest to the actual CO2 increase.”

    Are you talking about emissions or Mauna Loa ppm? I suspect you mean the latter, in which case Hansen was incorrect insofar as he underestimated oceanic sinks etc?

  121. Chris V. wrote:

    I think that if you look into it, you will see that that Hansen’s “B” scenario is closest to the actual CO2 increase.

    The problem with AGW is that CO2 increase doesn’t actually track historical temperatures. Here’s a comparison of CO2 levels to temperature from the Medieval period to the current century.

    CO2 vs Temperature Change: 800 to 2006

  122. Chris V.
    “In regards to your statements about CO2, the fact that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and that increasing CO2 will produce warming, is accepted by virtually every scientist, including most of the AGW skeptics (Christy, Spencer, Lindzen…). ”

    Sorry…but broad brushes are almost always patently false, and this is within that group.

    Every scientist does not accept this, and I believe you know that, so I’m unsure or your purpose in stating it.

    Bait?

    Jim

  123. Chris V,

    If you use charts stopping in 2007, of course you miss noting the big drop which has created all the hubbub this past year.

    In 2007 Hansen was predicting a super-El Nino, apparently thinking another spike would appear on the charts, rivaling the 1998 spike. Instead a La Nina developed, and 2008 is turning out about as different from what Hansen predicted as you can possibly get. Arguing about .1 degree can’t get around this fact.

    2007 was when mighty Casey tapped his spikes and confidently stepped up to the plate. However now it is 2008 and mighty Casey has struck out.

    There is no joy in Mudville.

  124. There seems to be a pair of “anchor points” in the GISS blink comparator data, one about 1895 and another at 1965. The years in between adjust down, while those on the ends adjust up, especially post-1965. It gives the impression that, in adjusting the middle values down, the analysis forces end values to adjust in the opposite direction.

    Is there an explanation for that “anchor-point” effect, i.e, does the analysis hold those points steady on purpose?

  125. **Also, if you think Hansen is trying to sell something, do you feel the same way about Spenser and Christy (who produce the UAH temps)? Spenser and Christy (well known AGW skeptics) are certainly as publicly vocal as Hansen.**

    Although to be fair, only one has suggested that certain individuals should be charged with crimes against humanity.

  126. Katherine (10:12:30) :

    Your response is unclear to me- do you agree that Hansen’s “B” scenario is closest to the actual GHG concentrations?

  127. JimB (10:17:57) :

    I said “virtually every scientist”, not “every scientist”.

    Do you dispute that the leading AGW-skeptical scientists (Spenser, Christy, Lindzen…) all accept the basic idea that: 1) CO2 is a greenhouse gas; and 2) that the reason the temperature of the earth is greater than the moon is in large part because of the presence of GHGs (water vapour, CO2, methane…) in the atmosphere?

  128. Catherine says:

    The problem with AGW is that CO2 increase doesn’t actually track historical temperatures. Here’s a comparison of CO2 levels to temperature from the Medieval period to the current century.

    CO2 vs Temperature Change: 800 to 2006

    The graph is interesting, but I wonder if it is truly correct?

    We have reasonable evidence that the MWP existed, and indeed the graph shows elevated temperatures, but not elevated CO2 levels … Oh, I see. A little matter of the 800 year lag time.

  129. Chris V::

    I’m sorry Smokey, but I will have to disagree with you about the baseline. Changing the baseline only changes the absolute value of the anomalies- it shifts the ENTIRE graph up or down, but the trend (in degrees/decade) of the increase or decrease in the anomaly remains the same.

    Again, let me quote from the alarmist blog that you cited as your authority:

    Although NASA GISS’s numbers look larger, that is just the result of choice in base period.

    NASA’s graph is deliberately skewed — “adjusted” — to make it look scarier. It’s just their version of the Hockey Stick.

  130. Chris (10:09:28) :

    Hansen gave three different temperature projections, for three possible future GHG scenarios.

    The GHG projections for his scenario B are closest to what actually happened GHG-wise, so we must compare his scenario B temperature prediction to the real temperatures.

    It wasn’t an exercise in prediction of future GHG levels.

  131. Chris V,

    Your claim that the last two years are “weather” rather than “climate” are absurd. Weather forecasts are good for maybe three days to a week, tops. The climate models did not predict the sharp temperature drop over the last two years, indicating that they don’t model the climate accurately.

    However, the several month long 1998 spike was seized on by alarmists as proof the climate was warming out of control.

  132. Smokey (11:18:04) :

    The reason GISS uses the baseline it does (1950-1980) is because Hansen started doing his temperature anomalies in the early 1980’s- he just used the most recent 30 period when he started.

    Should GISSTemp keep changing their baseline every few years, to include more recent data? That would just lead to confusion, especially with all the scientific literature that has referenced GISSTemp.

    The fact that some people can’t understand a simple graph, or understand that the choice of ANY baseline is essentially arbitrary, or understand that changing the baseline of a graph doesn’t affect the magnitude of the CHANGES that graph shows represents of failure of the US educational system, not GISS.

  133. Hansen’s B scenario assumed a constant increase of CO2 in the atmosphere per annum (based on the values at the time the paper was written) which is fairly close to what occurred.

  134. Greg (10:43:10) :

    I agree- Hansen was a bit over the top with that one.

    However, if Hansen turns out to be right, we all might feel a little different about that.

  135. Chris V. (11:31:48) With ‘all the scientific literature that has referenced GISSTemp’ lately, wouldn’t it behoove Hansen and NASA to see that the integrity of their numbers would be a little more defensible? We have it on Gavin Schmidt’s word that only 0.25FTE’s are spent on the task. I won’t even mention the trillions of dollars of policy decisions that also hang on those numbers. Oops, I already did.
    ========================================

  136. Andy Beasley: Consider that the NOAA procedure is to round daily temperatures to the nearest degree. The claimed 0.1 accuracy is achieved only by way of oversampling.

  137. Chris V

    Still not willing to look at what’s happened since 2000?

    And no comment on what Scenario B will look like after this year?

    That’s after 20 years, not “short term weather”.

  138. Chris V: “…that the reason the temperature of the earth is greater than the moon is in large part because of the presence of GHGs ”

    The reason the temperature of the earth is greater than the moon is probably mainly because of the atmosphere, full stop.

    It could be argued that the presence of GHGs may have a moderating effect on surface temperatures, by allowing some heat energy to be elevated above the insulating effect of the air.

  139. Hmmm…. Correcting data which was labelled as provisional before it was published… Yeah, conspiracy. Yeah.

  140. oldjim: Confusion? About aerosols net effect? yeah, a bit. (thanks for the Nature link, BTW)

    Jacobson et al suggest that aerosols are a positive forcing agent.

    Jacobson, M., 2001: Strong radiative heating due to the mixing state of black carbon in atmospheric aerosols, Nature, 409:695-697; Sato, M. et al., 2003: Global atmospheric black carbon inferred from AERONET, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, vol. 100, no. 11: 6319-6324.

    Crozier at al says there is a large uncertainity in aerosol forcing, as it relates to GCMs.

    “Because of the large uncertainty we have in the radiative forcing of aerosols, there is a corresponding large uncertainty in the degree of radiative forcing overall”, Crozier said. “This introduces a large uncertainty in the degree of warming predicted by climate change models.”

    http://news.usti.net/home/news/cn/?/tw.top/2/wed/dg/Uus-climatemodels.RjIW_IaB.html

    These authors suggest that aerosol levels were much HIGHER at the end of the 19th century and the beginning of the 20th, than at present. This would indicate that aerosols levels were highest during the warming leading up to 1940.

    McConnell et al. Coal burning leaves toxic heavy metal legacy in the Arctic. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, August 2008 DOI: 10.1073/pnas.0803564105

    And, oddly, the same author of the UNEP paper, only a year earlier, suggested that aerosols were a net POSITIVE forcing, and contributes to the glacier retreat.

    We found that atmospheric brown clouds enhanced lower atmospheric solar heating by about 50 per cent. Our general circulation model simulations, which take into account the recently observed widespread occurrence of vertically extended atmospheric brown clouds over the Indian Ocean and Asia, suggest that atmospheric brown clouds contribute as much as the recent increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gases to regional lower atmospheric warming trends. We propose that the combined warming trend of 0.25 K per decade may be sufficient to account for the observed retreat of the Himalayan glaciers.

    http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v448/n7153/abs/nature06019.html

  141. Chris V

    OK i’ve looked into this a bit more just now.

    Your original statement said:
    “Chris V. (08:29:23) :
    Katherine (06:13:00) :
    I think that if you look into it, you will see that that Hansen’s “B” scenario is closest to the actual CO2 increase.”

    I’m not sure this is correct. See e.g.

    from

    http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=2621

    which suggests that there was “no material difference between Scenario A and Scenario B concentrations” [of CO2]

    [Note, as I said before, emissions appear to have grown at BAU, if not higher (in the last decade), while I understand the magnitude of ocean sinks has been progressively revised upwards, though I accept this is a somewhat different point of course]

    The main difference between projections A and B appears to have been the projected volcanic forcings in ~1995 and ~2015. If you consider the following:

    you will see that temperatures in the B scenario should have come very close to those of A from ~2007 onwards, i.e. 12 years after the projected volcano.
    The projection of a volcano (of ~Chichon magnitude) was correct, though of course the actual year was 1991 (Pinatubo). Therefore by the same logic, B scenario temperatures should have come close to those of A from ~2003 onwards, and until the next volcanic forcing.

  142. Chris V: your

    However, if Hansen turns out to be right, we all might feel a little different about that.

    Highly unlikely, based on his 1988 predictions. Right now, only his “C” scenario temperature is within 95% confidence level, and even that is hanging on by it’s fingernails.

    And that scenario assumed that massive CO2 cuts would start in 1990.

  143. Greg (10:43:10) :

    I agree- Hansen was a bit over the top with that one.

    However, if Hansen turns out to be right, we all might feel a little different about that.

    Those who do will demonstrate that they are scoundrels.

    Hansen was employing despicable argument tactics to try to shut down opponents to his views and prevent people from investigating his claims and arguments.

    Given that spending trillions of dollars to prevent something that we have no influence over is just as wrong as failing to do something that we could have done, vigorous debate is required.

  144. I think this is important for all US citizens:
    Nov 15, 2008 (Published at ICECAP.US
    EPA and ANPR Deadline for Comments is November 28, 2008

    By Joseph D’Aleo
    The ANPR is one of the steps EPA has taken in response to the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Massachusetts v. EPA. The Court found that the Clean Air Act authorizes EPA to regulate tailpipe greenhouse gas emissions if EPA determines they cause or contribute to air pollution that may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare. The ANPR reflects the complexity and magnitude of the question of whether and how greenhouse gases could be effectively controlled under the Clean Air Act.

    The document summarizes much of EPA’s work and lays out concerns raised by other federal agencies during their review of this work. EPA is publishing this notice at this time because it is impossible to simultaneously address all the agencies’ issues and respond to the agency�s legal obligations in a timely manner.

    Key Issues for Discussion and Comment in the ANPR: Descriptions of key provisions and programs in the CAA, and advantages and disadvantages of regulating GHGs under those provisions; How a decision to regulate GHG emissions under one section of the CAA could or would lead to regulation of GHG emissions under other sections of the Act, including sections establishing permitting requirements for major stationary sources of air pollutants; Issues relevant for Congress to consider for possible future climate legislation and the potential for overlap between future legislation and regulation under the existing CAA; and, scientific information relevant to, and the issues raised by, an endangerment analysis.

    EPA will accept public comment on the ANPR until November 28, 2008. See EPA ANPR for details and directions.

    Earlier responses to the CCSP are supposed to be considered but it is a good idea to resubmit them to ANPR to play it safe. I have done so in two parts: Part I summarizing the 9 responses to the CCSP and a new one in Part II responding to these specific scientific questions the EPA is seeking input on:

    (1). EPA seeks comment on the best available science for purposes of the endangerment discussion, and in particular on the use of the more recent findings of the U.S. Climate Change Science Program.

    (2). EPA also invites comment on the extent to which it would be appropriate to use the most recent IPCC reports, including the chapters focusing on North America, and the U.S. government Climate Change Science Program synthesis reports as scientific assessments that could serve as an important source or as the primary basis for the Agency�s issuance of �air quality criteria.�

    (3). EPA requests comments as well as the adequacy of the available scientific literature [synthesis reports such as the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s Fourth Assessment Report and various reports of the US Climate Change Science Program]

    (4). The Endangerment Technical Support Document provides evidence that the U.S. and the rest of the world are experiencing effects from climate change now.

    The window will close on comments November 28, 2008 and decisions will be made that we may have to live with for a long time. We can only do our best to ensure we have a say and maybe some influence on those decisions. Though the responses I sent were relatively long, they need not be. Short pithy comments that address one or more of the questions with relevant documentation to papers and peer review or just data can be just as if not more effective. Thank you for whatever you do.
    Nov 15, 2008
    Gore Says No to ‘Climate Czar’ Role

    By Tom LoBianco and S.A. Miller, Washington Post

    President-elect Barack Obama’s transition team is flirting with creating a White House “Climate Czar,” but climate change crusader Al Gore says he doesn’t want the job. The Obama team declined to comment on such a post, even as environmentalists and power industry executives say it’s being widely discussed inside the transition offices as a way to spur a clean energy industry, which Mr. Obama has promised will ween the U.S. from foreign oil and create millions of “green jobs.”

    Obama transition chief John Podesta promoted a similar idea earlier in his role as president of the Center for American Progress, a liberal Washington think tank. Mr. Podesta authored a white paper calling for an Energy Security Council within the White House to oversee climate change and clean energy initiatives. The czar and the council would coordinate agencies, including the Energy and Interior departments and the Environmental Protection Agency.

    The obvious choice to lead the council is Mr. Gore, whose campaign to address climate change earned him the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize. But the former vice president is taking a pass. “Former Vice President Gore does not intend to seek or accept any formal position in government,” Gore spokeswoman Kalee Kreider said. “He feels very strong right now that the best thing for him to do is to build support for the bold changes that we have to make to solve the climate crisis.” Mr. Obama foreshadowed the new post on the campaign trail in April when he told a voter that Mr. Gore would be offered a special Cabinet post overseeing climate change. “Al Gore will be at the table and play a central part in us figuring out how we solve this problem,” Mr. Obama said.

    Al Gore appears on behalf of Barack Obama early Friday afternoon, Oct. 31, 2008, at the Palm Beach County Convention Center in West Palm Beach, Fla.. Gore, former vice president and democratic presidential candidate in 2000, and his wife Tipper, returned to Palm Beach County, ground zero of the year 2000 election debacle. It was Gore’s first campaign event for the Obama/Biden ticket.

    With Mr. Gore out of the running for an administration job, leading candidates for the post likely include former EPA chief Carol M. Browner, Arizona Gov. Janet Napolitano and Kansas Gov. Kathleen Sebelius. Other names mentioned for czar or membership in the energy council include World Resources Institute President Jonathan Lash, former Pennsylvania Environment Secretary Kathleen McGinty and California Air Resources Board chief Mary D. Nichols. Read more here

  145. Patrick Henry (11:29:41) :

    “Chris V,

    Your claim that the last two years are “weather” rather than “climate” are absurd. Weather forecasts are good for maybe three days to a week, tops. The climate models did not predict the sharp temperature drop over the last two years, indicating that they don’t model the climate accurately.”

    Just as a side note, there’s actually been some fairly accurate forecasted by these guys:

    http://theweatherwiz.com/about.htm

    They claim they have an %83 accuracy rate since 1978, and higher over the past decade.
    Good story, too.

    Jim

  146. Chris (12:27:14) :

    RealClimate has a discussion of the scenario issue:

    http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/05/hansens-1988-projections/

    They maintain that the actual forcings (which includes things other than just CO2) are closest to Hansen’s scenario B. Remember this wasn’t an exercise in predicting future CO2, methane, solar, volcanic, etc. forcings, but a prediction of what could happen under some hypothetical “high”, “medium” and “low” forcing scenarios.

    We can argue all day about whether Hansen got it “right” or not (I think he did reasonably well).

    But I would be much more interested in comparing Hansen’s predictions with the predictions made by some AGW skeptics from around the same time. That way, we could see which theory got closer to the mark.

    Unfortunately, I am unaware of any long-term predictions made by the skeptical side at the time (but I do know that there were some who were still claiming that the earth was not warming at all).

  147. John M (12:01:12) :

    WRT to post-2000 trends, they are different between the various data anomaly sets.

    But looking back over the last 30 or so years, I see other periods of time that had similar “lulls”, but afterward the long-term upward trend always resumed.

    This latest lull MIGHT be the start of a new long-term cooling or stable trend, but I have seen nothing to make me think that it is.

    I might be wrong. Time will tell.

  148. **Also, if you think Hansen is trying to sell something, do you feel the same way about Spenser and Christy (who produce the UAH temps)? Spenser and Christy (well known AGW skeptics) are certainly as publicly vocal as Hansen.**

    *Although to be fair, only one has suggested that certain individuals should be charged with crimes against humanity.*

    Nor have S & C flown halfway across the world to provide a character reference for vandals…..

  149. Chris V. (08:47:33) :

    In regards to your statements about CO2, the fact that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and that increasing CO2 will produce warming, is accepted by virtually every scientist, including most of the AGW skeptics (Christy, Spencer, Lindzen…).

    Substantiating a scientific theory requires empirical evidence, not opinion polls.
    There is no empirical evidence that the greenhouse effect is even applicable to the earth’s atmosphere.

    Where the skeptics and “warmers” disagree is the “how much warming” part.

    Not so. Where the skeptics and “warmers” disagree most, is the “anthropogenic” part.

  150. In May 2007, when that RC post was made, Hansen was pretty well on for scenario C (not so much B).

    But at that point the bottom dropped out. If you show the graph a year later, you see it at well below “C level”. We are simply going to have to wait it out and at the same time get a true handle on the positive feedback loop question.

    As for Climate Nuremberg, I presume the trials will be held in the courtroom right next to DDT Nuremberg? #B^1

    FWIW, I think that CO2 warming is real but far past diminishing returns and without positive feedback at work, the effects of increase are minimal (and probably beneficial). Positive feedback is what the whole AGW position depends on.

  151. Chris V: “Unfortunately, I am unaware of any long-term predictions made by the skeptical side at the time”

    Skeptics do not make long-term predictions, precisely because they are skeptical of anyone’s ability to make meaningful long-term predictions.

  152. Nov 15, 2008
    EPA and ANPR Deadline for Comments is November 28, 2008

    By Joseph D’Aleo

    The ANPR is one of the steps EPA has taken in response to the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Massachusetts v. EPA. The Court found that the Clean Air Act authorizes EPA to regulate tailpipe greenhouse gas emissions if EPA determines they cause or contribute to air pollution that may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare. The ANPR reflects the complexity and magnitude of the question of whether and how greenhouse gases could be effectively controlled under the Clean Air Act.

    The document summarizes much of EPA’s work and lays out concerns raised by other federal agencies during their review of this work. EPA is publishing this notice at this time because it is impossible to simultaneously address all the agencies’ issues and respond to the agency�s legal obligations in a timely manner.

    Key Issues for Discussion and Comment in the ANPR: Descriptions of key provisions and programs in the CAA, and advantages and disadvantages of regulating GHGs under those provisions; How a decision to regulate GHG emissions under one section of the CAA could or would lead to regulation of GHG emissions under other sections of the Act, including sections establishing permitting requirements for major stationary sources of air pollutants; Issues relevant for Congress to consider for possible future climate legislation and the potential for overlap between future legislation and regulation under the existing CAA; and, scientific information relevant to, and the issues raised by, an endangerment analysis.

    EPA will accept public comment on the ANPR until November 28, 2008. See EPA ANPR for details and directions.

    Earlier responses to the CCSP are supposed to be considered but it is a good idea to resubmit them to ANPR to play it safe. I have done so in two parts: Part I summarizing the 9 responses to the CCSP and a new one in Part II responding to these specific scientific questions the EPA is seeking input on:

    (1). EPA seeks comment on the best available science for purposes of the endangerment discussion, and in particular on the use of the more recent findings of the U.S. Climate Change Science Program.

    (2). EPA also invites comment on the extent to which it would be appropriate to use the most recent IPCC reports, including the chapters focusing on North America, and the U.S. government Climate Change Science Program synthesis reports as scientific assessments that could serve as an important source or as the primary basis for the Agency�s issuance of �air quality criteria.�

    (3). EPA requests comments as well as the adequacy of the available scientific literature [synthesis reports such as the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s Fourth Assessment Report and various reports of the US Climate Change Science Program]

    (4). The Endangerment Technical Support Document provides evidence that the U.S. and the rest of the world are experiencing effects from climate change now.

    The window will close on comments November 28, 2008 and decisions will be made that we may have to live with for a long time. We can only do our best to ensure we have a say and maybe some influence on those decisions. Though the responses I sent were relatively long, they need not be. Short pithy comments that address one or more of the questions with relevant documentation to papers and peer review or just data can be just as if not more effective. Thank you for whatever you do.
    Nov 15, 2008
    Gore Says No to ‘Climate Czar’ Role

    By Tom LoBianco and S.A. Miller, Washington Post

    President-elect Barack Obama’s transition team is flirting with creating a White House “Climate Czar,” but climate change crusader Al Gore says he doesn’t want the job. The Obama team declined to comment on such a post, even as environmentalists and power industry executives say it’s being widely discussed inside the transition offices as a way to spur a clean energy industry, which Mr. Obama has promised will ween the U.S. from foreign oil and create millions of “green jobs.”

    Obama transition chief John Podesta promoted a similar idea earlier in his role as president of the Center for American Progress, a liberal Washington think tank. Mr. Podesta authored a white paper calling for an Energy Security Council within the White House to oversee climate change and clean energy initiatives. The czar and the council would coordinate agencies, including the Energy and Interior departments and the Environmental Protection Agency.

    The obvious choice to lead the council is Mr. Gore, whose campaign to address climate change earned him the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize. But the former vice president is taking a pass. “Former Vice President Gore does not intend to seek or accept any formal position in government,” Gore spokeswoman Kalee Kreider said. “He feels very strong right now that the best thing for him to do is to build support for the bold changes that we have to make to solve the climate crisis.” Mr. Obama foreshadowed the new post on the campaign trail in April when he told a voter that Mr. Gore would be offered a special Cabinet post overseeing climate change. “Al Gore will be at the table and play a central part in us figuring out how we solve this problem,” Mr. Obama said.

    Al Gore appears on behalf of Barack Obama early Friday afternoon, Oct. 31, 2008, at the Palm Beach County Convention Center in West Palm Beach, Fla.. Gore, former vice president and democratic presidential candidate in 2000, and his wife Tipper, returned to Palm Beach County, ground zero of the year 2000 election debacle. It was Gore’s first campaign event for the Obama/Biden ticket.

    With Mr. Gore out of the running for an administration job, leading candidates for the post likely include former EPA chief Carol M. Browner, Arizona Gov. Janet Napolitano and Kansas Gov. Kathleen Sebelius. Other names mentioned for czar or membership in the energy council include World Resources Institute President Jonathan Lash, former Pennsylvania Environment Secretary Kathleen McGinty and California Air Resources Board chief Mary D. Nichols. Read more here

  153. Chris V

    I had read the RealClimate discussion, and it doesn’t change what I say (it was one of the sources I considered when putting my previous post together.) Scenarios B and C included volcanic forcings; Scenario A did not. The straight line for Scenario B in RC’s image is misleading because it presumably averages out the volcanic forcings of over the time period. Thus now, at the end of 2008, it assumes a volcanic forcing that does not exist, therefore we should be warmer under Scenario B now than implied by RC’s diagram.

    In terms of predictions from “skeptics”, I imagine that those who disagreed with Hansen predicted that warming would be less. Now it increasingly is less.
    Also, many “skeptics” have tended to be interested in the surface record. Well, stations from the US to Greenland and Iceland, from Western Europe to Siberia, and in other parts of the world as far as I can tell, were significantly cooler in the 80s than in the 1930s/40s. So I imagine many “skeptics” in the late 1980s were aware that a cyclical upswing was on the cards (in particular, we now know of course that the AMO turned strongly +ve into the 90s)

  154. Gilbert (15:03:02) :

    “Substantiating a scientific theory requires empirical evidence, not opinion polls.
    There is no empirical evidence that the greenhouse effect is even applicable to the earth’s atmosphere.”

    What type of empirical evidence are you looking for?

    “Where the skeptics and “warmers” disagree is the “how much warming” part.

    Not so. Where the skeptics and “warmers” disagree most, is the “anthropogenic” part.”

    I dunno- a lot of AGW skeptics (Christy, Schwartz, Monckton) have written papers where they proposed much lower CO2 sensitivities than what many others believe. Lower, but not zero.

  155. Re:Geraldton Airport

    I suppose it depends on the time of the year it’s taken.

    No it doesn’t. Grass only grows in Geraldton (and everywhere within 1,000 kilometers) when it is irrigated year round.

    What has happen over the last 3 or 4 years in Western Australia is that watering grass has become un-PC. And as a result many government offices have stopped their irrigation systems,which is probably what we see on the Google satellite image. Although, extensive irrigation still continues at Perth Airport. I can’t say for Geraldton as its about 5 years since I was last there.

    Annoyingly, the BoM does provide trend graphs of temperatures (or anything else) so we can’t see what effect stopping irrigation has on the temperature record.

  156. Peter (15:24:27) :

    Some skeptics claim that cosmic rays or solar activity are the big drivers of climate. Why not make some predictions? They could pick a few hypothetical scenarios for, say, various levels of solar activity (a high, a low and a middle), and predict the future temps. Then we wait and see what happens.

    Ultimately, the ability to make accurate predictions is the best test of a theory, right? At least that’s what you guys all seem to be saying.

  157. Chris (15:35:57) :

    I agree that Hansen’s prediction does not perfectly match the reality. But it’s in the ballpark.

    You “imagine” that the skeptics predicted less warming? I was hoping for something a little more “real”. ;)

  158. “Where the skeptics and “warmers” disagree is the “how much warming” part.
    Not so. Where the skeptics and “warmers” disagree most, is the “anthropogenic” part.”

    Where I disagree most is the catastrophic part. That is the part that makes governments think it is AOK to take liberties with my liberties.

  159. I agree that the trend is up. But also consider that we still don’t have a full cycle. We have a full “up” part (1979-98) and we have a stable part with all the main cycles in or about to be in warm phase (1998-2007). And Now we have the beginning of a cool phase starting sometime in 2007 as the PDO reversed and other cycles seem about to follow suit.

    When the cycle completes, we can judge underlying trend and (if it is higher) argue if it’s continuing recovery from the LIA or if it’s AGW. If it’s lower, we can argue whether AGW is wrong or else AGW is right but the dead sun is to blame.

    The GISS divergence is more apparent after 1998.

    This really is all academic. You can’t just pick a point in time and declare “this is the zero anomaly line”. It’s just silly. And it’s even sillier to say that anything outside that anomaly line is, well, anomalous.

  160. Chris V: “Why not make some predictions?”

    Why should we? The onus of proof is on those who propose a theory – particularly when said theory diverts huge amounts of funding away from worthwhile pursuits such as fighting disease and poverty.

  161. I can’t seem to get anything right today.

    That should have read,

    Annoyingly, the BoM doesn’t provide trend graphs of temperatures.

    Is this the same “Dr. Karl” of the NCDC who never an academic Ph.D.?

    Yes it is.

    Dr Karl’s work on TOBS is interesting, not least in that it was an exercise in saving money. Rather than going through the records and determining when Time of Observation changed at each individual site. Karl came up with a statistical estimate for all sites, which is of unknown accuracy.

    Another example of climate data handling done on the cheap with unknown effects on the accuracy of the climate record. BTW, Karl is on record as saying the error in his method is about 25%, which would mean about a 15% error in the 20th century temperature change (trend).

  162. Peter (16:05:36) said:

    “Why should we? The onus of proof is on those who propose a theory – particularly when said theory diverts huge amounts of funding away from worthwhile pursuits such as fighting disease and poverty.”

    Don’t mix up the theory with the political/economic/social response. Whether AGW is occurring, and how much, is one question. What (if anything) to do about it is another.

    In any event, the skeptics are all proposing theories – “it’s the sun, cosmic rays, PDO, natural variability…” are all theories.

    But if you feel that way, I would think that you would think it was even MORE important to prove the skeptical theories right. Providing more accurate predictions than Hansen would certainly help with that.

  163. Chris V

    “You “imagine” that the skeptics predicted less warming? I was hoping for something a little more “real”. ;)”

    The “imagine” was ironic. Anyone who, at the time, to a lesser or greater extent, may have thought Hansen was exaggerating, by definition was “predicting” less warming. (I think the “s” word is less helpful than ever here.)

  164. Chris V. (15:39:05) :

    There is no empirical evidence that the greenhouse effect is even applicable to the earth’s atmosphere.”

    What type of empirical evidence are you looking for?

    Atmospheric greenhouse effect would seem to be dependent on the assumption that CO2 re-radiates energy, part of which returns to the surface. Is there any empirical evidence that this is true? Why not conduction to adjacent and cooler gases?

    “Where the skeptics and “warmers” disagree is the “how much warming” part.

    Not so. Where the skeptics and “warmers” disagree most, is the “anthropogenic” part.”

    I dunno- a lot of AGW skeptics (Christy, Schwartz, Monckton) have written papers where they proposed much lower CO2 sensitivities than what many others believe. Lower, but not zero.

    Which doesn’t matter, unless one believes that increases in CO2 are manmade and is driving the climate. I’m inclined to think that the current increases in CO2 are the result of the warming period eight hundred years ago.

    Note: this a bit offtopic and is a bit cumbersome. My commenting skills are primitive. Would appreciate any advice regarding methods of communication.

  165. Chris V: My prediction:

    Measured warming will be less than either the IPCC or Hansen’s predictions.

  166. Predicting surface temperatures beyond a week is a fool’s game.
    However, I do have a few predictions.
    People will continue to vacation in climates that are warmer than their own.
    People will continue to live in places that are much warmer or much colder than their imagined “ideal” temperature.
    If the thermostat at your house becomes off by one degree, you will not notice it.
    If the Earth warms 2F or 2C in the next 100 years, no one will notice the difference.
    It will become more obvious every year that CO2 will NOT cause any catastrophies.
    No matter what happens, governments will create huge bureaucracies to protect us.
    Governments will sell companies the “right to pollute”.
    These companies will eventually become government protected monopolies.
    The recent low levels of world stock markets will be remembered as a boom.
    The poor of the world will die in large numbers.
    America will return to capitalism.
    The high levels of CO2 will create a garden Earth.

    And then everyone will forget what happened and the whole thing will start over again.

  167. Chris V.:

    “The GHG projections for [Hansen's] scenario B are closest to what actually happened GHG-wise, so we must compare his scenario B temperature prediction to the real temperatures.”

    Why ‘must’ we compare that specific prediction of Hansen’s?

    The glaring error in this debate is the fact that Hansen made three very different climate predictions. By saying: “I agree that Hansen’s prediction does not perfectly match the reality. But it’s in the ballpark,” what you are doing is selecting the Hansen prediction that comes closest to matching the current climate.

    Give anyone the opportunity to make three entirely different climate predictions, and it’s very likely that they could predict one that is, in your words, ‘in the ballpark.’

    But you unequivocally state that “…we must compare [Hansen's] scenario B temperature prediction to the real temperatures.” Really? We must? And why only scenario B? Why not A, or C?

    Had the climate come closer to those grossly erroneous predictions, no doubt you would be singing Hansen’s praises for his astute prediction with either Scenario A, or Scenario C. But since Scenario B comes closer to the current climate, we ‘must’ compare only that prediction with today’s climate?

    Let’s see Hansen gamble his rapidly deteriorating reputation on just one specific prediction. Since he’s so smart and all.

  168. I just had a beautiful thought: The higher GISS puts its global anomaly value today, the more dramatic it will be when we descend from that value for decades.

    That’s my prediction, Chris V.

    You can fool some of the people….

  169. Chris V: “But if you feel that way, I would think that you would think it was even MORE important to prove the skeptical theories right. Providing more accurate predictions than Hansen would certainly help with that.”

    Sorry to be blunt, but if someone proposes a theory that Santa Claus exists then THEY have to prove it – nobody else has to propose an alternative theory to explain his nonexistence.

    But, just to keep you happy, I predict that temperatures will continue to rise and fall in a cyclical fashion – much as they have always done.

  170. Harold – nice thought.

    But, unfortunately, insofar as GISS (and HadCRUT) may have exaggerated the true surface trend between the mid 20th century and the present, any future downward trend would seem proportionally less dramatic.

  171. I predict that we’re all going to die. In precisely one lifetime each.

    I predict that global temperature trends for each coming decade will be similar to the trend of a decade in the past 100 years.

  172. Everyone knows about Hansen’s Scenario A, B and C. However he also had Scenario A2, which, strangely enough, looks exactly like the GISS graph, except that it heads North from here. Unfortunately, he forgot to release it in ’88. But, trust me, that is the one we should be comparing to.

  173. Why all the need for debate and speculation? Why don’t GISS simply tell everyone what they have done and why?

  174. Chris V. wrote:

    Your response is unclear to me- do you agree that Hansen’s “B” scenario is closest to the actual GHG concentrations?

    No, I don’t agree that the Hansen B scenario is what applies, because from my understanding, Hansen was talking about CO2 levels specifically, not GHG (including water vapor) concentrations, and there was no CO2 limitation or reduction in the period covered.

  175. Chris wrote:

    In other words, have we had A scenario emissions but resulting in B scenario measured CO2? I’m just passing through in a rush on this occasion so I’m asking the question genuinely, not rhetorically – normally I would research properly before questioning another poster.
    This is the best i can find in a 5-sec google search:
    http://environmentalresearchweb.org/cws/article/research/30073

    That should be “we had A scenario CO2 emissions but resulting (close to) B scenario measured temperatures.”

    Oldjim wrote:

    Hansen’s B scenario assumed a constant increase of CO2 in the atmosphere per annum (based on the values at the time the paper was written) which is fairly close to what occurred.

    Check out the link Chris provided.

    “According to a recent study, between 1990 and 1999 emissions rose by 1.1% a year, while from 2000 to 2004 they increased by more than 3% a year. The post-2000 growth rate exceeds the most fossil-fuel-dependent A1F1 emissions scenario developed by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in the late 1990s. . . . At present, CSIRO and other measurements show that atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations are rising progressively faster each year”

  176. You guys would score a lot more points if before posting you’d simply read your posts over to correct for really, really stupid and obvious grammatical errors. I think I’m reading a comment by someone intelligent and who I can maybe trust, but I can’t be confident of that because he can’t spell or write a coherent sentence. Take a minute, take a deep breath, and read what you are about to post.

    Or have someone proofread it for you. If your opinion is worth expressing, it is worth expressing well.

    I know you guys are scientists, but geesh. This is actually important.

  177. I doubt many people question the greenhouse effect, or even whether or not CO2 is a greenhouse gas. One of the ways that “alarmists” attempt to discredit “skeptics” is by characterizing us all as not even “believing” the basic science.

    However, to me the main points are these:

    1. CO2 does not drive climate to anything approaching the amount required to cause catastrophe, or a tipping point, or any of the fantastic scenarios we’re constantly bombarded with daily. Atmospheric CO2 content has been significantly higher in the past than it is now, with no apparent ill effects.

    2. CO2 is not some rare non-biodegradable chemical that never existed naturally on the planet until the advent of humans. CO2 is created and absorbed (sourced and sinked, if you prefer) on a massive scale every day. Increases in CO2 are AUTOMATICALLY countered by increases in CO2 uptake, whether that is via land plants or oceanic life, or the oceans themselves. CO2 is an automatically regulated trace gas. Volcanic CO2 creation alone dwarfs anything we create, and that is randomly variable.

    3. There is no one factor driving climate. Cosmic rays, greenhouse gases, Solar input, planetary and galactic orbits all probably have some input. The concept of a stable climate in the past that we have upset is beyond ludicrous. The sheer hubris is, I don’t know, stunning? We humans simply have not even remotely approached the point where we are making significant changes to climate, only microclimate.

    4. I predict that ALL long term climate predictions are absolute trash. The planet is a self-regulating machine. Increase temperature here, and something over there changes to counter it. Decrease this gas and some other mechanism increases it. Just because we don’t understand all of the mechanisms involved does not in any remote way suggest that they don’t exist. This planet has been uncontrolled and unmonitored for billions of years, and the worst that has happened is a few ice ages.

