APS responds! – Deconstructing the APS response to Dr. Hal Lewis resignation

Below is the press release (on the web here) from the American Physical Society, responding to the resignation letter of APS fellow Dr. Hal Lewis made public last Friday, October 8th. APS Members Dr. Roger Cohen, Dr. Will Happer, and of course Dr. Hal Lewis have responded in kind, and have asked me to carry their response on WUWT. I’ve gladly obliged, and their inline comments are indented in blue italics in the document below. – Anthony

October 12, 2010

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Contact: Tawanda W. Johnson
Press Secretary
APS Physics
529 14th  St. NW, Suite 1050
Washington, DC 20045-2065

Phone: 202-662-8702
Fax: 202-662-8711
tjohnson@aps.org

APS Comments on Harold Lewis’ Resignation of his Society Membership

WASHINGTON, D.C. — In a recent letter to American Physical Society (APS) President Curtis A. Callan, chair of the Princeton University Physics Department, Harold Lewis, emeritus physics professor at the University of California, Santa Barbara, announced that he was resigning his APS membership.

In response to numerous accusations in the letter, APS issues the following statement:

There is no truth to Dr. Lewis’ assertion that APS policy statements are driven by financial gain. To the contrary, as a membership organization of more than 48,000 physicists,  APS adheres to rigorous ethical standards in developing its statements.

We know that the existing 2007 APS Statement on Climate Change was developed literally over lunch by a few people, after the duly constituted Committee had signed off on a more moderate Statement.

The Society is open to review of its statements if members petition the APS Council – the Society’s democratically elected governing body – to do so.

We have yet to receive a response to our Petition:

http://www.openletter-globalwarming.info/Site/Signatures__APS_Council_Study.html

…delivered last spring and signed by 260+ members and former members,  including nearly 100 Fellows, 17 members of national academies and 2 Nobels. Driven largely by the ClimateGate revelations, the Petition asks that the Society conduct an independent study and assessment.

As for democratic membership participation in matters of science, consider the reaction to a grass roots outpouring of APS member opinion on the 2007 APS Statement http://www.aps.org/publications/apsnews/200912/apscouncilors.cfm .  “[APS Councilor] was uncomfortable with the idea of a membership-wide referendum on statements. He said that he was concerned that having a membership wide vote on controversial issues could lead to the adoption of scientifically unsound statements.”   Evidently physicists should be excluded from inputting on a question of physics; only “physics monks” are entitled to do so ex cathedra .

Dr. Lewis’ specific charge that APS as an organization is benefitting financially from climate change funding is equally false.  Neither the operating officers nor the elected leaders of the Society have a monetary stake in such funding.

The chair of the Panel on Public Affairs (POPA) that re-endorsed the 2007 APS Statement on Climate Change sits on the science advisory board of a large international bank http://annualreport.deutsche-bank.com/2009/ar/supplementaryinformation/advisoryboards.html The bank has a $60+ billion Green portfolio, which it wishes to assure investors is safe…not to mention their income from carbon trading.  Other members of this board include current IPCC chief Pachauri and Lord Oxburgh, of Climategate exoneration fame.  The viability of these banks activities depends on continued concern over CO2 emissions .  Then there is the member of the Kleppner Committee (that reviewed the APS 2007 Statement prior to POPA) who served on that committee while  under consideration for the position of Chief Scientist at BP.  The position had been vacated when Steve Koonin left to take a post in the administration at DOE. Soon after the Kleppner Committee report in late 2009, this committee member took the BP job. BP had previously funded the new Energy Laboratory at Berkeley, which was headed by current Energy Secretary Steve Chu.

Moreover, relatively few APS members conduct climate change research, and therefore the vast majority of the Society’s members derive no personal benefit from such research support.

This does not mention the firm expectation by federal government agencies such as the NAS and the Presidential Science Advisor’s office that the APS will continue to support the huge funding machine that diverts billions of taxpayer dollars into research that must support the alarmist credo. APS has been silent on the documented practice by some climate scientists aimed at preventing opposing research from being published.

On the matter of global climate change, APS notes that virtually all reputable scientists agree with the following observations:

  • Carbon dioxide is increasing in the atmosphere due to human activity;
  • Carbon dioxide is an excellent infrared absorber, and therefore, its increasing presence in the atmosphere contributes to global warming; and

This passes over the fact that carbon dioxide absorption lines are nearly saturated.

  • The dwell time of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is hundreds of years.

Well, it depends on what you mean by “dwell time.”  If it is the conventional half life of an impulse loading of carbon dioxide, the statement is wrong – by a lot..  The IPCC’s Bern carbon cycle model http://www.climate.unibe.ch/~joos/model_description/model_description.html gets a 16 year half life.  If it is the time for the last molecule to get picked up by a sink, the statement is meaningless.  At the very least, the statement is sloppy and hardly befitting a world class scientific society.

On these matters, APS judges the science to be quite clear.  However, APS continues to recognize that climate models are far from adequate, and the extent of global warming and climatic disruptions produced by sustained increases in atmospheric carbon loading remain uncertain.

This is much better than the 2007 APS Statement itself.  However, the phrase “climate disruptions” is noteworthy because it is the new buzzword recently introduced by Science Advisor John Holdren http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100054012/global-warming-is-dead-long-live-er-global-climate-disruption/ , evidently enabling advocates to assign any unusual weather event to human causes.  It is curious that that the APS press release happens to echo this new phrase.

In light of the significant settled aspects of the science, APS totally rejects Dr. Lewis’ claim that global warming is a “scam” and a “pseudoscientific fraud.”

What we have here is a bait and switch.  No one is saying that the greenhouse effect itself is a scam. This passage seeks to transfer the ‘scam’ charge from its real target to the trivial.  The fraud/scam is to be found in the continual drumbeat that the science is settled; that the effects will be catastrophic; that it requires draconian economic sacrifices to avoid; and that mandates and subsidies for rent-seeking corporations are justified.

Additionally, APS notes that it has taken extraordinary steps to solicit opinions from its membership on climate change.  After receiving significant commentary from APS members, the Society’s Panel on Public Affairs finalized an addendum to the APS climate change statement reaffirming the significance of the issue.  The APS Council overwhelmingly endorsed the reaffirmation.

Never mind that the Panel on Public Affairs is chaired by an individual whose research funding stream (from BP) depends on continued global warming alarm.  And you have to keep your eye on the pea.  The dispute was not over the “significance” of the issue; it was over the alarmist nature of the statement. The addendum used more than five times the number of words to try to explain what the original statement meant.   Not a good sign that they got it right the first time.

Lastly, in response to widespread interest expressed by its members, the APS is in the process of organizing a Topical Group to feature forefront research and to encourage exchange of information on the physics of climate.

Never mind that the Topical Group was proposed in a petition organized by a group of five members that included Dr. Lewis.   Also, the Council has not yet approved a TG; therefore it is not in the process of being “organized.”  It is being considered.   No formal charter or bylaws have been set down. What we have here is the first attempt to co-opt the TG for PR purposes. This before it has even been approved by the APS Council.

Read the APS Climate Change Statement and Commentary:  http://www.aps.org/policy/statements/07_1.cfm.

APS should be very reluctant to draw public attention to this Statement, with its infamous phrase, “The evidence is incontrovertible,” despite the fact that nothing in science is ever incontrovertible.

About APS: The American Physical Society (www.aps.org) is the leading physics organization, representing 48,000 members, including physicists in academia, national laboratories, and industry in the United States and internationally. APS has offices in College Park, MD (Headquarters), Ridge, NY, and Washington, DC.

Tawanda W. Johnson
Press Secretary
APS Physics
529 14th  St. NW, Suite 1050
Washington, DC 20045-2065

Phone: 202-662-8702
Fax: 202-662-8711
tjohnson@aps.org

=================================================

This page is available as a PDF here: APS Press Release Deconstruction

=================================================

Dr. Roger Cohen writes in with an addedum:

I would like to clarify one technical point for your visitors. It relates to: “This passes over the fact that carbon dioxide absorption lines are nearly saturated.”

The statement is fact, but it does not by itself imply that additional amounts of atmospheric CO2 will not cause significant warming. Straightforward radiation transfer calculations have established that the effect of doubling atmospheric CO2 would be to increase global average temperature by only about 1 deg. C. — if there were no other climate effects involved. However, these other effects, generally called “feedbacks,” can amplify or attenuate the primary radiation altering effect of additional CO2. The most prominent feedback is the “cloud-water vapor feedback,” which is very difficult to calculate or determine empirically. The IPCC says these feedback effects are in aggregate large and positive, giving rise to their most recent estimate of 2 to 4.5 deg. C for doubling, with a most likely value of 3 deg. C. However, a substantial body of other research points to a much lower value, much closer to the zero feedback value of 1 deg. C, or even lower. The actual aggregated effect of feedbacks is a critical aspect of the debate.

298 thoughts on “APS responds! – Deconstructing the APS response to Dr. Hal Lewis resignation

  1. Thanks, APS, for letting all the members know about Hal’s resignation, and for a forum to post more of the disturbing details. I’m hoping your actions will break this issue into the MSM.

  2. Well if you ever wanted proof that politics was in charge of the science of AGW, then this statement from the APS demonstrates it perfectly.

  3. Are we witnessing the demise of the scientific method and its replacement by the financial method?

    Sadly, it looks very much like it.

  4. The APS doubles down.

    What is clear is that these rent seeking idiots have no knowledge of the history of scientific controversies….in the vast majority of cases the lone individual has been proven to be right, and (please forgive the sarcastic quotes here) the “august”, “deliberative”, “body of reputable scientists” proven to be wrong.

    At some point Anthony, a mere loss of status and public ridicule simply isn’t enough. What the APS management, Holdren, Hanson, Mann et. al. are doing crosses over into criminal enterprise.

  5. A very week response to the criticisms of the APS made in the Dr. Hal Lewis resignation letter.

    This absurd statement caught my eye:-
    In light of the significant settled aspects of the science, APS totally rejects Dr. Lewis’ claim that global warming is a “scam” and a “pseudoscientific fraud.”

    On most of the key pillars of the CAGW conjecture, most of the science is far from settled:-

    The amount (if any) that the extra CO2 from use of fossil fuels increases temperature.

    The size (if any) of the positive feed back from extra water vapour and other ‘forcing(s)’.

    The role of clouds – ocean – aerosols – solar changes… e.t.c.

    How a scientific body like the APS can be blind to the uncertainties in these basic climate mechanisms defies belief! I think Hal Lewis has every right to call it pseudo-science. The whole crumbling edifice of CAGW lies broken on the ground, but the true believers refuse to see it and still keep on repeating the same old discredited mantra.

  6. Most organisations are still drinking the Koolaid to either keep government money flowing, or to keep dues coming in.

    An email exchange with a CAGW Aid group…….. thread is in reverse order.

    [SNIP – as much as I’d like to publish this, it is a private email exchange not a public one. – Anthony]

  7. “Moreover, relatively few APS members conduct climate change research, and therefore the vast majority of the Society’s members derive no personal benefit from such research support.”

    If so few APS members are involved in climate change research, why the hell is the APS issuing statements on it? It would seem the topic is almost as far from the APS’s purview as it could get.

    Something is rotten in Denmark.

  8. Is the resignation letter by Dr. Hal Lewis an example of the body of science policing itself?

    Is this APS press release (in response to Dr. Lewis resignation letter) an example of the body of science policing itself?

    Are the responses (to the APS press release) written by Dr. Hal Lewis and by current APS members Dr. Roger Cohen and Dr. Will Happer an example of the body of science policing itself?

    Is WUWT providing a public forum to discuss Dr. Lewis’ resignation and its fallout an example of the body of science policing itself?

    My Answer: All of the above are good examples of a scientific self-policing process . . . . finally.

    John

  9. I downloaded the pdf version of the above. The pdf version omits that the source of the comments is Dr.’s Cohen, Happer and Lewis, which is indicated in the above posting. I suggest that their names as sourced be added to the pdf, to make it more of a free-standing complete document.

  10. The scientific evidence of AGW is very questionable, and becoming more so, not less. Most telling is that it cannot be duplicated in a laboratory. Troubling, is the evidence for a continuous temperature run up, predicated for the computer models, is very sketchy, with the AGW proponents often concealing real thermometer readings in favor of altered figures of extremely dubious evidential value. The increase in winter arctic ice extent for the last three years, the cooling of surface oceanic temperatures since 2002, and the divergence between satellite temperature reading as compared to the ground readings released by various governmental agencies should give any reasonable scientist pause.

  11. Dr. Lewis’ specific charge that APS as an organization is benefitting financially from climate change funding is equally false. Neither the operating officers nor the elected leaders of the Society have a monetary stake in such funding.

    Did anyone else notice that they ignored the specific charge from Dr. Lewis that the bylaws of the organization were violated by ignoring the petition from the 200+ members?

    As for the rest of it, maybe physicists will start zeroing in on the effects of CO2 from a physics standpoint, using the well known equations on the subject and maybe, just maybe, blow a hole in the entire AGW theory.

  12. This is the usual BS from APS and the American Chemical Society (ACS) behaves no differently. The leadership of each of these “societies” has been largely taken over by propagandists.

  13. @jorgekafkazar

    “If so few APS members are involved in climate change research, why the hell is the APS issuing statements on it? It would seem the topic is almost as far from the APS’s purview as it could get.”

    Maybe they’re commenting on it because it’s an important scientific issue with enormous implications.

    Could you provide some figures for what constitutes the appropriate climate science involvement between “What the hell does this have to do with them anyway?” and “Well they would say that wouldn’t they?”

    You would think if even a random selection of the charges leveled against climate science (for example that the greenhouse effect just doesn’t exist) that APS members would have the skillset to detect such a thing. Instead, like practically every other scientific organisation, they accept the reality of human driven climate change.

    Instead it’s become necessary to explain why the vast majority of the scientific community support something that isn’t true, the explanation naturally being a conspiracy theory.

  14. “The dwell time of carbon dioxide in the BRAIN impairs reasoning for many years until compensated by fresh oxygen intake from the Blogsphere, specially from WUWT”

  15. Anthony,

    Regarding snipping the “private” email, I suspected as much. Thank you for doing so. Is there a way running these sorts of things by the moderators before attempting to post?

    For the curious, the private email was with a government funded aid organisation that could not give me a justifiable reason for why her organisation “believed” we were suffering, “The effects of climate change (cyclones, floods and crop failures etc)………

    I had complained earlier about their pre-exploding-schoolchild-video support of 10:10.

