Comments on: William Schlesinger on IPCC: “something on the order of 20 percent have had some dealing with climate.”

By: Jeff

Jeff — Tue, 24 Feb 2009 16:26:38 +0000

Katherine wrote:
“Because CO2’s IR absorption is logarithmic and current CO2 levels are close to maxing out IR absorption. Once CO2 levels reach/pass the maximum for IR absorption, adding more CO2 will not increase IR absorption. All the IR that can be absorbed will have been absorbed. ”

There’s no indication we are close to that point, which in any event is a bit of a moving target, given factors like pressure broadening.

By: HasItBeen4YearsYet?

HasItBeen4YearsYet? — Tue, 24 Feb 2009 08:37:44 +0000

SUPLIMENTARY INFORMATION TO ASSIST IN MAKING DECISION
http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/2009/01/the-ipcc-cant-count-author-and-reviewer-numbers-are-wrong/

By: HasItBeen4YearsYet?

HasItBeen4YearsYet? — Tue, 24 Feb 2009 08:04:20 +0000

Measurements of Monterey Bay Incoming Seawater For the Aquarium show NO CHANGE from 2006 to 2007.

Sorry, that from 1996 to 2007.

By: HasItBeen4YearsYet?

HasItBeen4YearsYet? — Tue, 24 Feb 2009 08:01:35 +0000

The oceans aren’t “acidifying.” The pathetic alleged drop in pH is buried in the annual variation which is more than ten times the alleged drop, which is still in the range of “basic,” not “acidic.” It’s highly temperature dependent, and it is the height of dishonesty to pretend such a small difference is meaningful.

Measurements of Monterey Bay Incoming Seawater For the Aquarium show NO CHANGE from 2006 to 2007.
http://sanctuarymonitoring.org/regional_docs/monitoring_projects/100240_167.pdf
Other reports I’ve seen are similar, some going down, other up, but always within a very high background variation and often seasonal, presumably temp dependent.

By: HasItBeen4YearsYet?

HasItBeen4YearsYet? — Tue, 24 Feb 2009 08:01:21 +0000

Measurements of Monterey Bay Incoming Seawater For the Aquarium show NO CHANGE from 2006 to 2007. Other reports I’ve seen are similar, some going down, other up, but always within a very high background variation and often seasonal, presumably temp dependent.

By: HasItBeen4YearsYet?

HasItBeen4YearsYet? — Tue, 24 Feb 2009 07:39:00 +0000

@Joel Shore (11:01:02) :

“the U.S. government under George W. Bush refused to endorse the re-appointment of U.S. atmospheric scientist Robert Watson for another term as chairman of the IPCC.”

What the #@^^ are you blabbering about?

“One of the most outspoken scientists on the issue of global warming has been ousted from his job.

Dr Robert Watson was voted out of the chair of the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) on Friday and will be replaced by one of the current vice-chairs, Dr Rajendra Pachauri.”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/1940117.stm

Like we would have been better off with him? NOT! And even if Bush didn’t support him, that would have been a GOOD thing.

It’s amazing the way the Leftists twist and turn everything around. There is definitely madness in their method. If someone puts out a fire, and then another starts, “well see, that second fire never would have started if you hadn’t put that first one out, so it IS your fault.” (must be a &$^#% lawyer)

By: Katherine

Katherine — Tue, 24 Feb 2009 06:44:04 +0000

Because CO2′s IR absorption is logarithmic and current CO2 levels are close to maxing out IR absorption. Once CO2 levels reach/pass the maximum for IR absorption, adding more CO2 will not increase IR absorption. All the IR that can be absorbed will have been absorbed.

There are several posts on WUWT that deal with CO2 levels and IR absorption. Go check the archives and be enlightened.

By: Jeff

Jeff — Tue, 24 Feb 2009 06:15:20 +0000

Getting back to the original topic of this thread, which was the qualifications of the IPCC members, some guy actually created a list of the contributing authors from Working Group 1, along with a list of publications for each. He reports, you decide:

http://www.eecg.utoronto.ca/~prall/climate/AR4wg1_authors_table.html

By: HasItBeen4YearsYet?