    Yeah, that’s why I’m a skeptic, and why I have descended to outright mocking alarmists. The entire concept is so ridiculous that the only logical conclusion is that alarmists are in it for something. I have little question that the prominent names in the alarmist camp are rubbing their hands with glee, profiting like mad, and laughing at all the idiots out there who believe what they must surely KNOW to be a lie.

  178. Bruce (22:44:14) :

    You guys would score a lot more points if before posting you’d simply read your posts over to correct for really, really stupid and obvious grammatical errors.

    I agree – up to a point. A sizable percentage of posters here are not
    native English (or American) speakers and I give them a fair amount of
    slack.

    Firefox has a decent spell checker, that helps but doesn’t prevent the
    egregious errors of there/their/they’re or affect/effect or just plain
    typos that correctly spell the wrong word. Nothing replaces a final
    proofreading but submitting.

  179. Chris V:
    “I dunno- a lot of AGW skeptics (Christy, Schwartz, Monckton) have written papers where they proposed much lower CO2 sensitivities than what many others believe. Lower, but not zero.”

    “A lot of” isn’t all, or virtually all. And as was posted previously, it’s the “A” part of AGW that bothers most of us.

    And btw?…I’m not a “skeptic”…I’m a realist, as I believe most people here are.

    Jim

  180. Dr Watts, you may be pleased to know that my column today in the London Sunday Telegraph, covering the GISTemp story and your admirable part in it, has attracted a record number of comments, almost all supportive.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2008/11/16/do1610.xml#comments

    Well done with your outstanding work as a beacon of truth in this darkling world!

    REPLY: Dear Mr. Booker. Thank you for your comment, and also very much for the article, but some clarifications are in order.

    1- I am not a Dr. or PhD. I have no doctoral degree as such nor should anyone refer to me that way, lest I be accused of misuse of the term as the director of the National Climatic Data Center has been See here:

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/11/10/more-flubs-at-the-top-of-the-climate-food-chain-this-time-ncdcs-karl/

    2- As I mentioned previously in comments and in this post, my role was small. At the time this happened, I was driving on US Highway 50 in the lonliest place in the USA, central Nevada, on my way to a station survey. Commenter “Chris” and regular contributor John Goetz were the ones who discovered the issue first. At the same time Steve McIntyre, on his Climate Audit blog was coming to the same conclusion. The most that could be said is that this blog was a facilitator to discovery and that my role as proprietor was by association only.

    Thank you for bringing the issue onto the world stage. – Anthony Watts

  181. “I know you guys are scientists, but geesh. This is actually important.”

    There are a few scientists here, which comment/comments were you referring to? Oh, by the way, is it “someone who I can trust” or should it be “someone WHOM I can trust”? I really don’t know, but perhaps, since you are the grammatical guru here, you can help me out. It is important that I get the answer to this question.
    Thanks in advance,
    Mike Bryant

  182. Katherine and Smokey:

    This graph shows the forcings (CO2, and other stuff) used by Hansen in the model runs for each of his three future scenarios, plotted alongside the actual climate forcings that were observed. You tell me which scenario (A,B, or C) was closest to what actually happened.

  183. @Katherine
    i used this link for the data on CO2 annual increase http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/ which give these values for annualised mean growth rate from Mauna Loa – I don’t see a progressively faster rise in CO2 levels
    1986 1.51
    1987 2.33
    1988 2.09
    1989 1.27
    1990 1.31
    1991 1.02
    1992 0.43
    1993 1.35
    1994 1.90
    1995 1.98
    1996 1.19
    1997 1.96
    1998 2.93
    1999 0.94
    2000 1.74
    2001 1.59
    2002 2.56
    2003 2.27
    2004 1.57
    2005 2.53
    2006 1.72
    2007 2.14

  184. CodeTech (04:15:22) said:

    “I doubt many people question the greenhouse effect, or even whether or not CO2 is a greenhouse gas.”

    Looking at the posts in this thread, It looks to me like Gilbert (and maybe JimB?) don’t accept that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, but nobody’s ganging up on them. ;)

    But now I’m curious. Maybe we can do an informal poll here-

    Do you agree that CO2 is a greenhouse gas (i.e., absorbs and re-emits long wave radiation)?

  185. Chris V. (09:09:52) :

    Can you provide a link to the actual analysis at RC?

    I’m interested to know if they included the CFC replacements in their forcing calculations.

    Thanks.

  186. Hey, CodeTech, that is pretty much the way I feel.

    Once you gain considerable experience with complex computer systems you start to get a feel for how robust a system must be that has operated for hundreds of millions of years if not billions of years.

    We humans are no where near the level required to have the effect that the AGW supporters claim and the people pushing this shit are very clearly exploiting the standard human concern that any highly social species has that others are doing something to create problems for them.

  187. Chris V

    I’ve already commented on that graph. Scenarios B and C include volcanic eruptions in ~1995 and ~2015, and this is the main reason why RC’s B line diverges so much from the A line. We had a volcanic eruption in 1991, but not since. Since there is very little difference between Scenarios A and B in terms of projected CO2 levels for 2008 (perhaps you would like to quote a figure for what Scenario A projected for 2008 for CO2 in ppm? I doubt you’ll be able to show it was any more than the current level) then current forcings should be higher than RC’s straight line (which is skewed downwards by the ~2015 volcanic eruption) for Scenario B implies. And it goes without saying that recent temperatures have been way short of what Hansen predicted for such a forcing.

    Note I’m not particularly having a go at Hansen. He predicted that the world would get warmer, and he was correct. I think a better line of argument for you would be that Hansen’s model used a climate sensitivity of 4C for a doubling of CO2, as I understand it. So using the lower sensitivity of the current model of 2.7C as I understand it (at least for “fast feedbacks”) his predictions match observed temperatures more closely. Of course this would involve admitting that Hansen was at least somewhat wrong.

  188. CodeTech (04:15:22) said:

    “I doubt many people question the greenhouse effect, or even whether or not CO2 is a greenhouse gas. One of the ways that “alarmists” attempt to discredit “skeptics” is by characterizing us all as not even “believing” the basic science.”

    Some certainly do not believe it; maybe some readers will respond as to whether they believe it or not.

    “CO2 is not some rare non-biodegradable chemical that never existed naturally on the planet until the advent of humans. CO2 is created and absorbed (sourced and sinked, if you prefer) on a massive scale every day. Increases in CO2 are AUTOMATICALLY countered by increases in CO2 uptake, whether that is via land plants or oceanic life, or the oceans themselves. CO2 is an automatically regulated trace gas. Volcanic CO2 creation alone dwarfs anything we create, and that is randomly variable.”

    The “automatic countering” takes place over geologic timescales, not human lifetimes. CO2 levels in the atmosphere are increasing at much faster rates than any time in the last 600,000 years.

    “There is no one factor driving climate. Cosmic rays, greenhouse gases, Solar input, planetary and galactic orbits all probably have some input. The concept of a stable climate in the past that we have upset is beyond ludicrous. The sheer hubris is, I don’t know, stunning? We humans simply have not even remotely approached the point where we are making significant changes to climate, only microclimate.”

    These are strawmen. No scientist says that one factor drives climate. But at different times, some are more important than others.

    No scientist has ever said that climate was stable in the past (I know you’ve heard of ice ages).

    “I predict that ALL long term climate predictions are absolute trash. The planet is a self-regulating machine. Increase temperature here, and something over there changes to counter it. Decrease this gas and some other mechanism increases it. Just because we don’t understand all of the mechanisms involved does not in any remote way suggest that they don’t exist. This planet has been uncontrolled and unmonitored for billions of years, and the worst that has happened is a few ice ages.”

    Which is it? Is the planet a self-regulating machine, or is “the concept of a stable climate in the past” ludicrous?

    “Yeah, that’s why I’m a skeptic, and why I have descended to outright mocking alarmists. The entire concept is so ridiculous that the only logical conclusion is that alarmists are in it for something. I have little question that the prominent names in the alarmist camp are rubbing their hands with glee, profiting like mad, and laughing at all the idiots out there who believe what they must surely KNOW to be a lie.”

    I don’t go in for these “world-wide conspiracy theories” myself. To be honest, I find them to be a bit nutty.

  189. Measurementsover the last 50 years:

    1- sea ice increased, which was related to thermal dilatation
    2- surface and tropospheric temps increased
    3- stratospheric temps decreased
    4- the average surface pH of oceans decreased
    5- air concentrations of CO2 increased

    so what?

  190. Chris V: If we convert watts/m2 to temperature, then the closest scenario is Scenario C.

    You know, where there were massive CO2 cuts starting in 2000.

    So, temperature is tracking the best case mitigation scenario, when no mitigation has actually been applied.

    How accurate is that?

  191. I have just replied to Anthony as follows:
    Thanks for response. The only reason why I addressed you as ‘Doctor’ was that one of my emailers had just described you as such and I thought I must have missed something! I have always called you Mr in my many laudatory references to your wonderful blog in my Sunday Telegraph column, as I did again today. I did refer to the expert readers of WUWT and CA as playing a key part in exposing that crucial error in the GISS data, but the point is that you and Steve Mcintyre make that kind of thing possible by providiing a nexus, not only thrrough your own admirable postings but by enabling others to chip in with their own expert comments, thus building up an ever wider and deeper understandng of this all-important issue….
    Thanks again for the fantastic job you are doing and for putting me straight on that ‘doctorate’. When global sanity finally prevails, you’ll eventually be showered with them!.
    best wishes
    PS My article today has attracted a record heap of comments from readers, almost all supportive.

  192. Bruce (22:44:14) :
    Nevermind, I googled it. The correct word to use in your sentence is “whom”.
    Perhaps you also should have someone proofread your comments before you push the submit button. I thought I could trust you.
    Thanks,
    Mike Bryant

  193. Chris V

    “Looking at the posts in this thread, It looks to me like Gilbert (and maybe JimB?) don’t accept that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, but nobody’s ganging up on them. ;)
    But now I’m curious. Maybe we can do an informal poll here-
    Do you agree that CO2 is a greenhouse gas (i.e., absorbs and re-emits long wave radiation)?”

    A more appropriate question would be, how big is the greenhouse effect of doubling CO2, and no one in the world has a clear answer. Note the words I’ve changed to capitals in the following wiki extract:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_effect

    In the absence of the greenhouse effect AND AN ATMOSPHERE, the Earth’s average surface temperature[7] of 14°C (57°F) COULD be as low as -18°C (–0.4°F), the black body temperature of the Earth[8][9][10].

    Anthropogenic global warming (AGW), a recent warming of the Earth’s lower atmosphere as evidenced by the global mean temperature anomaly trend [11], is BELIEVED to be the result of an “enhanced greenhouse effect” mainly due to human-produced increased concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere[12] and changes in the use of land[13].

  194. Chris (09:54:08) :

    Hansen gave three very simple hypothetical scenarios- basically had the forcings varying linearly with time. Obviously (from the graph I posted) the forcings didn’t actually increase in a linear fashion (they varied up and down) or finish exactly on any of his scenarios. So just from that, it would be surprising to see Hansen get it exactly right. Then throw in the odd volcano (completely unpredictable), a relatively primitive climate model…

    Based on all that, I still think his results were in the ballpark. But my local ballpark (Yankee Stadium) might be bigger than yours (Fenway, or a little-league field?). ;)

  195. Les Johnson (10:25:57) said:

    “Chris V: If we convert watts/m2 to temperature, then the closest scenario is Scenario C.”

    ??? I don’t understand what you’re saying.

  196. Chris V.:

    This graph shows the forcings (CO2, and other stuff) used by Hansen in the model runs for each of his three future scenarios, plotted alongside the actual climate forcings that were observed. You tell me which scenario (A,B, or C) was closest to what actually happened.

    You are trying to frame the argument your way. The point I made was that Hansen made multiple predictions. Picking the least inaccurate prediction means nothing.

    You can have the last word on the subject of Hansen’s predictions. There’s no convincing anyone who accepts this.

  197. I mentioned some time back on another thread on this blog that the Government in New Zealand was going to pass a Carbon Trading Scheme based on the global warming scam.

    They did in their last dying days and rushed the scam through the house under urgency but we have a new Government since last week and they look set to “review” the nonsense:

    http://darrenrickard.blogspot.com/2008/11/emissions-trading-review-first-step.html

    It is good news for New Zealand-I want it chucked out completely because clearly it is based on a fraud. Perhaps now we can lead the world back to sanity.

    Cheers from New Zealand, leader in the anti climate change movement !

  198. “Oldjim (09:23:38)”

    To be fair, I’ve just realised:

    1981-1988: 1.6 ppm/yr

    OK let’s take 1968-1988, and 1988-2007

    1968-1988: 1.4 ppm/yr
    1988-2007: 1.7 ppm/yr

    Not such an acceleration looked at this way, but an acceleration nonetheless.

    Actually, scrub all the previous discussion. I’ve just found the actual projected figures for CO2 for 2007, courtesy of a link at CA. They were 390.5 ppm under Scenario A, and 389.4 ppm under Scenario B. (And 369.5 for Scenario C)

    http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=2611

    So I accept I was wrong re: CO2 levels – both Scenario A and B have them slightly higher, contrary to what I thought (Also it seems methane levels have undershot projections by ~10% in the last few years)

    However, this does illustrate even more the importance of the volcanic forcings, given GHG projections were so similar for the two Scenarios.

  199. Chris V. (09:28:32) :

    “I doubt many people question the greenhouse effect, or even whether or not CO2 is a greenhouse gas.”

    Looking at the posts in this thread, It looks to me like Gilbert (and maybe JimB?) don’t accept that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, but nobody’s ganging up on them. ;)

    Please don’t put words in my mouth. CO2 is a greenhouse gas. It does absorb reflected radiation. I am curious about the mechanism involved when the CO2 cools. I’m simply trying to figure out whether or not the claimed mechanism involved is based on assumption or empirical evidence. If you know the answer, then point me in the right direction.

    But now I’m curious. Maybe we can do an informal poll here-

    Do you agree that CO2 is a greenhouse gas (i.e., absorbs and re-emits long wave radiation)?

    It probably doesn’t matter since the CO2 can’t absorb more than 100% of the available radiation. That point has likely been exceeded as evidenced by the lack of predicted warming in the tropical troposphere.

  200. Chris V; your

    I don’t understand what you’re saying.

    The Hanson chart you gave for forcing, had the y-axis in watts/m2. This can be converted to temperature.

    The temperature record (UAH, RSS, Hadley or even GISS) all more closely match the “C” scenario, than any other scenario.

    And the “C” scenario assumed massive cuts starting in 2000. There has been no significant GHG cuts, but the forcing matches best with the best case scenario?

  201. Chris,

    Regarding your question about whether CO2 is a greenhouse gas, I think it is just about universally accepted that it is a minor greenhouse gas. But its effect is so small that for all practical purposes it can be ignored.

    The real question should be: how much of an effect does increasing CO2 by X amount have on the planet’s temperature?

    CO2 has a negligible effect, smaller than almost any other climate forcing, all of which overwhelm the tiny effect from CO2. Otherwise, the steady increase in carbon dioxide would produce a steady increase in the planet’s temperature. That has not happened. In fact, the planet is cooling.

    Furthermore, the effect of CO2 is too small to be measured; it’s down into in the background noise.

    Conclusion: since carbon dioxide has such a minuscule effect, there is no credible rationale for truly stupid, and extremely expensive ideas like “carbon” sequestration. The money would be better spent almost anywhere else. Ideally, the money would be left in the pockets of taxpayers. But that would defeat the whole purpose of climate alarmism.

    Those promoting their ever-morphing catastrophic AGW/CO2/runaway global warming hypothesis continue to produce new, and always changing, un-falsifiable “reasons” that the planet is cooling as CO2 rises. That is not science; that is malarkey.

  202. Chris
    But graphing the figures doesn’t show a progressively faster rise for the last 10 years – at least not to my eyes http://www.holtlane.plus.com/images/co2levels.jpg
    However the original point I was making was that scenario B assumed a constant increase in CO2 levels compared to 1986 – 1988 (assumed)
    The average annual increase 1986-1988 was 1.97ppm and from 1989-2007 was 1.70ppm. Even taking from 2002-2007 2.1 ppm per year isn’t significantly higher than that for 1986-88.

  203. Chris V
    “Based on all that, I still think his results were in the ballpark. But my local ballpark (Yankee Stadium) might be bigger than yours (Fenway, or a little-league field?). ;)

    OK put it another way, even by his “own” graph, the warming from 1988 to the present (20 years) was no more than ~0.25C

    [note 5-year mean won't get above +0.55C once 2008 is included]

    Well, on that graph, the warming from 1976 to 1988 (12 years) had been 0.25C. So was it really so inspired in 1988 to project that the recent trend might continue for the next 2 decades, and is it really so impressive to find that in fact the trend did continue, but at a slower pace (despite no more volcanic forcing in 20 years than 1976 to 1988 had in 12 years?)

  204. Gilbert
    “It probably doesn’t matter since the CO2 can’t absorb more than 100% of the available radiation. That point has likely been exceeded as evidenced by the lack of predicted warming in the tropical troposphere.”

    To keep Chris V happy, I’m going to pick you up on this and point out that if consensus AGW theory had such an obvious flaw, we wouldn’t all be sitting around here having this argument, as it would have been spotted a very long time ago. I can’t see any logic in your quoted argument?

    Personally I think AGW theory/analysis has a patchwork of flaws, small enough to be individually brushed aside/downplayed, but which collectively tend to add up/multiply in the same direction towards an exaggeration of climate sensitivity (and how much people should be “alarmed”). The devil is in the detail, and suggesting there are big obvious flaws tends to play into the hands of defenders of the consensus (IMO) [the recent lack of warming being a partial exception here]

  205. For those of you who think that Hansen got it completely wrong, rather than “in the ballpark” (like me), look at it this way:

    If you were standing back there in 1988 (not knowing what was driving climate, and with no reason to assume that the most recent trend would continue) and were asked to predict what the earths temperature might look like in 20 years, how would you do it?

    I would look back at the historical temperature record, and see how climate had changed over previous 20-year periods. Looking at the temp records, there are 20-year periods were temps declined by half a degree or so, and 20-year periods where temps rose half a degree or so. So I would say “temps in 20 years will probably be somewhere between half a degree higher and half a degree lower than today”.

    Now, compare that possible range of future temps with what Hansen projected, and what actually happened. Hansen was very much “in the ballpark”.

  206. Les Johnson (12:32:53) :

    How do you convert W/m2 to temperature? Temperature of what? (Remember, GISSTemp, UAH, etc. plot air temp ANOMALIES for a slice of the atmosphere). Are you taking into account heating of the oceans, density changes with altitude in the atmosphere…?

    The conversion sounds pretty complicated; maybe I’m missing something…?

  207. Chris V: Ballpark? Perhaps the ballpark off ramp. Or maybe the ballpark parking lot. He is only close to the best case, high GHG cuts, temperature scenario. And no real cuts have been made.

    You want to spend 40 trillion dollars on such a poor estimation?

    I don’t. And if Hanson ever actually gets inside the ball park, he had better be pointing to which field he is hitting to, and actually hits it, before I would be willing to spend 40 trillion dollars.

  208. Chris (13:08:17) said:

    “To keep Chris V happy…”

    Thank you. ;)

    One thing I find funny about the AGW debate is that it always falls down to the warmers vs the skeptics, like there are just 2 sides, with 2 opposing theories.

    In reality there is a huge diversity of opinion within the skeptic side, like: it’s cooling; it’s warming (but not as much as GISSTemp says); whatever the temperature is doing, it’s caused by cosmic rays, or PDO, or sunspots, or recovery from the LIA…; CO2 is a greenhouse gas (but the feedbacks are negative); CO2 is not a greenhouse gas…..

    Some of the skeptics I’ve seen even hold multiple, contradictory views (although they don’t seem to understand it).

    A lot of the disagreements between the skeptics are as big, or bigger than, their disagreement with the warmers!

  209. Chris V: Temperature and watts/m2 are both measures of energy.

    Hanson himself has used the analogy of ‘X’ number of 1 watt lights per m2, over the earth’s surface.

  210. Chris (13:08:17) :

    To keep Chris V happy, I’m going to pick you up on this and point out that if consensus AGW theory had such an obvious flaw, we wouldn’t all be sitting around here having this argument, as it would have been spotted a very long time ago. I can’t see any logic in your quoted argument?

    My mind is open. If CO2 can absorb more than 100% of the available radiation, then tell me where to find the evidence.

    Consensus is a political affliction.

    Personally I think AGW theory/analysis has a patchwork of flaws, small enough to be individually brushed aside/downplayed, but which collectively tend to add up/multiply in the same direction towards an exaggeration of climate sensitivity (and how much people should be “alarmed”). The devil is in the detail, and suggesting there are big obvious flaws tends to play into the hands of defenders of the consensus (IMO) [the recent lack of warming being a partial exception here]

    There are many flaws, both small and large. The atmospheric greenhouse effect is but one of them. It’s also the one I’m presently curious about and if I can’t get answers on a skeptic blog, then where else?

  211. Chris-

    I think much of the disagreement about the accuracy of Hansen’s projections (modellers don’t like to call them predictions) comes from what we expect of the models.

    All computer models are a simplified approximation of reality. Add to that the fact many of the inputs of future conditions (CO2, methane, volcanoes, aerosols…) are rough estimates (that may or may not pan out exactly as estimated).

    Based on that, I don’t expect any model to get things exactly right. But they can significantly narrow down the range of possibilities.

    There’s an old say among modellers (of climate and other things): “All models are wrong, but some are useful”.

  212. Chris V: your There’s an old say among modellers (of climate and other things): “All models are wrong, but some are useful”.

    “Models should be used, but not believed.”

    That’s what we say in our business.

    Now, we seem to agree on the accuracy of models in general.

    Would you spend 40 trillion dollars, based on a model that is shown to be inaccurate?

  213. Chris V.,
    I also find it interesting that there is such a diversity of views on the skeptic side. However, it seems to me that it is perfectly natural.
    People who prefer to think for themselves do not automatically subscribe to any one view. Because of this drive to better understand everything around them, they take nothing for granted, they see very little as settled. Hence, as you said, they have a wide diversity of views. I have a feeling that many past scientists held that mindset.
    On the other hand, there are those who prefer to hold one rigid, uncompromising view. They would rather have others lay everything out for them. These people enjoy the comfort of relying on authority without question. There is something to be said for this propensity since they live their lives with no disturbances or feelings of doubt.
    Both groups are necessary for the advancement of science and the human race. When either group becomes powerful enough to silence the other, we all lose. I think that is why our limited system of government has been so successful.
    I hope we never become locked into a world of conformism.
    I pray that the dreamers are never locked out.
    Mike Bryant

  214. Chris V.

    I read your “rebuttal” to my post with some amusement.

    You claim that automatic adjustment takes place over long time periods, but offer no proof to back this claim. I say CO2 is regulated rapidly, by increased vegetation for one.

    Then you ask “which is it?”, apparently confident in your belief that regulation is long term. There is no contradiction in my position.

    The temperature in my house oscillates around 20C as the furnace and/or AC kick in and switch off. The temperature is rarely stable at 20C, and yet I can say with confidence that my house is 20C. The oscillations may be larger and of a different period when the outside temperature is extremely high or low, but the average is still around the same.

    I’m not sure which planet you are on, but on THIS planet we are being told that CO2 ALONE is causing temperature increases. Nice try on the “strawman” claim, though. Thanks for playing.

    Your belief that CO2 is rising faster than, whenever, is not supported if you stop excluding major volcanic effects. Again, thanks for playing. Be sure to pick up your parting gift on the way out.

    Your belief that “skeptics” hold contradictory views [snip]. Most of us (yes, a generalization) are frustrated with a dogma that states all climate variability is recent, our fault, and bad. My personal position is that climate has always been variable, tends to oscillate around relatively beneficial values, and is not affected by “us” to any significant degree.

  215. Gilbert (14:06:13) :

    CO2 can’t absorb more than 100% of the available radiation. I would think that be obvious.

    Regarding the properties of CO2, you could start with the experiments of Tyndale and Arhenius (in the 1800’s), then look at the research done by the US Air Force in the 1950’s.

    The fact that CO2 absorbs and re-emits long-wave radiation has been pretty well established for well over a century now. If you’re attempting to disprove that, you’ve got a tough row to hoe!

  216. Les Johnson (15:06:32) said:

    “Would you spend 40 trillion dollars, based on a model that is shown to be inaccurate?”

    Of course not. But that’s not the only evidence for AGW.

    And I’d still like you to explain the W/m2 to temp conversion.

  217. Chris,

    Thanks for posting Hansen’s own graph — which actually shows only normal warming due to natural climate variability [but the red line on the exaggerated x-axis does make it scary, huh?]

    Let’s compare that Hansen graph with GISS’ solar forcing graph: click

    Seems the temp rise tracks solar irradiance pretty closely.

    Finally, here’s the temp record that Hansen hasn’t had a chance to skew toward his putative approaching climate catastrophe: click

    So who are we supposed to believe? Hansen? Or our lyin’ eyes?

  218. Chris V: your

    Of course not. But that’s not the only evidence for AGW.

    Models are the only evidence for long term, harmful effects of AGW. If you have any other evidence, I would love to see it.

    And I’d still like you to explain the W/m2 to temp conversion.

    ???

    watts/m2 is equivalent energy retained, and is converted into heat, with the units being temperature anomaly.

    Again, even Hanson uses the analogy of 1 watt lights per m2, being the extra retained energy.

    What part of that don’t you understand?

  219. evanjones

    I understand that by using statistics one can get a number that has more precision than the original data. The problem is that when the original data is not correct, no amount of oversampling will make it correct. The reading error is plus or minus 0.5 degrees if the thermometer is in 1 degree increments. That has to be added to the instrument error. If 1 degree is assumed for instrument error (as in my original post), you can only know the temperature for any given reading within 1.5 degrees. Is this taken into account in the oversample to determine the error bands?

    My questions on the calibration would be:
    What is the accuracy of the instrument?
    What is the acceptable range and what is the desired range when the instrument is calibrated?
    How is an out of cal instrument documented (both that it is out of cal and when it was replaced or corrected)?
    Do the selected instruments show a trend when they go out of cal (i.e. do they always go out of cal high, low, or at random)?
    How often do the instruments need to be adjusted because they are out of cal?
    How often are the instruments calibrated?

    To give an example, I just reviewed an annual calibration on some of my instruments. Two of them failed calibration, one on the high end and one on the low. Since the calibration over the normal operating range was acceptable, I allowed continued use of both instruments with the caveat that calibration be reperformed every cycle (about 60 days) until the instruments are replaced. The reason that I wanted a calibration every cycle is so that I can monitor for further degradation and take action if the instruments become unusable. I suspect that the thermometers in use for the weather stations have not been calibrated since installation. That may be perfectly acceptable based on how they drift over time; but, where is it documented that it is acceptable?

  220. CodeTech (15:54:12) :

    I sense a lot of anger there! ;)

    “You claim that automatic adjustment takes place over long time periods, but offer no proof to back this claim.”

    CO2 in ice cores shows us how fast CO2 levels changed in the past, and how high they were. Changed much slower, and concentrations were much lower. If the “automatic adjustment” is fast, how come CO2 levels have risen so much in the last 50 years? Why aren’t they being “adjusted”?

    “I’m not sure which planet you are on, but on THIS planet we are being told that CO2 ALONE is causing temperature increases.”

    Right now, it’s the single biggest (but not the only) factor, and it’s increasing at the greatest rate. In the past, orbital forcing’s, solar changes and other things have been the big drivers.

    “Your belief that CO2 is rising faster than, whenever, is not supported if you stop excluding major volcanic effects.”

    Who’s excluding major volcanic effects, and from what? I have no idea what you mean here.

    “Again, thanks for playing. Be sure to pick up your parting gift on the way out.”

    I LOVE parting gifts!

  221. Les Johnson (17:07:41) said:

    “What part of that don’t you understand?”

    Maybe I’m a little dense- can you show the math?

    I just don’t see how you get from W/M2 to temperature without dealing with the specific heat of the various layers of the atmosphere and oceans.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_capacity#Heat_capacity

    Like I said, it seems like it would be a rather complicated calculation.

  222. Mike Bryant (17:26:27) said:

    “Chris V.,
    I’m hurt that you didn’t answer my comment about skeptics and warmers. :(
    Mike Bryant”

    Nothing personal! I just have my hands full at the moment. ;)

  223. Smokey (17:06:35) said:

    “Let’s compare that Hansen graph with GISS’ solar forcing graph: click”

    Smokey- Before I go climbing down this particular rabbit hole ;) can you tell me why that graph shows NEGATIVE solar forcings between 1880 and 1920?

    “Finally, here’s the temp record that Hansen hasn’t had a chance to skew toward his putative approaching climate catastrophe: click”

    Can you add a long-term trend line, or tell me what the long-term trends are for those graphs? (I assume that’s RSS- the trends should be on their website)

  224. Chris V,

    Thanks for the RC link. I don’t see it explicitly stating whether they took HFCs and HCFCs into account, but perhaps their impact is small.

    Anyway, accepting B as the closest scenario, here’s how the graph used in many “victory celebrations” in 2005 has held up with subsequent years put in.

    This year, after 10 months, the average anomaly (these are GISS station anomalies) is running about 0.5. You can see where that point will put us.

    Yankee Stadium hell, I think you and Hansen would have to be in the Elysian Fields to be “in the ballpark”.

  225. Les Johnson (18:24:08) :

    Way back when, you said:

    “If we convert watts/m2 to temperature, then the closest scenario is Scenario C.”

    Then later on you said:

    “ask Hanson. Its his example.”

    I don’t know what Hansen said, but I am 100% sure you misunderstood it. If it were possible to calculate the non-equilibrium temperature from just the forcings, he wouldn’t need to use the model.

  226. Chris V.:

    Can you add a long-term trend line, or tell me what the long-term trends are for those graphs? (I assume that’s RSS- the trends should be on their website)

    Sure.

    But that would deny you the fun of doing it yourself.

  227. Smokey (19:21:00) :

    The global long-term trend is +0.16 degrees C/decade- about the same as GISSTemp (which I think is +0.17).

    Eyeballing trends can be very deceptive.

    Figured out the solar graph you posted yet?

  228. Once you gain considerable experience with complex computer systems you start to get a feel for how robust a system must be that has operated for hundreds of millions of years if not billions of years.

    Richard, that’s a very astute observation. However, I’d add that people react to the failure of complex models to accurately replicate reality by making the models more complex. And that is the solution you imply.

    This is invariably the wrong answer and the solution lies in scrapping their model and finding a simpler one that better reflects reality. And note that is also the scientific method.

    BTW, the models are wrong because they incorporate the forcings model (theory) for which there is no empiricial support.

  229. The main thing about the Mauna Loa C02 figures quoted:

    1986 1.51
    1987 2.33
    1988 2.09
    1989 1.27
    1990 1.31
    1991 1.02
    1992 0.43
    1993 1.35
    1994 1.90
    1995 1.98
    1996 1.19
    1997 1.96
    1998 2.93
    1999 0.94
    2000 1.74
    2001 1.59
    2002 2.56
    2003 2.27
    2004 1.57
    2005 2.53
    2006 1.72
    2007 2.14

    is the correlation between warm years and higher C02. As usual, the AGW side has cause and effect reversed.

    The correlation is clear to see on many years in the series, but the obvious pairing would be 1992 (the first complete year after Pinatubo) and 1998 (super El Nino). The cold Pinatubo year gives a .43 increase in C02. The warm El Nino year gives the largest increase in the series, 2.93.

    When the ocean and atmosphere are cool, the ocean emits less C02. When the ocean and atmosphere are warm, the ocean emits more C02.

    Don’t be surprised if we see some negative change in C02 in the next few decades.

  230. Chris V.:

    “Figured out the solar graph you posted yet?”

    Of course. The question is: have you figured it out yet?

    See Harold Ambler above.

  231. I hope this isn’t too long, if it is snip it…

    Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant
    Letter from retired chemist to the EPA

    __________________________
    

    Dear Marlo Lewis,

    16 Nov 08 – Fred Singer, via his TWTW of 15 Nov 2008, suggested that we submit comments to the EPA over proposed carbon dioxide regulation.

    As a retired analytical chemist and webmaster of http://www.ilovemycarbondioxide.com I would like to submit the following comments, which I hope will be taken into account and receive serious consideration.

    By the means of observational and falsifiable evidence, carbon dioxide has never been proven to influence the climate. Never. Only in laboratory flasks, never in the open atmosphere. That is no surprise as it can not, can never and has never influenced the climate in any way whatsoever.

    The one and only influence that carbon dioxide could possibly have in the atmosphere is to increase the dispersal of reflected IR energy from the earth’s surface, but most certainly not warming it in any way whatsoever.

    Reflected IR energy coming off the earth after solar energy has heated it would be absorbed and instantly, at the speed of light, dispersed by susceptible molecules like carbon dioxide and water vapor in a random three-dimensional manner, thus halving the energy re-radiated back towards the earth. In a cascading manner, that is why air temperatures drop the instant a cloud passes in between the earth and the observer and why night-time temperatures are lower than day-time temperatures (except in the unusual climatic conditions whereby wind might carry warmer air during the night-time over a cooler area).

    If re-radiated warming took place, the carbon dioxide and water molecules in the atmosphere would be capable of maintaining the temperature for the few seconds that a cloud might pass overhead – instead, an instant cooling is experienced – instant.

    Reflected energy can in any case not make the emitter of the original energy warmer; if it could, we’d be able to make energy from thin air. Also, air (as in oxygen and nitrogen) does not react substantially to radiation (as you can test in your own microwave oven, where the food gets hot but not the air. Any heating of the air is due to convective heating off the food) and thus carbon dioxide can not possibly warm the air via re-radiating IR energy.

    As a further rebuttal of the influence of carbon dioxide over the climate, the alleged greenhouse effect is a non-existent effect.

    No greenhouse, whether made from glass, plastic, cardboard or steel will reach a higher inside temperature due to the magic of re-radiated IR energy. If it did, engineers would have long ago been able to design power stations made from air, mirrors and glass, extracting more energy out of it than was put into it – if only!

    All natural heating that takes place in a greenhouse (be it made with glass, plastic, cardboard or steel) is due to the restricted access of the heated air to the open atmosphere, where it would normally disperse its excess heat to the next available cooler molecule of any of the IR susceptible gases in our atmosphere in the cascading manner described above.

    To classify carbon dioxide as a pollutant is thus nothing short of scientific chicanery, for reasons that have nothing to do with science, but based purely on the pseudo-science so eagerly practised by academia across the world in order to keep their funding sources open to the governmental decrees, which are in turn based on totally false IPCC dogma (yes, dogma – not science).

    It is therefore that I rest my case, as expanded upon on my website (see links below).

    Sincerely yours,
    Hans Schreuder
    Ipswich, UK

  232. Chris V; Well, no need to worry about the specific heat of the ocean. NASA’s ARGO project shows no warming of the ocean since 2003. If any of the supposed CO2 forcing is being transferred to the ocean’s, its not apparent.

  233. Besides that, an entire 1C shift in ocean temperatures produces a mere 10 ppmv difference in CO2. So ocean/CO2 solubility is not really an issue on the scale we’re dealing with it. Call me next ice age and we can discuss it.

  234. Harold Ambler (20:43:45) :

    You say that higher temps yield higher CO2 levels, with 1998 #1. But the #2, 3, 5, and 6 CO2 levels on that list are all after 2002.

    I thought the last decade has been cooling?

  235. Smokey (21:01:20) said:

    “The question is: have you figured it (the solar graph) out yet?”

    Yes. The recent solar forcing on that graph has a maximum of less than 0.3 W/M2.

    The current CO2 forcing is about 2 W/M2.

    0.3 is a lot less than 2.

  236. evanjones (22:19:58) : Besides that, an entire 1C shift in ocean temperatures produces a mere 10 ppmv difference in CO2. So ocean/CO2 solubility is not really an issue on the scale we’re dealing with it.

    What’s the source for this claim? I once briefly looked into the question of how much atmospheric CO2 increases for a given increase in the ocean temperature and couldn’t find a clear answer.

  237. Chris

    I am beginning to wonder if there is any such thing as a CO2 forcing much less one that can be quantified in watts/square meter. Perhaps you can find reference that has not already been disproved by the data? I think we should also be looking at admitting that the supposedly positive feedback idea is at this time a dead one.

  238. Chris V. (22:28:05) :

    You say that higher temps yield higher CO2 levels, with 1998 #1. But the #2, 3, 5, and 6 CO2 levels on that list are all after 2002.