  16. I remember when in 1957 Russia launched the Sputnik. In the USA everyone called for a new education, this proves the change made was in the ideological sense.

  17. From my point of view the APS’s attempt at face saving is just that and little more. They are of course just as entitled to their opinions as is Dr. Lewis his. While this letter may be the right thing to do, from the APS’s Public Relations prospective, It is less then convincing. I suspect the membership and a large proportion of the public, will see through the spin and obscuration.

    In Lewis’ letter he suggested the APS was acting more from self interest, of at least some of its prominent members, and not from a strictly scientific view. On that charge the APS has not successfully defended.

  18. If a significant number of the membership doesn’t chime in, then the responder will have benefitted by the letter of resignation in that he will learn that the large majority are in support of the APS position. Also, having not actually responded to the main issue of the letter – Climategate and what it revealed about the top resesearchers – they were scammers regardless of several coats of whitewash- it also means they accept the lower standards for scientific research. How can you say that the science is incontrovertible especially when those who put it together had to resort to faulty and devious methods and behaviours to arrive at the “theory”. Woe is science for a generation at least.

  19. What else would you expect???
    To come out & say “Yep, Hal Lewis is right on all accounts.”
    They have major face-saving to do & that is what this press release represent – nothing more, nothing less.

  20. FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

    Contact: Tawanda W. Johnson
    Press Secretary
    APS Physics
    529 14th St. NW, Suite 1050
    Washington, DC 20045-2065

    Phone: 202-662-8702
    Fax: 202-662-8711
    tjohnson@aps.org
    _________________________________

    Sending a lady, the Press Secretary, to do the “President’s” duty: to respond ‘in kind’. This says more about the APS than anything anyone has ever said about this professional organization, and likely ever will say. Tawanda, you really might want to pass the word to the other staff that the people you work for are cowards and will leave you hanging out to dry if they think it’s for the good of their own backsides.

  21. The Petition is the key. The Petition was submitted years ago and APS is just now getting around to considering it. APS’s failure to consider the Petition is the fact that must be explained first. After that, APS can explain how it intends to respond to the Petition now. Until those two matters are settled, there is no point in taking up any other.

  22. @Pascvaks

    “Sending a lady, the Press Secretary, to do the “President’s” duty: to respond ‘in kind’. This says more about the APS than anything anyone has ever said about this professional organization”

    I’m not sure what the sex of the person has to do with anything. If the APS felt a woman was inadequate to represent their views that certainly would say something about the organisation.

    As for your other point, you’re reading a press release thus the contact details given are for the press officer. You know, the person whose job it is to manage the organisations communication with the press.

  23. To me, the use of the the term “settled science” by an official of the APS is more than a little scary as is the use of the current buzz words ‘climatic disruptions’. It appears that the managers of the APS are all about politics and are as ignorant of science and the scientific method as is the general public. But I trust the general public’s common sense more than I do that of the APS management.

  24. This press release does more to discredit the APS than the original resignation letter. Extraordinary blindness on their part.

  25. Well this sheds a whole lot of light on the APS and its inner workings.. what motivation drives the science (or more precisely money flow).. and just what state the science community as a whole is in.

    Scary indeed…..

  26. “However, APS continues to recognize that climate models are far from adequate, and the extent of global warming and climatic disruptions produced by sustained increases in atmospheric carbon loading remain uncertain.”

    Well – they made sure to use the new CAGW catchphrase “climatic disruptions”!

    In the end, though, this kind of CYA political statement is all about preventing Climatic Ca$h Disruptions…

  27. Enneagram says:
    October 13, 2010 at 11:29 am

    “The dwell time of carbon dioxide in the BRAIN impairs reasoning for many years until compensated by fresh oxygen intake from the Blogsphere, specially from WUWT”

    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

    Kudos Anthony!

  28. Theo Goodwin says: October 13, 2010 at 11:46 am

    The Petition is the key. The Petition was submitted years ago and APS is just now getting around to considering it. APS’s failure to consider the Petition is the fact that must be explained first. After that, APS can explain how it intends to respond to the Petition now. Until those two matters are settled, there is no point in taking up any other.

    Indeed. Already, IIRC, it appears that one-third of APS membership ie some 16,000 members, disagree with the official position.

    There is only one way to avoid charges of conspiracy – or undo existing conspiracy to deceive / control. Open up the Petition.

    As Einstein reminds us from beyond the grave, it only needs one flaw in the evidence to change “accepted” into “suspect”. As to “incontrovertible”, well, as Hal Lewis says in effect, that notion is obscene.

  29. The American Physical Society announces the New Laws Of Mo’Shun, as applied to Anthropogenic Global Warming Research and anyone that dares to refute it.

    1st Law Of Mo’Shun
    “Every positive Anthropogenic Global Warming conclusion tends to remain in its ‘incontrovertable state’, regardless of the overwhelming body of independently verified evidence refuting it.”
    This is a more general statement of the Mann and Jones et.al. Law of Nondisclosure Inertia.

    2nd Law Of Mo’Shun
    “F = m a : Funding = Malfeasance multiplied by Acceleration”
    “The relationship between the funding for Anthropogenic Global Warming research is directly proportional to the positive (wink/nudge/nature trick/hide the decline) results confirming the hypothesis, multiplied by the accelerated declarations of impending disaster trumpeted in a complicit media.”
    Note that funding and accelerated declarations of impending disasters by a complicit media are properly italicized, as these are vectors with a common sign or direction. Malfeasance is not, as it is a proportional physical property to AGW.

    3rd Law Of Mo’Shun
    “For every considered and data supported action refuting AGW, there is an irrational and considerably larger deceitful reaction aimed at castrating the authors of the original refutation.”
    See Real Climate web site for current examples.

    For further information on these Fund-A-Mental Laws Of Mo’Shun, as applied to the august dissenting members of the American Physical Society,

    Contact:
    APS Physics
    529 14th  St. NW, Suite 1050
    Washington, DC 20045-2065

    Phone: 202-662-8702
    Fax: 202-662-8711
    tjohnson@aps.org

  30. sharper00 says:
    October 13, 2010 at 11:28 am

    You would think if even a random selection of the charges leveled against climate science (for example that the greenhouse effect just doesn’t exist) that APS members would have the skillset to detect such a thing. Instead, like practically every other scientific organisation, they accept the reality of human driven climate change.

    Instead it’s become necessary to explain why the vast majority of the scientific community support something that isn’t true, the explanation naturally being a conspiracy theory.

    ——————-

    sharper00,

    Here is the thing. Now that the body of science is publically starting to openly police itself in this Dr. Lewis vs. APS situation, you are critical of it. And, as I recall, you were (are) critically against the Cuccinelli legal actions against the UoV and Mann (& team).

    Therefore, you do appear to be against anything critical of the consensus/settled science of AGW by CO2 whether by public processes of science slef-policing or external to science legal policing.

    I think that makes you, by definition, biased by advocacy.

    To use your own argument, you would think that in a random selection of your views there would be something critical of the consensus/settled science of AGW by CO2. Is there?

    John

  31. Who are they trying to kid with this sorry excuse for a defence?

    You might expect this kind of reply from a local government bureaucrat underling, waffle and misdirection and word fog but from the APS? Supposedly some of the brightest minds on the planet and they come up with a badly put together ill thought out letter rushed and frankly rubbish. Perhaps the APS dose indeed have something to hide if they can be panicked into writing what amounts to a real world and real time self indictment.
    An August body like the APS would never need to issue such a statement if they had nothing to hide, the wording is stunningly poor and the blame shifting could have come from a college student and in fact if this is the accepted standard of the APS when responding to such damaging charges then they would have caused themselves less shame if they had just admitted guilt.
    To anyone with half a brain this IS a simple admission of guilt.

  32. Perhaps the reason that so few members of the APS are outright AGW sceptics, and the reason why so many of them believe the IPCC’s findings is precisely because so few of them have actually looked closely at the climate “science”.

    So many of them take on board the importance of the scientific method and adhere faithfully to it that they are simply unaware of the failure of a clique of “incestuous” climate scientists to adhere to the scientific method at all. They believe that the science is settled because they are unaware of how many scientists and publications have been threatened and bullied into subservience and outright compliance with an agenda.

    We are now beginning to see, however, that all the extra money being poured into climate research is attracting some excellent and honest scientists who are now getting more balanced and sceptical articles published.

    We really need a return to the full and faithful adherence to the scientific method of discovery, rather than the financial, or the bullying method.

  33. Ref – sharper00 says:
    October 13, 2010 at 11:47 am

    All we have is the Lewis letter to the President and the APS response to Lewis from the Press Secretary. That’s it. The lady is only doing her job ‘as directed’ and there’s nothing else to say about her. Link for APS OPA at –

    http://www.aps.org/about/contact/staff.cfm?office=&initial=&dept=Office+of+Public+Affairs

    What is left is the ‘black hole’ that is the APS and from which nothing but this excapes. We can surmise that the author of the response was a senior staffer, we can surmise that someone above him proofed it, and that someone above him blessed it, and that someone else faxed a copy to the Prez for the final OK. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, and noting their public stand in support of AGW, let’s assume that the APS senior leadership are a bunch of idiots and the organization is not long for the real world of real physics and real science and real people; they do like to hide behind whatever’s handy, don’t they?

  34. The American Physical Society announces the New Laws Of Mo’Shun, as applied to Anthropogenic Global Warming Research and anyone that dares to refute it.

    1st Law Of Mo’Shun
    “Every positive Anthropogenic Global Warming conclusion tends to remain in its ‘incontrovertable state’, regardless of the overwhelming body of independently verified evidence refuting it.”
    This is a more general statement of the Mann and Jones et.al. Law of Nondisclosure Inertia.

    2nd Law Of Mo’Shun
    “F = m a : Funding = Malfeasance multiplied by Acceleration”
    “The relationship between the funding for Anthropogenic Global Warming research is directly proportional to the positive (wink/nudge/nature trick/hide the decline) results confirming the hypothesis, multiplied by the accelerated declarations of impending disaster trumpeted in a complicit media.”
    Note that funding and accelerated declarations of impending disasters by a complicit media are properly italicized, as these are vectors with a common sign or direction. Malfeasance is not, as it is a proportional physical property to AGW.

    3rd Law Of Mo’Shun
    “For every considered and data supported action refuting AGW, there is an irrational and considerably larger deceitful reaction aimed at castrating the authors of the original refutation.”
    See Real Climate web site for current examples.

    For further information on these Fund-A-Mental Laws Of Mo’Shun, as applied to the august dissenting members of the American Physical Society,

    Contact:
    APS Physics
    529 14th St. NW, Suite 1050
    Washington, DC 20045-2065

    Phone: 202-662-8702
    Fax: 202-662-8711
    tjohnson@aps.org

  35. It is nice to have the ability to talk back. In the old days, it was much more difficult. The internet has really helped level the field.

  36. The monolith will break up as soon as the money dries up as it surely will.
    November is not very far away. Act accordingly.

  37. “and climatic disruptions produced by sustained increases in atmospheric carbon”

    Carbon and carbon dioxide is as equal as chlorine gas and sodium chloride. Idiots.
    I am waiting for physical explanation, that adding one molecule of CO2 to three molecules of CO2, mixed with other 10,000 molecules of oxygen, nitrogen, water vapor and argon might cause “climatic disruptions”.

    We live in times, when “government contracts become virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity” (D. Eisenhower)

  38. The good Doctors pass over the questionable APS statement

    On the matter of global climate change, APS notes that virtually all reputable scientists agree with the following observations:

    * Carbon dioxide is increasing in the atmosphere due to human activity;

    which I regard as another bait-and-switch and would reword thusly:

    * Carbon dioxide is increasing in the atmosphere. Undoubtedly human activity is one cause of this increase; however, it is unclear how large a proportion human activity represents, and probably it is only a very small proportion, since natural processes far exceed human emissions in strength. The fact that carbon dioxide is steadily increasing, somewhat in line with increasing human emissions, can also be explained by the inertia of the oceans in responding to global warming since the Little Ice Age. Carbon dioxide change can lag temperature change by up to 800 years

  39. It’s just totally disgusting. The first thing is that Callan, instead of answering himself, gave the task to his bodyguard who has no idea about science and who just wrote a meaningless and dishonest stream of intimidation. More comments of mine:

    http://motls.blogspot.com/2010/10/aps-thinks-that-tawanda-may-teach.html

    I am ashamed of Mr Callan.

    REPLY:Thanks Luboš. Reading your post, for the record, I didn’t analyse anything in the APS statement, see the foreword. Also, I think your response is a bit over the top regarding the APS executive secretary. She’s probably just caught in the middle. – Anthony

  40. The APS site contains a wealth of information that one would not normally consider the domain of the physicist when dealing with the APS. viz: Main > Policy & Advocacy > Archived Statements. There you will find this which you might consider at odds with their recent press release;

    “The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring. If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth’s physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now.”
    And this;
    “Our nation’s complacency about the energy problem is dangerous. While the understandable result of currently abundant supplies of energy at low prices, such complacency is short-sighted and risky. Low-cost oil resources outside the Persian Gulf region are rapidly being depleted, increasing the likelihood of sudden disruptions in supply. Energy-related urban air pollution has become a world-wide threat to human health. Atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide, other greenhouse gases and aerosols are climbing; this will cause changes in temperature, precipitation, sea level, and weather patterns that may damage both human and natural systems.”
    And This;
    “Therefore, the Council of the American Physical Society urges the Administration and Congress to make a significant increase in Federal investment in energy research and pre-commercial development. Further, we urge the adoption of policies that promote efficiency and innovation throughout the energy system, including conservation and the development of alternatives to fossil fuels.”

    Hal would appear to have made them change their tune.

  41. “This passes over the fact that carbon dioxide absorption lines are nearly saturated.”

    I’ve got the same question as Bret. Is this true? If so, it’s game over. ANY scientist worth his salt would recognize this and there would be no debate. So I’m guessing, until shown otherwise, that either it isn’t true or is under dispute.

  42. Interestingly, I read sections of the article as “generally our statements about climate alarmism at the APS are correct, but we certainly don’t know everything. Please send more money towards climate science so we can figure these other things out.”

    Argh.