HasItBeen4YearsYet? — Mon, 23 Feb 2009 22:54:09 +0000

More questions. How many carbon isotopes are natural? I've only studied 57, but there are two more I intend to look into when time permits, Alaska, Hawaii, and Cleavland. What is the name of the one that hasn’t be found, yet? George. What is the name of the most recent isotope discovered and what is its atomic weight? Rosie Odonnell, and the Army Corps Of Engineers is still working on a scale that can handle the weight determination. What is the hardest natural substance on Earth made of? The heart of a vengeful woman. What is one of the softest natural substances made of? Trick question. A vacuum isn't made of anything, just virtual particles, but they don't matter because they aren't. What is the central substance of study in organic chemistry? Home Brew. Well, at least that was MY central substance of study when I was an undergrad. (the lab stores custodian, who gave everyone else a hard time, and I had a good working relationship. I gave him home brew, and I never had a problem getting the chemical or equipment I needed for experiments.)

By: HasItBeen4YearsYet?

HasItBeen4YearsYet? — Mon, 23 Feb 2009 22:39:54 +0000

He’s a “denier” in the sense that his data clearly refutes some of their outlandish claims.

I’m aware of that sentence you seem to think invalidates his science in favor of their hysteria, and that is why I wrote, “of sorts” to indicate he isn’t a hard core ‘denier’ (at least not yet, anyway).

Maybe he’s afraid for his career?
http://nov55.com/firing.html
Intimidation is rampant, which is probably why only those who are honest and whose authority can’t be questioned, or who have retired, etc., have the ability to speak out publicly without fear of reprisal.

By: Alg

Alg — Mon, 23 Feb 2009 08:22:56 +0000

Interesting what the late F. Kenneth Hare observed in 1979 (Ref. below)
(at http://www.whatisclimate.com/variousIV.html):
“The World Climate Conference (Geneva 1979) is a gathering largely of non-atmosphericscientists. It has dawned upon our colleagues in WMO, and its Executive Committee, that what matters about climate is not merely the question of its predictability, which is obviously our business; it is also the question of the impact it makes upon the world’s peoples. Andthat is not obviously within our competence. There is nothing in our training that makes us experts in the art of interpreting climatic impact. And so the World Climate Conference is going to be made up of nearly 80 % non-atmospheric scientists. There: will be economists,agronomists, foresters, politicians, all broadly speaking expert…….”
Reference: F. Kenneth Hare, 1979; „The Vaulting of Intellectual Barriers: The Madison Thrust in Climatology“, Bulletin American Meteorological Society , Vol. 60, 1979, p. 1171 – 1124

By: Jeff

Jeff — Sun, 22 Feb 2009 21:00:25 +0000

MartinGAtkins wrote:
“I’m not trying to be pedantic but it’s important that you understand that adding more CO2 doesn’t mean more IR is absorbed.”

And that’s because?

By: E.M.Smith

E.M.Smith — Sun, 22 Feb 2009 13:24:52 +0000

Robert Wood (04:51:05) : economists and various other hand-wavers. Sir! Economists do not "hand wave"! We manually oscillate. ;-)

By: MartinGAtkins

MartinGAtkins — Sun, 22 Feb 2009 06:23:39 +0000

Now that you have expanded your explanation to make it clear that you understand that the effect of added greenhouse gases is to cause a radiative imbalance which persists until the earth warms enough to restore it back to equilibrium, I have no problem with your explanation.

I’m not trying to be pedantic but it’s important that you understand that adding more CO2 doesn’t mean more IR is absorbed.

With that we may close the thread.

By: Joel Shore

Joel Shore — Sat, 21 Feb 2009 21:30:50 +0000

MartinGAtkins says:

I’m not sure how they arrive at their numbers, and if they use term “forcing” they are being verbally obscure. Feed back is more appropriate.

Conventionally, “forcing” is used to describe some perturbation that is imposed on the climate system and “feedback” is used to describe part of the climate system’s response that can either magnify or de-magnify the effect of the forcing. Since we are adding the CO2, it is a forcing. In the case of the ice age – interglacial transitions, it is probably more correct to call it a feedback since it occurs in response to the warming due to the Milankovitch oscillations and corresponding ice sheet albedo change…although in cases like this, the terminology gets somewhat arguable and, as long as one gets the physics right, people probably won’t care horribly about the pedagogy.

If you have any problem with my explanation of thermal equilibrium then have Dr. Gavin A. Schmidt explain it to you. It was he who taught me.

Nope…Now that you have expanded your explanation to make it clear that you understand that the effect of added greenhouse gases is to cause a radiative imbalance which persists until the earth warms enough to restore it back to equilibrium, I have no problem with your explanation.