    I thought the last decade has been cooling?

    I’m not terribly concerned about proving the cooling trend, which is self-evident to those with eyes to see. I am concerned with the hysteria surrounding C02.

    C02 is our friend. It does not drive climate. Mankind doesn’t even drive C02, as this series:

    1986 1.51
    1987 2.33
    1988 2.09
    1989 1.27
    1990 1.31
    1991 1.02
    1992 0.43
    1993 1.35
    1994 1.90
    1995 1.98
    1996 1.19
    1997 1.96
    1998 2.93
    1999 0.94
    2000 1.74
    2001 1.59
    2002 2.56
    2003 2.27
    2004 1.57
    2005 2.53
    2006 1.72
    2007 2.14

    again, makes clear.

  239. CO2 has NO effect on earth temp.
    It is a hoax. There is NO forcing there is NOTHING.
    The people who are behind this hoax have a political agenda which will wreck our economies.

    By the means of observational and falsifiable evidence, carbon dioxide has never been proven to influence the climate. Never. Only in laboratory flasks, never in the open atmosphere. That is no surprise as it can not, can never and has never influenced the climate in any way whatsoever.

    The one and only influence that carbon dioxide could possibly have in the atmosphere is to increase the dispersal of reflected IR energy from the earth’s surface, but most certainly not warming it in any way whatsoever.

    Reflected IR energy coming off the earth after solar energy has heated it would be absorbed and instantly, at the speed of light, dispersed by susceptible molecules like carbon dioxide and water vapor in a random three-dimensional manner, thus halving the energy re-radiated back towards the earth. In a cascading manner, that is why air temperatures drop the instant a cloud passes in between the earth and the observer and why night-time temperatures are lower than day-time temperatures (except in the unusual climatic conditions whereby wind might carry warmer air during the night-time over a cooler area).

    If re-radiated warming took place, the carbon dioxide and water molecules in the atmosphere would be capable of maintaining the temperature for the few seconds that a cloud might pass overhead – instead, an instant cooling is experienced – instant.

    Reflected energy can in any case not make the emitter of the original energy warmer; if it could, we’d be able to make energy from thin air. Also, air (as in oxygen and nitrogen) does not react substantially to radiation (as you can test in your own microwave oven, where the food gets hot but not the air. Any heating of the air is due to convective heating off the food) and thus carbon dioxide can not possibly warm the air via re-radiating IR energy.

    To classify carbon dioxide as a pollutant is thus nothing short of scientific chicanery, for reasons that have nothing to do with science, but based purely on the pseudo-science.

    http://www.ilovemycarbondioxide.com/theory.html
    http://www.ilovemycarbondioxide.com/carbondioxide.html
    http://www.ilovemycarbondioxide.com/latest.html
    http://www.ilovemycarbondioxide.com/latestarticles.html

  240. Chris V.:

    “The current CO2 forcing is about 2 W/M2.”

    Prove it.

    And computer models do not qualify as proof.

  241. Chris V : And why is none of that supposed extra 2 watt/m2 of energy, NOT going into the oceans? (NASA ARGO temperature buoys)

    And why is none of it apparently going into the atmosphere? Global temperature anomalies have been falling since 1997 (UAH), or 1998 (RSS and Hadley) or 2001 (GISS).

  242. Smokey (09:58:12) said:

    “Prove it. ”

    Go read the IPCC report. It won’t kill you.

    Ignore the report itself if you like, and just look at the papers it references on this topic.

  243. Les Johnson (10:25:25) :

    “And why is none of that supposed extra 2 watt/m2 of energy, NOT going into the oceans?”

    I dunno- why isn’t the energy from the sun (as shown on the graph Smokey posted) not going into the oceans?

  244. Ron de Haan says:

    If re-radiated warming took place, the carbon dioxide and water molecules in the atmosphere would be capable of maintaining the temperature for the few seconds that a cloud might pass overhead – instead, an instant cooling is experienced – instant.

    Perhaps those IR photons know when clouds are overhead and delay being emitted until the clouds are gone.

  245. Chris V:

    your I dunno- why isn’t the energy from the sun (as shown on the graph Smokey posted) not going into the oceans?

    Nice dodge. Why are you asking me about the content of another poster’s data?

    I am asking you, why the supposed 2 watt/m2 of CO2 forcing, as posted by you, is apparently not going into either the ocean or the atmosphere.

    Occam would suggest that there isn’t any additional 2 watt/m2.

    But, I will wait for your explanation.

  246. Chris V: Heck, let me comment on Smokey’s data, anyway.

    Just a guess, with out actually crunching the numbers, but the energy transfer (0.3 watt/m2) and the time frame (2003 – present) are both too small, to measure any transfer, in such a large heat sink as the oceans.

    Now, your number (2.0 watt/m2), on the other hand, is 7 times larger, and should be measurable; if it exists.

  247. Chris (12:23:42) :

    Your posting on Hansen’s assumed GHG inputs took place a long time ago in this thread, but your numbers do not quite match up with my memory. Quite a few skeptics, including McIntyre, were trying to divine what Hansen’s inputs were and Gavin Schmidt laid this discussion to rest over a year ago when he posted the values for the various GHG inputs. Unfortunately, I cannot find his posting at the moment, but I remember that CO2 in 2008 was assumed to be 388 for Scenario A, with Scenario B being a tiny less.

  248. Chris V:

    “Some skeptics claim that cosmic rays or solar activity are the big drivers of climate. Why not make some predictions? . . . .Then we wait and see what happens. Ultimately, the ability to make accurate predictions is the best test of a theory, right? At least that’s what you guys all seem to be saying.”

    How long are you willing to wait? If I understand the term “forcing” correctly, it applies only to, e.g. variations in solar output, variations in atmospheric CO2, etc. The short term effects of these forcings, by all accounts, are dwarfed by the transient response of the climate system, basically meaning that the only way to discern a forecasted response to one of these forcings is to wait several decades. Even then, if the climate system behaves similarly to what was predicted, it could have been just chance, so you wait quite a bit longer to see if the climate system contonues to be have as predicted. My estimate is at least a century. This applies to forecasts by the IPCC climate models, as well, which is why I view them as being of little, if any, value.

    As far as Hansen’s Scenario A, B, C forecasts back in the 80s, he could have just dusted off the model in 2005, plugged in the greenhouse emissions, volcanic eruptions, atmospheric component concentrations, etc. He did not do so when defending his forecasts from Michaels and Crichton, and the inference I draw from that is that he realized that the model wouldn’t look too rosy. Instead, he just compared the Scenario B forecast to the subsequently measured temperatures and declared a good fit, without first establishing that the assumptions underlying Scenario B actually occurred.

  249. If we want the atmosphere to heat up with 1 degree Celcius and CO2 should have to do the job, every CO2 molecule should be heated at a temp of about 1000 degree Celcius. (quote David Archibald).

    We all know this is not happening.

    Look at the figures about CO2: Human induced CO2 0.0164% of our atmosphere.

    Calculation:
    THE NUMBERS ABOUT CARBON DIOXIDE IN OUR ATMOSPHERE
    Here are the calculations, based on information obtained directly from the Royal Dutch Meteorological Institute in De Bilt, Holland (KNMI).

    Mass (air) = 4 pi R^2 * P/g, where
    R=earth radius=6,371,000 m; P=surface pressure=101,300 Pa; g=acceleration due to gravity=9.8 m/s^2
    Thus, Mass (air) = 5.3 x 10^18 kg = 5,300,000 Gigatons
    Mass (CO2 = mass (air)*ratio (CO2/air)*mol. mass (CO2)/mol. mass (air), where
    ratio (CO2/air)=380 ppm=380 parts CO2 per 1 million parts of air
    molecular mass (CO2)=44 kg/kmol – molecular mass (air)=28.8 kg/kmol
    Thus, Mass (CO2)=3 x 10^15 kg=3,000 Gigatons
    Man-made emissions of CO2 are estimated at 110ppm, which is 28.95% of the total CO2 and that equals 868 Gigatons = 0.0164% by mass of the total atmosphere.

    (A Gigaton is a 1,000 million tons and 1 ton is 1,000kg, equal to 2,240lbs.)

    There is a nice graph on that provides a visual on CO2 in our atmosphere.
    Please have a look at it so get the whole idea of CO2 being a climate forcing factor out of your mind for the rest of your life. See: http://www.ilovemycarbondioxide.com/graph.html

    At this moment you can find a few nice video’s at the “GORE LIED” website that tell you exactly what drives our climate. Look the complete series.

    http://gorelied.blogspot.com/2008/11/video-speech-by-roger-helmer.html

    Once again. The AGW problematic is a hoax and its promoted by people who have a political agenda.
    It we do not come to our senses we will find ourselves in a world that is ruled by eco communists. Today they are attacking coal power plants, tomorrow they are euthanising your family because they think it is good for the environment.
    Believe me, this is serious business.
    http://green-aganda.com if you have the stomach for it.

  250. Smokey:

    “CO2 has a negligible effect, smaller than almost any other climate forcing, all of which overwhelm the tiny effect from CO2. Otherwise, the steady increase in carbon dioxide would produce a steady increase in the planet’s temperature. That has not happened. In fact, the planet is cooling.”

    At the outset, to avoid any confusion, I want to say that my opinion is that I agree with the conclusion that the forcing from CO2 emissions is small and unimportant. Having said that, I think that your reasoning here improperly assumes that the response of the climate system to a hypothetically steady solar influx settles rapidly to a near-constant value. I don’t think that is the case. My understanding is that the response of the climate system to even a constant solar influx is highly chaotic, even on decadal time scales. This means that even under no forcing, annual temperatures would still fluctuate wildly around a median for quite some time.

    The response to your argument would be that the very slight cooling we have seen since 1998 is simply the result of greenhouse gas warming being offset by a particularly strong, unpredictable transient response of the climate system. In fact, many global warming advacates have made this precise argument. What this does show, however, is that it is far, far too soon to be drawing any conclusions about the amount of climate sensitivity to CO2. What’s good for the goose and all that. If the decade plus between 1998 and 2008 isn’t long enough to disprove a significant climate sensitivity, then how long do you think it would take to actually demonstrate or infer a value of climate sensitivity based on measured temperatures. It should take a lot longer than a decade.

    The conclusion of your line of reasoning is not that a lack of a significant relationship between CO2 and temperature has been established, it is that a significant relationship has not been established.

  251. Les Johnson (11:53:28) said:

    “Just a guess, with out actually crunching the numbers, but the energy transfer (0.3 watt/m2) and the time frame (2003 – present) are both too small, to measure any transfer, in such a large heat sink as the oceans.

    Now, your number (2.0 watt/m2), on the other hand, is 7 times larger, and should be measurable; if it exists.”

    The CO2 forcing today is about 2w/m2. CO2 levels have been increasing steadily for the last 100 years or so, so back about 50 years ago the CO2 forcing would have been less- maybe 1 w/m2.

    So , as the CO2 forcing increased from 1960 to today, what did the temeperature do? It Increased rather significantly.

  252. An Inquirer (13:21:46) :

    Chris V provided a link to RC in Chris V. (11:15:18) (yesterday)

    Unfortunately, I couldn’t find a detailed breakdown of the GHG forcings (gas-by-gas) on that thread.

  253. Wondering Aloud (08:01:01) said:

    “I am beginning to wonder if there is any such thing as a CO2 forcing much less one that can be quantified in watts/square meter.”

    Is water vapour a greenhouse gas? Is there such a thing as a water-vapour forcing? Can water-vapour forcing be quantified?

    If we can calculate the forcing for water vapour, then we can calculate the forcing for CO2.

  254. Mike Bryant:

    “Reflected energy can in any case not make the emitter of the original energy warmer; if it could, we’d be able to make energy from thin air.”

    Your earlier point about the variability of opinions among skeptics of global warming is a good one. I did want to point out, however, that your assumption here is that the original “source” of the reflected radaition is itself not being warmed by another object.

    To illustrate this point, consider a thermos into which coffee is poured at 80 C after which you seal the thermos. Thermoses are designed to include reflective material on the inside to take the radiated energy from the liquid and reflect it back. This makes the thermos more efficient at retaining heat than one without the reflective liner. In this simple scenario, you would be correct in asserting that the reflected energy cannot raise the temperature of the coffee above its initial state of 80 C.

    Now assume that you have some high-tech thermos that substitutes the reflective material with a battery-operated heating element, which adds a small amount of heat to the liquid in the thermos, such that coffee poured in it will reach a steady-state temperature with respect to ambient outside the thermos at, again, 80 C. This occurs irrespective of the initial temperature of the coffee. If coffee at 70 C is poured in, the heating element will, over time, cause the coffee to hit its equilibrium temperature where the heat in from the heating element is exactly balanced by the heat lost to ambient through the thermos walls. If coffee is poured in at 90 C, it will similarly cool to the steady-state temperature.

    Finally, add a reflective coating to that high-tech thermos. You will find that the reflective coating will indeed cause the steady-state temperature to rise to something above 80 C.

    It is this latter circumstance that is analogous (loosely) to the Earth’s climate system. When clouds roll in overnight, the effect is to raise temperatures with respect to what the temps otherwise would have been. This is because, absent the clouds, the radiated energy from the surface would simply escape to space. Does this process cause temperatures to go up in the darkness? Absolutely not. But in the daytime, when the sun is heating the surface, greenhouse gasses elevate the temperatures beyond that which would have occurred absent the greenhouse gasses. Pumping more into the atmosphere should cause temperatures to increase over time, because it will take longer for the surface to shed that radiation into space.

    The source of the Earth’s temperature is the sun, and the only mechanism the Earth (inclusive of the atmoshpere) has to shed that energy is through radiation. Convection and conduction aren’t operative where one side of the boundary is a vacuum. The temperature of the Earth at which energy in = energy out is governed broadly by the Stephen Boltzmann equation, if I remember the name of the equation correctly, which assumes a perfect black body in thermal equilibrium with itself. Neither condition is true with respect to th Earth, meaning that the equilibrium temperature of the Earth will be higher (less efficient at discarding energy) than that given by the equation. Adding CO2 means that the Earth becomes even less “in thermal equilibrium with itself”, becomes less efficient at discarding the energy received from the sun, and in response, raises its temperatures.

    Where those temperatures occur, and their magnitude, is very much a live issue, but I have to disagree with you in that temperatures do have to rise.

  255. kurt,

    I agree with your post above. I was merely showing a comparison of solar irradiance and warming [if those solar vs GISS charts I posted were what you were referring to].

    I agree that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas. But as stated, it has such a tiny effect that it can be ignored. And it certainly will not cause runaway global warming and climate catastrophe.

  256. There’s an issue here to which I posed a question on another article, but i don’t think anyone has addressed it. I’m a patent attorney, so aside form having an engineering degree, i don’t have the technical expertise to address it, but perhaps others do.

    Many posters suggest that CO2 can’t be important because it’s a trace gas. I don’t find this argument immediately persuasive. That trace gas, after all, is responsible for all plant life on Earth. Having said that, let’s make the assumption that you can quantify the additional radiation captured by a doubling of CO2 (no small accomplishment itself, I know, given the overlap in radiative bands of all GHGs). On that assumption, how do you divide that captured energy amongst the outflux that gets re-radiated, and the outflux that gets transferred kinetically to other gasses. I’m guessing you’ve got at least two differential equations to solve simultaneously, but without some additional parameters known, it’s not possible.

    CO2, being but one element of a gas mix, is not going to increase it’s temperature to the level needed to re-radiate the extra watts it receives; much of that energy will be transferred kinetically to the surrounding gas molecules, essentially causing the atmosphere to heat as one. Granted, any incremental increase in the temperature of air will cause all air molecules to radiate at a higher temperature, but by tamping down the temperature increase by spreading it out, the net radiation back to the surface gets diminished because radaition is propotional to the fourth power of temperature.

    What I’m thinking is that the primary way that the energy captured by CO2 gets dissipated is not radiation, partly back to the surface, but primarily upwards convention as the kinetic transfer between gas molecules moves the heat rapidly throughout the atmosphere.

    Any physicists out there that could explain why I’m all wet? I won’t mind.

  257. kurt,

    In your post to Mike Bryant above, you state, “…greenhouse gasses elevate the temperatures beyond that which would have occurred absent the greenhouse gasses. Pumping more into the atmosphere should cause temperatures to increase over time, because it will take longer for the surface to shed that radiation into space.”

    OK, that’s true as far as it goes. But the net effect of increasing CO2 is logarithmic, not geometric or even linear. So even doubling the concentration of atmospheric carbon dioxide would only result in a very small theoretical rise in temperature, since the largest amount of the greenhouse effect caused by atmospheric CO2 has already occurred with the first 20 ppmv concentration.

    Adding another 20 ppmv of CO2, or another 40, or 80, will not result in any measurable change in the planet’s temperature, because many other climate forcings overwhelm the tiny effect.

    The atmosphere is currently starved of beneficial carbon dioxide. More CO2 would be better for both plants and animals, and any putative warming due to human emissions would be an extremely tiny fraction of one degree C. How that tiny effect could even be measured, much less measured with any accuracy, is problematic.

    And that gets us to the central argument: since further increases in CO2 would have a negligible effect, why are otherwise rational people endorsing and attempting to justify the enormous cost of monumentally stupid ideas like carbon [dioxide] sequestration?

    Answer: the AGW/CO2 hypothesis is driven by money and politics, not by science.

  258. Once again, there is NO CO2 forcing. CO2 is a trace gas, 0.0365% of our atmosphere.
    Governments have spend over 50 billion US dollar to get the proof on the table and what they have come up with is plain lies. There is 0 proof.

    1.
    The settled science that a greenhouse warms up due to re-radiated light (energy), as set out by Fourier (1824), Tyndall (1861), Arrhenius (1896), NASA (2008), et al., is false.

    2.
    Considering, therefore, that even inside an actual greenhouse with a barrier of solid glass no such phenomenon as a greenhouse effect occurs, most certainly there can be no greenhouse effect in our turbulent atmosphere.

    Energy can not be created from nothing, not even by means of re-radiated infra red. Widely accepted theory has it that more energy is re-radiated to earth than comes from the sun in the first place, amounting to almost an extra two suns. All materials above zero Kelvin radiate energy, yes, but energy does not flow from a cold body to a warm one and cause its temperature to rise. A block of ice in a room does not cause the room to warm up, despite the block of ice radiating its energy into the room. Yet carbon dioxide’s re-radiation of infrared energy warming up planet earth is the preposterous theory hailed by not only the alarmists, but accepted and elaborated by most skeptics as well, with mathematical theorems that do little more than calculate the number of fairies that can dance on a pinhead.

    The accepted carbon dioxide greenhouse theory is thus declared a complete and total scam, as more fully detailed in these papers, amongst many (and I salute all scientists who agree with these papers and will gladly publicise all papers on this subject) :

    “Falsification Of The Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects Within The Frame Of Physics”
    http://www.tech-know.eu/uploads/Falsification_of_the_Atmospheric_CO2_Greenhouse_Effects.pdf and

    “Greenhouse Gas Hypothesis Violates Fundamentals of Physics”

    http://freenet-homepage.de/klima/indexe.htm

    Hans Schreuder
    Ipswich, UK
    http://www.ilovemycarbondioxide.com/FAQ.html
    http://www.ilovemycarbondioxide.com/carbondioxide.html

    “Really new trails are rarely blazed in the great academies.
    The confining walls of conformist dogma are too dominating.
    To think originally, you must go forth into the wilderness.”
    S. Warren Carey

    “One definition of insanity is the compulsion
    to make the same mistake over and over again
    all the while expecting a different and successful outcome.”
    Phil Brennan

    The changes in climate are due to the activity of the sun and variations in cloud cover.
    See the three short video’s: http://gorelied.blogspot.com/2008/11/great-global-warming-swindle-6-part.html

    In this video’s the whole case is explained and more…

  259. Smokey:

    “But the net effect of increasing CO2 is logarithmic, not geometric or even linear. So even doubling the concentration of atmospheric carbon dioxide would only result in a very small theoretical rise in temperature, since most of the greenhouse effect caused by atmospheric CO2 has already occurred with the first 20 ppmv concentration.”

    I agree in principle with this, but I’m not sure about the numbers thrown out there. It’s certainly a logarithmic response and therefore a linear increase in CO2 contributions have less and less influence. Without knowing the precise values of the constants in the logarithmic equation, though, I’m a little less sure about the rest of your asserion (we need to know what the exponent is of the inverse equation). This wouldn’t necessarily mean that the majority of the existing effect comes in the first 20ppm. Even logarithmic curves tend to infinity, after all. Complicating all of this is the fact that there are other GHGs that absorb in the same bands as CO2, which I would think should even further reduce the effect of a doubling of CO2. This is why I always argue that, from a quantitative standpoint, no one will ever prove or disprove the global warming theory – not in my lifetime anyway, and likely not in my kid’s either (and he’s only 2).

    Let me throw one more thing out there. Hansen and others spit out a lot of loose language about there being positive feedback loops in the climate system. I’ve looked at the graphs of temperature reconstructions, and I have to say that on any time scale shorter than the glatiation – intergalciation intervals, I don’t see anything that looks like positive feedback. If I design a circuit with positive feedback, for example, that circuit should alternate between two rails, one high and one low. which we do see in the temperature record in the sense that we have periodic ice ages, and from a geologic standpoint, they seem to appear and disappear (the transition period) relatively quickly.

    That’s the way positive feedback is supposed to work. Whatever stored energy the system has that can be drawn upon to reinforce the signal gets used up, and used up quickly, because the positive feedback is on temperature (or voltage), whatever it’s source – feedback on feedback essentially. But once you hit the ice age, or interglacial, the remaining positive feedback reservoir that could increase temperatures is mostly spent, while there should be a huge reservoir available to decrease temperatures when the system eventually falls back below the intermediary threshold.

    In short, whatever the initial climate sensitivity is to a doubling of CO2, I just can’t buy off on this positive feedback loop idea that says that temperatures are going to spin out of control once we pass over some “tipping point” that only seems to exists in some scientist’s theoretical model.

  260. Many posters suggest that CO2 can’t be important because it’s a trace gas. I don’t find this argument immediately persuasive. That trace gas, after all, is responsible for all plant life on Earth.

    Kurt, that is true. But, during the geological period when life as we know it emerged (algae and such) CO2 was the dominant gas in the atmosphere. It was much much hotter, from both the high CO2 and also from much higher volcanic activity than the present. Eventually, so much of that life spread across the oceans, that its waste byproduct became more dominant in the atmosphere that its food. And that waste became the atmospheres life blood for the animal kingdom – oxygen.

    The more relevant curiosity is this – there does not seem to be a pattern in geologic history that can show that a rise in CO2 levels, which has happened before, PRECEDED a rise in temps. There are many studies (iec cores are the best so far) that show CO2 increases lag behind temp increases. I can’t say I’ve seen every study that’s out there, but lets say there are a few that shows CO2 rising first. Even then, it is still a correlation between CO2 and temp increases, and not a causal relationship.

  261. Ron de Haan:

    “All materials above zero Kelvin radiate energy, yes, but energy does not flow from a cold body to a warm one and cause its temperature to rise.”

    I’m not sure what you mean by this. You could be asserting that energy can’t move naturally from a cold object to a warm object (assertion 1), or be stating that even if it does flow from the cooler to the hotter, that it won’t cause the latter’s temperature to rise (assertion 2). Either of these assertions are false.

    As noted earlier in a post on another article, heat pumps extract heat from cooler regions and move them to warmer areas. Granted, you have to expend energy to move the heat, but once it gets there, it heats the region into which it gets put. Thus, assertion 2 is plainly false.

    Similarly, the idea that heat can’t be moved from a cold body to a warm body is also false. The moon, for example, is much cooler than the Earth, but as you noted, it radiates energy because it’s temperature is above zero K. Certainly you are not suggesting that the Earth has some “smart shield” around it that redirects the radiation from the moon, but lets the sun’s radiation in. And as noted in the preceding paragraph, once the radiation from the moon gets absorbed by the Earth, the Earth’s temperature will rise as a result, with respect to a hypothetical in which the moon didn’t exist.

    No one is arguing that energy is being created from nothing. The argument is that the composition of the Earth’s atmosphere determines how efficiently the Earth re-radiates back to space that which it absorbs from the sun. In this analysis, whether or not CO2 is a “trace gas” isn’t immediately relevant. As noted by Smokey, above, the very first increment of CO2 (in other words, the tracest of the trace) had the largest effect of all subsequently sized increments. What kind of logic is it that says that the effect on temperatures of a trace gas can’t be that important because it’s too small, when the efffect on temperature is logarithmic?

    Don’t misunderstand me, in that I also believe (strongly so) that the global warming scaremongering is grossly overblown. Don’t even get me started on the futility of trying to predict actual climactic effects of increased temperatures (hurricanes, droughts, etc) . I do, however, think that it is counterproductive to be presenting arguments that are untrue and can be instantly discredited.

  262. Ron de Haan (17:51:50) :
    The changes in climate are due to the activity of the sun and variations in cloud cover.
    The sun doesn’t vary enough for this and the observed variations of cloud cover and albedo do not match the solar cycle. It is not good strategy to combat AGW with something equally flimsy.

  263. Kurt,
    Sorry, those words were not mine. They belong to:

    Hans Schreuder
    Ipswich, UK

    I am a plumber, but even I can see truth when it hits me between the eyes.
    Mike the Plumber

  264. Mike Bryant:

    “Kurt . . . Sorry, those words were not mine. They belong to Hans Schreuder.”

    Sorry. Should have read the post more carefully.

  265. kurt,

    Apparently the moon also has a smart shield protecting it form the earth’s radiated energy!

    The point you missed, I believe, is that in the absence of a conducting mechanism (ala heat pump) the sum flow of energy will be from a warm body to a cold body, until equilibrium is reached.

  266. Smokey (17:44:02) :

    At the current rates of CO2 emissions, some of us will live to see CO2 levels that are double pre-industrial levels. The best estimates for the temperature change associated with that doubling (the CO2 sensitivity) are about 3 degrees C. The estimate for the CO2 sensitivity comes (mostly) from paleoclimate studies, observed climate responses to volcanoes, and climate models.

    During the last ice age, global temps were only 5 degrees cooler than today, so 3 degrees is a very big change.

  267. kurt says:

    What kind of logic is it that says that the effect on temperatures of a trace gas can’t be that important because it’s too small, when the efffect on temperature is logarithmic?

    If its effect were exponential, I would be worried ,,,

    Also, you have not dealt with the issue that clouds cause immediate cooling, not cooling after some dozens of minutes.

  268. John M (16:53:07) :

    That link to RC is not the one that I am looking for. You are right, I am looking for detailed breakdown of the GHG forcings (gas-by-gas), year by year in ppm for each Scenario. I was under the impression that Gavin posted it but I am not finding it at the present time. I believe that trying to recreate Hansen’s inputs is not as reliable as getting the inputs directly.

  269. Say Anthony, the NW is getting some very warm stagnet weather that includes record breakers in Meacham, Oregon (topped at 58 degrees on the 17th which is a record breaker warm day since 1948) during the day. The jet stream seems to be wanting to dip down to the tropics out in the Pacific Ocean before trying to rise back up to the 45th parallel on shore. What is causing the severe dip into warmer areas? Is this like stacked up airplanes? The cold jet stream rise into Arctic cold air and then its dip down over the midwest isn’t moving East so the jet stream behind it is stacking up causing it to fold down into the tropics? What could be causing this stalled and folded jet stream with warm and cold folds?

  270. Chris V: your
    At the current rates of CO2 emissions, some of us will live to see CO2 levels that are double pre-industrial levels.

    Nope. Unless there is a major breaktrough in longevity medicine.

    You are confusing emissions with atmospheric CO2 content.

    While emissions are increasing at about 2%/year, atmospheric CO2 is only increasing at about 0.6%/year.

    And, you are assuming that all CO2 feedback is positive. Recent work by Lindzen, Christy and Spencer all suggest that CO2 may have a negative feedback component.

    That means that at the present rate of atmospheric CO2 increases, we will see a doubling in a little over 100 years.

  271. Richard Sharpe:

    “If its effect were exponential, I would be worried.”

    The underlying math of a logarithmic response of temperatures to CO2 is that the marginal effect of increasing CO2 gets smaller as CO2 concentration rises. Simply asserting that CO2 can’t have a large greenhouse effect because it is a trace gas is a fallacy. I’m not saying that it doesn’t have an insignificant effect, I’m just saying that you can’t simply assume it based on it’s being a trace gas.

    In terms of the cooling effect of clouds, the immediacy of feeling that effect is due to the blocked incoming radiation from the sun, just as it would be if you stepped beneath a large shade tree. I have no idea why someone would posit that greenhouse gasses would cause a delay of dozens of minutes, or even one minute for that matter, for you to stop feeling the heat of the sun shining on you, or for temperatures to begin to drop in the shaded region. Given that the energy input to the surface has been cut suddenly, of course temperatures are going to start to go down instantly. Greenhouse gasses don’t act like a reservoir behind a dam, that is let loose to compensate for a sudden drop in rainfall. They don’t store energy at all. They absorb it and then instantly dissipate it, as efficiently as they are able.

    If I have a CPU running 150 watts in a closed computer case, with no air flow, so as to trap in the heat from the CPU in the region surrounding it, it will run hotter than if it were laid out on a table. The fact that the trapped heat raises the temperature of the processor isn’t disproven by someone’s observation that the CPU’s temperature drops instantly when its load is cut to 100 watts. Why would it be?

  272. Chris V; Your

    So , as the CO2 forcing increased from 1960 to today, what did the temeperature do? It Increased rather significantly.

    Not quite right. There was warming until 1998 (or 2001 if you are a fan of GISS)

    Are you confusing casuality with causation?

    With even more CO2 from 1998 to present, there has been a negative temperature trend for the last decade, and NO WARMING OF THE OCEANS.

    It should also be remembered that there was a significant warming from 1900-1940, well before the vast majority of CO2 had been emitted.

  273. Earle Williams (19:29:14) :

    “The point you missed, I believe, is that in the absence of a conducting mechanism (ala heat pump) the sum flow of energy will be from a warm body to a cold body, until equilibrium is reached.”

    All you are really saying is that the effect of the earth in heating the moon is greater than the effect of the moon in heating the earth. But the moon does heat the Earth, by some small amount. (Both are small amounts, really). Actually, the only point of the heat pump analogy was to show that the house, for example, doesn’t care where the extra heat comes from, it just takes it and warms, even if it does come from a cooler object. The moon example was to illustrate that with radiative heat transfer, cooler objects can transfer heat to warmer ones, because heat outflux is solely dependent on the temperature and material properties of the radiator.

    My overall point is that, if you change the equilibrium constraints, such as raising the temperature of the cool sink for the warm object, the temperature of the warm object will rise. This point does not rely on any assertion that the net flow of heat reverses itself. Make the composition of the moon so that it is less reflective (paint it all black), it stores more energy from the sun, radiates more to Earth, and the Earth’s temperture will rise.

  274. Kurt,
    “Make the composition of the moon so that it is less reflective (paint it all black), it stores more energy from the sun, radiates more to Earth, and the Earth’s temperture will rise.”

    I’d like to see what a physicist would say about that one…
    Mike

  275. Kurt,
    “Greenhouse gasses don’t act like a reservoir behind a dam, that is let loose to compensate for a sudden drop in rainfall. They don’t store energy at all. They absorb it and then instantly dissipate it, as efficiently as they are able.”

    I’ve been in greenhouses, and when a cloud passes overhead, the temperature does not quickly drop. Outside, when a cloud passes overhead there is an immediate drop. So are you saying the greenhouse effect is a misnomer?
    Mike

  276. There is a story about GISS data from Brazil on icecap.us

    “Nov 17, 2008
    October’s Temperature Discrepencies

    By Eugenio Hackbart, METSUL “

  277. I am not a regular poster here but all those issues have been already considered in depth at http://www.climateaudit.org/phpBB3/viewforum.php?f=4 dedicated to climate physics only .
    I do not know where this Chris V is coming from but he obviously hasn’t got a clue about the issues .
    So only fast and for those who want to fill in the details , check the above link :

    1) The fact that any gas molecule abosrbs and emits in infrared (the homonuclear too but much less) is a trivial fact .

    2) The above fact has nothing but REALLY nothing to do with a greenhouse which only works because it suppresses convection . Also trivial . The atmosphere and oceans have nothing in common with a greenhouse .

    3) Under the assumption of radiative equilibrium , it can be shown that the surface temperature of a planet would slightly and non linearily increase with the concentration of IR active gases (primarily H2O) if and only if radiation was the only mean for energy transfer . The real atmosphere is neither in radiative equilibrium nor has it only radiation available for energy transfer .
    Convection and conduction cannot be neglected like it is done in all radiation transfer models .

    4) There is no derivation of “the radiative forcing” and indeed cannot be for the reason mentionned in 3) above . The house number of 2 W/m² that is thrown around is an average result of computer models that suppose radiative equilibrium and neglect convection (the models are generally fed by a standard lapse rate profile) .
    You should have noticed that the warmer ChrisV evaded the question about the proof of the 2W/m² . For good reason – the question cannot be answered in another way than saying “the models with unrealistic assumptions and tuned to the bone say so .”

    4) Even admitting that the impact of IR active gases could be summed up in some average number of x W/m² with x being in the range of extremely small to very small , it is not possible to provide the derivation from this number to the average global temperature . This relationship is obviously non linear and unknown . It is again models (GCM) who give a range of temperature variation .
    It is those same models who can’t get even the sign of variations right at regional levels and have a cloudiness dispersion of 50 % .
    So inputting a wrong number in a wrong model should only be qualified of waste of time .

    5) It is on the basis of the wrong models that has been established the temperature trend of 0.2 ° C / decade (IPCC report) . This number is a PREDICTION and the first falsifiable one one dared by IPCC in 20 years .
    The real trend over the first decade 2000 – 2008 falsifies the models with a confidence level of 95 % .
    Or in other words , the probability that the models are right AND the real observed temperatures do what they did because of bad luck is 5 % .

    6) The climate system is a chaotic system .
    The property of a chaotic system is that it is not predictible and doesn’t follow statistical laws .
    Another property is that it generally stays in a bounded volume of the phase space (called attractor) what explains why through billions of years despite the large variations of all parameters on all time scales (from hours to million of years) , the system always stayed in a quasi stable state . It never got lower than a mild relatively short ice age and never higher than a tropical climate .

    Last property is that it presents pseudo trends on all time scales . By taking any time scale you will detect a trend . However if you are ignorant about the true nature of the system and go to stupidly extrapolate the trend from short time series to long time scales , the system will always punish you by showing an opposite trend when the observation time increases .

  278. Leif,
    “Ron de Haan (17:51:50) :
    The changes in climate are due to the activity of the sun and variations in cloud cover.
    The sun doesn’t vary enough for this and the observed variations of cloud cover and albedo do not match the solar cycle. It is not good strategy to combat AGW with something equally flimsy”.

    Leif,
    David Archibald makes use of this theory and so does Patrick Moore, Richard Linzen, Jan Weize, Nir Shariv, Ian Clark, Tim Patterson and Svendsmark, see video on the gore lied website. What about the graph (Weize and Shariv) over a 5 million year time line showing a relationship between temperature and cosmic rays?
    Patterson makes a fairly hard case!

    Maybe we are focusing too much on a relative small band of differences in temperature trying to generate proof for a mechanism that can not be measured globaly within a such a narrow band?

    Linzen makes the remark that if we would check a patients health by measuring the body temperature by 1/00 of a degree Celcius the whole world would declare us mad. The same is the case for our environment.

    The 0.6 degree rise of temp on the NH until 1998 is a relative factor if you take the variations in climate station measurements into account.

    Are people worried about nothing? Should this be the response to the AGW hysteria?

  279. kurt, I have enjoyed your and smokey’s discussion. You state in your 18:10 post that a log curve eventually goes infinite, true, although the reponse needn’t be, see my crude example here: http://i35.tinypic.com/fc0eua.jpg
    While CO2 concentration might approach infinity, the temperature response can go flat (effectively)

  280. Chris V.
    the last ice age, global temps were only 5 degrees cooler than today, so 3 degrees is a very big change.

    http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/last_400k_yrs.html

    1. Try 8c cooler.
    2. during previous interglacials temperatures spiked 2-3c higher than the current interglacial.
    3. we appear to have had the most stable interglacial period going back 400k years.