  43. The Australian newspaper chimes in with this stinging editorial on media coverage, that mentions Hal Lewis resignation:
    Vigorous climate debate a plus
    ON a subject as important as our climate, reasoned, informed public debate is the key to finding the consensus that must underpin an effective policy response.
    Interest groups that attempt to keep the public in the dark by suppressing alternative views have succeeded only in eroding the credibility of their own arguments.
    snip
    The unnecessary heat in the debate has prompted the resignation of eminent US physicist Harold Lewis, 87, from the American Physical Society, the US’s leading academic body of physicists. After 67 years’ membership, the emeritus professor at the University of California, Santa Barbara, is dismayed that the APS, unlike the Royal Society and the French Academy of Sciences, has refused to engage in proper scientific debate about climate change and has ignored sceptics.

    http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/vigorous-climate-debate-a-plus/story-e6frg71x-1225938366537

  44. I haven’t been following this one in any great detail – the APS is not big news in UK for obvious reasons.

    But at a glance their response to Prof. Lewis is remarkably weak. Doesn’t really answer his points and waffles on with bits of motherhood. Nowhere did I see them say directly that anything Lewis had said was wrong.

    A poor essay, unworthy of a national society for a hard science.

    Gamma (?+)?

  45. Bret says:
    October 13, 2010 at 10:54 am

    “This passes over the fact that carbon dioxide absorption lines are nearly saturated.”

    Is it? At all relevant altitudes?

    Yes.

  46. To this;
    “However, APS continues to recognize that climate models are far from adequate, and the extent of global warming and climatic disruptions produced by sustained increases in atmospheric carbon loading remain uncertain.”

    Which was notably absent before. (should have been at the end of my post above).

  47. I’m not sure how clearer Hal Lewis could have made his resignation. His overriding concern was the response of the APS to the climategate escape, or rather the lack of it, in addition to the manner in which the APS drew up their statement on climate change.

    Economist John Maynard Keynes said: “When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?” The facts around man made global climate warming disruption change changed with that escape from the University of East Anglia. The naked self-interests, the fudgey computer code, the private admission of uncertainties and most egregiously the attempts at undermining the scientific method and peer-review process were plain to see. Yet the APS were unmoved such was the council’s faith in incontrovertible man made global climate warming disruption change.

    jorgekafkazar said: “If so few APS members are involved in climate change research, why the hell is the APS issuing statements on it? It would seem the topic is almost as far from the APS’s purview as it could get.”

    Well spotted! Peer pressure would be my bet due to other illustrious societies taking a similar view. For whatever reason it was beyond the council to say ‘This is not our field of expertise’.

    The ‘consensus’ is a sham. How many of the scientists involved in writing the IPCC literature are climate scientists? Not many out of a couple of thousand. But there are chapters and chapters and chapters about all the other projected effects written by specialists in those fields. They have to start from a point of certainty – that man made additional CO2 is warming the world – and apply that projection to their own field of expertise.

    Those authors are not expressing an expert view on the validity of man made global climate warming disruption change but just setting out what they see as the likely consequences of the projections they have been handed.

    Beyond the basic 1 degree C if CO2 doubles (I think that’s the figure isn’t it?) the idea rests on the quality of the data and how correct the computer models and the assumptions contained within them are.

  48. But Lucy,

    Temperature hasn’t changed enough since the little ice age to cause the increase in CO2 in the atmosphere that we have seen.

    And the 800 year lag puts the time back to the Medieval Warm period, which we all know was warmer than today.

    And I guess the APS told Dr. Hal Lewis not to let the door hit him on the way out.

  49. Mac the Knife says:
    October 13, 2010 at 12:20 pm

    The American Physical Society announces the New Laws Of Mo’Shun,…..

    heheheh……very nice!

  50. John Whitman says: October 13, 2010 at 11:05 am

    Is the resignation letter by Dr. Hal Lewis an example of the body of science policing itself?

    Is this APS press release (in response to Dr. Lewis resignation letter) an example of the body of science policing itself?

    Are the responses (to the APS press release) written by Dr. Hal Lewis and by current APS members Dr. Roger Cohen and Dr. Will Happer an example of the body of science policing itself?

    Is WUWT providing a public forum to discuss Dr. Lewis’ resignation and its fallout an example of the body of science policing itself?

    My Answer: All of the above are good examples of a scientific self-policing process . . . . finally.

    Great statement John. But IMO there are still several steps to take, to pull back from the precipice:

    * Closing the loopholes by which alarmists could take over scientific institutions
    * Reforming the funding system which has skewed research to scream about imaginary alarms
    * Ways by which many originally good and still capable folk in top positions can participate in reform driven by concerns from below, without losing face unnecessarily
    * The means by which Wikipedia can be righted to regain true neutrality in controversial areas where their current neutrality rules seem to be inadequate or inappropriate (eg NOR, No Original Research, fine for encyclopedias generally, but disallows stuff that may be brilliant but not peer-reviewed, or may allow a degraded newspaper report about it)
    * probably several more steps

  51. There’s so much stuff here I didn’t previously know. For example:

    The chair of the Panel on Public Affairs (POPA) that re-endorsed the 2007 APS Statement on Climate Change sits on the science advisory board of a large international bank…… Other members of this board include current IPCC chief Pachauri and Lord Oxburgh, of Climategate exoneration fame.

    There aren’t even subtle links between those promoting AGW and financial interests. I mean there are blantant conflicts of interest evident in this little piece alone.

  52. I’d immediately resigned of any scientific society I am a member of should they include a climate change declaration such as APS.

  53. From the linked article by Michael Lucibella titled “Members Bombard Counselors with Messages on Climate Change”

    “Should [the process] be a democratic one or a science-based one?” Brasseur said, “I’m totally against the idea of a democratic poll of the membership.”

    This is a particularly difficult message to reconcile following the bass ackwards logic Brasseur asserts. So, asking the body scientists to weigh in on a scientific matter will result in a wrong consensus? Actually, I think it works the other way around. If you don’t ask the body of scientists to weigh in, you’ll wind up with a wrong but preconceived and politically correct consensus. Now I understand how global warming became a scientific consensus.

  54. bob says: October 13, 2010 at 1:02 pm

    But Lucy,

    Temperature hasn’t changed enough since the little ice age to cause the increase in CO2 in the atmosphere that we have seen.

    And the 800 year lag puts the time back to the Medieval Warm period, which we all know was warmer than today.

    Look at Akasofu’s work. I disagree that temperature hasn’t changed enough, I believe that if we take Henry’s Laws seriously it only requires a tiny increase. And please note, I carefully said UP TO 800 years, because with the total effects of ocean currents we are really dealing with quite a complex “hydra”, and certainly the major ocean effects, following the sun, kick in far more quickly than 800 years delay AFAICT.

  55. There are significant similarities between this issue and the issue the VFW (Veterans of Foreign Wars) is having with it’s DC representation. The views of the rank and file of an organization may be significantly at odds with their DC representations’ job of securing or protecting funding, maintaining cognizance of government affairs, and keeping communications open.

    The APS and ACS were issuing endorsements and statements as organizations – not scientific publications or peer-reviewed journals. The public affairs value of those statements is significant because of the reputation and membership of the organization; and those statements were either solicited or offered as a means of advancing other APS and ACS agendas. The statements themselves have no scientific value, they have political and public relations value – as does Dr. Lewis’ resignation letter.

    Having a professional lobby is unfortunately the price one pays for spending lots of public monies. If they are getting out of control, then the membership needs to re-assert some authority; such as a bylaw stating that organization can only refer to peer-reviewed work, not make independent assessments or scientific statements.

  56. Lucy Skywalker says:
    October 13, 2010 at 1:14 pm

    Great statement John. But IMO there are still several steps to take, to pull back from the precipice:

    ————-

    Lucy Skywalker,

    I agree with all your additional steps. Thanks.

    We also must pay very close attention to the IPCC . . . it is the last refuge of the accepted/consensus science of AGW by CO2 . . . . that is where the current leadership will surely retreat to.

    John

  57. Gareth says:
    October 13, 2010 at 12:59 pm
    I’m not sure how clearer Hal Lewis could have made his resignation. His overriding concern was the response of the APS to the climategate escape, or rather the lack of it, in addition to the manner in which the APS drew up their statement on climate change.

    Economist John Maynard Keynes said: “When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?” The facts around man made global climate warming disruption change changed with that escape from the University of East Anglia.

    I disagree – the facts did not change. More people became aware of the facts, to be sure, but they didn’t change. The facts do not, and have not, supported the CAGW concept.

  58. Hal Lewis says:
    —Well, it depends on what you mean by “dwell time.”  If it is the conventional half life of an impulse loading of carbon dioxide, the statement is wrong – by a lot..  The IPCC’s Bern carbon cycle model http://www.climate.unibe.ch/~joos/model_description/model_description.html gets a 16 year half life.  If it is the time for the last molecule to get picked up by a sink, the statement is meaningless.  At the very least, the statement is sloppy and hardly befitting a world class scientific society.—
    I’m pretty sure the she means the life of a carbon molecule that “dwells” in the carbon cycle. Which would make her statement absolutely correct and pertinent to the issue of long term climate change. This is established scientific fact that is undisputed. Why Lewis would assume she would only be discussing the “half-life” of molecules that aren’t taken into sink is anyone’s guess. My guess would be that he wants to argue with a strawman.

    —-This passes over the fact that carbon dioxide absorption lines are nearly saturated.—
    Maybe in his chemistry set at home at sea level but certainly not in the upper atmosphere where pressure and temperature are much different. Has this guy opened an atmospheric physics book since the forties?

  59. ‘dwell time’???

    My best farts have a ‘hang time’ of several minutes. Is this ‘dwell time’ a similar concept?

  60. “Carbon dioxide is an excellent infrared absorber, and therefore, its increasing presence in the atmosphere contributes to global warming; and…”

    It is sad to see the representative of what is supposed to be a prestigious physics organization spew such nonsense. They threaten to send us back to the dark ages for sure.

  61. Mac the Knife says:
    October 13, 2010 at 12:25 pm

    The American Physical Society announces the New Laws Of Mo’Shun, as applied to Anthropogenic Global Warming Research and anyone that dares to refute it.

    —————–

    Mac the Knife,

    Really funny. Thanks. You made my Wednesday a nice day. : )

    John

  62. “But Lucy,

    Temperature hasn’t changed enough since the little ice age to cause the increase in CO2 in the atmosphere that we have seen.

    And the 800 year lag puts the time back to the Medieval Warm period, which we all know was warmer than today”

    Exactly. 800 years since the warmth of the medieval warm period and now we are seeing CO2 increasing…

    How does that not equal a 800 year lag between warming and CO2 increasing?

  63. But Lucy,

    The oceans are absorbing CO2 and thus can’t be the source of the increased CO2 in the atmosphere.

    What about the carbon isotope studies that show the ration of C13 to C12 has been changing showing that the increase in atmospheric CO2 is due to fossil fuels.

    And even the atmospheric concentration of O2 is going down as we burn fossil fuels.

    Not to mention pH

  64. Masterful response by APS. Who says scientists aren’t skilled at PR? (sarc)

    I can only imagine the inquiries they’re receiving by their membership. It appears they’ve grossly underestimated Dr. Lewis. I can’t think of a more useful or honorable way to end a long and distinguished career. My sincere gratitude to Dr. Lewis and his noble associates.

  65. Seems to me they contradict themselves with this statement:
    “However, APS continues to recognize that climate models are far from adequate, and the extent of global warming and climatic disruptions produced by sustained increases in atmospheric carbon loading remain uncertain.”

    How can the science of AGW be settled if the models are “far from adequate” and the extent of the impact remains “uncertain”.

    Did they even read this before they issued the press release?

    To me, this is clearly a smoke screen, as was pointed out by Hal, they are trying to deflect, and twist to draw attention away from the issues that were put forth.

    How much more credibility would the APS have had if they had come forth and said “Ok…this has not been handled properly, and we need to start over on our attempts to address this issue.”

    Sounds like they were being coached by Joe R.

    JimB

  66. Any reaction to the President of the Royal Society’s piece in today’s (The) Times?

    REPLY: without a link, no – Anthony

  67. Maybe in his chemistry set at home at sea level but certainly not in the upper atmosphere where pressure and temperature are much different.

    As are the radiative scattering properties of the ensemble.

  68. Dr. Lewis is of course correct in his response –this APS statement is much more mild than the 2007 version he is protesting, which reads in part:

    “The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring. If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth’s physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now.”

    And, yes, that’s an eye-popper from a group of supposedly sober scientists.

    The only “incontrovertible” part of that statement is that global warming has been occurring for the last 30 years. . . it’s future magnitude and even a rough idea of the contribution of CO2 to that warming is nowhere near “incontrovertible”.

  69. Dennis Wingo said

    “As for the rest of it, maybe physicists will start zeroing in on the effects of CO2 from a physics standpoint, using the well known equations on the subject and maybe, just maybe, blow a hole in the entire AGW theory.”

    * * *
    Excellent point. Many phsyicists are questioning it. But, as ususal, their studies arent published in “Nature” or any other pro-AGW journal.

    This is one of the best I’ve read.

    http://arxiv.org/abs/0707.1161

  70. “the IPCC First 1990 Climate Change Report where, in the opening policymakers summary of the report, the RT is stated to be in the range of 50−200 years, and (largely) on the basis of that, it was also concluded in the report and from subsequent related studies that the current rising level of CO2 was due to combustion of fossil fuels, thus carrying the, now widely accepted, rider that CO2 emissions from combustion should therefore be curbed. However, the actual data in the text of the IPCC report separately states a value of 4 years.

  71. Robinson says:
    October 13, 2010 at 1:16 pm
    The chair of the Panel on Public Affairs (POPA) that re-endorsed the 2007 APS “Statement on Climate Change sits on the science advisory board of a large international bank…… Other members of this board include current IPCC chief Pachauri and Lord Oxburgh, of Climategate exoneration fame.”

    If the Chair is on the Advisory Board, he/she must be removed immediately. This is one stinking conflict of interest. It screams “conspiracy” and “cover-up.”

  72. gryposaurus says:
    October 13, 2010 at 1:31 pm
    “Maybe in his chemistry set at home at sea level but certainly not in the upper atmosphere where pressure and temperature are much different. Has this guy opened an atmospheric physics book since the forties?”

    No need to. Every climate scientist assumes that CO2 is randomly distributed throughout Earth’s atmosphere all the way up. It is a straight deduction from the fact that the CO2 molecule is “well mixed.” There is not one single physical hypothesis that describes some natural regularity in the behavior of CO2 in the atmosphere. I dare you to state one – in your own words, as I say to my students.

  73. Original Mike says:
    October 13, 2010 at 12:47 pm
    “This passes over the fact that carbon dioxide absorption lines are nearly saturated.”