  281. Kurt says:

    Simply asserting that CO2 can’t have a large greenhouse effect because it is a trace gas is a fallacy. I’m not saying that it doesn’t have an insignificant effect, I’m just saying that you can’t simply assume it based on it’s being a trace gas.

    So, it seems to me that the amount of energy absorbed by CO2 in the bands that can be absorbed by CO2 (ie, some fraction of the total outgoing energy) is proportional to the fraction of CO2 in the atmosphere, unless you can somehow magically push all that CO2 into a thin shell that no photon of the required frequency can avoid.

  282. Speaking of CO2, does anyone here know if the PPMs of CO2 are are stratified because it is heavier than air?

  283. Les Johnson (22:15:25) :

    “That means that at the present rate of atmospheric CO2 increases, we will see a doubling in a little over 100 years.”

    Doubling relative to todays levels, or relative to preindustrial levels? I was referring to pre-industrial levels.

    I’ve seen several projections that give 560 ppm CO2 (that’s double the pre-industrial level) by 2070.

  284. Mike Bryant: your

    So are you saying the greenhouse effect is a misnomer?

    It is, when applied to the atmosphere. (my apologies if the following is already known to you)

    A green house works by decreasing turbulence. So called Green House Gases work by absorbing then re-emitting IR.

    To show the difference, studies by the University of Alaska, used IR transparent polyethylene, and IR opaque glass, for green houses.

    They found no significant difference in the temperatures in the green houses, which indicates that depressing turbulence is the major factor in heat retention in a green house, and not IR retention. Thus, a so called “Green House” gas, is the misnomer.

    Inhibiting turbulence, increases IR radiation. But decreasing IR, lowers turbulence.

    Increasing turbulence, reduces radiation. Increasing radiation, increases turbulence.

    Which brings up one of the problems with CO2. It can actually have a direct net negative forcing, depending on the atmospheric lapse rate (or, the temperature gradient).

    All models use 6.5 deg C/1000 meters as the lapse rate. CO2 is a warming agent at 6.5 deg C/1000 meters.

    Change this to 6.4, and there is no net effect either way. Change the lapse to 6.0, and CO2 becomes a net cooling agent, through increased turbulence.

    Measured lapse rates are between 4 and 10 deg C/1000 meters.

  285. Les Johnson (22:36:03) :

    “Are you confusing casuality with causation?”

    I am not confusing correlation with causation; just noticing that the temp increase is consistent with what we would expect CO2 to do.

  286. Ron de Haan (08:18:09) :
    David Archibald makes use of this theory
    Hardly a recommendation :-)
    so does Patrick Moore, Richard Linzen, Jan Weize, Nir Shariv, Ian Clark, Tim Patterson and Svendsmark,
    One could make a [longer!] list of people that don’t…

    What about the graph (Weize and Shariv) over a 5 million year time line showing a relationship between temperature and cosmic rays?
    We can’t even measure the temperature for October, 2008, so one might be skeptical of 5 million years :-). Presumably the orbital cycles were taken out first [I haven't seen the Figure in detail]. Presumably the cosmic ray data comes from 10Be. There is good evidence that the 10Be-record is influenced by temperature. See e.g. GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS, VOL. 35, L21812, doi:10.1029/2008GL035189, 2008
    Atmospheric impact on beryllium isotopes as solar activity proxy
    A. Aldahan et al., published 14 November 2008.
    [1] Reconstructing solar activity variability beyond the time scale of actual measurements provides invaluable data for modeling of past and future climate change. The 10Be isotope has been a primary proxy archive of past solar activity and cosmic ray intensity, particularly for the last millennium. There is, however, a lack of direct high resolution atmospheric time series on 10Be that enable estimating atmospheric modulation on the production
    signal. [...] Our data indicate intrusion of stratosphere/upper troposphere air masses that can modulate the isotopes production signal, and may induce relative peaks in the natural 10Be archives (i.e., ice and sediment). The atmospheric impact on the Be-isotopes can disturb the production signals and consequently the estimate of past solar activity magnitude.
    —–
    And: “indications of a connection between intrusion frequency and surface air temperature at the studied latitudes. Intrusion-free periods apparently show elevated average temperatures compared to periods with frequent intrusions”
    and they caution: “These effects, which alter the production signal, should be quantified or eliminated before accurate estimates of past solar irradiance variations can be made.”

    So, things may not be as simple and direct as most assume.
    People have tried to independently confirm the Svensmark theory:
    Solar influences on cosmic rays and cloud formation: A reassessment.
    Sun, Bomin; Bradley, Raymond S.
    Journal of Geophysical Research (Atmospheres), Volume 107, Issue D14, pp. AAC 5-1, CiteID 4211, DOI 10.1029/2001JD000560
    Publication Date: 07/2002
    Abstract
    Svensmark and Friis-Christensen [1997] proposed a ‘cosmic ray-cloud cover” hypothesis that cosmic ray flux, modulated by solar activity, may modify global cloud cover and thus global surface temperature by increasing the number of ions in the atmosphere, leading to enhanced condensation of water vapor and cloud droplet formation. We evaluate this idea by extending their period of study and examining long-term surface-based cloud data (from national weather services and the Global Telecommunication System) as well as newer satellite data (International Satellite Cloud Climatology Project (ISCCP) D2, 1983-1993). No meaningful relationship is found between cosmic ray intensity and cloud cover over tropical and extratropical land areas back to the 1950s. The high cosmic ray-cloud cover correlation in the period 1983-1991 over the Atlantic Ocean, the only large ocean area over which the correlation is statistically significant, is greatly weakened when the extended satellite data set (1983-1993) is used. Cloud cover data from ship observations over the North Atlantic, where measurements are denser, did not show any relationship with solar activity over the period 1953-1995, though a large discrepancy exists between ISCCP D2 data and surface marine observations. Our analysis also suggests that there is not a solid relationship between cosmic ray flux and low cloudiness as proposed by Marsh and Svensmark [2000].
    —-
    So, I wouldn’t be so sure of such a connection.

  287. Les Johnson

    “With even more CO2 from 1998 to present, there has been a negative temperature trend for the last decade, and NO WARMING OF THE OCEANS.

    It should also be remembered that there was a significant warming from 1900-1940, well before the vast majority of CO2 had been emitted”.

    Les,
    I just read a NASA publication about a correction of the ARGO data.
    The statement is there is much MORE ocean warming?

    http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2008/11/revised-ocean-heat-content.html

    wattsupwiththat?

  288. Chris V: your

    I am not confusing correlation with causation; just noticing that the temp increase is consistent with what we would expect CO2 to do.

    So the negative temperature trend since May, 1997 (UAH), is consistent with CO2 forcing?

  289. Chris V: and the increasing temperature trend 1900-1940 is consistent with the then low values of CO2?

    And the negative temperature trend 1950-1980 is consistent with the then rapidly increasing atmospheric CO2 content?

  290. Ron de Haan: your

    I just read a NASA publication about a correction of the ARGO data.
    The statement is there is much MORE ocean warming?

    No, not quite. The ARGO data is from 2003-present. As you can see from that chart, they have a “tail” in temperature at that period.

    Josh Willis, the lead author, found errors in measurements, especially in the XBT data. His fixes fit the models better, pre-ARGO, but the ARGO data still shows no warming. Previous work showed a COOLING with ARGO data.

    This is Willis’s conclusion, via NASA’s web site:

    With biased profiles discarded, no significant warming or cooling is observed in upper-ocean heat content between 2003 and 2006.

    My emphasis.

  291. Leif,
    Thanks a lot for your extensive reply.

    Is it possible to make a listing of accepted science?

    It’s really difficult to get the “sound science” out of the heap of reports and publications.

    There is doubt about everything, temperature data sets and lately also the ocean data sets, see revised ocean heat content

    http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/OceanCooling/

    http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2008/11/revised-ocean-heat-content.html

    wattsupwiththat?

  292. Ron: Jennifer Marohasy gives a good explanation of the ARGO changes. There is a link to NASA as well.

    http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/2008/11/apologies-to-josh-willis-correcting-ocean-cooling-part-3/

    http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/2008/11/correcting-ocean-cooling-nasa-changes-data-to-fit-the-models/

    http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/OceanCooling/page3.php

    But, again, there has not been a cooling of the oceans, as ARGOs first results suggested, but neither has there been a warming.

  293. Chris V

    As someone alluded to above, the problem with 3 degrees rise for a doubling of CO2 producing a 3 degree change is that this is a WAG from the models based on supposed large positive feedbacks. Neither the paleo record nor current work looking for this feedback support this in any way. A doubling of CO2 is unlikely, based on current data to cause temperature increase in excess of 1 degree C, most of which should have already occured. Further increases would produce smaller effects of course.

  294. It is generally accepted that global temperatures declined from about 1940 – 1970.

    However, during rampant industrialization [abetted by the incineration of numerous cities during the 1940's due to the second world war], atmospheric carbon dioxide increased significantly.

    This CO2 rise in the 1940’s is confirmed by Beck, et. al., as posted here. And carbon dioxide levels were far in excess of todays in the early 1800’s.

    The consternation of the alarmists at Beck’s paper is evidence, IMHO, that Beck was accurately reporting the situation. Measurements of CO2 using the chemical method that Beck reported show that CO2 levels were in excess of 400 ppmv in the 1940’s — quite a bit higher than today’s CO2 level.

    As to be expected, Beck’s peer-reviewed paper has been loudly criticized by various alarmists, but it has not been falsified [not that they haven't tried].

    The discussion on this thread and similar ones often devolves into minute nitpicking of insignificant items, rather than looking at the big picture.

    Although the alarmist side constantly moves the goal posts [from runaway global warming, to drowning polar bears, to catastrophic Greenland and Antarctic melting, to rising sea levels, to disappearing sea ice, to "global cooling proves global warming", etc., etc.], the simple fact remains that the UN/IPCC has been consistently wrong from AR-1 through AR-4, and the Gore/Hansen duo has been spectacularly wrong.

    Rather than engaging in endlessly nitpicking, unproductive arguments over unknowns such as the logarithmic exponent describing the almost nonexistent/nonexistent effect of carbon dioxide on temperature, and the ‘estimate’ of CO2 sensitivity, let’s look at empirical evidence, and the big picture: CO2 is rising, and the planet’s temperature is falling. Any normal person would conclude that CO2 is not causing runaway global warming, climate catastrophe, or for that matter, any other problems.

    It appears that the endless hairsplitting arguments have one main purpose: to draw attention away from the subject of the original article, which is that GISS massages and adjusts climate data, and then does everything possible to avoid publicly archiving its taxpayer-funded raw data. This is the climate we’re talking about, not nuclear warfare secrets. The raw data should be made available to any taxpayer who wants to look at it. But GISS withholds it.

    The blink graph at the top of the page shows what GISS is doing to the temperature record. Maybe those who endlessly argue about anything else would like to defend the actions of GISS.

  295. Les Johnson (12:38:36) said:

    “Chris V: and the increasing temperature trend 1900-1940 is consistent with the then low values of CO2?

    And the negative temperature trend 1950-1980 is consistent with the then rapidly increasing atmospheric CO2 content?”

    CO2 is not the only thing that affects the climate. But increasing CO2 provides a long-term positive forcing; other forcings (like solar early in the century, and sulfate aerosols mid centrury) are superimposed onto that.

  296. Wondering Aloud (15:03:45) said:

    “As someone alluded to above, the problem with 3 degrees rise for a doubling of CO2 producing a 3 degree change is that this is a WAG from the models based on supposed large positive feedbacks.”

    No, it is not based on the models- the sensitivity numbers come from multiple, independent analyses- paleoclimate, modern climate, and models.

    The models don’t “suppose” positive feedbacks. Positive feedbacks in the models are emergent qualities- they arise out of the basic physics used by the model.

    In the paleo analyses, whatever feedbacks actually occurred- positive and negative- are reflected in the temperatures.

    Two entirely different methodologies yield similar results.

  297. Chris V: your

    CO2 is not the only thing that affects the climate. But increasing CO2 provides a long-term positive forcing; other forcings (like solar early in the century, and sulfate aerosols mid centrury) are superimposed onto that.

    Nope. Aerosols were greater at the end of the 19th century and beginning of the 20th, according to these researchers:

    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/08/080819160103.htm

    In fact, they say that aerosols were 2-5 times higher.

    And these researchers suggest that the effect of aerosols is not known enough to gauge the effect.

    “Because of the large uncertainty we have in the radiative forcing of aerosols, there is a corresponding large uncertainty in the degree of radiative forcing overall”, Crozier said. “This introduces a large uncertainty in the degree of warming predicted by climate change models.”

    http://news.usti.net/home/news/cn/?/tw.top/2/wed/dg/Uus-climatemodels.RjIW_IaB.html

    So, that leaves CO2 or solar or unknown.

    CO2 has been going up, and only up.

    Solar effects go up and down.

    Temperature has gone up and down.

    hmmmmm…..

  298. Some more references on aerosols; as warming agents

    Jacobson, M., 2001: Strong radiative heating due to the mixing state of black carbon in atmospheric aerosols, Nature, 409:695-697; Sato, M. et al., 2003: Global atmospheric black carbon inferred from AERONET, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, vol. 100, no. 11: 6319-6324.

    We found that atmospheric brown clouds enhanced lower atmospheric solar heating by about 50 per cent. Our general circulation model simulations, which take into account the recently observed widespread occurrence of vertically extended atmospheric brown clouds over the Indian Ocean and Asia, suggest that atmospheric brown clouds contribute as much as the recent increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gases to regional lower atmospheric warming trends. We propose that the combined warming trend of 0.25 K per decade may be sufficient to account for the observed retreat of the Himalayan glaciers.

    http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v448/n7153/abs/nature06019.html

  299. Smokey,
    You are correct sir. Let’s get back on point. Why can’t we look behind the curtain?? We paid for it, release everything, NASA, GISS,NCDC and any other group or agency that gathers data with taxpayer money.
    Anyone have any objections to full transparency??
    Mike the Plumber

  300. Smokey (15:35:58) :

    I’m sorry, but I can not take Beck’s graph showing past CO2 levels seriously. Those measurements were taken by different people, in different places, using different methods. The year to year variability he shows is WAY beyond the variability that is observed at Mauna Loa.

    There are several 1-year periods (around 1830, 1890, and 1940), where Beck shows CO2 levels varying by over 100 ppm! That’s just not physically possible.

    REPLY: I’ll have to agree with Chris V. on this one. Just the variability in the chemical reduction process alone imparts a significant error band. Plus a lot of the measurements were done in cities, which back then had scads of fireplaces, industrial furnaces, and wood fired cooking stoves.

    I don’t think those measurements were capable of resolving the background CO2 from the noise of the in situ where it was done. Thus I don’t think the measurements are valid. – Anthony

  301. Leif:
    Now this:

    http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/vapor_warming.html

    And at ICECAP.US:
    This:
    Nov 18, 2008
    Evidence of Sunspot Involvement in Climate Change Compelling

    Engineering News
    Over the last few years, the evidence that sunspots on our sun are directly related to climate change on earth has been steadily increasing.

    And this:
    Nov 18, 2008
    Obama Clueless on Climate Change Non-Threat, Impacts of Cap-and-Trade

    Boston.com

    “Few challenges facing America—and the world – are more urgent than combating climate change,” Obama says in this video. “The science is beyond dispute and the facts are clear. Sea levels are rising. Coastlines are shrinking. We’ve seen record drought, spreading famine, and storms that are growing stronger with each passing hurricane season. Climate change and our dependence on foreign oil, if left unaddressed, will continue to weaken our economy and threaten our national security.

  302. Les Johnson (16:35:01) :

    The sciencedaily link you provided is not about aerosols- it’s about heavy metals. They are not the same thing.

    And yes, there are many uncertainties about aerosols in general.

  303. Chris V: your

    The sciencedaily link you provided is not about aerosols- it’s about heavy metals. They are not the same thing.

    And how do you think that the heavy metals got to Greenland?

    hint- as aerosols.

  304. Les Johnson (11:00:00) said:

    ” Inhibiting turbulence, increases IR radiation. But decreasing IR, lowers turbulence.
    Increasing turbulence, reduces radiation. Increasing radiation, increases turbulence.
    Which brings up one of the problems with CO2. It can actually have a direct net negative forcing, depending on the atmospheric lapse rate (or, the temperature gradient).
    All models use 6.5 deg C/1000 meters as the lapse rate. CO2 is a warming agent at 6.5 deg C/1000 meters.
    Change this to 6.4, and there is no net effect either way. Change the lapse to 6.0, and CO2 becomes a net cooling agent, through increased turbulence.
    Measured lapse rates are between 4 and 10 deg C/1000 meters. ”

    This isn’t right; it isn’t even wrong.
    – Wolfgang Pauli

  305. 1) Jason sea levels not up to date. http://sealevel.colorado.edu/
    2) Spaceweather not up to date. http://www.spaceweather.com/
    3) GISS really messed up. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/11/14/the-evolution-of-the-giss-temperature-product/
    4) Argo data screwed up (fixed now? who knows) http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/2008/11/apologies-to-josh-willis-correcting-ocean-cooling-part-3/
    5) Surfacestations, little maintenance, little adherence to procedures. http://www.surfacestations.org/
    6)Mauna Loa CO2. Old computers, procedures adequate? Now a big jump up, anyone remember the big drop?(it, of course was changed along with many historic values) http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/08/06/post-mortem-on-the-mauna-loa-co2-data-eruption/
    7) Karl, not really a doctor, but he plays one at the NCDC. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/11/10/more-flubs-at-the-top-of-the-climate-food-chain-this-time-ncdcs-karl/
    8) CT Sea Ice graph change downward never fully explained. http://img401.imageshack.us/img401/2918/anomalykm3.gif
    9) Mann’s hockey stick graph falsified. http://www.climateaudit.org/?page_id=354
    10) IPCC Temperature projections “very low confidence”. http://rankexploits.com/musings/2008/giss-temp-2ccentury-projection-remains-in-very-low-confindence-range/

    This, I am sure, is only a very short list. Anyone have a complete list?

    Does anyone anywhere in our government or anywhere else know what the (self-snip) is going on?

  306. An Inquirer (21:37:06) :

    I was under the impression that Gavin posted it but I am not finding it at the present time. I believe that trying to recreate Hansen’s inputs is not as reliable as getting the inputs directly.

    Steve McIntyre links to it in this post.

    It looks like Gavin Schmidt only used the main CFCs in his reconstruction.

    One of the readers (LadyGray in comment 48 of the CA post) links to a 2004 Hansen paper where he reports forcings for other trace gases, which include HFCs (and which I don’t think were included in Scenario B in 1988). Looks like they could add a couple of tenths of a W/m^2 forcing to the Montreal protocol CFCs, but not enough to drastically alter things. May be enough to put the “observed” forcings curves smack on Scenario B in terms of total forcings, but still way off in terms of observed temperatures.

  307. Les Johnson (17:14:43) said:

    “And how do you think that the heavy metals got to Greenland?

    hint- as aerosols.”

    That doesn’t mean there were more aerosols, just that had more heavy metals in them.

  308. Les Johnson (14:57:43) : Said:

    Ron: Jennifer Marohasy gives a good explanation of the ARGO changes. There is a link to NASA as well.

    Thanks Les.

  309. Ron de Haan (14:54:18) :
    Is it possible to make a listing of accepted science?
    Working scientists have such a list more or less in their head. Science is very much a collaborative effort. There are always new ideas that have not reached the status of ‘accepted’ yet [and most do not]. And there are also crackpot ideas, that can be dismissed at a glance [a very, very, very small percentage of these turn out to have merit after all].

    It’s really difficult to get the “sound science” out of the heap of reports and publications.
    I disagree, I never have a problem with this. The BS test takes about five seconds.

    There is doubt about everything
    Not really. I’m often wrong, but never in doubt. It simply means that there is an ‘uncertainty’ cloak around everything, but scientists are trained to deal with this. Lay persons often do not appreciate this and take things at face value for more than they are worth.

    http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/vapor_warming.html
    Nobody I know doubts this.

    ICECAP.US: Evidence of Sunspot Involvement in Climate Change Compelling
    When somebody says ‘compelling’ my BS-filter goes up a notch.
    Especially when the report is factually false, like:
    “The earth’s magnetic field, which acts as a shielding, is altered by the sun’s activity, which, in turn, is indicated by means of the number of sunspots. As the earth’s magnetic shield varies, so the cloud cover varies. Few sunspots mean a weaker earth shield, which means more cosmic rays, which mean more clouds, which mean a cooling earth. ”

    The earth’s magnetic field that shield us from cosmic rays varies because of [get this] internal causes resulting from fluctuations of the internal dynamo that sustains the field. The sun has no effect on this. In fact, the Sun’s dynamo varies also from internal fluctuations [unless you believe in the planets driving the solar cycle and check your horoscope daily]. Why should the earth’s climate be any different from these other natural and self-regulating cyclic phenomena?

    IMHO, the reason the solar connection is so emphasized is that people need a simple, direct, and ‘obvious’ alternative to AGW. If you are anti-AGW and arguing against an avid AGWer, he has a clear mechanism. If your only mechanism is an appeal to unknown, random, interval, chaotic fluctuations, he eats your lunch, hence your strong support for a solar cause. Curiously, the AGWer also needs a solar connection to explain variations that occurred before ~1970, so we have a ‘perfect storm’ here, with everyone agreeing that the sun is important, but for the wrong reasons [namely as support for the CO2-related arguments - pro or con, as the case may be].

    If one, like me, dares to question the solar connection, one, obviously, gets flak from both camps. You asked how to know something is valid science? A tongue-in-cheek answer [but with some truth] might be that the validity is inversely proportional to the number of blogs, websites, and postings discussing the item in question.

  310. Chris V wrote: “No, it is not based on the models- the sensitivity numbers come from multiple, independent analyses- paleoclimate, modern climate, and models.

    The models don’t “suppose” positive feedbacks. Positive feedbacks in the models are emergent qualities- they arise out of the basic physics used by the model.

    Perhaps in ModelWorld, but here in the Real World it those things don’t seem to be happening.

  311. From the NASA article on water vapor and warming:

    The answer can be found by estimating the magnitude of water vapor feedback. Increasing water vapor leads to warmer temperatures, which causes more water vapor to be absorbed into the air. Warming and water absorption increase in a spiraling cycle.

    Another one of those death spirals that has never happened. I seem to recall being told that climates were very hot in the past (many millions to hundreds of millions of years ago).

  312. Leif wrote: “The earth’s magnetic field that shield us from cosmic rays varies because of [get this] internal causes resulting from fluctuations of the internal dynamo that sustains the field.”

    The earth’s internal dynamo is in essence a dipole yes? It flip-flops from negative to positive in a cyclical fashion. Are you saying that the polarity of our planet does not march in step with the cycles of the sun? I am not trying to be argumentative, I just thought I had that part figured out.

  313. hengav (19:55:43) :
    The earth’s internal dynamo is in essence a dipole yes? It flip-flops from negative to positive in a cyclical fashion. Are you saying that the polarity of our planet does not march in step with the cycles of the sun?
    It does flip, but more or less randomly on a time scale from thousands to millions of years, completely independently from the Sun. The next flip might come relatively soon [in a few hundred years time] as the field is decreasing now. It has decreased 10% in the last century or so, and the decrease seems to be accelerating…

  314. Chris V: your

    That doesn’t mean there were more aerosols, just that had more heavy metals in them.

    Really? So the chemistry of coal combustion has changed in the last 100 years? That coal has less cadmium and mercury in 1970, than at the turn of the 20th century?

    Nope. Heavy metal content of coal is relatively constant. If there are more metals in Greenland’s ice at the year 1900 level, it means that there was more aerosols to carry them when they were deposited.

    But, I would love to hear your explanation of how heavy metal ratios in aerosols decreased over time, while aerosols, according to you and the IPCC, increased during the same time frame.

    Should be fascinating.

  315. Mike Bryant,

    This, I am sure, is only a very short list. Anyone have a complete list?

    Mike, this list is far from complete, but I hope it fills in some lacunae:

    Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide
    (Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons, Volume 12, Number 3, 2007)
    – Arthur B. Robinson, Noah E. Robinson, Willie Soon

    Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide
    (Climate Research, Vol. 13, Pg. 149–164, October 26 1999)
    – Arthur B. Robinson, Zachary W. Robinson, Willie Soon, Sallie L. Baliunas

    Are observed changes in the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere really dangerous?
    (Bulletin of Canadian Petroleum Geology,v. 50, no. 2, p. 297-327, June 2002)
    – C. R. de Freitas

    Can increasing carbon dioxide cause climate change?
    (Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, Vol. 94, pp. 8335-8342, August 1997)
    – Richard S. Lindzen

    Can we believe in high climate sensitivity?
    (arXiv:physics/0612094v1, Dec 11 2006)
    – J. D. Annan, J. C. Hargreaves

    http://www.tech-know.eu/uploads/AGW_hypothesis_disproved.pdf

    Climate change: Conflict of observational science, theory, and politics
    (AAPG Bulletin, Vol. 88, no9, pp. 1211-1220, 2004)
    – Lee C. Gerhard

    – Climate change: Conflict of observational science, theory, and politics: Reply
    (AAPG Bulletin, v. 90, no. 3, p. 409-412, March 2006)
    – Lee C. Gerhard

    Climate change in the Arctic and its empirical diagnostics
    (Energy & Environment, Volume 10, Number 5, pp. 469-482, September 1999)
    – V.V. Adamenko, K.Y. Kondratyev, C.A. Varotsos

    Climate Change Re-examined
    (Journal of Scientific Exploration, Vol. 21, No. 4, pp. 723–749, 2007)
    – Joel M. Kauffman

    CO2-induced global warming: a skeptic’s view of potential climate change
    (Climate Research, Vol. 10: 69–82, 1999
    – Sherwood B. Idso

    Crystal balls, virtual realities and ’storylines’
    (Energy & Environment, Volume 12, Number 4, pp. 343-349, July 2001)
    – R.S. Courtney

    Dangerous global warming remains unproven
    (Energy & Environment, Volume 18, Number 1, pp. 167-169, January 2007)
    – R.M. Carter

    Does CO2 really drive global warming?
    (Energy & Environment, Volume 12, Number 4, pp. 351-355, July 2001)
    – R.H. Essenhigh

    Does human activity widen the tropics?
    (arXiv:0803.1959v1, Mar 13 200
    – Katya Georgieva, Boian Kirov

    Earth’s rising atmospheric CO2 concentration: Impacts on the biosphere
    (Energy & Environment, Volume 12, Number 4, pp. 287-310, July 2001)
    – C.D. Idso

    Evidence for “publication Bias” Concerning Global Warming in Science and Nature
    (Energy & Environment, Volume 19, Number 2, pp. 287-301, March 200
    – Patrick J. Michaels

    Global Warming
    (Progress in Physical Geography, 27, 448-455, 2003)
    – W. Soon, S. L. Baliunas

    Global Warming: The Social Construction of A Quasi-Reality?
    (Energy & Environment, Volume 18, Number 6, pp. 805-813, November 2007)
    – Dennis Ambler

    Global warming and the mining of oceanic methane hydrate
    (Topics in Catalysis, Volume 32, Numbers 3-4, pp. 95-99, March 2005)
    – Chung-Chieng Lai, David Dietrich, Malcolm Bowman

    Global Warming: Forecasts by Scientists Versus Scientific Forecasts
    (Energy & Environment, Volume 18, Numbers 7-8, pp. 997-1021, December 2007)
    – Keston C. Green, J. Scott Armstrong

    Global Warming: Myth or Reality? The Actual Evolution of the Weather Dynamics
    (Energy & Environment, Volume 14, Numbers 2-3, pp. 297-322, May 2003)
    – M. Leroux

    Global Warming: the Sacrificial Temptation
    (arXiv:0803.1239v1, Mar 10 200
    – Serge Galam

    Global warming: What does the data tell us?
    (arXiv:physics/0210095v1, Oct 23 2002)
    – E. X. Alban, B. Hoeneisen

    Human Contribution to Climate Change Remains Questionable
    (Eos, Transactions American Geophysical Union, Volume 80, Issue 16, p. 183-183, April 20, 1999)
    – S. Fred Singer

    Industrial CO2 emissions as a proxy for anthropogenic influence on lower tropospheric temperature trends
    (Geophysical Research Letters, Vol. 31, L05204, 2004)
    – A. T. J. de Laat, A. N. Maurellis

    Implications of the Secondary Role of Carbon Dioxide and Methane Forcing in Climate Change: Past, Present, and Future
    (Physical Geography, Volume 28, Number 2, pp. 97-125(29), March 2007)
    – Soon, Willie

    Is a Richer-but-warmer World Better than Poorer-but-cooler Worlds?
    (Energy & Environment, Volume 18, Numbers 7-8, pp. 1023-1048, December 2007)
    – Indur M. Goklany

    Methodology and Results of Calculating Central California Surface Temperature Trends: Evidence of Human-Induced Climate Change?
    (Journal of Climate, Volume: 19 Issue: 4, February 2006)
    – Christy, J.R., W.B. Norris, K. Redmond, K. Gallo

    Modeling climatic effects of anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions: unknowns and uncertainties
    (Climate Research, Vol. 18: 259–275, 2001)
    – Willie Soon, Sallie Baliunas, Sherwood B. Idso, Kirill Ya. Kondratyev, Eric S. Posmentier

    – Modeling climatic effects of anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions: unknowns and uncertainties. Reply to Risbey (2002)
    (Climate Research, Vol. 22: 187–188, 2002)
    – Willie Soon, Sallie Baliunas, Sherwood B. Idso, Kirill Ya. Kondratyev, Eric S. Posmentier

    – Modeling climatic effects of anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions: unknowns and uncertainties. Reply to Karoly et al.
    (Climate Research, Vol. 24: 93–94, 2003)
    – Willie Soon, Sallie Baliunas, Sherwood B. Idso, Kirill Ya. Kondratyev, Eric S. Posmentier

    On global forces of nature driving the Earth’s climate. Are humans involved?
    (Environmental Geology, Volume 50, Number 6, August 2006)
    – L. F. Khilyuk and G. V. Chilingar

    On a possibility of estimating the feedback sign of the Earth climate system
    (Proceedings of the Estonian Academy of Sciences: Engineering. Vol. 13, no. 3, pp. 260-268. Sept. 2007)
    – Olavi Kamer

    Phanerozoic Climatic Zones and Paleogeography with a Consideration of Atmospheric CO2 Levels
    (Paleontological Journal, 2: 3-11, 2003)
    – A. J. Boucot, Chen Xu, C. R. Scotese

    Quantifying the influence of anthropogenic surface processes and inhomogeneities on gridded global climate data
    (Journal of Geophysical Research, Vol. 112, D24S09, 2007)
    – Ross R. McKitrick, Patrick J. Michaels

    Quantitative implications of the secondary role of carbon dioxide climate forcing in the past glacial-interglacial cycles for the likely future climatic impacts of anthropogenic greenhouse-gas forcings
    (arXiv:0707.1276, July 2007)
    – Soon, Willie

    Scientific Consensus on Climate Change?
    (Energy & Environment, Volume 19, Number 2, pp. 281-286, March 200
    – Klaus-Martin Schulte

    Some Coolness Concerning Global Warming
    (Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, Volume 71, Issue 3, pp. 288–299, March 1990)
    – Richard S. Lindzen

    Some examples of negative feedback in the Earth climate system
    (Central European Journal of Physics, Volume 3, Number 2, June 2005)
    – Olavi Kärner

    Statistical analysis does not support a human influence on climate
    (Energy & Environment, Volume 13, Number 3, pp. 329-331, July 2002)
    – S. Fred Singer

    Taking GreenHouse Warming Seriously
    (Energy & Environment, Volume 18, Numbers 7-8, pp. 937-950, December 2007)
    – Richard S. Lindzen

    Temperature trends in the lower atmosphere
    (Energy & Environment, Volume 17, Number 5, pp. 707-714, September 2006)
    – Vincent Gray

    Temporal Variability in Local Air Temperature Series Shows Negative Feedback
    (Energy & Environment, Volume 18, Numbers 7-8, pp. 1059-1072, December 2007)
    – Olavi Kärner

    The Carbon dioxide thermometer and the cause of global warming
    (Energy & Environment, Volume 10, Number 1, pp. 1-18, January 1999)
    – N. Calder

    The Cause of Global Warming
    (Energy & Environment, Volume 11, Number 6, pp. 613-629, November 1, 2000)
    – Vincent Gray

    The Fraud Allegation Against Some Climatic Research of Wei-Chyung Wang
    (Energy & Environment, Volume 18, Numbers 7-8, pp. 985-995, December 2007)
    – Douglas J. Keenan

    The continuing search for an anthropogenic climate change signal: Limitations of correlation-based approaches
    (Geophysical Research Letters, Vol. 24, No. 18, Pages 2319–2322, 1997)
    – David R. Legates, Robert E. Davis

    The “Greenhouse Effect” as a Function of Atmospheric Mass
    (Energy & Environment, Volume 14, Numbers 2-3, pp. 351-356, 1 May 2003)
    – H. Jelbring

    The Interaction of Climate Change and the Carbon Dioxide Cycle
    (Energy & Environment, Volume 16, Number 2, pp. 217-238, March 2005)
    – A. Rörsch, R. Courtney, D. Thoenes

    The IPCC future projections: are they plausible?
    (Climate Research, Vol. 10: 155–162, August 199
    – Vincent Gray

    The IPCC: Structure, Processes and Politics Climate Change – the Failure of Science
    (Energy & Environment, Volume 18, Numbers 7-8, pp. 1073-1078, December 2007)
    – William J.R. Alexander

    The UN IPCC’s Artful Bias: Summary of Findings: Glaring Omissions, False Confidence and Misleading Statistics in the Summary for Policymakers
    (Energy & Environment, Volume 13, Number 3, pp. 311-328, July 2002)
    – Wojick D. E.

    “The Wernerian syndrome”; aspects of global climate change; an analysis of assumptions, data, and conclusions
    (Environmental Geosciences, v. 3, no. 4, p. 204-210, December 1996)
    – Lee C. Gerhard

    Uncertainties in assessing global warming during the 20th century: disagreement between key data sources
    (Energy & Environment, Volume 17, Number 5, pp. 685-706, September 2006)
    – Maxim Ogurtsov, Markus Lindholm

    Falsification Of The Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects Within The Frame Of Physics (Physics, arXiv:0707.1161)

    – Gerhard Gerlich, Ralf D. Tscheuschner

  316. Les Johnson (20:40:26) said:

    “But, I would love to hear your explanation of how heavy metal ratios in aerosols decreased over time, while aerosols, according to you and the IPCC, increased during the same time frame.

    Should be fascinating.”

    Well, the link you posted says this:

    “But it turns out pollution in southern Greenland was higher 100 years ago when North American and European economies ran on coal, before the advent of cleaner, more efficient coal burning technologies and the switch to oil and gas-based economies,” McConnell said.

    It turns out that coal use peaked around 1945, then declined until the 70’s, when it started increasing again:

    http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/aer/eh/frame.html (see figure 1)

    Of course, with pollution controls, modern coal use is a lot cleaner than it was early in the century.

    Early in the century we had lots of dirty coal, with lots of heavy metals in the emissions. Later in the century we had cleaner coal, plus other energy sources, with less heavy metals in the emissions.

    This IS fascinating! ;)

  317. From crosspatch (09:15:04) :

    “One explanation I have heard is that many stations lack a value for one or more months. These values are filled by using an average over time. This average is recalculated every month. So the temperature of a station (or nearby stations) reported this month can change the average value that is used to “fill” missing values in the past.

    Therefore, if we are alledgedly warming, and those warmer values are used to skew the past missing data, then the previous data would be rounded up by this “adjustment”.”

    Doesn’t this lead to a positive feedback loop? One new warm data point raises all past blanks that gives a new higher average that raises all past blanks?…

  318. Leif:
    Once again you have rocked my world, so thank you. Way back when I asked you about the IPCC report and it’s estimates of solar forcing you introduced me to the concept of the northern hemisphere receiving more energy than the southern. Then, with the sun as a constant- which I subscribe to whole heartedly now- I began to look at why, if it is a constant, there would be such a difference. The barycenter argument be damned, there is still an argument over the sensitivity of the earth relative to the distance from the sun through it’s orbital cycle. My damage was to assume that the ENSO evolution was related to the sun… less a few missing direct correlations. I have assumed that because of the lack of sunspot activity (the quick extra energy) that we were headed for a big cool. Coincidentally, NASA has found that the sun has dropped roughly 10% in it’s output since the beginning of cycle 23 using fly-by measurements. I assumed that the linkage was direct. You are telling me it is wrong, and I believe you. What I became alarmed at were graphs like: http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/stp/GEOMAG/image/aastar07.jpg
    and:

    My question is this: Are these readings partially related to the earth’s influence, or are the observations completely uncoupled.
    I need to go back to school…

  319. From Oldjim (09:23:38) :
    @Katherine
    i used this link for the data on CO2 annual increase
    end quote

    Whoa! How can one claim that CO2 is causing a steady increase in temps when it has huge year to year variations? If we put into the air far less than volcanoes, and the annual variation is far more than we put in, then something must be able to take out all we put in AND THEN SOME over the scale of a couple of years, for this chart to be possible(!)

    1998 2.93
    1999 0.94

    So did the world economy shrink by 2/3 in 1999? Did we all stop driving from May to December that year? If 1998 was a big volcano year, then we are less than 1/3 of a ‘typical’ volcano year even if every other source is ignored, and at least 2 times that much can be sucked out of the air in a year so we can’t move the system…

  320. From Andy Beasley (17:09:49) :
    evanjones

    I understand that by using statistics one can get a number that has more precision than the original data. The problem is that when the original data is not correct, no amount of oversampling will make it correct. The reading error is plus or minus 0.5 degrees if the thermometer is in 1 degree increments.
    end quote

    Um, you left out the fact that the actual temperature observed is not what is reported. The temp sheets sent in only report full degrees. If it’s 85.4 real and is read as 85.5 it will be reported as 86.

  321. Chris V. said: So , as the CO2 forcing increased from 1960 to today, what did the temeperature do? It Increased rather significantly.
    end Chris V. quote.

    Don’t you mean to say: It increased rather significantly from 1960 to 1998 then dropped from 1998 to 2007 then it plunged in 2008.

    BTW, the 1960’s were a particularly cool time. Snowed twice in my home town in California. Something very very rarely seen. Before or since.

    FWIW, I think that whatever effect CO2 might have as a GHG, it reached saturation long ago, is swamped by H20, and we need all of it we can get to hold off “The Al Gore Cold Period” that is headed our way as we enter a period of low solar output rather like that from the Dalton Minimum era. The solar system configuration now is most like it was then and the sun has shut down sunspots dramatically. 1300 w / m2 swamps 2w/m2 especially if the 2 are fictional.

  322. L.Svalgard

    IMHO, the reason the solar connection is so emphasized is that people need a simple, direct, and ‘obvious’ alternative to AGW. If you are anti-AGW and arguing against an avid AGWer, he has a clear mechanism. If your only mechanism is an appeal to unknown, random, interval, chaotic fluctuations, he eats your lunch, hence your strong support for a solar cause.

    Strongly disagree .
    An understandable statement from somebody who writes papers about sun but no .
    “Avid AGWers” are easy to counter for the simple reason that climate “science” is not science .
    A science (yes , I entirely support Popper’s definition) to be science has to make falsifiable statements .
    So far I know of only 1 falsifiable statement that needed 20 years to appear (AR4) and that consists to predict a central GMT trend of 0,2 °C/decade .
    Well it is currently falsified with 95 % confidence level .

    Is there really a simple , direct and “obvious” AGW mechanism ?
    Clearly no as shows S.McIntyre’s demand to have a comprehensive , consistent , engineering quality derivation of the relationship between GMT and CO2 concentration . 1 year after this demand has not yet been met .
    The only pseudo-scientific circular argument is to say that this relationship is a result of GCM runs .

    So then you can ask why should you trust unaudited runs of a large number of computer models that contradict each other . Crickets .

    You can also ask why the assumption of thermodynamical equilibrium applied to highly irreversible non equilibrium processes should give relevant answers . Crickets . What would say statistical equilibrium thermodynamics about the time evolution of the Rayleigh-Benard flow ? Garbage .

    You can also get more technical if you have experience with chaos dynamics and ask why there should be a specific time scale (30 years) at which fluctuations “cancel” . Crickets . Then after a while mumbling about “random processes not well understood” .
    So about everything that doesn’t fit the naive thesis that GMT = a.[CO2] + b is random , preferrably “gaussian” and “cancels” ?
    Not very compelling .
    The only thing that the data obviously show is that those postulated random processes are apparently stronger than the postulated CO2 “signal” .

    So why would it be necessary to substitute to a naive , deterministic linear relation based on CO2 and contradicting computer models another naive , deterministic relation based on the sun and contradicting computer models ?
    Following the wise word of Einstein that “Everything should be made as simple as possible but not simpler .” it seems clear to me that the AGWers try to make it much simpler than necessary .
    Any dissipative system supplied with energy is known to exhibit a huge amount of internal variability .
    It presents an infinity of pseudo trends at all time scales but also different stable structures between which it switches . Nothing simple in that but not random either .
    There are some things that can be predicted about such systems and some that cannot .
    Such systems may react strongly on very weak variation of some parameters and weakly on very strong variations of other parameters .
    The climate is exactly such a system as the observation of the past billion years shows and ignoring or neglecting those facts is not science .

  323. Les Johnson,

    Your post @20:40 raises a very good point. Chris V. attempted to refute it @ 22:40, but his answer was much too provincial, limiting the discussion to only the U.S. It’s a big world out there, and he may be unaware that China is currently building an average of two new coal fired power plants every week, and plans to continue building at this pace until at least 2024 .

    Chris V’s statement that “CO2 is not the only thing that affects the climate. But increasing CO2 provides a long-term positive forcing” assumes that CO2 does, in fact, affect the climate, and that it is a positive climate forcing mechanism.

    But both of these are entirely unproven assumptions, based on always-inaccurate computer models. There is no empirical evidence that CO2 is either a positive forcing agent, or that CO2 affects the climate to any measurable degree. It’s worthwhile to discuss the pros and cons of climate forcings, but it is overstepping to take for granted either one of those assumptions; both may be as wrong as the computer models that generated them.

    Regarding coal use, most of us know that China uses no stack scrubbers or other pollution abatement technology. They burn the coal and the soot and fly ash are carried around the world by the wind. China already exceeds the U.S. in coal use, and they continue to steadily ramp up. Furthermore, China’s current coal consumption is significantly greater than that of the U.S. at its peak.

    Those facts should be kept in mind when reading Chris V’s statement, which only refers to the U.S.:

    It turns out that coal use peaked around 1945, then declined until the 70’s, when it started increasing again…

    Of course, with pollution controls, modern coal use is a lot cleaner than it was early in the century.

    In other words, the U.S. has cleaned up its act, while developing countries are the culprits when it comes to soot emissions [and China is only one example; India, Russia, Brazil, and a hundred smaller countries are doing the same thing].

    Now that that particular argument has been disposed of, no doubt there will be another, and another, and another — all distracting us from the central issue: why is GISS manipulating, adjusting and massaging the temperature record, while refusing to disclose the raw data? If Chris V or anyone else can provide a credible answer to that question, we would be very interested in hearing it.

  324. hengav (00:25:44) :
    What I became alarmed at were graphs like: http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/stp/GEOMAG/image/aastar07.jpg

    There are three factors that contribute to the trends seen in the Figures you cite:
    (1) the aa-index is too low before 1957, see http://www.leif.org/research/Analysis%20of%20K=0%20and%201%20for%20aa%20and%20NGK.pdf
    (2) the sunspot number is too low before 1946, see http://www.leif.org/research/De%20maculis%20in%20Sole%20observatis.pdf
    (3) the Earth’s dipole magnetic field has decreased 10% the last 150 years. This decrease enhances the effect of solar activity on the Earth.

    E.M.Smith (02:59:48) :
    The solar system configuration now is most like it was then and the sun has shut down sunspots dramatically. 1300 w / m2 swamps 2w/m2 especially if the 2 are fictional.
    Shutting down sunspots decreases the 1300 w/m2 by 1 w/m2 and is swamped by the 1300…

    TomVonk (03:50:51) :
    “he eats your lunch, hence your strong support for a solar cause.”
    Strongly disagree .
    [...] “Avid AGWers” are easy to counter for the simple reason that climate “science” is not science .

    If they are so easy to counter then why is there the debate? The issue is not whether something is science or correct, but solely what the perception is. The whole debate is pseudo-science so a pseudo mechanism [the Solar connection] is fitting.

  325. Let’s not belabor the “cooler can’t heat warmer” point. No “direct heating” takes place of the warmer object — instead it can’t cool-off as much if something in the ambient field-of-view is warmer than that of the ambient field. In earth’s case, the ambient field is outer space at only alittle above absolute zero.

    So in the case of the earth/moon, if the moon’s radiational temp is greater than the outer-space background (it is, even if it’s cooler than earth), then that reduces the radiational cooling of the earth by some amount in the direction of the moon, and earth’s temp rises (very slightly).

    The same happens on earth’s surface. If anything (GHGs) make the cooling background — the night sky — alittle warmer than it would be otherwise (even if cooler than the surface itself), it will reduce the rate of cooling & the temp on the surface will rise by some amount.

  326. Richard Sharpe (19:20:32) :
    ” Another one of those death spirals that has never happened. I seem to recall being told that climates were very hot in the past (many millions to hundreds of millions of years ago).”

    At the end of the Permian a ‘death spiral’ happened. The largest extinction on the planet triggered off by global warming caused by increased CO2.

  327. TomVonk (03:50:51) :

    I second this post. In addition there are another three falsifiable and falsified “predictions” of the IPCC AR4 report:

    1) The fingerprint of CO2 in the tropical troposphere as set out in the AR4 report is absent in the data. Here are the links
    for models:

    http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-chapter9.pdf

    and for data:

    2) The oceans are cooling instead of warming and setting off a feedback loop of greenhouse warming: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=88520025
    The spin is: global warming missing heat. The truth is, nature does not follow the GCM IPCC models.

    3) the specific humidity is not rising as it should in order to create the runaway feedback loop predicated in the models:

    http://www.cdc.noaa.gov/cgi-bin/Timeseries/timeseries.pl?ntype=1&var=Specific+Humidity+(up+to+300mb+only)&level=300&lat1=90&lat2=-90&lon1=-180&lon2=180&iseas=1&mon1=0&mon2=11&iarea=0&typeout=2&Submit=Create+Timeseries

    One may have to copy and paste the links.

  328. Leif – Chris V.

    http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/vapor_warming.html

    Nobody I know doubts this.

    Climate Change 2001:
    Working Group I: The Scientific Basis

    Since the time of the SAR, annual land precipitation has continued to increase in the middle and high latitudes of the Northern Hemisphere (very likely to be 0.5 to 1%/decade), except over Eastern Asia. Over the sub-tropics (10°N to 30°N), land-surface rainfall has decreased on average (likely to be about 0.3%/decade), although this has shown signs of recovery in recent years. Tropical land-surface precipitation measurements indicate that precipitation likely has increased by about 0.2 to 0.3%/ decade over the 20th century, but increases are not evident over the past few decades and the amount of tropical land (versus ocean) area for the latitudes 10°N to 10°S is relatively small. Nonetheless, direct measurements of precipitation and model reanalyses of inferred precipitation indicate that rainfall has also increased over large parts of the tropical oceans. Where and when available, changes in annual streamflow often relate well to changes in total precipitation. The increases in precipitation over Northern Hemisphere mid- and high latitude land areas have a strong correlation to long-term increases in total cloud amount.

    Notes on data released May 7, 2008:
    The La Nina Pacific Ocean cooling event continues to push temperatures in the tropics downward, with the tropical troposphere chilling for the second consecutive month to its coolest temperature since the La Nina of 1989, according to Dr. John Christy, director of the Earth System Science Center at The University of Alabama in Huntsville

    Probable few people doubt increasing vapour content in the atsmosphere. Many doubt the authors’ conclusions that increasing vapor acts as positive feedback to [CO2] increases.

    Non-physicist mathematics:

    More vapor = more vapor converted to more precipitation = more cooling in troposphere.

  329. Mary Hinge said:

    At the end of the Permian a ‘death spiral’ happened. The largest extinction on the planet triggered off by global warming caused by increased CO2.

    Got some proof of that assertion? Were you there monitoring the CO2? Or was that a WAG?

    Here’s a chart showing CO2 falling during the Permian, as the temperature rises. Also note that CO2 levels during the Permian weren’t much different than today’s levels. So what, exactly, ‘triggered’ this ‘death spiral’?

  330. Tim Clark (09:03:37) :
    “http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/vapor_warming.html
    Nobody I know doubts this.”

    Probable few people doubt increasing vapour content in the atsmosphere. Many doubt the authors’ conclusions that increasing vapor acts as positive feedback to [CO2] increases.

    Non-physicist mathematics:

    More vapor = more vapor converted to more precipitation = more cooling in troposphere.

    If there were no CO2 at all, H20 would still be a very powerful greenhouse gas raising the Earth’s temperature by some 30 degrees. This has nothing to do with CO2.

    anna v (08:36:24) :
    TomVonk (03:50:51) :
    I second this post. In addition there are another three falsifiable and falsified “predictions” of the IPCC AR4 report

    I think both of you misunderstood my post and went off on a rail of your own. My point was that it matters not what the science is [falsifiable, etc] but what people’s misguided perception is. The pseudo-science CO2 argument is battling the pseudo-science Solar-connection argument [even though the former sometimes needs the latter] and in this pseudo-science battle the scientific ‘internal oscillation argument loses.

  331. Tim Clark (09:03:37) :

    I doubt it.

    It is spin.
    from your link:

    Because the new precise observations agree with existing assessments of water vapor’s impact, researchers are more confident than ever in model predictions that Earth’s leading greenhouse gas will contribute to a temperature rise of a few degrees by the end of the century.

    Of course water vapor is the the main greenhouse gas. Of course heat will be trapped.
    What else is new.

    The study does not establish the CO2 to water vapor link except by hand waving reference to computer models. ( Great is Allah and Mohamet His prophet)

    The links I provided above show the oceans are cooling, and the specific humidity is dropping where it should be rising.

  332. To borrow a phrase: I think both of you misunderstood my post and went off on a rail of your own.

    Leif Svalgaard (09:29:52) :
    If there were no CO2 at all, H20 would still be a very powerful greenhouse gas raising the Earth’s temperature by some 30 degrees. This has nothing to do with CO2.

    I concur with the nothing part.

    anna v (09:33:30) :
    I doubt it.

    I agree with you also Anna V.
    My ranting was against the authors’ obligatory non-data verified suppositional add-add-ons that:

    The answer can be found by estimating the magnitude of water vapor feedback.

    Increasing water vapor leads to warmer temperatures, which causes more water vapor to be absorbed into the air. Warming and water absorption increase in a spiraling cycle.

    Water vapor feedback can also amplify the warming effect of other greenhouse gases, such that the warming brought about by increased carbon dioxide allows more water vapor to enter the atmosphere.

    Note the word estimating!

  333. Leif,

    It is true that AGW is pseudo science, I get your point:
    You are trying to explain why the contra argument is attracted by the TSI arguments.

    We should not stop at making observations, we should emphasize correct science, (which you are doing for solar, btw,) on all fronts.

    We have to establish the correct science, and convince as many as we can of our fellow scientists, who indifferently accept the AGW arguments, trusting on the scientific integrity of scientists of other fields. That is where the problem is, because I am sure that any scientist who makes the effort to understand what is going on with AGW , will immediately turn skeptical.

    TSI is a red herring in this context.

  334. Chris V: your

    Early in the century we had lots of dirty coal, with lots of heavy metals in the emissions. Later in the century we had cleaner coal, plus other energy sources, with less heavy metals in the emissions.

    Which means, early in the century, there was more aerosols, especially as there was little pollution control, during a period of increasing warmth.

    As you say, coal peaked in about 1945. With this reduction in coal, comes a reduction in aerosols, especially pre-pollution control; and the temperature fell.

  335. Chris V: your

    Later in the century we had cleaner coal,

    We didn’t have cleaner coal, per se. We learned to burn it cleaner, by taking the aerosols out. If we take the aerosols out, the attached heavy metals don’t make it into the wild.

    As shown by the Greenland ice cores.

  336. anna v (10:00:19) :
    I get your point:
    You are trying to explain why the contra argument is attracted by the TSI arguments.

    and by the cosmic ray/planetary alignments/etc arguments…

  337. Tim Clark sayeth:

    Increasing water vapor leads to warmer temperatures, which causes more water vapor to be absorbed into the air. Warming and water absorption increase in a spiraling cycle.

    So how do clouds figure into the equation, or are they unrelated to water vapor?

    At some point the clouds caused by increased water vapor reflect enough sunlight that the incoming energy goes down … and then …

  338. Chris V: http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/vapor_warming.html

    This research confirms the positive water-vapor feedback, just as predicted by models.”

    That’s the biggest lot of nonsense I’ve ever seen.

    Let’s see now. An increase in temperature because of CO2, or other greenhouse gases, causes more water vapor, which increases the temperature, which causes more water vapor, which increases the temperature…..

    The fatal flaw here is the assumption that it takes the warming from CO2, or any other greenhouse gas with the exception of water vapor to trigger the warming but, once this is done, the temperature increase from water vapor keeps the ‘spiral’ going.

    How come the temperature increase from current water vapor levels (above what the temperature would be in the absence of water vapor) doesn’t by itself trigger the ‘spiral’ in the first place?

    “It’s a consequence of basic physics.”

    Depends on which fantasy universe you happen to occupy.

  339. Water vapors, carbon dioxides and other possible warming elements only indicates (GISS, HADLEY, RUSS MSU and UAH MSU Temperature/carbon charts) that temperature/climate/weather are all cyclical.

  340. Richard Sharpe (11:16:40) :

    You know, I need someone to tell me how to italcize on this blog. It is confusing to know what I’m writing and what I’ pasting. The three paragraphs:
    [ The answer can be found by estimating the magnitude of water vapor feedback.

    Increasing water vapor leads to warmer temperatures, which causes more water vapor to be absorbed into the air. Warming and water absorption increase in a spiraling cycle.

    Water vapor feedback can also amplify the warming effect of other greenhouse gases, such that the warming brought about by increased carbon dioxide allows more water vapor to enter the atmosphere. ]

    were from the article, not mine. I was stating, (apparently not coherently), that I did not agree with the article, hence the “Note the word estimating!”

    Yes clouds are involved.

  341. Well, if you want to set something off that you are quoting, you have a couple of ways, both of which involve surrounding the text you are quoting with HTML tags.

    Eg, <b> some text </b> should appear as some text

    <blockquote>
    However, if you surround your text with the blockquote opening and closing tags as above and below, your text will appear indented.
    </blockquote>

    How’s that for a short intro.

  342. Les Johnson (14:22:30) :
    NASA has detected a large number of cosmic rays, probably from a local source; local being a kiloparsec.

    These are rare. From the blurp:
    “During five weeks of ballooning in 2000 and 2003, ATIC counted 70 excess electrons in the energy range 300-800 GeV”
    so don’t do much for the climate.

    Tim Clark (13:39:21) :
    I need someone to tell me how to italcize on this blog.

    <i>in italic</i> ==> in italic
    <b>in bold</b> ===>
    in bold

  343. Leif Svalgaard (14:38:31) :

    As you can see, you have to type that VERY carefully :-)

    Les Johnson (14:22:30) :
    NASA has detected a large number of cosmic rays, probably from a local source; local being a kiloparsec.

    These are rare. From the blurp:
    “During five weeks of ballooning in 2000 and 2003, ATIC counted 70 excess electrons in the energy range 300-800 GeV”
    so don’t do much for the climate.

    Tim Clark (13:39:21) :
    I need someone to tell me how to italcize on this blog.

    <i>in italic</i> ==> in italic
    <b>in bold</b> ==> in bold

  344. Peter (11:57:58) said:
    The fatal flaw here is the assumption that it takes the warming from CO2, or any other greenhouse gas with the exception of water vapor to trigger the warming but, once this is done, the temperature increase from water vapor keeps the ’spiral’ going.

    How come the temperature increase from current water vapor levels (above what the temperature would be in the absence of water vapor) doesn’t by itself trigger the ’spiral’ in the first place?

    Read that article again; they documented the increase in water vapor with warming in general. Warming from any source (e.g. greenhouse gases, increasing solar….) will increase the absolute humidity.

    The existence of this positive feedback to warming has been disputed by many in the skeptical community.

    The reason that the greenhouse effect from water vapor does not spiral temeratures out of control is because there is another phenomenon that removes water vapor from the atmosphere. This phenomenon is called “rain”.

    However, at higher temperatures, it takes more absolute humidity to get water to condense and form rainclouds. So, if the atmosphere warms up, the absolute humidity level of the atmosphere must increase until a new equilibrium is reached.

    As I said before, this is basic physics. In this universe.

  345. Les Johnson (10:20:39) :

    You’re trying to glean more from that paper than is in there. The authors of the paper concluded that the change in heavy metals was the result of the switch to the cleaner use of fuels. They do not mention aerosols.

    Maybe someone will take their results, do the calculations, and figure out what this means in regard to aerosols (both the cooling ones, and the warming ones). Until then, it’s just speculation.

  346. Tim Clark (13:39:21) :
    I need someone to tell me how to italicize on this blog.

    in italic ==> in italic
    in bold ==> in bold

    Richard Sharpe (14:33:47) :

    Well, if you want to set something off that you are quoting, you have a couple of ways, both of which involve surrounding the text you are quoting with HTML tags.

    Eg, some text should appear as some text

    However, if you surround your text with the blockquote opening and closing tags as above and below, your text will appear indented.

    Thanks, aged individual, = novice blogger

    If it’s any consolation, I still know Fortran.

  347. Tim said:

    If it’s any consolation, I still know Fortran.

    My first was Basic on mark sense cards. Then Fortran on a PDP 11/40 … Then Pascal, then Simula 67, later PL1, then some crazy assembly hodgepodge called TML, but it’s been mostly C and C++ (with a smattering of scripting languages) for a long time now.

  348. Chris V: your

    You’re trying to glean more from that paper than is in there. The authors of the paper concluded that the change in heavy metals was the result of the switch to the cleaner use of fuels. They do not mention aerosols.

    Aerosols are pollutants. Cleaner fuels have less pollutants.

    Just as oxygen isotopes can be proxies for temperature, so can heavy metals in ice, be proxies for aerosols.

    There is no way for heavy metals to be deposited in Greenland ice, except as aerosols.

  349. Leif Svalgaard (10:43:43) :

    ” anna v (10:00:19) :
    I get your point:
    You are trying to explain why the contra argument is attracted by the TSI arguments.”

    and by the cosmic ray/planetary alignments/etc arguments…”

    Well, I am partial to cosmic rays, not the high energy ones of course, which are rare, so I would exclude them from your list.

    I started my graduate work with a spark chamber triggered by cosmic rays :). There is about 1 muon per cm per second at sea level (all energies over a few MeV) , if I remember the ball park correctly. Must be many more higher up ( absorption/decay/scatter). This is the kind I would check for influencing cloud formation/ albedo etc. Not galactic ones per se.

    As far as I am concerned, it is clear that it is the albedo that controls heating and cooling and any mechanism that can affect it is worthy of study ( not of dogmatism).
    I suspect though that in the end we will establish that it is the chaotic oscillations of the ocean/land/atmosphere system that are driving everything, and everything else is a small perturbation.

  350. Simple documentation showing that temperatures has not rised the last 9 years and 8 months. (- And counting!)

    For GISS, i can go back to Jan 2001 and still have flat trend curve, thats 7 years and 10 mths.

    For RSS, i can go back to feb 1997 and still have a flat trend curve. Thats 11 years 9 months.

    Average: 9 years 8 months.

    I have included thr trend of the Hansen B curve, the “plausable” curve…

  351. L.Svalgard

    If they are so easy to counter then why is there the debate? The issue is not whether something is science or correct, but solely what the perception is. The whole debate is pseudo-science so a pseudo mechanism [the Solar connection] is fitting.

    Why is there debate ? Do you really ignore that or was it only a rhetorical question ?

    There is debate because it is easier to do pseudo-science than science .
    Especially if the pseudo-science can be wrapped up in millions of lines of “creative” algorithms that makes it effectively opaque for any inquiring mind .

    There is debate because people discovered that it is easier to obtain chairs , budgets and media attention if one behaved like Nostradamus and frequented political seminaries in exotic places (Hansen , Schmidt , Pachauri etc) instead of doing hard work and publishing .

    There is debate because Nostradamuses always easily gather uncritical followers who don’t understand complicated issues and prefer empty propaganda- “CO2 pollutes and kills . Let’s save the planet .”

    I agree with you that THIS debate is not even pseudo-scientific .
    But as science is taken in hostage by the Nostradamuses , a scientist can’t avoid it .
    Indeed it is easy to satellise a “rabid AGWer” with scientific arguments but what is not easy is to convince him that scientific arguments actually count .

    As for the Sun , well , like AnnaV I consider that the 2 by far most important factors in climate evolution is the cloudiness because it governs albedo and the large scale oceans’ behaviour because that’s where the energy is . A far third interacting with both previous factors would be the water phase changes because there is a lot of energy flow and storage too .

    The Sun plays a role in the behaviour of those dominating factors and as it is ultimately THE engine of the whole Earth system it can’t be discounted .
    Of course an argument that some parameter , sunny or otherwise , varies “only” by 0,1% never automatically means that its influence can be neglected in a chaotic system .
    Sometimes it is yes and sometimes it is no . Never possible to say without a good understanding of the system and a deep study .

    For me there is clearly no naive , direct , immediate , deterministic link between some Sun parameters and some climate parameters like temporal averages of regional temperatures .
    But there may be low intensity , indirect , time delayed “nudges” that play a very important role in the evolution of the climate trajectories .
    The former is uninteresting but the latter is .

  352. Chris V., your water-vapor feedback, if true, occurs during any temp change, whatever it’s caused by, not just CO2.

    Latest analyses of water-vapor trends do not show any appreciable increase, in fact, decreasing slightly at most altitudes.

  353. TomVonk (03:16:07) :
    There is debate because it is easier to do pseudo-science than science .
    You miss the whole point. At least, ‘anna v’ got it.
    As for the Sun , well , like AnnaV I consider that the 2 by far most important factors in climate evolution is the cloudiness because it governs albedo and the large scale oceans’ behaviour because that’s where the energy is
    Again you are so angry at the AGW crowd, that you miss the whole point: the all-important clouds and albedo vary together, but do not vary with the solar cycle, as far as our observations go, e.g. http://www.leif.org/research/cloud-cover.png and http://www.leif.org/research/albedo.png

    The Sun [...] is ultimately THE engine of the whole Earth system it can’t be discounted.
    Again, you miss the whole point. You are falling back on the tired old argument: ‘turn off the Sun and see what you get’. Even if the Sun was absolutely constant [which it very nearly is] the climate system would probably still have its chaotic swings.

    The pseudo-science that involves the Sun is rooted in the [desperate] need for a mechanism, any mechanism, to counter what the AGW crowd think is their mechanism, right or wrong doesn’t matter as it is their perception and beliefs that counts for them. In any debate or discussion with an AGWer the question will come up as to what causes climate change. He will have his mechanism and what do you have? random fluctuations? He’ll laugh at you! so you fall back on the old crutch: it is the Sun, and eventually [as you just did to me] you’ll spring the turn-off-the-sun trick on him. You should not counter bad science with worse science.

  354. Chris V:

    Read that article again; they documented the increase in water vapor with warming in general. Warming from any source (e.g. greenhouse gases, increasing solar….) will increase the absolute humidity.

    I did read and understand what was written, but that’s beside the point.

    The existence of this positive feedback to warming has been disputed by many in the skeptical community.

    Higher temperatures, from any source, will increase water vapor, assuming there’s water around to be evaporated. That’s not in dispute. What is in dispute is whether this gives rise to negative, positive or neutral feedback. (see the point on ‘rain’ below)

    The reason that the greenhouse effect from water vapor does not spiral temeratures out of control is because there is another phenomenon that removes water vapor from the atmosphere. This phenomenon is called “rain”.

    And that phenomenon called ‘rain’, as well as cloud formation, also removes heat from the (lower) atmosphere and the surface – including that which results from ‘greenhouse’ gases.

    However, at higher temperatures, it takes more absolute humidity to get water to condense and form rainclouds. So, if the atmosphere warms up, the absolute humidity level of the atmosphere must increase until a new equilibrium is reached.

    Temperatures in the tropics (especially daytime temperatures) are much higher than the global ‘average’ so the absolute humidity must be higher as well – conversely, temperatures in the polar regions are much colder than global averages. If water vapor was a positive feedback then tropical temperatures would rise much faster than polar temperatures in response to rising CO2 levels. But indications are that the opposite is happening – strongly suggestive of an overall negative feedback.

  355. ” Leif Svalgaard (10:04:11) :

    TomVonk (03:16:07) :
    There is debate because it is easier to do pseudo-science than science.”

    Leif, Tom, here is where the debate has lead us:
    It’s demogogy wrapped in pseudo science.

    President Obama in under fifty words:
    “Few challenges facing America — and the world — are more urgent than combating climate change. The science is beyond dispute and the facts are clear. Sea levels are rising. Coastlines are shrinking. We’ve seen record drought, spreading famine and storms that are growing stronger with each passing hurricane season.”

    Response from Alan Sullivan:
    The facts are indeed clear. Sea level is not rising, according to data from 3000 newly deployed Argo buoys. Drought is not increasing. The dollar damage of floods and hurricanes has risen only because there is more developed property in the path of these natural disasters. Their frequency and severity are not changing. There is dearth but no famine in the world today — however famine will come, if green policies are pursued with sufficient zeal.

    Who is going to debunk the President elect statement in fifty words and win the debate? Is there any debate to win?
    Published at: http://www.seablogger.com/?p=12260#comments

  356. Ron de Haan (11:44:12) :
    Leif, Tom, here is where the debate has lead us:
    It’s demagogy wrapped in pseudo science.

    And let us not add the ‘Solar Connection’ to the pseudo science. The climate is changing as it always is and we just have to learn to live with it and adapt to it, as we always have. This will benefit some and hurt some, as it always has. In a sense, I’m arguing for Anthony to even drop the solar interest [and me] :-) except it may be useful to keep reminding people that ‘it is not the Sun, stupid’.

  357. Leif:

    In any debate or discussion with an AGWer the question will come up as to what causes climate change. He will have his mechanism and what do you have? random fluctuations?

    Why should skeptics have to come up with some alternate mechanism to explain what’s happening, when nobody is really sure what is happening, or if it’s substantially different to what has always been happening? It’s up to those who propose a theory to prove it. It’s not sufficient to say that the theory is right because we can’t (or won’t) think of anything else it could be. The best the rest of us can do is to point out flaws (and there are many) in the theory.

    At the time (1981) that Hansen published his paper on global warming, it was a theory of what could happen in future times – the trend in global temperatures was still decidedly downwards, as it had been for several decades, and upswings and downswings in the trend were regarded as ‘random fluctuations’ which nobody bothered to try explain. If not for the global warming theory, they would probably still be regarded as ‘random fluctuations’ of poorly-known mechanisms.

    There simply wasn’t enough, or accurate enough data (and still isn’t) to explain these fluctuations, due to the various known and unknown cycles and processes involved being decades to centuries or more in length.

    However, some AGWers are so set in their beliefs that I think they’d still be arguing the toss after several decades of sharp cooling.

  358. Leif,
    It’s not the sun and it’s not CO2.

    So what’s the cause of a Dalton or Maunder Minimum if it’s not the sun?
    I think a lot of scientists have to go back to school and a lot of scientific reports and publication are fit for the fire place.

    The biggest question I have is how to stop the current AGW hysteria and the draconian and incredible stupid government policies directed at reducing carbon emissions.

  359. Peter (12:24:47) :
    “Why should skeptics have to come up with some alternate mechanism to explain what’s happening”

    Simple, if you want to be taken seriously in a scientific context you need an alternative mechanism. if you want to carry on doing the easy stuff of deconstructing theories instead of being constructive than carry on blah blahing in blogland.

    REPLY: Well, Mary I’ll point out that you spend a lot of time on this blah blah blog. – Anthony

  360. Mary Hinge,

    Regarding your post above @15:04:17, you have it exactly backward.

    The long accepted paradigm is that the climate naturally fluctuates, and the current fluctuations are well within the historical norm. In fact, they are mild.

    Your new “alternative mechanism” is catastrophic AGW/CO2/ runaway global warming. But it is up to those promoting that hypothesis to prove it.

    They have failed: catastrophic AGW has been repeatedly falsified.

    According to the Scientific Method, now it’s back to the drawing board for proponents of their failed AGW/CO2 hypothesis.

    Hope that helps.

  361. From Heliogenic Climate Change:

    “The most hideously egregious data fabrication”
    “In comparison, Mann 08 uses initially questionable data which has not been calibrated to temperature (tree rings), chops the end off of nearly every proxy and pastes fake temperature data on the end as a replacement ( I could have previously imagined) calibrates the fake data to temperature using methods which amplify recent trends compared to history and then throws away anything which doesn’t fit his pre-determined conclusion. This asinine method is how the latest hockey stick was made.

    If I worked in this field you would have to put a gun to my head to get me to put my name on it. I thought for a moment of marketing hockey stick toilet paper made from actual tree rings.

    I believe now that these math and scientific method errors are done with intent (the ends justify the means) but that is a subject of another post. I just wanted to point out that simplified rational temperature reconstructions are available, the results are inconvenient for the IPCC, Real Climate and Tamino.

    The climatology community MUST reject this kind of work to retain any sort of credibility. I brought it up with the Tamino crowd and they simply refused to address the obvious and (I believe) intentional errors in methodology. I tried to address the issues with Real Climate and my posts were simply deleted. So far other scientists seem to have avoided reference this ridiculous false paper but until and unless this work is rejected the climatology community has no credibility in my eyes.” “Comparitive criticisms of temperature reconstructions”

    http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2008/11/20/comparitive-criticism-of-temperature-reconstructions/

  362. Peter (11:34:09) said:

    If water vapor was a positive feedback then tropical temperatures would rise much faster than polar temperatures in response to rising CO2 levels. But indications are that the opposite is happening – strongly suggestive of an overall negative feedback.

    It’s hard to see how water vapor could be a negative feedback if 1) water vapor is a greenhouse gas (undeniable); and 2) water vapor increases with temperature (supported by theory and observations).

    Since water vapor is a feedback (increasing with temperature) anything that might be a feedback to increasing water vapor (like clouds-maybe) can never drop you down to the temperature you started at. Because as the temperature did drop (through increased cloudiness), water vapor would also decrease, which in turn would cause cloudiness to decrease, which would lessen the amount of cooling…

    You could never get back to where you started, so you would always be left with more water vapor in the atmosphere. Since water vapor is GHG, that would mean a net warming.

  363. Peter (12:24:47) :
    Why should skeptics have to come up with some alternate mechanism to explain what’s happening, when nobody is really sure what is happening

    It must be me that is too dense. Doesn’t anybody get what I’m trying to say? You don’t ;like the AGW ‘mechanism’ [bad physics, voodoo, etc], but what is your mechanism for climate change? or are you ‘deniers’ saying that the climate don’t change?

  364. Chris V.

    “Since water vapor is a feedback (increasing with temperature) anything that might be a feedback to increasing water vapor (like clouds-maybe) can never drop you down to the temperature you started at. Because as the temperature did drop (through increased cloudiness), water vapor would also decrease, which in turn would cause cloudiness to decrease, which would lessen the amount of cooling…”

    Chris, Lief, etc…
    I am but a volleyball coach with meager cognitive powers, so my thoughts could be way off base. Honestly, so let me know if my logic is not sound- I am a little lean in the area of thermodynamics and process control.

    Perhaps water vapor is necessarily both a feedback positive and negative enforcer of our temperatures. It stabilizes the temperature. The water vapor drops enough, and the lack of greenhouse gas cools the planet. But… this also reduces clouds and thus albedo and so the planet warms. This warming increases water vapor and thus the greenhouse effect, which warms the planet. However, this warming eventually leads to additional cloud formation which leads to increased albedo- thus cooler temps. A handy thermostat.
    In fact it is so handy that it would explain why every minor perturbation of the system does not run away with a drastic cooling or warming.
    Maybe I am missing something obvious, but I don’t understand how it could be any other way. If we did not have a very strong stabilizing control, our temperatures would always run away with these unstable feedback loops people keep harping about. When Tambora erupted, why did Earth not regress to its Snowball form? With any prolonged El Nino event, the earth should lose all its ice and the temperature should blow up. This stuff does not happen. If water vapor is an exclusively positive feedback for warming, we would not currently be in an ice age, nor ever would be again. If water vapor were positive feedback for cooling, then we would be in a “Snowball Earth” climate. The temperature is extremely resilient to perturbations. Something must be stabilizing our climate. What else could it be but water?