    I’ve got the same question as Bret. Is this true? If so, it’s game over. ANY scientist worth his salt would recognize this and there would be no debate. So I’m guessing, until shown otherwise, that either it isn’t true or is under dispute.

    It’s not true, some of the line centers are saturated, but the band as a whole is quite definitely not saturated.

    REPLY: See Roger Cohen’s response below – Anthony

  74. What they wanted to write:

    The high accuracy of climate models and the empirical evidence would lead any reasonable person to conclude that:

    What they should have written:

    The low accuracy of climate models and the lack of any but anecdotal evidence would lead any reasonable person to question whether:

    What they wrote:

    On the matter of global climate change, APS notes that virtually all reputable scientists agree with the following observations:

    How I would rewrite it:

    On the matter of global climate change, APS notes that virtually all reputable (no pressure ;) scientists agree with the following observations:

  75. As an environmental engineer for more than 47+ years I have reviewed many experiments and data related to water,wastewater treatment , air pollution control, ground contamination, an other aspects of the environmental condition. When I started look at the issue of Mann-made global warming cause by the “greenhouse gas effect” I asked one question-Where is the creditable experimental data showing that the “greenhouse gas effect exists”? In more than 5 years of asking many universities ,governmental agencies, “scientists?’and the internet , I have yet to get an answer. The closes is three experiments from different source that think they have proved the “greenhouse gas effect” each has at least 3 to 10 scientific faults that show that the experimenters do not know physics. The work of many renown physicist has shown that the “greenhouse gas effect” violates fundamental laws of physics. I have developed an experiment that shows that the “greenhouse gas effect does not exist”
    below is a list of references that show that the “ghg effect” and Mann-made global warming is a political hoax.
    When the AGW continually using circumstantial evidence instead of real evidence you know they do not have the real thing.
    List of references:
    The paper “Falsification of the Atmospheric CO2 greenhouse effect within the frame of physics” by Gerhard Gerlich and Ralf D. Tscheuschner is an in-depth examination of the subject. Version 4 2009
    Electronic version of an article published as International Journal of Modern Physics
    B, Vol. 23, No. 3 (2009) 275{364 , DOI No: 10.1142/S021797920904984X, c World
    Scientific Publishing Company, http://www.worldscinet.com/ijmpb.
    Report of Alan Carlin of US-EPA March, 2009 that shows that CO2 does not cause global warming.

    Greenhouse Gas Hypothesis Violates Fundamentals of Physics” by Dipl-Ing Heinz Thieme This work has about 10 or 12 link
    that support the truth that the greenhouse gas effect is a hoax.
    R.W.Wood
    from the London, Edinborough and Dublin Philosophical Magazine , 1909, vol 17, p319-320. Cambridge UL shelf mark p340.1.c.95, i
    The Hidden Flaw in Greenhouse Theory
    By Alan Siddons
    from:http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/02/the_hidden_flaw_in_greenhouse.html at March 01, 2010 – 09:10:34 AM CST

    The below information was a foot note in the IPCC 4 edition. It is obvious that there was no evidence to prove that the ghg effect exists.

    “In the 1860s, physicist John Tyndall recognized the Earth’s natural greenhouse effect and suggested that slight changes in the atmospheric composition could bring about climatic variations. In 1896, a seminal paper by Swedish scientist Svante Arrhenius first speculated that changes in the levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere could substantially alter the surface temperature through the greenhouse effect.”

    After 1909 when R.W.Wood proved that the understanding of the greenhouse effect was in error and the ghg effect does not exist. After Niels Bohr published his work and receive a Nobel Prize in Physics in 1922. The fantasy of the greenhouse gas effect should have died in 1909 and 1922. Since then it has been shown by several physicists that the concept is a Violation of the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

    Obviously the politicians don’t give a dam that they are lying. It fits in with what they do every hour of every day .Especially the current pretend president.
    Paraphrasing Albert Einstein after the Publishing of “The Theory of Relativity” –one fact out does 1 million “scientist, 10 billion politicians and 20 billion environmental whachos-that don’t know what” The Second Law of thermodynamics” is.

    University of Pennsylvania Law School
    ILE
    INSTITUTE FOR LAW AND ECONOMICS
    A Joint Research Center of the Law School, the Wharton School,
    and the Department of Economics in the School of Arts and Sciences
    at the University of Pennsylvania
    RESEARCH PAPER NO. 10-08
    Global Warming Advocacy Science: a Cross Examination
    Jason Scott Johnston
    UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA
    May 2010
    This paper can be downloaded without charge from the
    Social Science Research Network Electronic Paper Collection:

    http://ssrn.

    Israeli Astrophysicist Nir Shaviv: ‘There is no direct evidence showing that CO2 caused 20th century warming, or as a matter of fact, any warming’ link to this paper on climate depot.
    Web- site references:
    http://www.americanthinker.com Ponder the Maunder
    wwwclimatedepot.com
    icecap.us
    http://www.stratus-sphere.com
    SPPI
    many others are available.
    The bottom line is that the facts show that the greenhouse gas effect is a fairy-tale and that Man-made global warming is the World larges Scam!!!The IPCC and Al Gore should be charged under the US Anti-racketeering act and when convicted – they should spend the rest of their lives in jail for the Crimes they have committed against Humanity.
    The only thing more dangerous than ignorance is arrogance.”
    —Albert Einstein
    I have several other references that Ican add if necessary.
    30 June 2010
    On Some Flaws in Greenhouse Gas Global Warming
    I have just finished reading an excellent article by Alan Siddons called The Hidden Flaw in Greenhouse Theory on American Thinker from way back on 25 February 2010. The article is a little slow in developing, but finishes with a death blow to the usual theory put forth by catastrophic anthropogenic global warming advocates. I intend to explain more concisely what Siddons explained and to add comments of my own in this post which make the deathblow much more gory.

    First of all, I am going to enlarge the context of the discussion. The primary source of heat for the surface of the Earth is the radiant energy of the sun. The solar wind of the sun, materials dumped into the atmosphere from space, heat from the deep interior of the earth, and the interplay of changes in the Earth’s magnetic field and the sun’s magnetic field are also contributors of heat, though the sum of these is much less than that from the sun’s radiant energy spectrum of ultraviolet (UV), visible, and infra-red (IR) light. The entire catastrophic greenhouse gas hypothesis ignores effects upon the incident IR portion of this spectrum of light from the sun. This is foolish.

    UV light is 11% of the radiant energy from the sun. The UV light variance of 0.5 to 0.8% with the solar cycle is much larger than is the visible light variance of 0.22%. UV light is absorbed throughout the atmosphere, but much still reaches the ground and is absorbed there. The amount of UV radiation absorbed in the upper atmosphere is highly dependent upon the amount of ozone there. The amount of ozone is highly dependent upon the solar wind, CFCs, and volcanic activity. When UV light is more absorbed in the stratosphere than the ground, its surface warming effect is diminished. The absorbed energy is re-emitted as IR radiation and much of that energy is quickly lost to space.

    The entire atmosphere is transparent to visible light which is the form of 44% of the radiant energy from the sun, so aside from reflection from clouds and aerosol particles, the visible light reaches the ground or oceans and warms them near their surfaces.

    Finally, the IR radiation is not absorbed by nitrogen, oxygen, and argon gases which make up 99% of the atmosphere, so a large fraction of it directly warms the Earth’s surface. Some, is absorbed by the dominant greenhouse gas, water vapor, and small amounts are absorbed by carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. The incoming IR radiation absorbed in the atmosphere is less effective in warming the Earth’s surface than is that which is absorbed by the Earth’s surface directly. This is because some this energy absorbed in the atmosphere then is radiated again in the form of IR radiation, but now half or more of that is directed out to space. In other words, more water vapor and CO2 in the atmosphere results in a less effective warming of the surface than does less of these gases with respect to the incoming IR energy from the sun. The greenhouse gases have a cooling effect on the original solar radiance spectrum for the 45% of the solar energy in the form of IR.

    In each case, whether UV, visible light, or IR, not all of the radiation of that form striking the Earth’s surface is absorbed. Some fraction is reflected and the fraction is very dependent on whether the ground is covered with snow, plowed earth, grasses, forests, crops, black top, or water. There are two real ways that man does have some effect on the Earth’s temperature. He changes the surface of the earth over a fraction of the 30% of its surface which is land. He also converts fossil and biomass fuels into heat. Compared to the overall natural effects, these man-made effects are small, yet they are probably large compared to the effect of his adding CO2 and methane to the atmosphere.

    Wherever the atmosphere is heated, there is transfer of heat. In the outer, very low density atmosphere, the primary means of heat transfer is radiant transfer by IR emission from an energetic molecule or atom, since collisions of molecules and atoms for direct energy transfer are rare. In the denser atmosphere, most energy transfer is due to collisions and the convective flow of masses of warmed air. Near the Earth’s surface, almost all of the energy lost by the warmed surface is due to gas molecules striking the surface and picking up heat and then colliding with other molecules to transfer heat from one to another. Once a body of air is so heated, then masses of warmed molecules are transported upward into the cooler atmosphere at higher altitudes or laterally toward cooler surface areas by convection. Any warmed molecule, most of which are nitrogen, oxygen, and argon will radiate IR radiation. However, no molecule or atom at a low temperature such as that near the Earth’s surface is a very effective energy radiator, since the Stephan-Boltzmann equation depends upon the fourth power of the absolute temperature, which commonly near the Earth’s surface is about 290K. Thus, gas molecule collisions and convection are the very dominant means of heat transfer. These processes on balance cool the surface of the Earth and redistribute some of the heat back into the upper atmosphere and cooler places such as those shaded from the sun or the arctic regions.

    The favorite claim of the catastrophic greenhouse gas global warming people is that an increase of carbon dioxide and methane gas in the atmosphere will cause energy radiated into the atmosphere from the ground to be absorbed by these molecules and they will radiate half of it back toward the ground, where that energy will warm the surface again and reduce the cooling due to the ground originally radiating that heat into the atmosphere. According to Alan Siddons, less than 1% of the cooling of the Earth’s surface is due to IR emission of the surface or the gases near the surface. More than 99% is due to direct contact and convection.

    Since the dominant source of energy warming the surface of the Earth is the sun, let us do a simple calculation based upon the facts presented above. Let us say that greenhouse gases absorb a fraction f of the incoming IR radiation from the sun, which is 45% of the sun’s incoming energy. Thus the energy absorbed by greenhouse gases from the incoming spectrum of solar energy is 0.45f and a fraction of this, say k is radiated back into space without coming near the surface. NASA says k is 0.5, but it is actually slightly larger than that given that much of this absorption occurs at appreciable altitudes. The total cooling due to greenhouse gases, somewhere in the atmosphere, is now 0.45fk. Of this energy, had it become incident upon the surface as IR radiation, a part would have been reflected rather than absorbed. The fraction that would have been absorbed is q. The net energy then lost to the warming of the surface is then 0.45fkq.

    Now, let us suppose that a fraction g of the total energy from the sun is absorbed in the Earth’s surface or in the very lower part of the atmosphere. We know that g is a larger fraction of 1 than is f, since most of the solar radiation does reach the ground, including that part in the IR part of the spectrum. Of the energy g absorbed in the surface, only 0.01 times it is emitted as IR radiation according to Siddons. Since the greenhouse gas content of the atmosphere is unchanged the amount of outgoing radiation, serving to cool the surface, is now 0.01gf. A fraction j of this energy will be emitted by the IR warmed greenhouse gas molecules back toward the ground. NASA has said this fraction is 0.5. Let us then say j is about 0.5. The greenhouse gas warming of the surface due to absorbing IR radiation from the ground would then be about 0.005gfq, where q is the fraction of back-reflected IR radiation that was incident upon the surface and absorbed. Remember that some radiation is reflected.

    Now we will compare the greenhouse gas cooling effect upon the incoming solar radiation of 0.45fkq to the re-warming of the surface due to 0.005gfq times the total solar radiant energy. Breaking down the parts:
    0.005 is much less than 0.45, in fact it is 0.011 times as large.
    f appears in both factors, so the comparative effect is cancellation.
    The factor q appears in both the cooling and the warming quantities, so it cancels.
    k is somewhat more than 0.5, while g is the surface absorptivity for the entire solar spectrum and is likely to be near 0.7, or quite comparable.
    So let us say g and k are an approximate trade-off.
    Thus the net cooling effect of greenhouse gases is very greatly dominant because the re-heating effect is approximately 0.01 times the cooling effect.
    In sum, using a simple calculation we can approximate the effect of greenhouse gases on the surface temperature of the Earth. It turns out that the cooling effect due to keeping incoming solar IR radiation away from the surface is about 100 times the re-heating effect proclaimed by greenhouse gas alarmists. Now, if the effect were very large in either case, this might be cause for concern. We would likely be better off heating our planet than cooling it. But, then we are heating with land use changes and the release of energy from fossil fuels, so the generation of cooling CO2 may simply be compensating for these other small effects. Much more important to this issue than CO2 and methane is water vapor in any case. So, most of this cooling effect is due to water vapor and only a small part is due to CO2 and methane.

    Now, of course so much is going on here that this calculation is but an indicator of the likely net effect of greenhouse gases. A more careful calculation would consider the different weight of IR frequencies in the original spectrum of the sun and in the Earth surface emission spectrum. But, any changes due to these secondary issues are likely to be small compared to a factor of 100. In any case, this calculation makes mincemeat of the usual simple rationale for greenhouse gas warming alarmism. It is insane to focus only on the outgoing IR radiation from the Earth’s surface while ignoring the large part of the sun’s total incident radiation which is IR from the get-go. It is also insane to ignore gas collisions and convection currents as mechanisms for heat transfer.

    I used the greenhouse gas term in the presently conventional way, but in reality, all gases when warm radiate IR energy and as pointed out by Alan Siddons, they are all really greenhouse gases. But, here I used the term only for those gases that absorb IR energy.
    Posted by Charles R. Anderson, Ph. D. at Wednesday, June 30, 2010
    Labels: Alan Siddons, CO2 emissions, greenhouse gases, solar radiation

    Charles R. Anderson, Ph. D.
    Dr. Anderson is the founder of AME and is a co-owner of the company. Dr. Anderson has long specialized in the characterization of surfaces, interfaces, thin films, and coatings. He began applying surface analysis techniques to the solution of materials problems in 1972 with the use of Auger spectroscopy and Mössbauer emission spectroscopy to characterize the magnetic properties of surfaces. Since 1980, he has used XPS or ESCA extensively for the analysis of materials properties, often combining XPS and Auger results with those of other techniques such as microscopy, DSC, SEM, FTIR, EXAFS, Rutherford backscattering, electrochemistry, thermogravimetry, SEM, and XRD to solve complex materials problems. He has had a wealth of experience with surface chemical phase identifications, corrosion, battery development, adhesive failures, contamination, electronic packaging, thin film and bulk materials composition, composite interfaces, particle and sintered ceramic surfaces, surface oxidation and degradation, and many other applications of surface analysis. He has served as an officer of the ASTM Committee E-42 on Surface Analysis and an U.S. Expert on several sub-committees of the ISO Technical Committee 201 on Surface Chemical Analysis. He worked for Case Western Reserve University as a post-doctoral fellow, the Dept. of the Navy as a research physicist, and Martin Marietta and Lockheed Martin as a senior scientist before founding AME, Inc. in 1995. Dr. Anderson especially enjoys integrating the results of multiple analytic techniques to solve tough materials problems. He has assembled a team of materials scientists and engineers with complementary skills and experience who all enjoy working together to solve challenging problems. He is or has been a member of AVS, ASM, MRS, ASTM, the Electrochemical Society, ACS, APS, and SAMPE.

    PS:As an environmental engineer designing wastewater treatment plants the fact that about 99% of them are biological has slipped by the Environmental Wackos- everyone of them convert waste material in the sewage to CO2 and organic material that is frequently burned producing more CO2. Now if there is so much danger from CO2 do we shut down every sewage treatment plant in the world? What other collateral damage will occur from continuing the lie of greenhouse gas effects and Mann-made global warming. I know of one suicide/murder (family of 5) because the poor soles did not understand that “Mann-made global warming/climate change “is a total hoax/fairy-tale ,lie. Does the World court reside to change AL Gore and other conspirators with complicity to Murder?

    The Third world counties are planning to sue the Developed counties for Trillions of Dollars ,E U’s,and Pecos for damages from “Mann-made global warming that does not exist”. The court costs will cause poverty throughout the World except the lawyers and the “climatologist that don’t know what they are talking about.
    Will the APS and others reverse their positions to cover their asses?

  76. “Carbon dioxide is an excellent infrared absorber, and therefore, its increasing presence in the atmosphere contributes to global warming; and…”

    By the very nature of IR absorption/emission when the radiative temperature is close to the temperature of the gas, the same physical properties that create absorption bands also create emission bands. Good absorber=good emitter, so it is also true to say that:

    “Carbon dioxide is an excellent infrared emitter, and therefore, its increasing presence in the atmosphere contributes to global cooling; and…”

    QED this noddy science “proves” we are heading to an ice age. Or to be more precise, it proves that those who sprout such nonsense are noddy scientists!

  77. Anthony,
    I would like to clarify one technical point for your visitors. It relates to: “This passes over the fact that carbon dioxide absorption lines are nearly saturated.”

    The statement is fact, but it does not by itself imply that additional amounts of atmospheric CO2 will not cause significant warming. Straightforward radiation transfer calculations have established that the effect of doubling atmospheric CO2 would be to increase global average temperature by only about 1 deg. C. — if there were no other climate effects involved. However, these other effects, generally called “feedbacks,” can amplify or attenuate the primary radiation altering effect of additional CO2. The most prominent feedback is the “cloud-water vapor feedback,” which is very difficult to calculate or determine empirically. The IPCC says these feedback effects are in aggregate large and positive, giving rise to their most recent estimate of 2 to 4.5 deg. C for doubling, with a most likely value of 3 deg. C. However, a substantial body of other research points to a much lower value, much closer to the zero feedback value of 1 deg. C, or even lower. The actual aggregated effect of feedbacks is a critical aspect of the debate.

  78. If “relatively few APS members conduct climate change research,” then why would you take “extraordinary steps to solicit opinions from its membership on climate change.” Why would you take extraordinary steps to get the opinions of people who don’t seem to be connected to that field? It just rings hollow.

  79. Heh! IPCC dug a big hole, and many famous people and even whole scientific organizations, university departments, and NGOs have fallen into it. What is hilarious is that they all are still digging!

  80. This passes over the fact that carbon dioxide absorption lines are nearly saturated.

    If these guys actually believe this, then they don’t need to be in the APS. Perhaps they should pick up a textbook on radiative properties of the atmosphere.

    REPLY: Ah aged mega troll “Boris” returns with a smackdown. You might want to read Dr. Roger Cohen’s note above. Since you obviously didn’t see it, I’ll put it in the body in large print for you and the kids. -Anthony

  81. jorgekafkazar says:
    October 13, 2010 at 11:03 am

    “Moreover, relatively few APS members conduct climate change research, and therefore the vast majority of the Society’s members derive no personal benefit from such research support.”

    If so few APS members are involved in climate change research, why the hell is the APS issuing statements on it? It would seem the topic is almost as far from the APS’s purview as it could get.
    ====

    Bingo! Who needs due diligence and verification when they can jump on the “consensus” bandwagon?!

    Also … from the dissenters’ response:

    The chair of the Panel on Public Affairs (POPA) that re-endorsed the 2007 APS Statement on Climate Change sits on the science advisory board of a large international bank […] deutschebank.com […] The bank has a $60+ billion Green portfolio, which it wishes to assure investors is safe…not to mention their income from carbon trading.

    Hmmm … Deutsche Bank? … Green portfolio? … income from carbon trading?

    Well that would certainly explain the need for this recent entry on Ross McKitrick‘s site:

    “MISINFORMATION FROM DEUTSCHE BANK: DB just released a report that aims to rebut major skeptic arguments on global warming. Several topics in their report relate to areas I am quite familiar with. I have posted a response that critiques their handling of the hockey stick and the “hide the decline” email.”

    From McKitrick’s “Introduction”:

    “Deutsche Bank Group has published a report entitled “Climate Change: Addressing the Major Skeptic Arguments.” The document is dated September 2010 and is available online at http://www.dbcca.com/dbcca/EN/_media/DBCCAColumbiaSkepticPaper090710.pdf.

    “The authors are Mary-Ellen Carr, Robert F. Anderson and Kate Brash, all of Columbia University, and the report is published under the imprimatur of the Deutsche Bank Climate Change Advisors, Deutsche Bank Group.
    […]
    “Readers who are familiar with the various issues will recognize that the Deutsche Bank (DB) report is one-sided. The weakness of its argumentation is partly due to its failure to properly quote the material it purports to rebut, so that its arguments are frequently shallow and unconvincing. In this rejoinder I will focus only on two items: The Hockey Stick controversy and the report’s treatment of the “Hide the
    Decline” email. These should suffice to illustrate the weakness of the DB report.”

    The alarmists appear to be going from weakness to greater weakness. They’re reducing themselves to the status of re-branding mahine in perpetual motion!

  82. @John Whitman

    “Here is the thing. Now that the body of science is publically starting to openly police itself in this Dr. Lewis vs. APS situation, you are critical of it.”

    I’m not critical of Dr Lewis at all. He has every right to resign and publish his reasons for doing so. I may not lend any particular weight to that act but that’s a different issue.

    However he has leveled a specific charge which was that members of the APS were benefiting financially from climate change research. The response from the APS is their members aren’t involved in climate change research.

    The response here, that I was responding to, was “Well why is climate change anything to do with them?”. An obvious question this raises is how much involvement in climate change research entitles a body to comment on climate change versus how much invalidates their opinion because they’re being corrupted by the money involved. Is it possible there exists any organisation anywhere both relevant and expert enough to render an opinion while not having the perception of corruption? Based on the comments here (in which the APS is simultaneously accused of both) I guess not.

    “Therefore, you do appear to be against anything critical of the consensus/settled science of AGW by CO2 whether by public processes of science slef-policing or external to science legal policing.”

    I’m not “against” any type of criticism however if someone levels criticism in the form of “You’re making trillions of dollars off this” then I think that’s very silly and easily debunked criticism. If one person levels a criticism in the form of “The APS has nothing to do with climate change and shouldn’t issue a statement/isn’t expert enough to have an opinion” while another levels a criticism of “The APS won’t criticism climate change because they get too much money from it” then I find it hard to reconcile those into a coherent argument.

    Asking people to explain their criticisms is not being “against” them. Asking for evidence to support criticisms is not being “against” them.

    “I think that makes you, by definition, biased by advocacy.

    To use your own argument, you would think that in a random selection of your views there would be something critical of the consensus/settled science of AGW by CO2. Is there?”

    Sure I can cheerfully tell you that issues around data availability should have been resolved at least a decade ago. I think all the pertinent data should be completely available along with whatever is needed to process it and use it reproduce results. If we use GISS as an example several people have performed their own reconstructions and demonstrated that the reported temperature trends are real (as in real in the data) and not an artifact of “adjustments” as asserted sometimes. The availability of the data and methods strengthens the science and strengthens the confidence in the methods used.

  83. “REPLY: Ah aged mega troll “Boris” returns with a smackdown. You might want to read Dr. Roger Cohen’s note above. Since you obviously didn’t see it, I’ll put it in the body in large print for you and the kids. -Anthony”

    Heh, I guess their response was also “composed over lunch.”

    “At the very least, the statement is sloppy and hardly befitting a world class scient[ist]…”

  84. I wonder, did he complained about the post-WWII influx of vast monies for weapons and atomics research?

    And is he distancing himself from this, now that it’s getting more press? “It is of course, the global warming scam, with the (literally) trillions of dollars driving it, that has corrupted so many scientists, and has carried APS before it like a rogue wave. It is the greatest and most successful pseudoscientific fraud I have seen in my long life as a physicist” Now they seem to say that’s about policy debates, not science.

  85. Follow the money

    The chair of the Panel on Public Affairs (POPA) that re-endorsed the 2007 APS Statement on Climate Change sits on the science advisory board of a large international bank http://annualreport.deutsche-bank.com/2009/ar/supplementaryinformation/advisoryboards.html

    I am guessing that regular readers of this site do not have investments in Deutsche Banks Green Portfolio.

    I wonder whether closet readers of this site may be issuing instructions to sell?

  86. Another scientist destroys data

    http://www.aip.org/history/ohilist/4742.html

    even admits to being unable to keep up with information

    REPLY: oh puhleeeze….

    Compare these two statements:
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    Dr. Aaserud:
    Your papers — correspondence, notes, manuscripts, things of that sort — what’s the status of those? That’s another thing we’re interested in.
    Dr. Lewis:
    Yes. I really don’t have them, you know. I’ve long since either lost in moving or discarded everything that I had. So I have no papers around from JASON, if that’s what you mean.
    Aaserud:
    No, generally — both JASON and generally speaking.
    Lewis:
    There are lots of things, but they’re scattered in a complicated way. Generally speaking, I throw things away after a few years, so the only things I have are the things that have accumulated over the last few years and are relevant to the things I’m actually doing these days.
    Aaserud:
    That’s another thing that the Center is strongly involved in — just saving papers for historical purposes.
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    Now the Climategate deletion:

    From: Phil Jones
    To: “Michael E. Mann”
    Subject: IPCC & FOI
    Date: Thu May 29 11:04:11 2008

    Mike,

    Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4? Keith will do likewise. He’s not in at the moment – minor family crisis.

    Can you also email Gene and get him to do the same? I don’t have his new email address.
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    Big difference between discarding old things as you move, versus asking other to delete.

    Your point fails.

    -Anthony

  87. the Hal Lewis resignation news gets one more outing, in OneIndia, an Indian online portal owned by Greynium Information Technologies Pvt. Ltd., but that is one too many for tawanda:

    from page two of the comments, twjohnson jumps in with the APS response:

    12 Oct: One India: Global warming ‘the most successful pseudoscientific fraud ever': US physicist
    (ANI): An American professor has branded global warming as “the greatest and most successful pseudoscientific fraud” he has ever seen…
    FROM THE COMMENTS: TWJohnson has the APS Press Release broken up into six comments no doubt due to length…

    http://news.oneindia.in/comment/0000/00/2/105493.html

    TAWANDA’S COMMENTS ARE FOLLOWED IMMEDIATELY WITH A COMMENT BY “kevin”. note the “we do NOT need another review”. who is the “we” kevin, and who is the “kevin”, kevin?

    “Lewis resigned because the APS rejected his petition to again review the APS analysis of the threat of human induced global warming. Lewis and his group spent 7 months seeking signatures from the APS membership, including access to part of the APS email list and several ads. The result was only 206 out of 47,000 members signed! This is a clear message from the American physicists that we do NOT need another review. The scientific evidence is clear and we should do something about global…”

    so, given the MSM has not reported the resignation, how do they report the response?

  88. Jimbo says:
    October 13, 2010 at 11:12 am

    The dwell time of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is hundreds of years.”

    Then are the following in error or am I missing something?

    http://c3headlines.typepad.com/.a/6a010536b58035970c0120a5e507c9970c-pi

    http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/ef800581r

    http://www.co2science.org/articles/V12/N31/EDIT.php

    Dr A Burns agreed:
    October 13, 2010 at 1:49 pm

    and
    bubbagyro says:
    October 13, 2010 at 2:00 pm

    However, the actual data in the text of the IPCC report separately states a value of 4 years.

    Well all the references are wrong: The 4-6 years mentioned in the different references and the IPCC 4 years are the residence time, that is how long any single molecule of CO2 stays in the atmosphere before being catched by a tree or the oceans. This depends only of the turnover of CO2 in and out the atmosphere over the seasons. That is in total some 150 GtC going in and out within a year of the 800 GtC in the atmosphere, or about 20% or a refresh rate / turnover / residence time of about 5 years. If both the inputs and outputs are equal, that doesn’t change the total amount of CO2 in the atmosphere at all.
    Compare that to the turnover of a factory. The turnover doesn’t say anything about the profit or loss of a factory, only how much material did go through the factory over a year.

    Thus the turnover of CO2 within a year has nothing to do with the speed at which an excess amount of CO2 (currently some 110 GtC) in the atmosphere will be removed from the atmosphere. That is a quite different and near independent item: humans emit 8 GtC per year, but only 4 GtC per year shows up in the atmosphere, that means that some 4 GtC per year is really removed from the atmosphere. That is the real loss from the atmosphere, not the 150 GtC turnover. Thus the real removal time will be quite longer than 4-5 years…

    Far less than the hundreds of years the APS (and the IPCC, based on the Bern model) claims, which anyway is only relevant for a fraction of the total excess and if you burn all reachable oil and lots of coal.
    But some 40 years half life time for the bulk of the excess will do the job, see the calculation of Peter Dietze at:

    http://www.john-daly.com/carbon.htm

  89. Jimbo says: October 13, 2010 at 11:12 am
    “The dwell time of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is hundreds of years.”
    Then are the following in error or am I missing something?