  365. Leif Svalgaard (19:18:06) :
    “It is water, in the form of rain.”

    If water (rain, clouds, oceans) is the stabilizer, then it should overwhelm any warming by trace gases, albedo effects of glacial advances and retreats, etc.
    Since there is good evidence that the long-term climate cycles are related to the tiny changes in orbit geometry, does it not stand to reason that these tiny changes subtly effect the “water” thermostat? In other words, do minute changes in the incidence and intensity of solar radiation over very long time periods necessarily affect the set-point of our thermostat?

  366. Leif Svalgaard (18:29:54) :

    Actually, it’s the upward convection of warm moist air that helps out with cooling, not the raining part.

  367. Old Coach (19:58:11) :
    “It is water, in the form of rain.”
    Since there is good evidence that the long-term climate cycles are related to the tiny changes in orbit geometry

    These changes are not ‘tiny’ compared to changes in solar activity [which are tiny indeed]. The change in insolation due to orbital changes are significant, of the order of 50 W/m2, or 50 times larger than the change of TSI over the solar cycle. So, they certainly affect the set-point of the rain thermostat.

  368. Chris V. (20:21:44) :
    Actually, it’s the upward convection of warm moist air that helps out with cooling, not the raining part.

    The details are not important. Roy Spencer puts it well: “The Earth has a thermostatic control system – it isn’t mounted on a palm tree on some deserted island. The real control system is precipitation.”

    And the details:
    “Even the low stratus and stratocumulus clouds that form over the subtropical oceans, thousands of miles from any precipitation activity, are there because of precipitation. The clouds form from moisture being trapped beneath a temperature inversion. That inversion is, in turn, caused by air being forced to sink in response to rising air in precipitation systems”.

    But as a good first-order rule: the evaporation-rain cycle is the thermostat.

  369. Old Coach (19:58:11) :

    In other words, do minute changes in the incidence and intensity of solar radiation over very long time periods necessarily affect the set-point of our thermostat?

    Bear with me through this example:

    There is a lake with high waves and the wind blowing steady. (the sun heating steady)

    Study the height of the waves and the breadth of peak to peak. It is chaotic and random . That is why we have the “every seventh wave” or “every hundredth wave” , some bumps are high, some bumps are low.

    Now reduce the power of the wind by 0.1 percent. (reduce energy from sun by 0.1 percent). Are you going to have an observable difference in the breadth of peak to peak and the height of the waves?

    The small perturbations in the total solar irradiance are to be thought like such an example. It would need larger changes to reduce measurably the statistical observations on the waves. In the earth and sun system, albedo, the reflectivity of the earth, i.e. the real amount of energy impinging on the surface, is much more important than tiny perturbations in the source of the energy. And albedo is a function of clouds and land use.

    Now it is true that in a chaotic system that has deterministic origins, a small perturbation can be immeasurably amplified in its effects, which is what Tom is talking about. This though is a hypothesis that has to be studied , but not dogmatically, and cannot be really used as a “counter AGW” argument. In the lake example above, a tiny drop in the wind power will not be observed. On the other hand a small change in wind direction might have measurable effects in some shores, in sand accumulation, for example, because of the lie of the land.

    The best arguments, in my opinion, is in stressing the falsification of the AGW models which is happening in leaps and bounds: temperatures, lack of humidity, drop of ocean temperatures, tropical troposphere cool. We only need the Thames to freeze over this year for the people to start looking up. :).

  370. “REPLY: Well, Mary I’ll point out that you spend a lot of time on this blah blah blog. – Anthony”

    To explain:- I see a lot of smokescreen, straw men and some innacurate/misleading statements from many posters, the ‘Blah Blahers’.

    There are other posters, the real skeptics as well as yourself, that question and present other possible mechanisms (whether theories or data collection/analysis). These are the people that I read and participate in this blog for.

    I’m sorry if I gave the impression that I though this blog was irrelevant, it was not intended, you know I have a lot of respect for your work and for many of the ‘regulars’. I do think this is a valuable blog. As recent events have shown anything that helps data accuracy has to be good. The ‘Blah Blahing’ was directed at those who delight in deconstruction and who contribute nothing of substance to the debate.

  371. Peter once again explains the Scientific Method:

    Why should skeptics have to come up with some alternate mechanism to explain what’s happening, when nobody is really sure what is happening, or if it’s substantially different to what has always been happening? It’s up to those who propose a theory to prove it.

    Climate alarmists continually challenge mainstream skeptics to prove the long-accepted status quo: that the current climate is normal.

    The alarmists have got the Scientific Method exactly backward. The burden of proof is on those proposing their new hypotheses to prove that they have discovered a climate mechanism that can withstand falsification.

    So far, they have failed. So they turn the tables, hoping no one will notice.

    Their methods are not science, they are Elmer Gantry-style charlatanism. The AGW hypothesis is that human emissions of CO2 will lead to catastrophic global warming, disappearing sea ice, rising sea levels, and numerous other catastrophic events.

    The burden of proof is on the alarmists, and their proposed AGW hypothesis — not on the accepted paradigm that the climate is well within normal historical parameters.

    How many times does this need to be repeated?

  372. Leif Svalgaard (20:36:42) :

    These changes are not ‘tiny’ compared to changes in solar activity [which are tiny indeed]. The change in insolation due to orbital changes are significant, of the order of 50 W/m2, or 50 times larger than the change of TSI over the solar cycle. So, they certainly affect the set-point of the rain thermostat.

    Leif, are you referring to Milankovich cycles here, or some other orbital changes? I was under the impression that the Milankovich forcing was tiny- much less than 1w/m2 over the globe.

  373. Chris V:

    It’s hard to see how water vapor could be a negative feedback

    You can see a very good demonstration of this effect on a practically daily basis in Summer on the plains of Africa.

    The temperature increases markedly after sunrise, and continues to increase as the Sun gets higher in the sky. Then the humidity starts increasing and it gets hotter still Then the storm clouds start building up and, although the Sun has now disappeared behind the clouds, the temperature and humidity continue to build to a very uncomfortable level. Then comes the thunder and lightning, soon followed by torrential rain. When the rain stops, the air is cool once more, so much so that the evening is quite chilly.
    On the days that this doesn’t happen, it doesn’t get quite as hot (and not nearly as close) in the afternoon, but it stays warmer into the evening.

  374. Leif:

    It must be me that is too dense. Doesn’t anybody get what I’m trying to say? You don’t ;like the AGW ‘mechanism’ [bad physics, voodoo, etc], but what is your mechanism for climate change? or are you ‘deniers’ saying that the climate don’t change?

    I think that’s a bit unfair.
    The AGWers, with all their massive resources and taxpayer’s money, cannot say for sure which direction and by how much the climate is changing or how it’s changed in the past – much less what it’s going to be doing just a year into the future, let alone a century. But they expect us to come up with an alternative mechanism to explain ..er ..what exactly?

  375. Mary Hinge:

    To explain:- I see a lot of smokescreen, straw men and some innacurate/misleading statements from many posters, the ‘Blah Blahers’.

    Can I point out that some of your statements have not exactly been highly accurate.

  376. I was referring to Milankovich cycles. I also thought they were small, but this is based on reading and accepting rather than doing the math myself. Leif, can you shed some light on this? (sorry about that bad pun, Leif. It was not intended)

  377. Old Coach (11:09:22) :
    I was referring to Milankovich cycles. I also thought they were small, but this is based on reading and accepting rather than doing the math myself. Leif, can you shed some light on this?

    I guess the same link would suffice:
    The point is that the Milankovich forcing is uneven over the globe. See e.g. slide 31 of http://www.soest.hawaii.edu/GG/FACULTY/POPP/Lecture12.ppt
    E.g. a decreased insolation at high northern latitudes would cause ice sheets to grow.
    The insolation has to be combined with the uneven distribution of land and sea.

  378. And I’d still like you to explain the W/m2 to temp conversion.
    end quote.

    Um, i think it’s a “W/m2 to warming” conversion. I.e. not temp, but energy input / balance. It is just “this much W/m2 added would be the same effect as that much energy trapped via CO2″ It avoids all the complications of specific heat, surface, et. al. that get drug in with temperature…

  379. From Leif Svalgaard (10:04:11) :

    The pseudo-science that involves the Sun is rooted in the [desperate] need for a mechanism, any mechanism, to counter what the AGW crowd think is their mechanism, right or wrong doesn’t matter as it is their perception and beliefs that counts for them.
    end quote.

    (Comment: Notice my antique non-HTML tag way of showing quotes… I too remember my first computer language FORTRAN )

    As one of the folks attracted to ‘the sun did it’ (not TSI only); my attraction comes from the historical correlation of solar cycles with climate cycles. If there were no such overlap of the two I’d have no interest in the thesis. None. I hold that it might be coincidence (so persist in using different names for minimums vs pessimums) but do hold that it at least meets the criteria for correlation of significance.

    I’m interested in the cosmic ray / albedo thesis but don’t see much evidence to support it and would not at all be surprised to find that the actual coupling of solar cycles to climate cycles might well be from some other connection (be it magnetic, energetic particles, gravity waves or pixie dust ;-) It is an interesting thesis that is at least as well support as AGW (damning with faint praise ;-)

    On the ‘planets modulate the sun’ thesis, again it is the strong correlation of planetary position with historical climate et. al. that gets my attention. Add in some peer reviewed papers showing changes in the sun that correlate with the planetary positions and I’m willing to entertain causality arguments. Not swallow whole, but entertain (as long as they entertain me, in turn.)

    I work from the coincidence, correlation, causality mantra. For AGW we have no demonstrated causality and damn near no correlation with some evidence for lack of coincidence as well (i.e. now – cold and more CO2). For the sun did it, we have at least coincidence and a decent argument for correlation. Causality is in the theoretical (organized entertaining fantasy) range.

    This, to me, makes ‘the sun did it’ an acceptable foil against “AGW – we did it’ enthusiasts. Doesn’t mean I think we’re done or that sun science is anywhere near ‘settled’ nor does it mean I accept cosmic pixie dust as causal though it does mean I think ‘the sun did it’ is stronger than AGW computer fantasies.

    Is that psudo-science? I don’t think so. I think it is early stage science. Still accumulating wild theories and not yet in the sort them out toss the trash stage. We just don’t know enough yet… Leif, to the extent you know more than we do, you are further along that path. That we stop to smell some of your discarded roses does not mean we are not on the same path…

  380. Smokey: “The burden of proof is on the alarmists, and their proposed AGW hypothesis — not on the accepted paradigm that the climate is well within normal historical parameters.”

    You’re confusing two separate issues here.

    1. Challenging AGW.

    2. Claiming that climate is within normal historical parameters.

    You can do (1) without doing (2). But when you do (2), you are making a positive claim, and that claim can legitimately be challenged.

    In claiming that the burden of proof only goes one way, you are trying to privilege one point of view due merely to longevity. But science doesn’t work like that. A positive claim can be challenged.

  381. E.M.Smith (15:04:52) :
    Still accumulating wild theories and not yet in the sort them out toss the trash stage. We just don’t know enough yet
    People have been claiming and seeing solar correlations for 400 years, so we are not in the early stages. As our knowledge about the Sun and the energies involved have increased over time, the ‘window of plausibility’ has been closing. This does not deter people from carrying on, of course. The AGW-mechanism can be [and has been] debunked on its own, without needing the Sun as a substitute cause for ‘lay people’ that can’t [or don't have the time to] understand the detailed physics.

    Don’t get me wrong. I’m not in this because of an argument against [or for - as they need it too, occasionally] AGW. I really don’t care [perhaps I should] about AGW or GW [except that warm is better than cold]. I have had an interest in the solar connection for many decades [even published papers on it], and would dearly hope that was something to it, but, alas, it seems to me less and less likely.

  382. Sorry leif, here we go again!!!!
    But the article names Anthony.

    November 21, 2008
    Global Warming? Bring it On!
    By Gregory Young
    The argument propounded by the dubious United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report on Anthropogenic (human-induced) Global Warming (AGW) is willfully fraudulent. The report has been vigorously and critically undermined, scientifically denounced and found wanting from both notable scientists here and abroad.

    In spite of this fact, it is likely that the new U.S. Democratic Congress and Administration will once again proclaim that they know better than we do about such things. Get ready for them to move surreptitiously under the guise of Global Climate Control in an effort to enhance their own legacies and pocketbooks. To be sure, the Left hears nothing but their own incestuous voices, despite the voices of clarity and reason that abound around them. And there are many, many distinguished dissenters against the charade of AGW.

    Take for instance the Founder of the Weather Channel and eminent Meteorologist John Coleman who has stated:

    There is no significant man made global warming. There has not been any in the past, there is none now and there is no reason to fear any in the future. The climate of Earth is changing. It has always changed. But mankind’s activities have not overwhelmed or significantly modified the natural forces.

    Through all history, Earth has shifted between two basic climate regimes: ice ages and what paleoclimatologists call “Interglacial periods”. For the past 10 thousand years the Earth has been in an interglacial period…. [where] the Earth warms up, the glaciers melt and life flourishes. Clearly from our point of view, an interglacial period is greatly preferred to the deadly rigors of an ice age. Mr. Gore and his crowd would have us believe that the activities of man have overwhelmed nature during this interglacial period and are producing an unprecedented, out of control warming.

    Well, it is simply not happening. Worldwide there was a significant natural warming trend in the 1980’s and 1990’s as a Solar cycle peaked with lots of sunspots and solar flares. That ended in 1998 and now the Sun has gone quiet with fewer and fewer Sun spots, and the global temperatures have gone into decline. Earth has cooled for almost ten straight years. So, I ask Al Gore, where’s the global warming?

    There is an abundance of solid data to back these conclusions up. For example, new measurements from the NASA/ESA spacecraft Ulysses show that the sun’s current period of low activity goes beyond an extended dearth of sunspots. Solar activity has dropped to the lowest levels since recording began some 50 years ago. Current experts, such as Veizer, Shaviv, and most recently Svensmark et al., and Patterson, suggest that changes in the output of the sun caused the most recent climate change. They convincingly argue that increased cosmic radiation acts as a catalyst for cloud formation in earth’s atmosphere. This, in turn, leads to a general cooling of the world’s climate if the pattern persists.

    Ironically, during the 1970s while some (including NASA’s James Hansen) were hysterically promoting the schizoid fears of a new ice age hitting the world in a few decades, a new frenzy over Global Warming and Climate Change was just beginning at Scripps Ocenaographic Institute in San Diego, CA. It was started by one of their most esteemed scientists Roger Revelle, the father of Oceanography. His work correlated the increases in carbon dioxide, CO2 (a laboratory defined greenhouse gas) to atmospheric warming. Revelle later moved to Harvard and encouraged his students, including Al Gore, to rehash the data.

    Since then the research methods have clearly gotten out of hand. Many avenues of research have proven repeatedly useless. Even Roger Revelle understood that there were greater variables at play than the trace gas of CO2.

    Before he died, Revelle gave interviews and wrote letters stating that CO2 and its greenhouse effect did not warrant extreme countermeasures. He told Omni Magazine, in March 1984, that “CO2 increase is predicted to temper weather extremes” — not cause them. One cannot argue that CO2 was a causative factor — especially since CO2 was apparently following temperature trend — not moderating it. It seems none of his followers, Gore in particular, heeded his words.

    There is a huge problem with the idea that Carbon Dioxide, or CO2, is a globally polluting gas, much less one that causes climate change and global warming. Even though some data seemed to initially substantiate the AGW thesis, these ideas were later proven to be wrong. (Those derived from ice core data were especially damning.) Australian Climatologist Dr. David Evans has done yeoman’s work on this issue.

    Often forgotten in the argument is the fact that CO2 is only a trace component of the atmosphere. For every million molecules of other gases in the atmosphere (such as nitrogen, oxygen, and hydrogen), there are only 385 molecules of CO2.

    It is a fact that atmospheric concentrations of CO2 have varied widely over geological time. The peak was estimated to be some 20-fold higher than at present (+6,000 ppm) — and the low about 200 ppm below today’s. (Everyday office air concentrations often exceed 1,000 ppm CO2.)

    Meteorologist John Coleman perspicaciously asks:

    How can this tiny trace upset the entire balance of the climate of Earth? How can a trace element possibly be the cause of systemic Global Warming? It can’t. That’s all there is to it; it can’t…. Carbon dioxide does not cause significant global warming.

    Increased levels of CO2 has more likely benefited all life forms on the planet, summarizes Coleman. Many other scientists have come to the same conclusion.

    Robinson, Robinson & Soon, in their cogent 2007 published research paper found here, provided empirical evidence that invalidates AGW alarmists hypotheses. They also found overwhelming support for the general benefits that are derived from natural global warming.

    Here is the summary of their findings:

    1- A review of the research literature concerning the environmental consequences of increased levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide leads to the conclusion that increases during the 20th and early 21st centuries have produced no deleterious effects upon Earth’s weather and climate. There are no experimental data to support the hypothesis that increases in human hydrocarbon use or in atmospheric carbon dioxide and other green house gases are causing or can be expected to cause unfavorable changes in global temperatures, weather, or landscape. There is no reason to limit human production of CO2, CH4, and other minor green house gases as has been proposed.

    2- Predictions of catastrophic global warming are based on computer climate modeling, a branch of science still in its infancy. The empirical evidence – actual measurements of Earth’s temperature and climate – shows no man-made warming trend. Indeed, during four of the seven decades since 1940 when average CO2 levels steadily increased, U.S. average temperatures were actually decreasing.

    3- Increased carbon dioxide has, however, markedly increased plant growth. Predictions of harmful climatic effects due to future increases in hydrocarbon use and minor greenhouse gases like CO2 do not conform to current experimental knowledge.

    4- While major green house gas H2O substantially warms the Earth, minor green house gases such as CO2 have little effect…. The 6-fold increase in hydrocarbon use since 1940 has had no noticeable effect on atmospheric temperature or on the trend in glacier length.

    5- Solar activity and U.S. surface temperature are closely correlated…., but U.S. surface temperature and world hydrocarbon use are not correlated.

    6- We also need not worry about environmental calamities even if the current natural warming trend continues. The Earth has been much warmer during the past 3,000 years without catastrophic effects. Warmer weather extends growing seasons and generally improves the habitability of colder regions.

    7- Human use of coal, oil, and natural gas has not harmfully warmed the Earth, and the extrapolation of current trends shows that it will not do so in the foreseeable future. The CO2 produced does, however, accelerate the growth rates of plants and also permits plants to grow in drier regions. Animal life, which depends upon plants, also flourishes, and the diversity of plant and animal life is increased.

    Dr. Michael Griffin, the new NASA Administrator, looks at climate change in a refreshingly contrarian fashion. He has stated:

    To assume that [climate change] is a problem is to assume that the state of earth’s climate today is the optimal climate, the best climate that we could have or ever have had and that we need to take steps to make sure that it doesn’t change.

    There are other fundamental objections to the AGW theory:

    (1) The infamous “Hockey Stick” statistical debacle, nicely summarized here, effectively cherry-picked data from tree rings to estimate temperature change over the past 1000 years. The report erroneously declared that the largest increases in world temperature occurred in the 20th century. These results could not be reproduced by anyone. The U.S. National Academy of Sciences (NAS) later found the statistical methods first employed inappropriate and the findings bogus.

    (2) The reported NASA temperature data glitch discovered by Canadian Computer Analyst Steve McIntyre that wrongly kicked all temperature records up several tenths of a degree was a severe setback for AGW modelers. This software “failure” was overseen by one of AGW’s fiercest proponents, the notorious Dr. James Hanson. NASA’s GISS and Hanson have recently come under fire again for poor data collection methods and questionable accuracy.

    (3) As recently presented in American Thinker, Lord Monckton competently summarizes for us that many of the highly publicized AGW “facts” are simple documented anomalies of natural climate cycling — designedly misrepresented for the cause of AGW.

    To wit: The Oceans are not catastrophically rising nor are they warming. In fact, the oceans have been cooling since 2003. The Snows of Kilimanjaro are not melting but ablating because of friction due to a cooling atmosphere and natural cooling trends. The world’s 160,000 glaciers are not suddenly receding, but appear to be re-advancing, including those ice shelves in Antarctic and the polar ice sheets, all of which cycle regularly in ice mass. Lord Monckton, a science-journalist, provides even more evidence here.

    (4) Finally let us not forget the astute investigation of automated weather stations by US Meteorologist Anthony Watts. Watts painstakingly discovered that a large fraction of the nation’s 1,200 stations have been wrongly sited in man-made heat-absorbing centers. (Examples include locations on rooftops, on slabs of heat absorbing concrete, next to air conditioners, diesel generators and asphalt parking lots, even at sewage treatment plants. Some are located in areas experiencing excessive nighttime humidity, and at non-standard observing heights, including one actually sinking into a swamp.) Watts’ discovery profoundly undermined the veracity of historical temperature data documented in the United States — data that had been used by AGW proponents.

    There are three indisputable and fundamental facts that were wantonly ignored in the UN’s IPCC sham of a report. The UN breathlessly but insidiously “forgot” to include the specifics that:

    (1) The Earth has largely benefited by past warming cycle’s and that these previous “warmings” had nothing to do with man’s activities. These earlier natural cycles were not catastrophic events; they were, in fact, beneficial to all life forms. They provided warmer and longer growing seasons, more areas available for crops, etc. We know, for instance, that Greenland was once green, that Eric the Red planted and grew grapes in what is now Nova Scotia, Canada, that the Romans planted grapes in England, etc.

    (2) Solar/Sun Spot activity is the originator of most climatic change and most weather patterns on Earth. It is king. There is no larger factor of influence. CO2 influence is negligible and pales in comparison. CO2 follows the trend of temperature; it does not cause it.

    (3) Subordinate to solar activity alone, atmospheric water vapor/cloud formation and movement is the largest known variable that influences temperature changes in the atmosphere of the earth, and the earth’s oceans. Water vapor in the atmosphere is around 1000-10,000 times as important as atmospheric CO2.

    These three quintessential and pivotal factors are not even discussed in the UN’s IPCC report. This exclusion should raise a red flag in any intelligent mind. That’s why so many of us are yelling from the rooftops about the absurdity of the report itself!

    Instead of a true and open discourse, we see the daily dribble from the MSM and various liberally usurped science journals, dishonestly and falsely alleging a “consensus” when there is none.

    Indeed, arrayed against the arcane burlesque of the United Nations IPCC with its politically selected 2500 Scientists, of which a core group of 600 exists, and a relatively small number of mediocre “scientists” here and there across the American landscape who have suddenly found notoriety or grant money in the global warming cause, are 31,072+ legitimate and viable scientists (of which I am one) who signed the American Petition Project declaring the Global Warming Hypothesis bogus found here, here and here. We openly refute the UN’s conclusions.

    Here’s the Petition Statement we dissenters signed in opposition:

    “We urge the United States government to reject the global warming agreement that was written in Kyoto, Japan in December, 1997, and any other similar proposals. The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind.

    “There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.”

    Let me assure you that we’re not in good humor, nor take it kindly to be slurred and ridiculed by taking the other side in this debate. And our numbers are still growing. Indeed, we’re angry that the vast majority of American Scientists will not be heard by the media. We’re dismayed over the fact that the Global Warming fiasco has become politically popular and expedient to those left-wing politicians and power-brokers whose sole aim is to literally tax everything with a carbon footprint and give them control over all life, hidden within their PC guileful pretence to save the planet. They wish to save no one but themselves.

    And the tide turns further. Of the 2500 originally aligned scientists and putative authors of the UN’s IPCC report some 500 are no longer faithful to Big Al’s errand. Many of these scientists discovered that their individual findings and comments were willfully misrepresented. All participant conclusions were unilaterally changed to adhere strictly to the United Nations objective of building support for world taxation and rationing of industrially useful energy. Since the original IPCC report (and there have been some 4 others now formally issued), the defecting 500 scientists have issued public statements challenging global warming. Approximately 100 of these scientists are now open defectors. Others are currently suing the UN for the misuse of their good names and research. It is difficult to see why a thinking person would even consider the IPCC report as legitimate.

    The entire IPCC process is but obfuscation by the secular and atheist Left. It has allowed the Left to conflate the vanity of secular opinion with scientific and/or moral truth. There is an easy and immediate remedy for their debacle. Will Rogers stated it simply: “When you are in a hole … stop digging…. Please!”

    Dr. Gregory Young is a neuroscientist and physicist, a doctoral graduate of the University of Oxford, Oxford, England. He is currently involved with a privately funded think-tank engaged in experimental biophysical research.

    Page Printed from: http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/11/global_warming_bring_it_on.html at November 21, 2008 – 06:27:12 PM EST

  383. From Ron de Haan (15:03:54) :
    Leif,
    It’s not the sun and it’s not CO2.

    So what’s the cause of a Dalton or Maunder Minimum if it’s not the sun?
    end quote.

    Ron, There are two different phenomena that must be kept apart. “Minimum” mean sun spots and is, by definition, a sun event. “Pessimum” or “Cool Period” is a cold weather interval (and / or cold climate cycle) and may or may not be sun related.

    The argument really ought to be phrased as “What caused the Little Ice Age cold period to be coincident with the Maunder Minimum / Dalton Minimum if anything?” On a longer term, why is the Bond Event climate cycle somewhat correlated with the 1500 year solar cyclicality, or is it a coincidence?

    The sun might be causal, but there is not much evidence yet. The sun might be correlated (and there are a few papers showing that, FWIW.) Or it just might be some giant cosmic joke of a coincidence. While I think ‘the sun did it’ is stronger than the AGW arguments, I have little confidence that there will be any reasonable proof for any possible causality any time soon (i.e. decades).

    Given a chaotic system with potentials for stochastic resonance effects it may even be that there are two unrelated cycles going on but that they sometimes get a little synchronized for a while and it means nothing. (Like when you pass the same car 5 times on a freeway trip, then never see it again.)

  384. From Ron de Haan (16:49:14) :
    I tried to address the issues with Real Climate and my posts were simply deleted.
    end quote.

    Yup, they do that. How dare you question the popes divine right, and to do it in church too! There are no debates allowed on RC, only supplication and repetition of the catechism.

    RC is an interesting exercise in what happens when true believers spend too much time sucking their own exhaust and not enough asking questions. IMHO. Best to stay away from them unless you want to drink the coolaid… or have a great immune system…

  385. From Chris V. (17:34:43) :
    Peter (11:34:09) said:

    If water vapor was a positive feedback then tropical temperatures would rise much faster than polar temperatures in response to rising CO2 levels. But indications are that the opposite is happening – strongly suggestive of an overall negative feedback.

    It’s hard to see how water vapor could be a negative feedback
    end quote

    Try hysteresis. Think of a light switch. It can go high, or low. Water can go to 100% (then rain) or 0% (ish) when frozen. The acceleration mechanism (feedback) can drive in either direction. Colder leads to lower humidity leads to colder leads to…

    Toss in day night cycles, a desert and mountain range or two along with an ocean and ice continents and stir with variable winds. Now you have a chaotic system with heating / cooling of the air (both solar and adiabatic) and increasing / decreasing water loading. We call it weather…

    The net effect of the water vapor (more or less heating) is not determinant and may be either positive or negative depending on all the above. That is why sometimes the planet has been an ice ball and sometimes a tropical jungle, the two end states of the switch.

    Best evidence is that we get ice ages when the poles are covered or trapped (victory ice driven stability) and jungle when the poles are empty (victory steamy jungle). From this I would assert that the hysteresis balance of the system is driven by land/ice at the poles, not by the nature of water. (Nor the nature of CO2).

    It’s this kind of thing that is missing from the AGW thesis, IMHO.

  386. Brendan H:

    You’re doing it again, and you’re doing it wrong. When you say “challenge AGW”, you have it exactly backward.

    It is the job of those trying to argue their new AGW hypothesis to provide us with convincing, falsifiable evidence that they have discovered a new mechanism to explain global warming [now known as "climate change"]. The challenge is on them to prove AGW.

    If I say the moon is made of green cheese, astronomers have no obligation to try and prove me wrong. I have to provide convincing, falsifiable evidence that it’s green cheese up there, if I want my hypothesis to be accepted.

    AGW [actually, the AGW/CO2/global warming hypothesis] challenges the accepted theory of natural climate variability. According to the scientific method the burden of proof is on those pushing the new AGW hypothesis.

    As stated repeatedly, the current climate is well within normal historical parameters. In fact, the current climate happens to be quite benign.

    If it is not… then prove it.

    And if it is within natural variability… then the climate alarmists’ AGW/CO2/planetary catastrophe hypothesis fails for lack of any proof. QED.

    Finally, you might learn a thing or two by reading Ron de Haan’s post @15:35:08 above.

  387. I think all of us here are fascinated by the science and the technology of the fascinating world we are living in but we do not like it when we are lied to, manipulated and in the end screwed by our own democratic governments policies.

    That is where this is all about.

    As things develop at this moment (also in reference to the most recent posts by Anthony about the stations and anti-AGW staff losing their jobs, we are all in for a tough ride.

    It’s a blog like this that makes us smarter and stronger.

    Thanks Anthony, Leif and all off you for your time, effort and sharp minds.

  388. Smokey: “The challenge is on them to prove AGW.”

    Well, to show that AGW is the explanation that best fits the evidence. But if you’re going to make a counter-claim that “the climate is well within normal historical parameters” you are then in the position of having to defend that claim.

    The only way to avoid that position is not to make any such claim. Of course, that’s very difficult to achieve in real-life debates, since you are going to be challenged to defend your position.

    That’s probably unfair, because the very existence of AGW theory creates a situation where sceptics by default become defenders of the traditional view. But that is the case any time a new theory is proposed.

  389. Brendan H:

    So if I laugh at the notion that the moon is made of green cheese, I have to defend the claim that it’s not?

    Despite all the frantic hand-waving, the climate is normal. But some folks won’t ever be convinced of that.

    I give up. Good night.

  390. This should be easy (hmmm… am I digging a hole for myself)

    @Brendan H:.

    1. Where do you stand on the proposal that current climatic conditions are within/or outside of natural climatic conditions?

    2. If “outside of” – on what physical evidence do you base your assessment?

    3. If “outside of” – what are the defined limits of natural climate variability that definitively describe the boundaries of natural climate variability?

    4. If “outside of” – what are the specific weather events that demonstrate that the natural climate variability has been execeeded.

    Good luck with that – I’m not actually aware that anyone has conclusively defined the boundaries of natural climate variation, and such boundaries would have to be defined to assert that current climatic conditions are outside of the realm of natural variation.

    If asserting that current climatic conditions are – in fact- outside of the realm of natural climatic variation – are you assuming that they are man-made climatic conditions, and presumably caused by man-made emissions of CO2?

    For the purpose of this discussion, I don’t see anything out of the ordinary in our current world climate, or my local climate. I also see no convincing evidence that man-made emissions of CO2 cause any climatic effects whatsoever. I work in software and have no connection to any energy company.

    Happy to have my ignorance illuminated.

  391. E.M. Smith:(16:23:55) :
    From this I would assert that the hysteresis balance of the system is driven by land/ice at the poles, not by the nature of water. (Nor the nature of CO2).

    I think many geologists would disagree with a part of this assessment. During the “snowball earth” episode, both poles were land free.

    The current ice age (which we are now in) began shortly after India slammed into Asia and raised the Himalayas. The temperature has been steadily dropping ever since. Ice at the poles does not change the amount of radiation reflected out of Earth’s system near as effectively as ice at low latitudes. Remember, polar ice gets very little sun in the summer, and none at all in the winter. Ice in the tropics receives (and can thus reflect) much more sunlight.

  392. Brendon H, Smokey,

    I think it is very clear that the concept of AGW is used to enforce a gigantic social and economic shift.

    The institutions that are involved are the united Nations and all the governments that comply with the CO2, methane, nitrous oxide, sulfur hexafluoride, hydrofluorocarbons, and perfluorocarbons reduction targets (CO2) of 80% by 2050 based on 1990 emissions, and also the use of land etc. (Chapter 21 UN).

    This is nothing more that a brake on human activity and population growth.

    The legislation will end our freedom and our way of life, and turn our democracies in “eco socialist” dictatorships with unlimited powers. Having control over CO2 is having control over the economy, the food chain and…life.

    This is why Obama wants a Civil Army and this is why his Global fight against Climate Change is No. 1 on his priority list.

    The question is: do we want this?

    It is my conclusion that any debate about who is right or who is wrong about AGW is completely beside the point.

    So is the argument that the recent warming has reversed in cooling.

    It simply does not matter.

    The political decisions have been taken a long time ago. Consensus has been achieved through all political camps.

    Because there has never been a public discussion about this “coup,” people have no clue what is awaiting them.

    I personally think there is no reason whatsoever to reduce our world populations by destroying the very basis of our existence. It’s a negative approach and the people who have initiated this concept belong in a mental institution. This also goes for the people that have facilitated their talents and services like Hanson and Gore to deceive humanity.

    I am convinced that we have a long time to go before carbon fuels and any other necessary resources become scarce as long as we prevent nuclear conflicts and control the destruction of habitats that ensure biodiversity.

    I am convinced that through science and technology we will be able to provide a good standard of living for even more people than the current world population.

    Solving the problem of over population and earth biodiversity through destruction of the economic system of the West is nothing more than treason.

    Besides that, it is also very risky.

    There will be significant resistance as soon as people understand what is going on. There will be nations like Russia and China that will make use of any opportunity to take power.

    So unless you are eager to learn Chinese or Russian, we better start to think about the real life consequences of the AGW policies.

    I’ve read some stuff and links on http://green-agenda.com The links to the Club of Rome, Chapter 21 of the UN and many other links about facilitating entities, private persons and institutions.

    Anyhow it makes clear why GISS temperature are corrupted, why NOAA is telling us year after year that the trends are above normal, why the Media are biased, and why our politicians are acting crazy.

    It’s all part of an agenda, and I even doubt it is green.

  393. Smokey: “So if I laugh at the notion that the moon is made of green cheese, I have to defend the claim that it’s not?”

    “The climate is well within normal historical parameters” is not equivalent to “the moon is not made of green cheese”. One is a positive claim, the other a negative. It’s not possible to prove a negative.

    “…the climate is normal.”

    This is a positive claim. It says that ‘x is the case’. A positive claim can be argued for, and in most debates the participants expect to see such an argument. Otherwise, debates devolve into a series of assertions. But assertion is not argument, it’s just saying stuff.

  394. Coach: I am not so sure about that. The extended cold period during the late Paleozoic saw average temperatures as low as c. 12°C. But the maps I have handy show land at or very near the South Pole from at least the Devonian period all the way through to the Permian. And a walloping big icecap on Gondwana.

    It’s possible the scholarship has changed regarding those maps, I suppose. Am I wrong here? Or do you mean a different period of time?

  395. Brendan H says:

    “…the climate is normal.”

    This is a positive claim. It says that ‘x is the case’. A positive claim can be argued for, and in most debates the participants expect to see such an argument. Otherwise, debates devolve into a series of assertions. But assertion is not argument, it’s just saying stuff.

    The Sun will rise tomorrow!

    I will die one day!

    Children will grow up into adults!

    Caterpillars will continue to change into moths and butterflies!

    Good luck with your ridiculous argument.

  396. Ron de Haan (15:35:08) :
    Sorry leif, here we go again!!!!
    Global Warming? Bring it On!
    By Gregory Young

    Almost nothing in the article has anything to do with the Sun, all the rest is very likely true, and the debunking of AGW does not depend on the Sun.
    A classical example of the misinformation that is floating around is the cosmic ray intensity. The GCRs returns to the same value at every solar minimum and the value right now is what is was in the mid 1960s and as it was in the mid 1980s. Solar activity in 1954 was even lower than today. And so on. We have been over these same tired arguments again and again, and it doesn’t seem to make any difference to repeat them any more. Suffice it just to mention that as solar activity picks up the next several years, we should [according to the argument of the article] expect rising temperatures in the years to come, so ‘bring it on’ is very apt. The AGW people will of course just say that it is rising CO2 overwhelming the recent cooling, so it may actually weaken your arguments against AGW, as their prediction [rising temps] will be borne out [albeit by your idea of rising solar activity].

    E.M.Smith (15:56:50) :
    On a longer term, why is the Bond Event climate cycle somewhat correlated with the 1500 year solar cyclicality, or is it a coincidence?
    It cannot be a coincidence because there is no 1500 year solar period.