    Hi Jimbo. The analyses you link to estimate the “residence time” of an individual CO2 molecule in the atmosphere (on the order of 10 years). That is, if a tagged CO2 molecule is released today, its “residence time” is the average time it takes to remove that specific molecule from the atmosphere.

    A related question is “how long would it take to remove a pulse of CO2 from the atmosphere?” In this case, as CO2 is continually being exchanged to and from the atmosphere by the carbon cycle, the time in question does not relate to “residence time” of individual CO2 molecules, but to the slower change in overall concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere. This is sometimes termed the “effective residence time” (and is of the order of 100 years).

    It is a very easy to confuse “residence time” and “effective residence time” (I have created such confusion in the past by accidently omitting the single word “effective”.) Note the use of “dwell time” in the quote above. Hope this helps.

  90. So APS admin doesn’t trust it’s members, all being scientists, to know enough proper science to be able to vote on APS’s public standings? But the few at the admin do?
    Very interesting. (APS plunges into the ___)

  91. By sharper00 on October 13, 2010 at 2:47 pm

    ——

    sharper00,

    Thank you for your reply. I think there is a lot to openly discuss. I thank Anthony (for the Nth time where N is a very large number) for this place to do it. I also sincerely thank you for coming here where all can benefit.

    I will need to wait to respond since I am hosting some associates this evening. Tommorrow.

    John

  92. @ Roger (2:25): Thank you. But now I have an additional question. It is my understanding that water vapor is also a strong absorber, yet you don’t hear any calls for reducing “water emission”. I had it explained to me once by a climate scientist that this was because water absorption was saturated (i.e. at the wavelengths water absorbs, all of the radiation was already being absorbed). My question now is, do your comments about CO2 also pertain to water?

  93. @Golf Charley

    “Follow the money

    The chair of the Panel on Public Affairs (POPA) that re-endorsed the 2007 APS Statement on Climate Change sits on the science advisory board of a large international bank”

    Do you not think that’s a pretty tenuous link? Remember you’re accusing the guy of perpetrating a massive hoax/scam/whatever and your evidence is that he sits on “the science advisory board” of a bank which I guess you’re also saying profits somehow from climate change.

    It appears his involvement is related to “The Carbon Mitigation Initiative” at Princeton

    http://cmi.princeton.edu/

    And that Deutsche Bank are seeking to limit their carbon emissions

    http://www.db.com/presse/en/content/press_releases_2009_4525.htm

    This is a good thing surely? Private organisations working to limit their carbon output without any need for government regulation?

  94. Could anyone reading this site clarify something for me;
    I don’t understand why doing work for Deutschebank or BP is evidence of corruption in favour of a global warming agenda.
    A major international bank and a multinational oil company? Clearly I’m missing something here, but I can’t think of two institutions with less to gain from a radical Green policy
    The suggestion seems to be that the bank has a green investment fund; well, yes, it does, and I would guess it accounts for a tiny part of their total investments.
    And BP have an alternative energy research fund. Again, a tiny percentage of their business which was, last time I looked, oil. That’s oil, as in the supposed CO2 producer.
    I know I’m being dumb here, so please, help me out.

  95. @Nonplused: In this context, I would expect “the lines are saturated” to mean that there’s enough CO2 to absorb essentially all light of the absorbed wavelengths, so that additional CO2 wouldn’t result in much increased absorption. (I’m not qualified to assess the accuracy of the statement, but that’s what I believe it means.)

  96. My take on the original letter from Professor Lewis were that he was calling out the APS for its refusal to comply with the procedures mandated in the APS Constitution. The APS Constitution provides:

    “ARTICLE VIII – DIVISIONS, TOPICAL GROUPS, AND FORUMS

    Organization. – If at least two hundred members wish to advance and diffuse the knowledge of a specific subject or subfield of physics, they may petition the Council to establish a Topical Group. The Council shall distribute to the Chairperson and the Secretary-Treasurer of each existing Division and Topical Group a statement of the areas of interest of the proposed Topical Group for review and comment.” Under the Constitution, the Council SHALL distribute the petition for the topical group. Said the APS, “extraordinary steps to solicit opinions from its membership on climate change.”

    “Extraodinary steps” means “we did things differently.” A proper response (if they had one) would be, “We followed all procedures outlined by the APS Constitution.” This wasn’t said, meaning that from an objective standpoint the “extraodinary steps” are appropriately described as “arbitrary.”

    The APS did not deny any of the allegations of procedural irregularites, which, again, I found to be the most telling. A person may have a different opinion – that’s fine. What is not fine is when the procedural mechanisms – the very rules of operation – are dismissed or ignored when there is a command under the rules to act a certain way. The Council has the authority to disapprove a new Topical Group but only AFTER the appropriate procedures have been followed.

    Playing fast and loose with facts is common. Playing fast and loose with procedure is an indication that fairness would be a downfall.

  97. btw a google search on “hal lewis” or “harold lewis” or “american physical society” + “express” or “express.co.uk” does not bring up the Express article in “News”, only the “oneindia” article comes up.

    also interesting is tawanda johnson’s husband is a member of the APS:

    Wikipedia: Kerry G. Johnson
    In 2005, he illustrated a coloring book for the American Physical Society about famous physicists. In 2005, he designed the official logo for the American Physical Society…
    He currently resides in Columbia, Maryland with his wife, Tawanda W. Johnson, a press secretary, media specialist and co-writer of Harambee Hills, along with their daughter and son…
    He is a member of Alpha Phi Alpha (ΑΦΑ) Fraternity, Inc., the National Association of Black Journalists (NABJ), the National Caricaturists Network, American Institute of Graphic Arts (AIGA) and the American Physical Society (APS).

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kerry_G._Johnson

    kerry does a cartoon:

    Kerry G. Johnson Blog: President Obama’s Nobel Bling Bling!

    http://kerrygjohnson.wordpress.com/2009/10/11/president-obamas-nobel-bling-bling/

    tawanda’s links:

    Linkedin: Tawanda W. Johnson

    http://www.linkedin.com/in/tawandawjohnson

    tawanda does most of the posting on the APS blog, physicsfrontline, this post, however, is by jodi:

    27 Sept: physicsfrontline: by jodi: The Storm Continues Unabated…
    Yes, Congress passed COMPETES. Yes, Congress set science on a 10-year doubling path. And yes, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA , or stimulus) provided additional funds for much-needed infrastructure projects and other programs for the DOE Office of Science, National Science Foundation and the National Institute of Standards and Technology.
    But, unfortunately, this hasn’t been enough. That because, as the U.S. has tried to catch up, other countries, too, have gotten the same message: Investments in science, engineering and math are the keys to robust innovation and competitiveness. They have outpaced us and outspent us. And it shows.
    The panel, again chaired by former Lockheed Martin CEO Norman Augustine, concludes in its follow-up report Rising Above the Gathering Storm Revisited: Rapidly Approaching Category 5, that
    “In the five years that have passed since Rising Above the Gathering Storm was issued, much has changed in our nation and world…”…

    http://physicsfrontline.aps.org/2010/09/27/the-storm-continues-unabated%e2%80%a6/

    interesting:

    2008: DailyGothamBlog: mole333: Scientists Respond to Culture Kitchen on Global Warming
    Every now and then DG’s sister site, Culture Kitchen, gets targeted by global warming deniers. Honestly, we are way past the time for denial on this issue, but deniers are still out there and CK is one of the sites they target. And having to counter the same denial yammering over and over again gets a bit frustrating for me.
    But sometimes we also get responses from another corner: actual scientists. And I find those reponses far more gratifying. In a diary I wrote addressing the latest denial drivel is an excellent response from the American Physical Society (APS) that is worth highlighting in a diary (thanks to Tawanda Johnson for posting the APS statement in my diary on CK):
    -APS Reaffirms Position on Climate Change” blah blah…..-
    This really highlights that people need to be careful of what the denial lobby says. They took the comments of one particular section of the APS and attributed them to the society as a whole, ignoring even the statement by the APS itself refuting the denial lobby claims. I am happy to help set the record straight that the American Physical Society officially recognizes Anthropogenic Global Warming as valid. In fact, they call the evidence supporting global warming as “incontrovertible.”…
    So here are two examples of global warming deniers misrepresenting scientists. Again, I am happy to help set the record straight for the American Physical Society and for Carl Wunsch, using their own words.
    I also want to note that John Mashey, something of a celebrity in the UNIX field, also stopped by the same diary on CK in which the APS posted their statement, and offered some links for those who want to learn more about why the global warming denial lobby is wrong about the science….

    http://www.dailygotham.com/blog/mole333/scientists_repsond_to_culture_kitchen_on_global_warming

  98. @Original Mike

    “I had it explained to me once by a climate scientist that this was because water absorption was saturated (i.e. at the wavelengths water absorbs, all of the radiation was already being absorbed).”

    What he likely meant is that the atmosphere in general already holds as much water vapor as it can. Obviously some locations like deserts are water limited but you don’t have much in the way of human activity producing water there either.

    Water needs heat in order to be held in the atmosphere. If the atmosphere heats up there’s almost always a plentiful supply of water to provide it. Human water vapour emissions can’t make the atmosphere hold more than it already can.

    Water also cycles out of the atmosphere in a matter of days so it doesn’t accumulate.

    C02 emissions from fossil fuels do accumulate because we’re extracting it from where it was previously inaccessible and it takes a very long time for it to be removed from the atmosphere again.

  99. Every successful organization will end up being hijacked by zealots. Zealots have the time and energy, because nothing else is of comparable importance. Healthy people have other concerns, defend weakly, and are driven off in disgust.

  100. How strange that the trolls cannot remember the emissions trading schemes and the carbon exchange and so forth … ideas that banks, at least, could charge fees for for managing and the likes … and ideas that require that everyone agree that CO2 is evil and will cause the world to fry …

  101. John Holland.
    I do not think you are being dumb, and I think you know that.

    Why would any corporation not hedge its bets by maintaining a foot in both camps? The oil companies is an easy one to explain.

    Deutsche Bank, and it’s rivals, is also easy to explain.

    Simply follow the money.

    If there is no money to be made from it …… sell …… sell ……sell

    Can you work it out yet?

  102. Could I be given the opportunity to chip-in on the point about saturation of the spectral lines (I have seen Roger’s post).

    I raised this objection when I first started looking into the CAGW arguments (a couple of years ago). The explanation I got was that the troposphere is (in broad terms) saturated at the relevant frequencies, but the lower stratosphere is where an enhanced GHE effect could manifest itself. There is scope for CO2 accumulation at the lower stratosphere where it is too cold for H20. This was put to me as part of the argument behind the predicted upper-tropospheric “hot spot” – most warming should be evident at the upper troposphere because of the enhancement of the GHE in the lower statosphere.

    This is not to say that I agree with these assertions. The “hot spot” doesn’t seem to be showing itself with regard to Recent Warming and this tends to suggest taht these detailed arguments about CO2 accumulation and enhanced GHE are wrong.

    Another comment if I may. It is possible to observe CO2’s radiative properties in the laboratory, but that does not permit us to conclude that these properties are necessarily evident in the climate.

    A simple laboratory experiment can show how gravity causes mass to “drop like a stone”. If we insist on the laboratory observation for all things in the real world, there would be an immediate contradiction with the existence of an atmosphere. Solar wind, powered flight and orbital motion would run into the sme problem.

    A saturated effect would be where the “ideal laboratory response” to CO2 is fully compensated by other processes, and it might even produce a null response. I think this is what is proposed by Ferenc M. Miskolczi.

  103. My “dwell time” graph for the Bern Model (IPCC, saturating sinks) and the Dietze Model (constant half life). CO2 is diffusing in an exponential way out of the atmosphere:

  104. @John Holland: “A major international bank and a multinational oil company? Clearly I’m missing something here, but I can’t think of two institutions with less to gain from a radical Green policy”. Deutschebank and BP, and various other big corporations pump millions of dollars into global warming ‘research’, whereas the world’s leading climate skeptic needed donations from his readers to attend a meeting in the UK. Money for the liars, not the deniers.

    When your assumptions fail, you abandon them. It’s easy to assume big oil is more concerned about making money from destroying the planet than of funding a mob of hippies led by green politicians pretending to be scientists, but there it is. It turns out capitalism doesn’t work the way we thought.

  105. John Holland says; “I know I’m being dumb here, so please, help me out.”

    Not dumb but cute. Where do you believe these climate folks will be employed in these very large organiztions? As an investment analyst at the bank or perhaps as a “roughneck” in the oil fields. Or perhaps in the “green” areas of lobbying for favorable tax treatment or investment credits?

  106. Theo Goodwin:
    —-There is not one single physical hypothesis that describes some natural regularity in the behavior of CO2 in the atmosphere. I dare you to state one – in your own words, as I say to my students.—-
    Actually, theories about how it behaves in the atmosphere have been around since Arhennius and Chamberlain. This was furthered by Elsasser in the forties and confirmed by direct observation by satellite after military studies for WWII flight personnel. Gilbert Plass first studied the infrared spectroscopy of the atmosphere and since then, several other scientists (Kiehl, Trenberth, Ramanathan, Coakley, Myhre, etc.) have used empirical satellite observation to detail the radiative forcing of the different atmospheric gases.

  107. Anthony,
    Some visitors have expressed interest in learning more about the water vapor feedback. On his blog, Roy Spencer intersperses his up to date research findings with excellent tutorials on various aspects of the global warming issue. This is a recent one relating to to the water vapor feedback and is highly recommended. http://www.drroyspencer.com/2010/09/five-reasons-why-water-vapor-feedback-might-not-be-positive/ Cloud feedbacks are yet more complex and represent the biggest ‘swing variable’ in the feedback issue. Technically inclined visitors may wish to consult the authoritative review by Colorado State Professor Graeme L. Stephens http://irina.eas.gatech.edu/EAS_spring2006/Stephens2005.pdf. The early section of the paper will give one a sense of why the issue is so difficult and the large spread in model results.

  108. Boris says:
    October 13, 2010 at 2:37 pm
    This passes over the fact that carbon dioxide absorption lines are nearly saturated.

    If these guys actually believe this, then they don’t need to be in the APS. Perhaps they should pick up a textbook on radiative properties of the atmosphere.