  397. Leif,
    I was a bit reluctant to post another article that mentioned the cosmic ray theory right after you debunked it.
    That’s why I made the remark “Sorry Leif, here we go again”.
    I have understood your message well.
    Thank you very much for your answers.

    Anyhow where I stay at the moment we just have received a nice pack of fresh snow.
    Two years ago the regional government rang the bells because they were convinced winter sports activities ad come to an end due to a lack of snow.
    They stopped investments in new ski lifts and ordered an alternative economic plan for the Alpine region.

    http://web.me.com/sinfonia1/Global_Warming_Politics/A_Hot_Topic_Blog/Entries/2008/11/18_Predictions_Off_Piste.html

    I am convinced next Monday there will be a newspaper explaining the cold and the snow was caused by ” extremely dangerous human induced runaway global warming as the driver of climate change”. Human induced you say? Yes, but we are working on that.

  398. Some people see beyond the minor arguments, and understand the big picture. Ron de Haan [21:30:06] is one of those rare individuals.

    Most Americans [and most world citizens, for that matter] do not care much about carbon dioxide. They don’t even understand it, or how very necessary and beneficial it is.

    The public is constantly bombarded by the media’s scare-mongering about catastrophic global warming. Being scientifically uninterested, they simply accept what they are being told 24/7/365 about “evil” CO2.

    As the very perceptive H.L. Mencken noted, “The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.”

    That illusion of “safety” entails giving up our freedoms to those putative saviors. And once a basic freedom is given away, it is extremely difficult to ever regain it.

    Promoting the unstated [but very real] goal of control of the political process are corrupt people and entities like the UN/IPCC, George Soros, James Hansen, Gavin Schmidt, James Suzuki, and many others who, for self-aggrandizing reasons, promote climate dishonesty. They run away from any real debate over their assertions — which tells us all we need to know about their honesty and their motives.

    Sites like WUWT, Climate Audit and others, and their knowledgeable commenters, are valiantly fighting this misinformation tide with rational discourse, backed by facts.

    But I wonder if that is sufficient against George Soros’ $300,000,000 budget allocated to the Al Gore paradigm of climate catastrophe. Big money is an inexorable force. And continuous advertising, whether honest or not, as we all know is very effective in controlling the masses.

    The Age of Enlightenment has run its course, and the forces of reason are fighting a rearguard action against the forces of misinformation and eventual dictatorship.

    No one can predict the future, and it is still possible to win the battle for the public’s hearts and minds. But fighting the insidious forces constantly trumpeting climate catastrophe, with unlimited funds at their disposal, will require immense fortitude.

    Truth is fragile. Like freedom, unless it is constantly defended, it will be smothered by corruption and lies, as history makes clear. Eventually, the truth prevails — but that may happen on a decades to centuries timeline. Right now, the leftist propaganda machine has the upper hand. We have no choice but to fight, and fight hard.

    If it were not for sites like this, the purveyors of globaloney would already have set the agenda, and there would be nothing we could do about it. So all is not lost. Keep putting out the truth, and demand debate and accountability. Because dishonest propaganda can not tolerate the light of day.

  399. Brendan H:

    “The climate is well within normal historical parameters” is not equivalent to “the moon is not made of green cheese”. One is a positive claim, the other a negative. It’s not possible to prove a negative.

    What you’re really saying is, “well, if the moon isn’t made of green cheese, then what is it made of?”

  400. Ron de Haan and Smokey:

    There is no “world wide conspiracy” using global warming as an excuse to deprive you of your rights. There are lots of easier ways to do that.

    The fact that the reasonable skeptics never seem to counter the “conspiracy rants” of the tin-foil hat crowd within their ranks really hurts the credibility of the skeptic side, IMO.

    I know that all the skeptics aren’t nutters, but the proportion of nutters within the skeptical community seems rather high.

  401. Peter: “What you’re really saying is, “well, if the moon isn’t made of green cheese, then what is it made of?”

    Not exactly, and the green cheese idea wasn’t mine. The original claim was: “The burden of proof is on the alarmists, and their proposed AGW hypothesis…” I agreed with this assertion, but it was followed by: “…not on the accepted paradigm that the climate is well within normal historical parameters”.

    I challenged the second claim. The burden of proof is on anyone who wants to claim that the climate is well within normal historical [rather, geological] parameters because this is a positive claim.

    It might be assumed that “the climate is well within normal historical parameters” is too well-attested to be challenged. But all I need do is point to the 30-odd percent human contribution to CO2 levels to show that “the climate is well within normal historical parameters” is not relevant, since the human-induced rise in not “normal”.

    Prior to AGW, one could happily conclude that any climate change was within normal parameters, but now that AGW is on the table, previously accepted understandings, such as what constitutes ‘normal’ climate change, have become open to challenge.

  402. “I know that all the skeptics aren’t nutters, but the proportion of nutters within the skeptical community seems rather high.”

    I would like to see some documentation on this assertion.

    Is a “nutter” someone who believes warming is accelerating and also believes in reincarnation? Perhaps there are quite a few “nutters” at the top of the AGW foodchain as well.

  403. EvanJones
    But the maps I have handy show land at or very near the South Pole from at least the Devonian period all the way through to the Permian. And a walloping big icecap on Gondwana.

    It’s possible the scholarship has changed regarding those maps, I suppose. Am I wrong here? Or do you mean a different period of time?

    I was referencing geologist Douglass McDougall from his work “Frozen Earth”. It is a book on the geology of the planet during the last ice ages, and how geologists have come to their conclusions. In the book he maps and claims that during the the last two Ice ages, the poles were mostly land free, in particular the Frozen Earth age. He makes no claim about the pre-cambian ice age, because the data from back then is pretty sketchy. It is 2004 material. Since geology of this field is evolving rapidly each year, it could be out dated. I will try to locate a more current source for the position of land masses during the last ice ages.

  404. Smokey,
    What triggered me was the fanatic attitude of the (current Greenpeace Organization and the media using WWF statements about our environment as a basic source of the daily news about climate change.

    A few years ago I made a cycle tour along the river Rhine.
    The Germans just finished a dike project to protect the country from extreme water levels to prevent flooding.

    On top of the dike they constructed a small road for cyclists.

    Half way the route, the road was suddenly blocked by a gate and a sign stated that the road was blocked because part of the dike structure was reserved as a bird resort according EU obligations. That was funny because apart from a few seagulls there were no birds.

    The detour led to a busy road where the cyclists and fast traffic were not separated.
    On this road every year over 10 cyclists were killed by fast driving traffic coming up from behind. Very dangerous.

    When I had a closer look at the matter I found out that these kind of stupid measures were initiated by the UN Chapter 21 which were adapted by the EC.
    I am confident that the use of the dike by cyclists would not do any harm to any bird.
    But the detour killed people.

    The construction of a safe detour for the cyclists was made impossible because of the same restrictions that forced the local authorities to close the dike road.
    For me this was an indication that the UN (and the EC) is not about people at all.
    It’s about restricting people at any price based on a tree huger agenda made by lunatics.

    Local communities are confronted with very hard sanctions if a country does not meet the demands set by the EU rulings.
    Non compliance results in very high fines that bankrupt a local community within months.
    It simply proves that a strong control mechanism is in place and it works, even if the local people do not agree.
    According to Brussels it’s democratic. It is the choice of the people they say.

    I remember a green organization cutting down American Chestnut trees in the Netherlands because these trees did not belong to the original vegetation.
    These beautiful trees dominated the landscape for many generations.
    The totalitarian greens did not like them and simply destroyed a landmark environment.
    This too was a “democratic” decision but a very hard sell to the locals that grew up with the trees.

    For me it is clear that a group of crazy and corrupt hypocrites have declared war on humanity.
    They have pulled their nets at the same moment we experience the cold induced by the current economic crises which (in my opinion) was triggered on purpose.
    The policies to offset the crises will be sold to humanity as “inevitable” for the survival of our economy and the rescue of our planet.
    Do not be fooled by the nature of the measures because they accumulate power in the wrong hands and make matters much worse.

    The introduction of legislation to reduce the use of our resources and the steep rise in energy prices (wind and solar in need of conventional sources for back-up will double or even triple the electricity price compared to coal) will undermine our economies further. Energy intensive industries will leave the county and cause more
    job losses. The spiral continues.

    Once again we find ourselves to live in an age where demagogues are rewarded for spreading plain lies and mass hysteria makes dialogue impossible.
    Reason and objectivity are punished, people start losing their jobs because they go against the consensus.
    The democratic chosen President elect wants a civil army and asks to join his “movement” to lead us to “change”. The people cheer.
    But he lies to us about Climate Change and the threats to the world so I don’t trust him.

    The economic downturn will force many desperate people who have lost their jobs their retirement funds and their homes to join the ranks of the new civil army (part of the president elect plan to create 2.5 million new jobs) that will be used to enforce the lunatic laws that wreck our way of life.
    It’s a proven concept of control and if you do not believe me read the history books.
    We have been there before and a very high price was paid.

    In the end the sum of all these well intended but insane policies will be nothing more than a disguise for crimes against humanity and at their full extend they will shadow the crimes of Hitler, Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot put together.
    It’s defeat of capitalism and the free world and it’s all done by consent and the will of the people. The endgame is the establishment of a world government.
    Do we want that? I don’t.

    The four horsemen of Strife, War, Famine and Death have saddled their horses.
    They will ride when our energy systems break down, our means of distribution are cut and agricultural output is limited by draconian measures to cut emissions and use of resources. In Iraq, Afghanistan and Africa the horsemen are well underway.
    Almost 1 billion people are on the brink of starvation right now and they are not number one on our priority list. They should be.

    The planned civil army, just as well armed as our military, in the end will lash out to it’s own people in the name of the law and democracy.
    Do we want that? There is a 50% chance it happens if such an army is in place.
    I would not bet my life on 50% chance so I don’t want such an army.

    This is the moment we have to stand up and speak out.
    We do not want this. We reject any policy based on lies and it does not matter if it come from teh EC, the UN or the Government of the USA.

    We have to confront every lie that is told and contact our media, our representatives, the UN and every person that tells AGW BS. We have to make clear what’s really at stake here.
    We have to join the ranks with people like Mr. Aznar, the former leader of Spain, with the current President of the Czech Republic, the scientists, the bloggs and millions of others whose opinions are neglected and whose opinions are not heard.
    In the current frenzy that burns trillions of dollars our number one priority should be to help the hungry. Despite the mind boggling numbers this help comes at a bargain price compared to the billions that are spend on bail outs.
    Climate change should not even be on the priority list of the new US Government.

    The net created by the people behind the Global Warming scare however are extremely strong and powerful and they are now in full control of almost all strategic positions and offices vital for ruling our governments and our administrations.
    I believe we have nothing to lose and we should cease the moment to do what we can.

    I we fail we will soon find out what the price of freedom is worth.

    Questioning the GISS data produced by Hansen is an important part of the quest to save our freedom

    This is how I think about it.

  405. Chris V. (09:07:52) :

    Ron de Haan and Smokey:

    “There is no “world wide conspiracy” using global warming as an excuse to deprive you of your rights. There are lots of easier ways to do that.

    The fact that the reasonable skeptics never seem to counter the “conspiracy rants” of the tin-foil hat crowd within their ranks really hurts the credibility of the skeptic side, IMO.

    I know that all the skeptics aren’t nutters, but the proportion of nutters within the skeptical community seems rather high.”

    Chris,
    If they use “another” way they make themselves liable to crimes against humanity.
    Don’t you see it?

    If you want to know about liberties have a look at the current plan the Briys have for the introduction of a so called “Kyoto Pass” that keeps track of your personal carbon foot print. All the energy you buy, tickets you book, everything is registered.
    The moment your credits are used up you have to buy new but at what price?

    The eagerness and the pressure that the British Government showed to kick the 80% CO2 reduction by 2050 through Parliament made me wonder.
    They simple have committed economic suicide. You tell me Chris, how credible is that? It must be very credible because the US will do the same.
    So maybe you could reconsider your remark about “nutters”.
    I certainly would be pleased. But if you really want a list of all the people that would qualify, let me know and I send you a list.

    http://web.me.com/sinfonia1/Global_Warming_Politics/A_Hot_Topic_Blog/Entries/2008/11/16_Dangerous_Economics.html

  406. Ron de Haan (16:48:01) :

    In an earlier post, you said:

    The legislation will end our freedom and our way of life, and turn our democracies in “eco socialist” dictatorships with unlimited powers. Having control over CO2 is having control over the economy, the food chain and…life.

    I have no idea what the Brits are doing (Kyoto pass?), but I hardly see how a carbon cap and trade system, or a revenue-neutral carbon tax (as Hansen has suggested) will “end our freedom and way of life”.

  407. Al Gore, who got a D in college Science, and followed that up with one of the most inept things that anyone could do — actually flunking out of Divinity School — was nominated and awarded the Nobel Prize for scientific achievement!!

    Apparently someone here believes there couldn’t possibly have been a conspiracy by the Nobel Committee to anoint such an undeserving clown [who couldn't even get a single electoral vote from his home state, when running against the lackluster George Bush].

    Now Fat Albert is a Nobel laureate! You just can’t make this stuff up.

    Gore didn’t get his Nobel Prize for diligently working for twenty years on difficult climate problems. No, indeed. This esteemed recipient of the Nobel Prize got it for an error-riddled science fiction propaganda film. Please explain that the Nobel Committee didn’t get their heads together and decide to pretend that their political agenda was science. See, that’s a “conspiracy.”

    A good place to start reading about the climate conspiracy to divert public funds into the undeserving pockets of certain people living off the taxpayers is the Wegman Report to Congress.

    Prof. Wegman, et. al., shows how badly the peer review process among a very small group of mutually back scratching, taxpayer funded scientists has been corrupted. The dishonesty among those scientists [followers of the disreputable James Hansen] has fallen to the level of the Nobel Committee’s political corruption. That is also a conspiracy. Read the report if you doubt it.

    And of course there is the UN’s IPCC. Please explain why you think they are innocent of conspiring to convince the world that runaway global warming is right around the corner. Is that, in your opinion, science? Keep in mind that no official dissenting views are permitted by the UN.

    And don’t forget the NOAA, GISS, etc. Why would they refuse to disclose to the taxpaying public the raw data that they subsequently “adjust,” before spoon-feeding everyone their altered results? Are they being aboveboard? Or are they engaging in a conspiracy to propagate a particular hypothesis? Which is it? You tell me.

    Maybe it’s easier and more emotionally satisfying to just engage in ad hominem attacks because you can not refute the evidence right in front of you. Call your opponent crazy. In need of a tinfoil hat. Then you win the argument. Is that what you believe?

    Recall that in 1775 Adam Smith wrote that two businessmen getting their heads together would almost always conspire to set prices. To assume now, with the $Billions at stake, that no one is conspiring to game the system is foolish at best.

  408. From ICECAP.US
    Nov 22, 2008
    Point of No Return

    By Matthew Knight, CNN

    A team of international scientists led by Dr James Hansen, director of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, say that carbon dioxide (CO2) levels are already in the danger zone. Concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere currently stand at 385 parts per million (ppm) and are rising at a rate of two ppm per year. This is enough, say the scientists, to encourage dangerous changes to the Earth’s climate.

    As a result we risk expanding desertification, food shortages, increased storm intensities, loss of coral reefs and the disappearance of mountain glaciers that supply water to hundreds of millions of people. The Aletsch glacier in the Alps. Melting of mountain glaciers is accelerating worldwide.

    The report, “Target Atmospheric CO2: Where Should Humanity Aim?” appears in the latest edition of the Open Atmosphere Science Journal and brings together the expertise of ten scientists from the United States, the UK and France. It is a departure from the previous climate estimates which predict that perilous CO2 levels will be reached later in the century. Drawing on improved paleoclimate records and current global observations has prompted the authors to reach new conclusions about what constitutes a safe level of CO2.

    Dr Hansen told CNN: “In the paleoclimate data, the Cenozoic data is the most alarming—burning all the fossil fuels clearly would send the planet back to the ice-free state with sea level about 250 feet higher.” Hansen thinks these sorts of changes would take several centuries, but he said we would have to deal with a “holy mess…as ice sheet disintegration unfolded out of our control”.

    In light of the new data the authors believe that merely stabilizing CO2 emissions might not be enough to avoid catastrophic changes. “Humanity must aim for an even lower level of greenhouse gases”, the report concludes. To achieve these reductions they propose phasing out coal-fired power stations by 2030 and scaling down the use of unconventional fossil fuels like tar sands. Reforestation programs on degraded land and instigating the widespread use of natural fertilizers could also help to draw down CO2 by around 50 ppm. Dr Hansen says it’s impossible to say when we will reach the point of no return. See story here.

    Icecap Reality Check: In actual fact, the change in CO2 is natural and due primarily to warming oceans. As Dr. Segalstad has said you could burn all the fossil fuels on the planet and the CO2 would not rise more than 20% more due to the fact the oceans are an infinite buffer. The enhanced CO2 has allowed for a greening of the middle latitude, more reliable precipitation (from the hydrological cycle) and more drought resistant plants and crops and the ability to feed more of the world’s population. In greenhouses, they pump in CO2 to 1000 ppm or higher to get more growth. Most all of the warming in the 1980s and 1990s was at night and in the winter in higher latitudes, which has been welcomed.

    Since 1998, temperatures stopped rising and since 2002 have been falling. It appears the only point of no return is Hansen objectivity.

  409. Maybe it’s easier and more emotionally satisfying to just engage in ad hominem attacks because you can not refute the evidence right in front of you. Call your opponent crazy. In need of a tinfoil hat. Then you win the argument. Is that what you believe?

    The problem is, nobody ever presents any evidence for this huge, worldwide conspiracy, encompassing most of the worlds climate scientists, and every major scientific organization in the world. A lot of assertions, but not a lot of evidence.

    To assume now, with the $Billions at stake, that no one is conspiring to game the system is foolish at best.

    There may be some out there who are trying to game the system. But who has more to gain or lose? A tenured, salaried climatology professor (who gets paid either way), or a coal/oil company executive? Who do you think made more money last year- Jim Hansen, or the CEO of Exxon-Mobil?

    I’m not much for conspiracy theories, but if I was, I’d follow the money.

  410. I never bought the conspiracy thing. I think it’s more of a “class action” herd mentality. I don’t think GW is a scam (not even by those who attempt to profit off of it), I do regard it as a profound error not unlike the errors of the Club of Rome or Paul Ehrlich, or even Malthus.

    I will observe, however, that (except for Malthus) none of the above ever admitted error, then or now. That won’t happen this time, though, or at least it won’t go unremarked, because the 40-year skeptical side on these issues won’t quietly let it slide this time – stipulating that the same old crew is wrong yet again for the same old reasons.

  411. Chris V. (17:49:58) :

    Ron de Haan (16:48:01) :

    “In an earlier post, you said:

    The legislation will end our freedom and our way of life, and turn our democracies in “eco socialist” dictatorships with unlimited powers. Having control over CO2 is having control over the economy, the food chain and…life.

    I have no idea what the Brits are doing (Kyoto pass?), but I hardly see how a carbon cap and trade system, or a revenue-neutral carbon tax (as Hansen has suggested) will “end our freedom and way of life”.”

    Chris V,
    It’s very simple Chris,
    Our entire life, economy, life style and development of the last 150 years has been based on carbon fuels for which we have created a carbon infrastructure that has taken us generations to build. Without the carbon based energy this development would not have happened.

    The clowns that now are in control have made us clear they want to destroy this infrastructure. The President elect has personally stated he will bankrupt coal which represents 40 to 50% of the electricity production and about 125.000 jobs.

    The alternatives (they talk about solar and wind) won’t meet our demands in a century because there simply is not enough time to build the numbers we need.

    Another aspect is that both solar and wind are in need of back up.

    So, in order to make a long story short they simply plan to pull the plug on our economy.

    If you reduce 80% of your carbon emissions you will be severely restricted in your liberties. This is because your ability to consume energy will be cut off as well.
    If you plan according the Obama proposal:
    “Obama has called for annual targets that would aim to reduce emission levels to 1990 levels by 2020 and then by an addition 80 percent by 2050″.

    As a consequence there won’t be a single drop of gasoline available in the US by 2050.

    Since our food production (machinery, but also food processing, transport and storage and the animal stocks) is also going to be regulated a lot of people will go hungry.

    Why do you think the UN is asking people to stop eating meat?
    Today they ask and advice, tomorrow with all the regulations in place they demand and enforce.
    I really hope you are going to understand what’s going, why it’s going and why we are turning red in the face of pure anger. This is because the whole show is based on lies and manipulation.

    In regard to the Kyoto Card the following.
    In 2006 the British Government performed an investigation how to control the individual carbon footprint of it’s citizens (the effect is reversed: how to control the citizen by his carbon foot print).
    The guy who performed the investigation is now heading the environmental office.
    If you can not resist to qualify a person as “nutty”, this is the guy that asks for it.
    In the US the name is EPA. For details look at the link below.
    If you have the time take a close look at what the EPA is up to and than tell me if what they are preparing will not limit your freedom.
    Take a look at http://green-aganda.com and click some links.
    Maybe this will open your eyes.

    A whole list of EPA articles can be found on http://heliogenic.blogspot.com/2008/07/politburos-new-5-year-plan.html and ICECAP.US

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1021983/Every-adult-Britain-forced-carry-carbon-ration-cards-say-MPs.html

  412. I also am not sure I buy the conspiracy theory. The AGW science community is eerily similar to the superstrings physics community. There are a few bright people who started doing research, then system became enamored with the initial postulates, the peer review process breaks down, and bright young scientists get swept up into the beast. It is very hard to hear dissenting voices in either the climate crowd or the theoretical physics crowd.
    Having said that, there are a few very unscrupulous people who are exacerbating the problem tremendously.

    Chris V. (20:24:14) : Who do you think made more money last year- Jim Hansen, or the CEO of Exxon-Mobil?

    Hansen is a bad example. He got caught up in something over his head. If you want to follow the money you must look over his head. Take a hard look at T. Boone Pickens (wind and alternative), Soros (mining companies, by bribing international powers to close competing mines for polution), and Gore (alternative energy investment company). Look carefully at what they do and where they invest their money. Look carefully at who they fund and which politicians they buy. The profits they will make as a result of these “reforms” is absolutely staggering (billions each). Many times larger than payout of the CEO’s of the seven sister oil companies put together.

  413. evanjones (21:02:55) :

    “I never bought the conspiracy thing. I think it’s more of a “class action” herd mentality. I don’t think GW is a scam (not even by those who attempt to profit off of it), I do regard it as a profound error not unlike the errors of the Club of Rome or Paul Ehrlich, or even Malthus.

    I will observe, however, that (except for Malthus) none of the above ever admitted error, then or now. That won’t happen this time, though, or at least it won’t go unremarked, because the 40-year skeptical side on these issues won’t quietly let it slide this time – stipulating that the same old crew is wrong yet again for the same old reasons.”

    Evenjones,
    A few years ago I shared your view on this subject.
    Forty years ago we had the cold war and the Club of Rome made it’s first report.
    The scientists that presented themselves as “global cooling alarmists” had a “neutral” status.

    We are now confronted with a well promoted “AGW consensus” carried by the UN, UN IPCC, the new US Government and the complete industrialized world, the media, thousands of NGO’s, Foundations and environmental organizations, institutions and universities.

    Besides the “consensus” about AGW there is also a consensus about over population, the number of inhabitants our planet could endure at a sustainable level, a consensus about future religions, a consensus about future government and how to engage a transformation process. AGW is a strategic tool of the transformation process as is the current economic crises.

    In short, a lot has happened in forty years.

    http://green-agenda.com provides several interesting links that provide more insight in the consensus.

    I do not mind what we call it, consensus, conspiracy or hoax.
    One thing is for sure: we will be screwed.

  414. From http://www.seablogger.com
    *
    From http://www.seablogger.com
    Heliogenic
    Sunday, 23 Nov 08, climate

    No matter Obama’s sensible appointments to some policy posts. No one will be able to reverse the harm done by shutting down carbon and nuclear energy development, while frittering away federal funds on inefficient and inadequate “alternatives.”
    The author of Heliogenic Climate Change has been hyperactive since the election, compiling instances of the massive international initiative against carbon. Read his whole page; you are sure to be sweating by the time you finish, no matter how wintry your weather. Anti-carbon ideologues don’t care who is impoverished, or what nations might succumb to anarchy in the cramped, agrarian world of their vision. They imagine themselves called to save the planet — but who will save the planet from them?

  415. Old Coach said:

    Take a hard look at T. Boone Pickens (wind and alternative), Soros (mining companies, by bribing international powers to close competing mines for polution), and Gore (alternative energy investment company)…..The profits they will make as a result of these “reforms” is absolutely staggering (billions each). Many times larger than payout of the CEO’s of the seven sister oil companies put together.

    T. Boone Pickens is in his 80’s- he will be dead before his wind ideas make any money (and he knows it). Gore and Soros will make “billions”? Maybe, maybe not. But I do know that Exxon Mobil made 40 billion in profit last year alone. Add on to that the profits of the rest of the oil companies, the coal companies, electric utilities…

    Like I said, follow the money.

  416. Ron de Haan (22:39:53) said:

    AGW is a strategic tool of the transformation process as is the current economic crises.

    So the current economic crisis has also been manufactured by this vast, worldwide conspiracy?

    Ummm… OK.

  417. Chris V. (08:39:32) :

    Ron de Haan (22:39:53) said:

    AGW is a strategic tool of the transformation process as is the current economic crises.

    “So the current economic crisis has also been manufactured by this vast, worldwide conspiracy?”

    Ummm… OK.

    Chris,
    If it is your intention to run the economy into the ground, a financial crises provides you with the momentum and opportunity.

    One example was published by Anthony.

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/?s=bail+out+co2

    More recently we saw the additional “green” requirements set for the Detroit bail out of 25 billion US$.

    Other undermining policies are the refusal to develop US carbon energy resources (oil and natural gas, the refusal to build new power plants, the refusal to develop and build nuclear energy etc. etc.

    Development of wind parks and solar farms and power lines is also frustrated.

    In the meantime the Global Economy and financial institutions are still haunted by the derivatives (CD) and credit default swap (CDS) crises of approx. 160 trillion dollars approx. 10 times the value of the worlds GDP.
    This is still a global time bomb.
    Since a large amount of the speculation is directed at future currency speculation you better hope for stable currencies for the next 3 to 5 years.
    There is still sufficient liability in the market to bankrupt complete nations.

  418. Chris V: Yep. Follow the money. Gore was worth 1-2 million in 2000 (via election disclosure data). He is now worth over 100 million (according to Forbes). He founded, and is on the board, of a company worth several billion. A supposedly green company.

    Gore uses a private jet., to go from engagement to engagement. For which he receives 100 to 200k per talk.

    Exxon made 40 billion, by spending 450 billion.

    that’s a lot of jobs, in 450 billion of costs.

    I guarantee that Gore did not spend 1 billion, to make that 100 million.

  419. T. Boone Pickens wants nothing but money and power. The money he donates to charities and OSU is for tax purposes. He made his billions by extortion. Literally! It was legal at the time. Anyone thinking that he does anything for posterity or to help human-kind is either naive or has not followed his career.

    I grow tired of people harping about the “huge profits” of oil companies. I can stomach it when the average person is bitter, because they have not studied the businesses in detail, and are only parroting what they hear from media and politicians. So, Chris, you get a pass here. What makes me thoroughly sick is when senators and politicians start whining about the big salaries of the CEO’s of oil companies. The CEO’s of oil companies have to answer to their stock holders much the same way that senators and congressmen have to answer to their constituent voters. The oil CEO’s have a current approval rating of over 95% from their constituents. Can you name a senator with an approval rating of over 30%? Not easy! Now you tell me, who is being overpaid here…
    Well, this is not the correct post to address this rant, but I sure wish there was some way to educate the public about how companies work, and how they have to reinvest their profits in exploration and production.

  420. Well, I guess ‘conspiracy’ was the wrong word to use. It seems to push too many buttons. So I’ll be glad to use a less emotion-laden word that means the same thing.

    From my dictionary:

    Conspiracy: noun A secret plan by a group to do something harmful or unlawful.

    Another online dictionary definition: “An act of two or more persons, conspirators, working in secret to obtain some goal, usually understood with negative connotation.”

    Another: “A secret plot or plan of two or more people to do evil.”

    Another: “A civil conspiracy or collusion is an agreement between two or more parties to deprive a third party of legal rights.”

    “Collusion” may be a better word: “Secret or illegal cooperation or conspiracy, esp. in order to deceive or cheat others.”

    In any event, and despite Chris V’s denial, there is very strong evidence of an AGW conspiracy collusion to transfer wealth, defraud taxpayers, and lower Western living standards.

    Strong evidence is provided by the Wegman Report [linked above], which specifically lays out the social connections between the very small clique of climate grant beneficiaries in a rigorous statistical manner.

    Prof. Wegman makes it clear, to anyone with minimal reading comprehension, that the climate peer review system has been gamed for the financial benefit of the proponents of AGW. As a result, taxpayers are being defrauded; we are paying for a faulty product [the hockey stick, etc].

    We can just as well call that collusion. And it results in exactly the same benefits to the perpetrators as a conspiracy.

    Excuse me now, I have to go out and buy some more Reynolds Wrap. Mustn’t forget to keep the shiny side out.

  421. Smokey (14:03:18) said

    :In any event, and despite Chris V’s denial, there is very strong evidence of an AGW conspiracy collusion to transfer wealth, defraud taxpayers, and lower Western living standards.

    Strong evidence is provided by the Wegman Report…

    The Wegman Report says nothing of the sort.. Where does the Wegman Report mention anything about a collusion to transfer wealth, lower western living standards, etc.???

    You are making a ridiculous leap of logic. Aside from it’s criticisms of Manns methods, the Wegman Report says that many of the people doing climate reconstructions have worked with Mann, and each other, and use some of the same data sets. That’s it.

    Well guess what- paleoclimate reconstruction is a rather specialized, and tiny, field. It’s not surprising that many of these researchers have worked together at various times in their careers.

    Now, if you want to argue that the paleoclimate community could use some new blood and some new ideas, that’s one thing. If you want to argue that there are problems with the methods they are using, that’s another. But to conclude from the Wegman Report that there there is some sort of vast conspiracy going on, involving dozens of researchers from different institutions…

    If that’s the best evidence of “collusion” you’ve got, then you ain’t got nothin’.

    If I were you, I’d buy generic aluminum foil. It’s cheaper, and I’m guessing you go through a lot of it. ;)

  422. Les and Old Coach-

    I am not criticizing the oil companies. They are entitled to make a profit, like anybody else.

    My point was that there are “monied interests” on both sides.

    Soros, Pickens, etc. MIGHT make money, but coal, oil, etc. will DEFINITELY lose money.

    As in most situations (like changes in the tax code), most of the money and those with the most to lose are on the side of the status quo.

  423. Chris V. @16:17:53 :

    Relax, boy. It’s only a matter of your reading comprehension.

    You claimed that there was no evidence of *ahem* collusion. So I provided some very strong evidence: the Wegman Report [read the section on collusion "cliques"].

    What you did was to simply read more into what I wrote than was there. I provided the Wegman report as one example of collusion. You were looking for a “gotcha.” So you got excited and assumed, instead of understanding that I was saying that collusion results in things that are bad for society. Wegman discusses the likelihood of a transfer of wealth from taxpayers into the pockets of a clique that is gaming the system for its personal financial gain. I can go into greater detail on the rest if you like; just ask.

    Prof. Wegman simply provided evidence of likely/apparent collusion. You are misrepresenting what Wegman [very carefully] lays out: the incestuous relationships between grant recipients, which results in each passing uncritical peer review for the other, for the purpose of obtaining public grant money. In my book, that is fraud.

    An explicit example of peer review fraud in the climate sciences can be found here. I rest my case.

  424. Chris V says:

    Soros, Pickens, etc. MIGHT make money, but coal, oil, etc. will DEFINITELY lose money.

    Actually, that is simply wrong. Oil and coal will not lose money. It will just become more expensive to generate electricity with oil and coal, but that cost will be passed on to us consumers.

  425. Graeme Rodaughan: “Where do you stand on the proposal that current climatic conditions are within/or outside of natural climatic conditions?”

    Since humans are the major contributors to the 30-plus percent increase in CO2 levels, the current climate is clearly outside of “natural” climatic conditions.

  426. Smokey: “What you did was to simply read more into what I wrote than was there.”

    What you wrote was: “…there is very strong evidence of an AGW conspiracy collusion to transfer wealth, defraud taxpayers, and lower Western living standards… Strong evidence is provided by the Wegman Report.”

    In other words, by your own definition of collusion: “Secret or illegal cooperation or conspiracy, esp. in order to deceive or cheat others”, the Wegman Report provides very strong evidence that AGWers are consciously attempting to defraud taxpayers and lower Western living standards.

    “…instead of understanding that I was saying that collusion results in things that are bad for society.”

    So when you claimed that “there is very strong evidence of an AGW conspiracy /collusion to transfer wealth, defraud taxpayers, and lower Western living standards” it was just a slip of the keyboard. You really meant to say: “collusion is bad for society’.

  427. Brendan H:

    Since humans are the major contributors to the 30-plus percent increase in CO2 levels…

    Citation, please.

  428. Coal and oil won’t lose money, but we will have to pay much more for it because a protection racket is getting into the game. If you really think that the enormous extra, artificial costs will help anyone, I have some oceanfront property for you. It’s in Arizona, but the sea levels are rising, right?

    The extra revenues generated by these schemes, will end up in the same
    place as the social insecurity “lockbox”.

    The racket is getting money from tobacco taxes, from lotteries and a million other fees which has always been promised to education and child healthcare. By the time these monies are collected, they conveniently forget the promises, and our money ends up in the general fund. This little tiny bit of wisdom is lost on radical environmentalists, who believe that the government will actually use this money to mitigate global warming. If an environmentalist cannot grasp this simple truth, how can anyone expect them to have any understanding whatsoever? <rant over.

  429. Mike and Richard-

    How would you feel about a revenue-neutral carbon tax?

    Tax oil and coal based on their carbon content. At the end of the year, refund all the tax collected back to the taxpayers, with everybody getting an equal share of the revenue.

    This would encourage conservation and development of fossil-fuel alternatives without taking any money out of the private economy.

  430. Mike Bryant (06:02:08) :

    “Coal and oil won’t lose money, but we will have to pay much more for it because a protection racket is getting into the game.”

    Mike,

    I agree with your remarks.
    Cost for energy, distribution etc. in the end will be paid by the consumer.

    Unfortunately we have a much bigger set of problems this time.

    The climate that is currently created is not encouraging large investments.
    This means that the energy continuity is at stake.

    Solar and wind have a storage problem.
    This means that every Kw of energy they produce is in need of a back up power plant. This means that the cost will double or even triple.

    This will reduce the competitive capacity of the US and reduce exports.
    The consumer spending more of his income on energy and more expensive products
    will lose spending power which has a negative effect on the economy.

    The effect is that we kill the economy without solving a single problem.
    AGW is a hoax that serves an eco socialist/communist agenda which is directed against people.

    Few people make the connection between the so called fight against AGW and the planned leftist coup that is going to wreck our lives for the year to come.

    We have to stop this madness, not only because it effects our lives.
    The effects for developing nations, most of them in Africa will be devastating.
    Food prices will go sky high, further land use will be directed for bio fuel production, poverty and famine will threaten the life of billions.

    The driving force behind the AGW Hoax is the United Nations.
    The basic concept of cutting energy aimed to reduce human activity and productivity thus reducing the population comes from the Club of Rome.
    The last twenty years a complete network of organisation, institutions
    education centers, NGO’s and think tanks have emerged that support the transformation process.

    They fund elections (Soros, Buffet, MoveOn who suported Obama and Clinton, Soros has hundreds of organizations involved in political activity, influencing opinion, manipulating complete markets and countries), they advice Governments, they support the AGW Hoax in the media, support research, (WWF, Greenpeace) they undermine planned projects that do not fit their ideas and attack opponents.

    The legislative basis is formed by UN Chapter 21 which is now signed by almost all countries world wide.

    The network isolates politicians and government officials.
    The international meetings like Kyoto are not public.
    The science presented is bias and corrupt.
    The consulting organizations sell the same message and direct their advice in accordance with the consensus (if it exists or not).
    For decision makers within our Governments the hoax becomes a reality.
    And so for the millions of people that are brainwashed by the media that carry the same message.