    REPLY: Ah aged mega troll “Boris” returns with a smackdown. You might want to read Dr. Roger Cohen’s note above. Since you obviously didn’t see it, I’ll put it in the body in large print for you and the kids. -Anthony

    Thank you, there being no posts listed as being from Dr Roger Cohen it was rather difficult to be sure what you were referring to. I’m not sure why I was asked to read it though.

  109. Dr. Roger Cohen:
    —I would like to clarify one technical point for your visitors. It relates to: “This passes over the fact that carbon dioxide absorption lines are nearly saturated.”
    The statement is fact, but it does not by itself imply that additional amounts of atmospheric CO2 will not cause significant warming. Straightforward radiation transfer calculations have established that the effect of doubling atmospheric CO2 would be to increase global average temperature by only about 1 deg. C. —-
    How is the “saturation” argument “fact” if “it does not by itself imply that additional amounts of atmospheric CO2 will not cause significant warming”?

    —The IPCC says these feedback effects are in aggregate large and positive, giving rise to their most recent estimate of 2 to 4.5 deg. C for doubling, with a most likely value of 3 deg. C. However, a substantial body of other research points to a much lower value, much closer to the zero feedback value of 1 deg. C, or even lower. The actual aggregated effect of feedbacks is a critical aspect of the debate.—-
    Can you point out the research? And I mean a closed system, where the energy budget is balanced.

  110. Jordan says:
    October 13, 2010 at 3:53 pm
    Another comment if I may. It is possible to observe CO2′s radiative properties in the laboratory, but that does not permit us to conclude that these properties are necessarily evident in the climate.

    Which is why the USAF etc sent loads of suitably equipped planes balloons etc. into the atmosphere to make in situ measurements which led to HITRAN.

  111. Roger says:
    October 13, 2010 at 2:25 pm

    “……. for doubling, with a most likely value of 3 deg. C. However, a substantial body of other research points to a much lower value, much closer to the zero feedback value of 1 deg. C, or even lower. The actual aggregated effect of feedbacks is a critical aspect of the debate.”
    =======================================================

    Either way, I can live with a 1-3 deg C increase. So can everyone else. I don’t believe the 3 deg. but, even if it were true……so what.

  112. “Dr. Roger Cohen writes in with an addedum: …….”

    This addendum appears to be the most interesting part of the post. All it needs is a graph showing how well the projections using the large positive feedback models compare with actual data and you have a nice story. I think it clearly says “The science is settled – but in the negative to the AGW case”.

  113. AMEN, ‘YAHOO’ from a ‘Larikin’ American living in South Australia…

    FINALLY, THE SCIENTISTS GET A VOICE!!! LONG LIVE SCIENCE! (which I humbly believe was birthed by observation???) and LONG LIVE FREE THOUGHT!!!

    US LAYMEN (and women!) ARE REFRESHED BY SEEING YOUR SHACKLES LOOSED!!!

  114. Given all the debate on what “saturated” lines of CO2 might mean in terms of definition and relevance, why not strike it or modify it so that it quantifies something of known relevance? What you’re doing is very confusing and leads to endless debate.

  115. This is what these people want at the end of the day
    (With appologies to Izaac Azimov for the plagarised and parodied, laws of robotics)

    1.A skeptic may not injure an AGW supporter or, through inaction, allow an AGW supporter to come to harm.
    2.A skeptic must obey any orders given to it by an AGW supporter, except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.
    3.A skeptic must not protect his/her own existence, espcially if such protection conflicts with the First or Second Law

  116. This whole Interwebby thing has really, really changed the ballgame when it comes to publishing spin. You can’t just publish what you think will be accepted, and ignore pertinent points and then sit back smug in the knowledge that you can prevent further publications, and anyway the average reader does not have the staying power to get to the end of this sentence.

    I happen to believe that this effect will be the most significant social effect of the current century, and that means a lot when we’ve only just started.

    And we’ve got His Goriness to thank for it!

  117. For those people wondering why or how a company such a BP, Shell or Caterpillar could or would ever get in bed with the greenies.

    First, PAY ATTENTION!!!! This has been common knowledge for sometime now. Just use Google, I believe Caterpillar and BP has since pulled out of the consortium, but I could be corrected.

    As to the why……consider the proposed caps on carbon emissions and the schemes. First, the caps set a level of emissions that the world businesses can emit. They don’t care who does, they just care about how much. Secondly, they recognize the need for existing entities to be able to continue to emit, but set a limit on how much. So, they issue CO2 credits for each existing company. If they want to emit more, they have to buy from the market. If less, they can sell. Nice and simple. No mess, no fuss, everything goes on as usual except they’ll have to pay through the nose to emit more CO2. That’s the plan in a nutshell.

    Hmm, we seem to be missing something from the economic model…..what could it be? Hmm……..let me think………..Oh, wait, I think I know……. new competitors!!!

    Friends, that’s why Dutch Shell and BP and all the others jumped on the bandwagon and started funding this garbage like crazy. It’s called an oligopoly. In this particular case it would have set up several different sets and levels of oligopolies with absolutely no chance of ever having to compete with an upstart.

  118. JDN:

    Given all the debate on what “saturated” lines of CO2 might mean in terms of definition and relevance, why not strike it or modify it so that it quantifies something of known relevance? What you’re doing is very confusing and leads to endless debate.

    Because the physics behind the “saturated” lines of CO2 is well understood. At best bringing it up is a red herring, at worst it displays a lack of understanding of the physics of the atmospheric greenhouse gas effect.

    My few cents worth:

    • I endorse Cohen’s remarks.
    • I endorse the APS statement that global warming itself (since 1850) is incontrovertible. [To say a result is never “incontrovertible” displays ignorance in how science progresses… For example, Special Relativity is a superset of Newton’s Laws of Motion, Newton’s Laws will never be “thrown out” in their established domain of applicability.]
    • I manage to hold my lunch while reading that it is incontrovertible that “significant disruptions in the Earth’s physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur.” How can something they themselves term as “likely” be “incontrovertible”??? I don’t think that word means quite what they think it means.
    • I disagree with the APS that these disruptions/negative effects are “likely”. I agree they are “plausible” outcomes, I do not agree we understand the science well enough to pin down their likelihood. IOW, I think this is pure BS.

  119. Their statement started with this…”To the contrary, as a membership organization of more than 48,000 physicists, APS adheres to rigorous ethical standards in developing its statements.”
    And ends with this… “About APS: The American Physical Society (www.aps.org) is the leading physics organization, representing 48,000 members, including physicists in academia, national laboratories, and industry in the United States and internationally. APS has offices in College Park, MD (Headquarters), Ridge, NY, and Washington, DC.”

    Like all propaganda mouth pieces, APS is also a one trick pony, all they respond with is the prestige/consensus card.

    “On these matters, APS judges the science to be quite clear. However, APS continues to recognize that climate models are far from adequate, and the extent of global warming and climatic disruptions produced by sustained increases in atmospheric carbon loading remain uncertain.”

    Wow!!! They are fast!!! Already carrying out the orders of science Czar. Climate disruptions, what is that?. What a joke.

  120. “The dwell time of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is hundreds of years.”

    Dear APS leadership, since you have abandoned all use of experimental evidence in favor of argument from discredited authority, perhaps you can know bless us with an answer to the age old question, “How many CO2 molecules can dance on the head of a pin ?”

  121. I commend the APS for its bravery in making such a spirited defence of the CAGW position.
    Man made climate disruption, cheers for that JH, underpins both the fiscal and ideological strategies of world governance; it must not be allowed to fail.
    The end justifies the means, of course, and the time for evidential analysis is soo yesterday.
    Keep it up yee staunch footsoldiers of the brave new future. You’re doing a grand job.
    Respect!

  122. Lewis responds here with personal attacks, such as the personal attack on the Chair of the Panel on Public Affairs. What I would love to see is a reply on science and only science.

    This reply by Lewis would be appropriate if the APS had said earlier that he (Lewis) is an deranged old person (that is, an attack on a personal level). However, Lewis was not called crazy, not he was insinuated as being crazy.

    Finally, Lewis referenced James Delingpole. He should have reference a neutral source because James is too partizan. In references we put neutral sources.

  123. I just visited Lubos’ blog. He is such an idiot, attacking the press secretary, posting a photograph, and talking about her race.

    Lubos should never be invited again to post here!

  124. Jack says:

    What is clear is that these rent seeking idiots have no knowledge of the history of scientific controversies….in the vast majority of cases the lone individual has been proven to be right, and (please forgive the sarcastic quotes here) the “august”, “deliberative”, “body of reputable scientists” proven to be wrong.

    And, you know this how? I’d like to see your review of the cases. In fact, your statement is a shining example of a skewed sample. You simply ignore all of the crackpots that have been wrong and vanished in obscurity (who, of course, you have never heard of) and look at the few cases where the scientific consensus has been incorrect.

  125. bob says: October 13, 2010 at 1:45 pm

    But Lucy,

    The oceans are absorbing CO2 and thus can’t be the source of the increased CO2 in the atmosphere.

    What about the carbon isotope studies that show the ration of C13 to C12 has been changing showing that the increase in atmospheric CO2 is due to fossil fuels.

    And even the atmospheric concentration of O2 is going down as we burn fossil fuels.

    Not to mention pH

    Bob, you’ve got a whole basketful of BS there. Bad Science nuggets.

    Oceans exude CO2 at the equator and in the summer hemisphere, inhale it near the poles and in the winter hemisphere. CO2 bounces back and forth with rain, huge flux. All obvious if you think about it.
    Carbon isotope “proofs” have been terminally faulted.
    O2 going down? I refuse to take that alarm seriously.
    pH. Sorry, there is simply so many times over the quantity of CO2 in the oceans as is in the air, that atmospheric changes are literally a “drop in the ocean”. Work out the relative mass of oceans and atmosphere. Look up the dissolved quantity of CO2. Study Henry’s Law. Then read Floor Anthoni on the upcoming “acidification” nonsense alarm and why the ever-present Ca++ will ALWAYS prevent acidification.

    I’ve checked all these points in the past, many are on my web pages, or on those of others posting here, but they can also be googled quite easily.

  126. Gary P says:
    October 13, 2010 at 5:26 pm

    “The dwell time of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is hundreds of years.”

    Dear APS leadership, since you have abandoned all use of experimental evidence in favor of argument from discredited authority, perhaps you can know bless us with an answer to the age old question, “How many CO2 molecules can dance on the head of a pin ?”
    ======================================================

    AARRGGH…..I came back to this thread to ask the same question!!!
    Well said.

    In the same vein, can some of the CO2 experts tell me if all the CO2 molecules uniformly lay on their backs or bellies? If they lay on their bellies, do they only absorb from their backs and then emit from their bellies, or do they, like like the girls on the beaches of Florida turn every half hour and emit and absorb from the same side?

    In other words, can someone, without the vehement rhetoric, explain if a CO2 molecule absorbs and emits uniformly, and if extraterrestrial IR is the primary source of heat, how is more CO2 will allow the same IR to pass through and not reflect it as it comes in, but reflect it more as it tries to escape?

  127. I am surprised that Dr Cohen would publicize his ignorance of heat transfer. Pointing to simple radiative transfer and saying CO2 is an excellent infra-red absorber gives the game away. He clearly has no engineering knowledge and does not understand thermodynamics, evaporation, convective heat transfer and would appear not even to understand simple radiation heat transfer as measured by engineers. Where is his ethical standards in making pronouncements about technology where he has no clues and in criticizing a fellow member who clearly has a better understanding of the complexity of climate.
    One can only hope that APS members realize the incompetents that lead them and vote them out of existence.

  128. As an engineer, I have always counted on using incontrovertible basic data as essential to successful projects, and in my career I have never heard another engineer question that assumption. During the last few years I have been astonished that so many scientifically trained people seem not only unwilling to question the data being used to support AGW, but throw roadblocks of every kind against those who want to get at the truth. I am beginning to think that there must be some kind of very high level conspiracy (besides the money) that is trying to use AGW as a tool to power. Perhaps it is the “one-world” crowd. In any event, it seems that in the internet period it is, fortunately, not possible for anyone to crush all the seekers after truth; and the public is beginning to catch on to the shenanigans of the so-called elite! So beware of any attempts to regulate the web. It will be our salvation.

  129. cementafriend says:
    October 13, 2010 at 5:58 pm

    I am surprised you offer criticism without offering a basis for such criticism. If you have knowledge, share it. For instance, show where Dr. Cohen is wrong, or better yet, answer my question above.

  130. B. CH.E. (October 13, 2010 at 6:00 pm) says

    “I have been astonished that so many scientifically trained people seem not only unwilling to question the data being used to support AGW, but throw roadblocks of every kind against those who want to get at the truth.”

    But there’s no (empirical) data to question, B.CH.E. , only speculative projections based on compliant computer games and dressed up as “proof” to sway opinion. Scientifically trained people aplenty do hammer that point.

    There is not even a discernible signal linking GHG emissions and global temperature. There is only the noise of “natural climate variability”.

    http://tamunews.tamu.edu/2010/10/05/texas-am-study-shows-climate-change-may-not-show-up-for-many-decades/

  131. The Hal Lewis “problem” probably came up over lunch and a few of them decided a response letter was in order – so after another bottle of wine, deep thought and deliberation, they produced this lousy letter.

  132. Graham Dick,

    Very good comment. And thanks for posting that link. It’s better than most, because it sits on the fence instead of sending all the usual AGW code words. But I have to question this statement:

    “…even though it is evident that the world is currently experiencing one of the fastest warming rates since the beginning of the observational record…”

    Even Phil Jones would disagree that the current rate of warming is anything unusual.

  133. And in spite of all the hubub, the tropospheric temps are the warmest on record (in spite of the current deep La Nina) and arctic sea ice (seems to be accelerating in its loss) and glacial land ice continue to melt. And only some of the CO2 rotational bands are close to being saturated.

    Nature will have its way and the laws of physics obeyed.

  134. Lucy Skywalker,

    From the abstract of the following paper

    Oceanic Uptake of Fossil Fuel CO2: Carbon-13 Evidence
    P. D. Quay 1, B. Tilbrook 2, and C. S. Wong 3

    The 13C value of the dissolved inorganic carbon in the surface waters of the Pacific Ocean has decreased by about 0.4 per mil between 1970 and 1990. This decrease has resulted from the uptake of atmospheric CO2 derived from fossil fuel combustion and deforestation. The net amounts of CO2 taken up by the oceans and released from the biosphere between 1970 and 1990 have been determined from the changes in three measured values: the concentration of atmospheric CO2, the 13C of atmospheric CO2 and the 13C value of dissolved inorganic carbon in the ocean. The calculated average net oceanic CO2 uptake is 2.1 gigatons of carbon per year. This amount implies that the ocean is the dominant net sink for anthropogenically produced CO2 and that there has been no significant net CO2 released from the biosphere during the last 20 years.