    The AGW hoax is now sold in news programs (the North Pole does not excist anymore, all the ice is gone!, the polar bears are drowning), documentaries, the weather reports but also in TV commercials. Green, sustainable, good for the environment. environmental friendly, all empty statements that only support the AGW hoax. People are asked to conserve energy, water, stop eating meat, stop flying, use public transport instead of your own car.
    Every event from storm to flood is labled with AGW/Climate change.

    This is not a clever way for a Government to create a new cash cow.

    This is a very well planned transformation of our societies aimed at a drastic reduction of energy consumption thus leading to a drastic reduction in population.

    This is a revolution.

  431. Peter (10:52:19) :
    “Can I point out that some of your statements have not exactly been highly accurate.”

    I see you didn’t use an example to prove your point. This is a typical ploy used, state something as fact with no supporting evidence. I’m used to being disagreed with all the time, even when i have been proved right. An example would be back in late September I predicted that there would be no La Nina this winter. i was shot down for his, again in October with two conributors saying that because one indicator suggested a La Nina (i.e. cherry picking the one indicator to prove their view) then one was inevitable. Guess what, there is no La Nina and there will not be one for some time. Sticking my neckout again I would say an El Nino is likely later next year.
    So, again, an example please.

  432. Mary Hinge:

    So, again, an example please.

    Ok, here’s one. On the Corrected NASA GISTEMP Data thread, you made some highly inaccurate and/or misleading assertions about latent heat, oranges and kettles – to which I replied. Perhaps you didn’t read my reply.

    Now, what were you saying about a ‘typical ploy’?

  433. Chris V:

    Smokey-

    http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/how-do-we-know-that-recent-cosub2sub-increases-are-due-to-human-activities-updated/

    From the above link:

    The concentrations have not reached that level because the ocean and the terrestrial biosphere have the capacity to absorb some of the CO2 we produce.

    But then:

    You would have to postulate a suddenly increased natural sink (to remove the human CO2)

    But that’s precisely what he has, in effect, postulated in the first quote above. Otherwise, CO2 levels would have long ago dropped to below the level necessary to support life, and we wouldn’t be here arguing the toss,

  434. Brendan H:

    The burden of proof is on anyone who wants to claim that the climate is well within normal historical [rather, geological] parameters because this is a positive claim.

    Simply because it’s a positive claim doesn’t change the fact that the burden of proof rests with those who postulate a theory.

    We cannot prove that AGW doesn’t happen, just as you can’t prove that cimate is not within normal historical limits.

    So you attempt to shift the goalposts with,

    But all I need do is point to the 30-odd percent human contribution to CO2 levels to show that “the climate is well within normal historical parameters” is not relevant, since the human-induced rise in not “normal”

    That assumes that CO2 levels have an effect on the climate in the first place.

    Or do you think that pouring a bucket of water into the ocean would shift sea levels outside of normal historical parameters?

  435. November 24, 2008
    1. Mann’s latest hockey stick gutted (again)
    “ABSTRACT: A new method is proposed for determining if a group of datasets contain a signal in common. The method, which I call Correlation Distribution Analysis (CDA), is shown to be able to detect common signals down to a signal:noise ratio of 1:10. In addition, the method reveals how much of the common signal is contained by each proxy. I applied the method to the Mann et al. 2008 (hereinafter M2008) proxies. I analysed all (N=95) of the M008 proxies which contain data from 1001 to 1980. These contain a clear hockeystick shaped signal. CDA shows that the hockeystick shape is entirely due to Tiljander proxies plus high-altitude southwestern US “stripbark” pines (bristlecones, foxtails, etc). When these are removed, the hockeystick shape disappears entirely.” “Can’t See the Signal For the Trees”

    http://heliogenic.blogspot.com/2008/11/manns-latest-hockey-stick-gutted-again.html

    2. Indonesia’s Climate Follows the Sun

    Posted by Willie Soon, November 25th, 2008 – under Opinion.
    Tags: Climate & Climate Change
    Comments: none

    CARBON dioxide is not an air pollutant. It is plant food. All life on Earth depends on it. It is natural. It forms the bubbles in bread, champagne, and Coca-Cola. You breathe it out, and plants breathe it in.

    The Earth contains a lot of CO2, but the atmosphere contains so little that the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) rightly calls CO2 a “trace gas”. A scientific mystery is why the air does not hold more CO2 than it does. Half a billion years ago, there was almost 20 times today’s CO2 concentration.

    Most farmers would prefer to grow crops under much-higher concentrations of CO2 than today’s 385 parts per million—less than 1/25 of 1 percent of the atmosphere. To feed the world, low CO2 concentration is not such a great idea. High concentrations are better, and they cause no harm. Experiments have shown that even delicate plants such as orchids thrive at CO2 concentrations of 10,000 ppm.

    That is why U.S. Supreme Court Justice Anthony Scalia has declared that if CO2 is to be labeled an “air pollutant”, then so must Frisbees and flatulence.

    http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/

  436. Chris V,

    “Tax oil and coal based on their carbon content. At the end of the year, refund all the tax collected back to the taxpayers, with everybody getting an equal share of the revenue.”

    That sounds like something proposed by Hansen as the congressmen studiously ignored him. If you believe that you will ever get value fron the federal government, you must be a high school kid or an idealist.

    When you send money to the government, make sure you wave goodbye.

  437. Chris V.,

    Please don’t bother to link to obvious propaganda sites like realclimate; I rarely click on them, and that one is no exception.

    I define a propaganda site as any site that encourages like-minded views, while deleting those that disagree with them.

    Numerous posters here have stated that realclimate routinely deletes their comments. Exactly none of my comments have ever been posted at realclimate, but not for lack of submissions. I have since given up trying.

    But government and university sites are a different matter: click

  438. Smokey:

    You asked for some evidence that human activities are responsible for the CO2 increases; I provided some.

    Instead of telling me what’s wrong with that evidence, you just ignore it because you don’t like the source, and then change the subject.

    If you don’t like realclimate’s take on this issue, you can go to the supporting references they provide.

    Evidence does not cease to exist just because you refuse to look at it.

  439. Mike Bryant-

    You didn’t really answer my question.

    You don’t think the government is capable of managing a program like that? People get income tax refunds all the time. All taxpayers got fiscal stimulus checks some months ago. How would this be any different?

  440. Chris V.
    CO2 goes up, temp goes down, oceans cool, sea levels decrease, arctic sea ice is within 1979 -2000 mean, AGW theory of catastrophic warming is B U S T…
    Even the fraudulent manipulation of the GISS data set does not change that.

    Why worry?… be happy

  441. “Tax oil and coal based on their carbon content. At the end of the year, refund all the tax collected back to the taxpayers, with everybody getting an equal share of the revenue.
    All taxpayers got fiscal stimulus checks some months ago. How would this be any different?”

    So everyone gets an equal share, after uncle sam takes his customary 90%. From each according to their ability, to each according to their need (if uncle sam has any left over that is, and he never does). The stimulous only devalued our money as the buyouts will. Let’s redistribute all the wealth. Is that what you want?

    It reminds me of a story. I might have some of the details wrong, but it illustrates a point. A reporter asked J. Paul Getty if he thought it was right that he had so much money while there were so many poor people in the world.
    J. Paul called his head accountant in and asked him, “What am I worth today?” the accountant said, “I can’t say exactly, but it is about a billion dollars, sir.” “And how many people are there in the world, son.” asked Getty. “I believe about two billion people, sir.”
    J. Paul sent the accountant away, and reached into his pocket. He removed two quarters and said to the reporter, “Here is your share of my fortune, now get the hell out of my office.”

    So, ChrisV, no I don’t want any of your government schemes to devalue our wealth. No matter what question you ask about new taxes, new little schemes to make me think I’m getting over on the oil companies, cap and trade schemes or new bailouts. My answer today and for the rest of my life will be, Hell NO.

    I hope that cleared it up for you.
    Thanks,
    Mike the Plumber.

  442. Ron de Haan:

    Your link on the predicted 23 years of global cooling is very interesting.

    Do you have a link to the original story, paper, report, whatever? Like one that names the “several Canadian environmental scientists” and tells what they actually concluded, and how they arrived at those conclusions?

    I tried to find it via Google. A lot of AGW-sceptical sites have reported this story (several google pages worth) but every one of them seems to ultimately lead back to the cdapress article in your link.

  443. Smokey (04:13:09) :

    Brendan H:

    Since humans are the major contributors to the 30-plus percent increase in CO2 levels…

    Citation, please.

    “Scientific measurements of levels of CO2 contained in cylinders of ice, called ice cores, indicate that the pre-industrial carbon dioxide level was 278 ppm. That level did not vary more than 7 ppm during the 800 years between 1000 and 1800 A.D.

    Atmospheric CO2 levels have increased from about 315 ppm in 1958 to 378 ppm at the end of 2004, which means human activities have increased the concentration of atmospheric CO2 by 100 ppm or 36 percent.”

    http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2005/s2412.htm

    “Due to human activities such as the combustion of fossil fuels and deforestation, and the increased release of CO2 from the oceans due to the increase in the Earth’s temperature, the concentration of atmospheric carbon dioxide has increased by about 35% since the beginning of the age of industrialization.”

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide#In_the_Earth.27s_atmosphere

  444. Peter: “Simply because it’s a positive claim doesn’t change the fact that the burden of proof rests with those who postulate a theory.”

    The burden of proof rests with the claimant. It doesn’t matter whether you call the claim a theory, a statement, an “accepted paradigm”, whatever. Whoever makes the claim bears the burden of proof.

    “We cannot prove that AGW doesn’t happen…”

    Agreed.

    “…just as you can’t prove that cimate is not within normal historical limits.”

    I’m not trying to “prove” that the “climate is not within normal [geological] limits”. I’m showing that the claim: “the climate is well within normal [geological] parameters” is false.

    The difference is that one claim is negative, the other positive. Positive claims can be challenged/tested. That’s one reason why scientific hypotheses are couched as positive claims.

    “That assumes that CO2 levels have an effect on the climate in the first place.”

    Agreed.

    “Or do you think that pouring a bucket of water into the ocean would shift sea levels outside of normal historical parameters?”

    Do you think that lighting a fuse can set off a firework?

  445. Peter (11:36:40) :
    “Ok, here’s one. On the Corrected NASA GISTEMP Data thread, you made some highly inaccurate and/or misleading assertions about latent heat, oranges and kettles – to which I replied. Perhaps you didn’t read my reply. ”

    Oh dear Peter, I was absolutely correct on this. When water evaporates it uses surounding energy to do this. This is why your skin feels cooler when the sweat evaporates. When the water vapour condenses it releases that energy. The effects of the steam condensing on your skin last longer (and is more painful!) than if an equivalent dry heat is applied. A simple experiment if you can’t grasp this basic scientific fact. Take to saucepans, two jam thermometers. Quarter fill one with water, tap is fine for this experiment. In the other put in an equal amount of syrup. Heat both up to 99 degrees centigrade, the pan with water should be producing plenty of water vapour. Put a lid on each pan, time for 30 seconds and measure the temperature of the lids. It will become immediately obvious that the lid of the steam producing water will be much hotter than the lid covering the syrup. This simple experiment shows how efficiently water acts as a heat transfer mechanism. As further reading about energy transfer by evaporation and condensation read a good book on refridgerators or air conditioning units. This is how they work.
    As regards the orange farmers spraying their trees with water prior to frost I was given a ‘Wiki’ answer saying I was wrong. The skeptic answer given was it was nothing to do with energy released by freezing but entirely due to the insulation effect of the ice. The actual ‘Wiki’ answer is here:
    ” Oranges are sensitive to frost, and a common treatment to prevent frost damage when sub-freezing temperatures are expected, is to spray the trees with water, since as long as unfrozen water is turning to ice on the trees’ branches, the ice that has formed stays just at the freezing point, giving protection even if air temperatures have dropped far lower. “. It is schoolboy knowledge that the freezing of water releases energy that slows down the freezing of adjacent substances. The ‘Wiki’ answer does not mention insulation.

    “Now, what were you saying about a ‘typical ploy’?”

    You originally stated I was wrong without any examples, it happens all the time from the Blah Blah Blahers. Once you give examples a meaningful discussion can take place, however unfortunately for the AGW sceptics once this happens and you cut through the smokescreens, inaccuracies etc. there isn’t a great deal left. This is unfortunate as those genuine points that can be found through the BS are vital to the debate and help increase our understanding. Its a shame people like you with no basic scientific knwoledge can help muddy the waters for whatever political motivation you may have.

    Reply: Mary, I’ve been uninvolved for a bit, but I remember you behaving better previously. Let’s try and be a little more respectful in our wording even if we feel our arguments are devastating–mmmmmkay? ~ charles the moderator.

  446. Reply: Mary, I’ve been uninvolved for a bit, but I remember you behaving better previously. Let’s try and be a little more respectful in our wording even if we feel our arguments are devastating–mmmmmkay? ~ charles the moderator.

    Hi Charles, sorry if you think I’m being disrespectful but I have to defend myself against “some highly inaccurate and/or misleading assertions about latent heat, oranges and kettles”. As I have proved my answers to his points were, on the contrary accurate and to the point with examples!!. If I have illuminated his scientific inadequacies and you feel this is disrespectful to him then I think you are maybe a bit too sensitive!
    “If you can’t take it don’t give it” was one of my grandfathers sayings, how apt!

  447. Chris V.
    Google search:

    17 Nov 2008 … Fluctuations in PDO and global climate (20th century) … In the Senate hearing, Madhav Khandekar, a Canadian scientist with the Natural …

    http://media.www.dailyemerald.com/media/storage/paper859/news/2008/11/17

    Scientists all over the world are studying the JASON satellite data, this also goes for Canadian scientists. Madhav Khandahar is one of them.

    You can also go to icecap.us
    Look at the work of Joseph D’Aleo, CCM, Fellow AMS about the 30 year cycles of the PDO and ADO and related articles. Joseph D’Aleo is a star in making his case clearly in a few words.

    Can’t provide you with a direct link, you have to search the archives.
    I also remember that Anthony has published an article from Joseph on this subject at WUWT.

    Further related links:
    /News/A.Global.Farce-3547140.shtml

    http://www.weatherquestions.com/Global-warming-natural-PDO.htm

  448. Mary,

    What you’ve shown here is that:

    1) Water is an efficient conductor of heat, therefore ‘wet’ heat on your skin feels much hotter than ‘dry’ heat. You will very quickly burn your hand if you use a damp oven glove instead of a dry one.
    But that’s all to do with the conduction of heat – steam does not increase in temperature as it condenses, as you alluded – the latent heat merely slows down the condensation of the surrounding water molecules.

    2) Just like condensing water, the latent heat of freezing simply serves to slow down the freezing of the surrounding molecules – it does not increase the temperature of its surroundings – as you also alluded.

  449. Chris V:

    Are you familiar with Henry’s Law?

    Yes. It is, as you say, high school chem stuff.

    Now kindly point it out to your chums over at RC.

  450. Brendan, I think you’re confusing the notion of ‘positive’ and ‘negative’ with the principle of falsifiability.
    The assertion that there is a tooth fairy is positive, but it’s not falsifiable. You cannot conclusively prove that there is no tooth fairy. On the other hand, the assertion that there is no tooth fairy is both negative and falsifiable. All it requires to be falsified is for the tooth fairy to make a single verifiable appearance.
    Coming back on topic: the assertion that climate is within normal limits is both positive and falsifiable – all you need to falsify it is to show that climate has exceeded the bounds of normal variation.

    Back in your court… no chalk dust.

  451. Peter (13:40:50) :
    2) Just like condensing water, the latent heat of freezing simply serves to slow down the freezing of the surrounding molecules – it does not increase the temperature of its surroundings – as you also alluded.

    I just wanted to clarify some things here:
    If Ice and water are at the same temperature in equilibrium, then Peter is correct. Freezing more ice does not raise the temperature of the adjacent water. Instead, more ice melts and we are still in thermal equilibrium.

    If liquid water is placed in a container that is below the freezing temperature of water (such as open ocean water in the arctic, or a vessel that is half full placed in subfreezing environs), then when the water freezes it releases heat to the surroundings rapidly, which does raise the temperature of the overlying gases dramatically, but never over the freezing point of the liquid. It is possible to keep the ice from freezing (supercooled), if you use distilled water and are very careful about the container and not jiggling it, etc. In this case, the transfer of heat to the air by conduction is slow. However, once a seed is added to the water to cause it to freeze, then a lot of heat is released rapidly. So in this case Mary is correct. Sometimes we have our students do this experiment as part of the Chem E lab for Heat Transfer, and have them back calculate the heat of fusion of water.

    Well, back to hiding in the shadows. I am enjoying your discussion. Please keep it up!

  452. Peter, I think you have quite succinctly stated the case.

    In my opinion, AGW supporters have never stated a scientific case for AGW.

    I would love to see one that is falsifiable.

  453. Mary Hinge:
    This simple experiment shows how efficiently water acts as a heat transfer mechanism. As further reading about energy transfer by evaporation and condensation read a good book on refridgerators or air conditioning units. This is how they work.

    Hah! Well, I think there might be a bit more to the story about how fridges and A/C’s work than what you just outlined! :)
    I know that you know better, I just wanted to give you a hard time.
    If it weren’t for that darned entropy gumming up the works…

  454. Ron de Haan (10:02:55) :

    None of the links you gave me (a paper by Spencer, and a college newspaper) mention anything about those Canadian scientists who are predicting 23 years of global cooling.
    Spencer doesn’t mention the “coming 23 years of cooling”. Can’t find anything where Khandekar says that either. I’m starting to feel that the CDA Press just made it up.

    And why do you post a paper by Spencer that uses computer modelling? I thought models were bad?

  455. Peter (13:44:03) :

    “Now kindly point it (Henry’s Law) out to your chums over at RC.”

    RC knows about Henry’s Law; that’s why some of the CO2 goes into solution in the ocean, as they said. No new carbon sinks needed.

    And I think Mary is right about ice formation causing localised warming:

    http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/

  456. Richard Sharpe (16:04:22) :

    Peter,

    I think you have quite succinctly stated the case.

    In my opinion, AGW supporters have never stated a scientific case for AGW.

    I would love to see one that is falsifiable.

    Well, there you have the specific challenge: Can any alarmist provide an AGW hypothesis that is empirically falsifiable [aside from the many AGW hypotheses that have already been falsified?]

    Good luck with that.

  457. Peter: “Brendan, I think you’re confusing the notion of ‘positive’ and ‘negative’ with the principle of falsifiability.”

    The point I was trying to make is that you can’t prove a negative, but I take your point about falsifiablity.

    “…the assertion that climate is within normal limits is both positive and falsifiable…”

    We are agreed on that. I’m claiming that the current climate is not within normal limits due to the human contribution to CO2 levels. That may be a technical point, but I think it is a valid one, since as far as we know this is a unique situation.

  458. Peter (13:40:50) :
    steam does not increase in temperature as it condenses, as you alluded
    – it does not increase the temperature of its surroundings – as you also alluded.

    Peter, will you at least read what I wrote not what you think I wrote. Look carefully, I said the processes release energy not increase temperature. As I said before a typical ploy by deniers to get their point of view across, cherry pick and misquote.

  459. Brendan H says:

    We are agreed on that. I’m claiming that the current climate is not within normal limits due to the human contribution to CO2 levels. That may be a technical point, but I think it is a valid one, since as far as we know this is a unique situation.

    Then you need to define normal … and I think you are back to needing to support your assertion.

  460. Brendan H says:

    We are agreed on that. I’m claiming that the current climate is not within normal limits due to the human contribution to CO2 levels. That may be a technical point, but I think it is a valid one, since as far as we know this is a unique situation.

    Please explain how the environment can tell the difference between human production of CO2 at 385 ppm vs non-human sources of CO2 at 3000 or more PPM?

    You AGWers always seem to ignore the good evidence geologists have given us about past environmental conditions.

  461. Mary Hinge:

    I said the processes release energy not increase temperature

    No you did not. What you actually said was:

    The heat released when the water freezes gives some protection.

    Now, where’s the ‘typical ploy’, misquote or cherry-picking? Or are you just trying to make mischief?

  462. Peter, Mary!
    When steam condenses, it releases energy. This does heat the surroundings if they are lower than the vaporization temperature of water! You guys are getting into a semantics argument.
    When Water freezes it releases heat to the surroundings. As long as the surroundings are colder than the freezing point, this raises the temperature of the surroundings. This is a very easy and basic heat transfer experiment for college juniors in thermodynamics.
    If the underlying water is above freezing temp, then it will not increase in temp when adjacent water freezes. If the atmosphere above the water is below freezing, then the temperature of the air will be increased by the freezing water.
    I hope this helps clear things up.

  463. Old Coach,

    You are talking about steady-state conditions, which don’t really apply, because it’s the very act of freezing which releases the latent energy. Under steady-state conditions, the water’s either frozen or it’s not.
    It starts when the water is liquid and the atmosphere is above freezing. Then the atmospheric temperature starts dropping and, because the thermal capacity of the water is much greater than that of the air, we soon reach the point where the water temperature is greater than the air temperature, even if it was colder to start with. At that point, the nett flow of heat becomes from the water to the air. As the air temperature continues to drop, the nett flow of heat from the water increases, but the water continues to cool. When the water reaches freezing point, it starts releasing latent energy, which then increases the rate of heat flow from the freezing water, both to the unfrozen water and to the air. Depending on the rate at which the air is cooling, it will either mean that the rate of cooling of the air slows down, or the air temperature remains the same. If the air temperature starts rising then the rate of heat flow from the water to the air slows down and the water consequently stops freezing, so the latent energy falls and so the temperature tends to stabilize at that point. However, if the air continues to cool below freezing point then, although the nett flow of heat from the water is greater while the water is in the process of freezing, the air temperature does not rise and will continue to tend to fall, albeit at a slower rate.

  464. Mary, I should have added your other statement:

    The condensing steam releases a lot of heat, as you quickly find out if you put your hand anywhere near the spout of a boiling kettle!

    Tell me how this can be (mis)interpreted to mean anything other than a temperature rise?

  465. Peter,You are exactly correct.Up until: Depending on the rate at which the air is cooling, it will either mean that the rate of cooling of the air slows down, or the air temperature remains the same.
    Air temp can rise. This is happening as we speak over lake Ontario.

    Then you write: If the air temperature starts rising then the rate of heat flow from the water to the air slows down

    Yes, this is correct, but then you say

    water consequently stops freezing [not unless it is warmer than air temp], so the latent energy falls and so the temperature tends to stabilize at that point. However, if the air continues to cool below freezing point then, although the nett flow of heat from the water is greater while the water is in the process of freezing, the air temperature does not rise and will continue to tend to fall, albeit at a slower rate.

    The air temp will not continue to fall unless there is an external driving force causing it to fall, such as thermodynamic cooling (as from a developing low pressure system), convection away from the heat source (although the air does warm before is is whisked away), from radiation to deep space, etc… The heat flows from the ice-water to the air. Even if flow rate is small, heat still flows from the icewater to the air. The air gains heat and the water loses heat. This principle has never been shown wrong in even one instance. We know of no exceptions in the universe. We used to think we might have a way around it at the event horizons of black holes, but that turned out to be false.

    How did the air ever get colder than the water?
    Most likely: Started over snowy land or icecap and got frigid by radiational cooling, then moved via convection.
    Less likely: Thermodynamic cooling from pressure drop.
    Still Less likely: Precip falling through extremely dry air.

    The temperature of the air stabilizes when the heat gained from the water equals the heat lost due to radiative transfer into deep space or convection. Depending on the balance of these heat flows, the temperature of the bulk of the air can either drop or raise when over freezing water. The layer of air immedialely adjacent to the water ALWAYS raises, but whether the layers above this also raise is dependent on the source of heat transfer away from the air, as described above.
    Of course, maybe this is kind of what you were saying all along :), but it worried me when you said that the air could gain heat from the water and still cool, which is only possible if the air is radiating heat to space faster than it is receiving it from the ocean.

  466. Richard Sharpe: “Then you need to define normal …”

    By “normal” I mean “natural”, since the point of difference is between the atmosphere as a wholly natural phenomenon and the atmosphere containing a human contribution to CO2 levels.

    “Please explain how the environment can tell the difference between human production of CO2 at 385 ppm vs non-human sources of CO2 at 3000 or more PPM?”

    The paleoclimate with CO2 at 3000 ppm was much different to the current environment and would not have supported human life. So it’s meaningless to speculate whether an environment could detect any difference between CO2 at 385 ppm – man-made or otherwise – and 3000 ppm, since the measures refer to two different environments.

    Our (human) way of life has developed within a fairly constrained range of average climatic and environmental conditions. So appeals to long-past climatic conditions need to keep this in mind.

  467. Brendan H said:

    By “normal” I mean “natural”, since the point of difference is between the atmosphere as a wholly natural phenomenon and the atmosphere containing a human contribution to CO2 levels.

    You have simply replaced one word with another word that has an overlap in meaning. How about you supply us with some numbers? What is the natural amount of CO2 in the environment and what is the correct range for it? What is the natural temperature range that you are referring to? When you give us some numbers you have given us that can be falsified.

    Our (human) way of life has developed within a fairly constrained range of average climatic and environmental conditions. So appeals to long-past climatic conditions need to keep this in mind.

    Can you quantify that fairly constrained range of … ?

    Humans are actually part of the ‘natural’ system, in case you have forgotten, but the appeals to ‘long-past climatic conditions’ were intended to point out that the system has continued to function and remain stable in the presence of quite large perturbations in the past, and larger perturbations that humans have currently caused. You seem unwilling to recognize that a strong stabilization exists, and humans increasing C02 by some fraction of 100ppm (going from some 280ppm to 380ppm, some part of which is a non-human caused increase), ie, 1 part in 10,000, should be compared with events in the past like the PETM to get a solid feel for whether or not CO2 is a driving force in the temperature response of the atmosphere.

  468. Old Coach:

    The air temp will not continue to fall unless there is an external driving force causing it to fall

    I don’t understand what you’re trying to say. The air temperature will continue to fall for as long as the heat flows out of it faster than it flows in, theoretically all the way down to absolute zero.
    At night, over the ocean in winter, there is no (direct) inflow of heat from the sun, so its major inflow of heat is from the ocean. The major outflow of heat from the air is via radiation and convection (dry air being a very good insulator) The ocean loses energy to the air, which in turn, loses it, ultimately, into space. If the air stops cooling, so will the ocean.

    A side point here is that the ocean loses heat by radiation to both the air (thanks to greenhouse gases) and to space, and to the atmosphere by direct conduction and this, via convection and radiation, ultimately to space. However, due to the insulating properties of dry air, the heat loss from conduction isn’t great, unless this is accompanied by strong convection. Witness how quickly your car engine overheats if the airflow through the radiator is restricted. The presence of greenhouse gases would tend to slow the loss from radiation, however it could be argued that this process allows heat to ‘jump’ the insulating layer of the air, which makes the convection layer deeper and more energetic, which in turn increases heat loss via conduction. Whether or not this is greater than the greenhouse effect is a topic worthy of discussion in its own right.

    Even if flow rate is small, heat still flows from the icewater to the air. The air gains heat and the water loses heat

    Precisely. I wasn’t disputing that.

    The temperature of the air stabilizes when the heat gained from the water equals the heat lost due to radiative transfer into deep space or convection.

    Precisely again. As the water loses more heat it cools, therefore allowing the air to cool more. The water, due to it’s much greater thermal capacity, cools much slower than the air would in the absence of heat inflow, so this also limits the rate of cooling of the air.

    Of course, maybe this is kind of what you were saying all along

    Ah! The old cliche about being divided by a common language ;-)

    but it worried me when you said that the air could gain heat from the water and still cool, which is only possible if the air is radiating heat to space faster than it is receiving it from the ocean.

    The keyword there is ‘faster’. Many people don’t realize that ‘heat’ is not a noun.

  469. Peter,
    I agree with everything you just posted!
    It is difficult to explain heat transfer with words; maybe that is why the earlier confusion.
    I think that the statement “Heat is not a noun” is a bit misleading. We use it as a noun in sentences all the time, including the sentence “heat is not a noun”. Most of the confusion I encounter is in equating heat with temperature. Heat is not temperature. English is unwieldy sometimes. Mass and weight are used interchangeably, which we have to unlearn in physics.

  470. Old Coach (15:07:51) :
    At last, someone reasonable to discuss something with! You can add energy to the equating heat and temperature reference. As you know ,and Peter probably doesn’t energy, can do many things, even raise temperature if conditions are right!

  471. Mary,

    The rate of thermal energy transfer from one body to another is dependent on the thermal gradient between them.
    For the water to get down to freezing point, the air must be losing energy at a higher rate than it’s gaining energy from the water.
    When the water starts freezing its temperature stalls at freezing point. It doesn’t get any colder (until it’s frozen), but continues to transfer energy to the air at the same rate.
    In the meantime, the air continues to lose energy at the same rate, but the transfer of energy from the freezing water stays the same. As it was getting colder before the water started freezing, it must continue to get colder.
    In the worst case, as the temperature gradient between the freezing water and the air increases, the energy transfer from the water to the air may now equal the energy loss from the air, at which point the air will stop getting colder.
    But it will not get warmer, unless conditions change during the process like, for example, the energy loss from the air decreases because of clouds forming or the wind changing direction.

    I hope this finally makes things clear.

  472. Richard Sharpe: “You have simply replaced one word with another word that has an overlap in meaning.”

    Yes, but I was contrasting natural vs man-made.

    “Can you quantify that fairly constrained range of … ?”

    The average climate for the past 10,000 years, which is the period relating to the rise of human civilisation. Temperatures over that period varied probably by less than 2 deg C, so the climate during which we developed our way of life was very consistent when compared with the long-term geological time scale.

    “…appeals to ‘long-past climatic conditions’ were intended to point out that the system has continued to function…”

    I’m sure the “system” will continue to function. My interest is in the functioning of humans within that system. Climatic conditions need to be hospitable to human life on a crowded planet.

    “…should be compared with events in the past like the PETM to get a solid feel for whether or not CO2 is a driving force in the temperature response of the atmosphere.”

    The PETM rise in temperature of around 6 deg C was accompanied by large increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide. Methane may also have exacerbated the warming, which continued for around 100,000 years, suggesting a high sensitivity to CO2. Perhaps more to the point, the rate at which carbon was being added to the atmosphere was around the same as today from human sources.

  473. Mary, Peter,
    I think this argument boils down (sorry) to how the air gets cold over the open water. If the air is stationary over the open water, then Peter’s argument is mostly correct. The air will cool because of radiation to deep space and warm from conduction/convection from the ocean. In order for the air to start cooling, the entire air mass must be losing more heat from radiation than it is gaining from the water. Thus, the average temperature of the entire column of air should drop or at least remain constant.
    Having said this, the air will have a lapse rate. Convection will determine how fast the heat is transferred from the lower altitudes to higher. As this is not instantaneous, the sea level air could easily warm. In fact, the air immediately over the water must warm. But… how thick is this layer? 1 mm? 100m? I have no idea. I have little desire to model the heat transfer from freezing ice water to a laminar layer of air that is complicated by turbulent flow and convection instabilities that vary as a function of the heat exchange rate. This would be the job of a grad student. Anyway, if the warming we have seen over Asia is due to fusion of ice in the arctic, then surely we would see an abnormally large lapse rate. You guys know if this data is out there?
    On the other hand, if the air cooled over Siberia, then was transported by bulk flow over the ocean, then the ocean began to freeze, the air would warm up a lot. This is a pretty obvious scenario, and one that is typical, I think. Still, I am more curious about the other possibility. I am curious if the rapid freezing of arctic ice this year coincides with an unusually steep lapse rate.
    Good discussion, this is!

  474. Old Coach:

    Yes, you do have a lapse rate, but this is an ongoing process.
    Over the ocean, well away from land, and in the absence of the sun, the major determinant of air temperature is the temperature of the ocean – because of its large thermal capacity. The air temperature does not suddenly drop by a large amount to another steady state.
    I will concede that you could have very cold air blowing over the ocean from the land, but a) this tends to be localized near to the coast, and b) the air will warm, but as a result of the ocean being a lot warmer, not as a result of the ocean freezing.
    The air can only warm as a result of the water freezing if the rate of energy loss from the air suddenly decreases while the water is in the process of freezing – but this is very much the exception rather than the rule.

  475. Peter:
    I will concede that you could have very cold air blowing over the ocean from the land, but a) this tends to be localized near to the coast, and b) the air will warm, but as a result of the ocean being a lot warmer, not as a result of the ocean freezing
    In regards to a:
    I am not sure that it would always be “localized near to the coast”. The arctic weather is not nearly as isolated as the antarctic. There are always periods when air masses flow from scandinavia over the ocean to siberia, and from siberia over the ocean to alaska and northern canada. Things are not static. One important thing to remember about polar meteorology: The air can get much colder over land than ocean. The coldest temperatures are recorded in interior alaska and russia, not the north pole.
    In regards to b:
    The rate of heat transfer is dependent on the temperature difference. The total heat that can transfer is dependent on the phase of the water. When water goes from liquid to solid phase, there is a lot of heat available for transfer. If the water cooled from +4 degrees to -4 degrees and remained liquid, the air would increase in temperature a given amount. If the water cooled from +4 degrees to -4 degrees but changed phase to solid, then the air would warm much more. Again, this is an easy experiment to carry out in a lab. It works.
    This is a tricky subject to explain. I am likely not doing a good job of outlining how heat transfer works. Perhaps the analogies we are using (like Mary’s teapot and my lab experiments) are just confusing each other! :)

  476. Old Coach:

    It seems we’re still at cross-purposes here.

    If the air was much colder than the water, as it would be if it had just blown over from the land, then:
    a) If the rate of heat loss from the air was smaller than the rate of heat gain from the water, the air would warm. During the time the water was freezing, the warming would speed up.
    b) If the rate of heat loss from the air was greater than the rate of heat gain from the water, the air would continue cooling, albeit at a slower rate. During the time the water was freezing, the cooling would slow down even further.
    c) If the If the rate of heat loss from the air was about the same as the rate of heat gain from the water, then its temperature would stay almost the same, and it would warm up when the water started freezing. But I would suggest that the narrow set of conditions necessary for this to happen are more likely to occur in the laboratory than in real-life.

  477. Question – It was discovered that the climate temperature data for the month of October was faulty.

    If this is true, why are there still research papers avaiable that base sceintific theories from this faulty data?

    Case in point: Here is an article that tells how the Arctic ice gain at a rapid pace in October even when the temperatures were 13 degrees above average!

    http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/2008/111008.html

    I believe that the temperatures were below average and the ice grew at a rate that was normal for the temperature. The data was faulty, the conclusion is faulty and the article should be removed.

    Any thoughts?

  478. Dr Jello asks:

    I believe that the temperatures were below average and the ice grew at a rate that was normal for the temperature. The data was faulty, the conclusion is faulty and the article should be removed.

    Any thoughts?

    This area has become politicized out the wazoo. Do not expect any real science from this area until the politics ceases.

  479. I don’t take a particular stance on the Global Warming issues but I feel that I must point out errors in how you and your bloggers present statements and analyze data, especially your graph interpretations.

    First, as informations changes so do analysis results and GISS did “pony” up to their data problem in August 2007. See:

    http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/updates/200708.html

    Secondly, GISS also confirmed that the September 2008 duplicated data was taken in error and GISS corrected the data two days after be made aware of the error.

    Thirdly, “Alan the Brit” (the 1st post) is a good example of those those who misunderstand data analysis such as running means (in this case 5-year annual means – the “red line” on your graph).

    For example: “Alan” says “I note that in the latter graph, temp red line is omitted at 1880, bringing temp down not appear to extend passed 2005, so why it is labelled US temps to 2008 I cannot think!”

    Alan is correct in saying: “I cannot think!”.

    Alan missed the point of the “red line”. The “red line” is a 5-year mean. A mean value cannot start on the graph at the zero point. It starts at the midpoint of the mean duration. In this case the “red line” represents a 5-year mean; therefore, the first data-point will begin in 1882.5. The last data-point will be shown 2.5-years before the last point on the graph.

    Alan, the black line represent annual mean temperatures from 1880 – 2008, that’s why the graph contains 2008 in its title. The red line represents the 5-year mean.

  480. Thurburn,

    Alan missed the point of the “red line”. The “red line” is a 5-year mean. A mean value cannot start on the graph at the zero point.

    You sound very authoritative.

    Assuming you’re not here on a drive-by stink bomb throwing expedition, can you tell us why the 1999 curve has the 5 year moving average red line going through 1880?

Comments are closed.