    It is pretty old, so it should be easy to provide a cite that debunks it, or the 98 papers that cite it.

    And what happens to CO2 in solution in the oceans, Hint, look at the White Cliffs of Dover, for a clue about Henry’s Law and whether or not CO2 is in equilibrium in the oceans.

    from Floor Anthoni, although I could have written it from memory having studied chemistry

    CO2 + H2O H2CO3 H+ + HCO3- H+ + H+ + CO32-

    Now if you add CO2 the reaction goes to the right, increasing the amount of H+, or dare I say it, the acidification.

    Again, since you say Ca++ is present, and you are correct, it binds with the CO32-, forming Calcium Carbonate, which also causes the reaction to move to the right, increasing the acidity.

    Is the amount of CO32- and HCO3- present really relevant, as what is important is the change in the amount of H+ present which increase both with added CO2 as well as the formation of calcium carbonate.

    And Floor Antoni is less published than Oliver Manual, but that doesn’t mean I don’t think he is a good guy.

    What do you think about the change in O2 in the atmosphere? Do you think it is changing as a result of burning fossil fuels?

  135. Dr. Hal Lewis has joined the club of honest science Skeptics that was begun some 400 years ago, in 1610, by a man named Galileo Galelei who challenged the SCIENCE-DOGMA of his time. At least in 1610 the DOGMA was based upon ignorance and not greed.

  136. Anthony,
    You know I was not refering to the emails but to the loss of data Jones admits in various moves in the 1980s. You state:
    Dr. Lewis:
    Yes. I really don’t have them, you know. I’ve long since either lost in moving or discarded everything that I had. So I have no papers around from JASON, if that’s what you mean.
    Aaserud:
    No, generally — both JASON and generally speaking.
    Lewis:
    There are lots of things, but they’re scattered in a complicated way. Generally speaking, I throw things away after a few years, so the only things I have are the things that have accumulated over the last few years and are relevant to the things I’m actually doing these days.

    Big difference between discarding old things as you move, versus asking other to delete. Your point fails. -Anthony

    Now compare this to you very vociferous attack on jones of which this is an example:

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/03/climategate-so-wheres-the-oh-snap-email/

    One thing about “ClimateGate” nagging at the back of my mind is the absence of any discussion by ringleader Phil Jones (or others) of the remarkable, shocking discovery that Jones now claims he had that his precedessor destroyed the raw data in the 1980s.

    I take it that you would now retract your insinuations that Jones acted unscientifically by losing data?
    \harry

    REPLY: Nope, when you are the keeper of a public data set, used by thousands of others, and used to determine policy of nations, you get held to a higher standard, particularly when you say things like:

    Warwick Hughes requested the current data in 2005. The e-mail you received from Jones on 21 February 2005 – you know, the one that said:

    “Even if WMO agrees, I will still not pass on the data. We have 25 or so years invested in the work. Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it.”

    Could that have been in his mind when he wrote to Mann, Bradley and Hughes, also on 21 February 2005 :

    “PS I’m getting hassled by a couple of people to release the CRU station temperature data. Don’t any of you three tell anybody that the UK has a Freedom of Information Act!”

    Comparing that sort of bad behavior from Dr. Jones to a fellow throwing out some boxes of old papers from when he moved isn’t even close.

    Your point still fails, badly. – Anthony

  137. James Sexton says:
    October 13, 2010 at 5:57 pm

    In the same vein, can some of the CO2 experts tell me if all the CO2 molecules uniformly lay on their backs or bellies? If they lay on their bellies, do they only absorb from their backs and then emit from their bellies, or do they, like like the girls on the beaches of Florida turn every half hour and emit and absorb from the same side?

    In other words, can someone, without the vehement rhetoric, explain if a CO2 molecule absorbs and emits uniformly, and if extraterrestrial IR is the primary source of heat, how is more CO2 will allow the same IR to pass through and not reflect it as it comes in, but reflect it more as it tries to escape?
    =======================================================

    Ahahaha, I’ve developed like like a stutter in my typing! But seriously. I’d like a legit answer.

    The sun emits IR which is our primary source of heat. CO2 absorbs and then upon excitement, releases heat, uniformly. Right? So, the sun emits, CO2 absorbs, half goes back out to the cosmos, the other half comes to the earth. The earth bounces some back to CO2, and CO2 does again the same thing. Uniformly in and out. If the sun emits 100 sexton units of energy, how does increasing or decreasing atmospheric CO2 change the total units of energy kept on the earth?

  138. Harry Lu,

    ‘Losing’ data is incompetence, if not deliberate scientific misconduct.

    There isn’t much of the scientist in Mr Jones.

  139. Harry Lu says:
    October 13, 2010 at 8:08 pm
    Anthony: A few more examples of attack on Jones which according to your last post should not have happened:

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/09/23/taking-a-bite-out-of-climate-data/

    ====================================

    What do you mean an attack on Jones???

    I see most sane people here, including Dr. Michaels, only “attacking” his piss poor science and refusal to make public his data.

    Speaking of “attack”…

    I seem to recall one of the emails from last November which reveals one of the Hockey Team’s Ben Santer threatening to “beat the crap out of” Michaels.

    That is an “attack”.

    Chris
    Norfolk, VA, USA

  140. “Smokey says:
    October 13, 2010 at 8:09 pm
    Harry Lu,
    Losing’ data is incompetence, if not deliberate scientific misconduct.”

    So you are accusing Dr. Hal Lewis of deliberate scientific misconduct also? That seems fair to me then.
    \harry

  141. Harry Lu says:
    October 13, 2010 at 8:08 pm

    Harry, what I think Anthony is trying to say……….., in 2005 Phil Jones acknowledges “a couple of people” want a peak at publicly owned data that he helped accumulate. Further, by inference, he acknowledges an obligation to provide it, yet he affirms he will not. Also, by stating he will not comply with the law, he’s implying he is in possession of the data. He also goes through the trouble of telling his colleagues not to let other people know about his legal obligation to provide said data.

    In late 2009, these correspondences are made public. In early 2010, suddenly the data is “lost” according to our friend Phil. Which is odd considering the the archives of some of the servers apparently went back as far as the 1990s.

    Yeh Harry, that’s a lot like losing paperwork in a move.

  142. Luboš Motl says:
    October 13, 2010 at 12:42 pm

    It’s just totally disgusting. The first thing is that Callan, instead of answering himself, gave the task to his bodyguard who has no idea about science and who just wrote a meaningless and dishonest stream of intimidation.

    But Tawanda apparently knows Climate Science just about as well as any other Climate Scientist!

  143. Harry Lu says:
    October 13, 2010 at 8:59 pm

    So you are accusing Dr. Hal Lewis of deliberate scientific misconduct also?
    ========================================================

    Are there no bounds in which you will not go? Really? You’re going to attempt to dig up dirt on a person making a statement through his principals? An elderly man that wishes nothing more than integrity restored to a society of which he’s been a long time member. Honestly? Do you believe this will sway anyone?……..Well, it will, only not to the opinion you’d wish. Is there any wonder why one can almost hear the spit when they type “alarmist”? Or when one can almost palpate the disgust when they type “climate disruption”? There is no reason to wonder, you are part of and a reason why this happens.

  144. Smokey says:
    October 13, 2010 at 9:16 pm
    Harry Lu,

    No, Hal Lewis is a hero. But thanx for the interesting red herring argument.

    ===============================

    Smokey you are being too generous. It ain’t even a red herring.

    And it definitely ain’t “interesting”.

    It is a bold face “does not follow”…non sequitur.

    Chris
    Norfolk, VA, USA

  145. Harry Lu:

    I take it that you would now retract your insinuations that Jones acted unscientifically by losing data?

    Harry, no data = no temp. reconstruction = no science. No “materials and methods”. See also the “Harry readme” file for Jones’ “methods”.

    Jones had no science and he knew it, but he instead claimed he did and continued to tell this lie to the rest of the World until he was finally caught, and not by Climate Scientists. Comprende?

  146. gryposaurus said: “And I mean a closed system, where the energy budget is balanced.”

    Can you clarify what you mean by a “closed system where the energy budget is balanced?” What would you consider the system to be: the surface and atmosphere of the earth; the entire earth (including hydrocarbons extracted from below the surface and burned at the surface); the entire Sun/earth system? And how is the particular definition of the “closed system” relevant to the question of whether or not there are amplifying feedbacks that would drive the temperature higher than CO2 alone?

  147. Hal Lewis worked on reactor safety
    No data = bang (big)

    REPLY: My gosh, you are an incorrigible fool. Reactor safety isn’t dependent on some boxes of old papers stored in his closet he tossed out. His studies were incorporated into the knowledge base. I’m snipping any further posts from you on this topic because they have fallen below the minimum ride height. – Anthony

  148. “…the IPCC says these feedback effects are in aggregate large and positive, giving rise to their most recent estimate of 2 to 4.5 deg. C for doubling, with a most likely value of 3 deg. C…”

    For goodness sake, we’ve already had 60 years of what IPCC likes to call ‘global warming’.

    Surely that’s enough time (not to mention the billions of dollars spent) for the devotees of ‘the science’ to come up with a more precise prediction for their likely temperature rise this century (and it should look like ~1°C).

    Wikipedia has some uses, as in its list of indicators of possible presence of pseudoscience:

    # Use of vague, exaggerated or untestable claims ✓
    # Over-reliance on confirmation rather than refutation ✓
    # Lack of openness to testing by other experts ✓
    # Absence of progress ✓
    # Personalization of issues ✓
    # Use of misleading language viz. climate change, climate disruption, CO2 pollution ✓
    # Absence from citation databases, they get over this by citing each other ✓

  149. The phenomenon of the relatively mediocre seeking power thru climbing the political structures of professional or any other sort organization is a constant problem . It’s described by Hayek in his chapter “Why the worst get on top” in his classic “Road to Serfdom” .

    I got sucked into battling this global fraud because it seemed to violate the most basic temperature physics I learned in the 1950s reading boy’s science books . It continues to appear that few understand that the temperature calculated by simply adding up the energy impinging on our planet gives the temperature of a flat spectrum , gray , ball , no matter how light or dark , in our orbit , and that temperature , about 279 kelvin , is 3 times closer to our observed temperature than the ubiquitously parroted 33c “greenhouse effect” .

    Mike Haseler , above , noted that to the same extent that CO2 is a good absorber of some IR frequencies , it is a good emitter of those same frequencies . Thus its temperature , or the temperature of any substance with any particular spectrum won’t “runaway” . It will come to a very computable equilibrium .

    But I have yet to see any indication that “climate scientists” even know how to compute the temperature of a simple radiantly heated colored ball . Simply doing that for the earth’s observed spectrum would go a long way towards explaining the 9 or 10 degree difference between our observed temperature and that of a gray ball , without even getting into the complexities of our shallow gas skin .

    It has also been commented above , that there are no experiments demonstrating any of the asserted physics . It seems that the art of doing simple little experiments has been lost in an age of multi-billion dollar apparatus .

    Overall , the APS seems to have presided over a significant decline in the general understanding of some very basic physics over the last half century .

  150. The main issue with this topic is not the basic physics, it is the fact that the supposedly detrimental impacts are not appearing – drought patterns are little changed, other factors are making Pacific Islands grow not drown, Antarctic sea ice continues to extend, tropical storm activity is at a 30 year low, the scare stories about infectious diseases have been categorically refuted…….the reasons for action are completely discounted. Any one calling for action in CO2 reduction in these circumstances is talking politics, not science.

  151. Lucy Skywalker says:
    October 13, 2010 at 5:55 pm

    Lucy, Lucy, haven’t you read my 4 papers on the source of the extra CO2 in the atmosphere?
    There is little doubt that the increase in the atmosphere is human induced: all main natural items are net sinks for CO2: the biosphere is a net sink (as the O2 use shows) and the oceans are a net sink (as the increase of CO2 in the oceans + d13C decrease shows). Thus what is left? Human emissions. The more that only half of the emissions (in quantity) shows up in the atmosphere. As long as the increase in the atmosphere is not larger than the emissions, then the emissions are the only cause of the increase. It is that simple. For those interested, here are the four posts, with a lively discussion:

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/08/05/why-the-co2-increase-is-man-made-part-1/

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/08/20/engelbeen-on-why-he-thinks-the-co2-increase-is-man-made-part-2/

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/09/16/engelbeen-on-why-he-thinks-the-co2-increase-is-man-made-part-3/

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/09/24/engelbeen-on-why-he-thinks-the-co2-increase-is-man-made-part-4/

  152. James Sexton says:
    October 13, 2010 at 7:56 pm

    The sun emits IR which is our primary source of heat. CO2 absorbs and then upon excitement, releases heat, uniformly. Right? So, the sun emits, CO2 absorbs, half goes back out to the cosmos, the other half comes to the earth. The earth bounces some back to CO2, and CO2 does again the same thing. Uniformly in and out. If the sun emits 100 sexton units of energy, how does increasing or decreasing atmospheric CO2 change the total units of energy kept on the earth?

    The sun emits IR, but that is at higher frequency (near visible) and the main CO2 absorption band is below these frequencies, there is some absorption, but that is minor. The outgoing IR from the warmed earth is at much lower frequencies, and the main IR absorption band (not overlapping by water absorption) is in that range (15 micometer). Thus incoming IR is hardly filtered out by CO2, but outgoing IR is. That makes the difference if CO2 increases. If that is a real problem (or beneficial), including feedbacks, that is a entirely different question. See:

  153. “Moreover, relatively few APS members conduct climate change research, and therefore the vast majority of the Society’s members derive no personal benefit from such research support.”

    Curious then that they feel qualified to lend their weight to the theory. The classic warmist argument is that if someone is not a climatologist their opinion has no weight, however this argument does not apply so long as they agree with the popular theory of man made climate disruption.

  154. Is there some magic about CO2 that it causes additional warming by “feedbacks”? It seems to me that if such significant feedbacks existed they would respond to any warming however caused. Any minor warming would be amplified by feedbacks, causing even more warming and even more feedback, etc., etc., runaway warming, death of the planet, etc.
    This doesn’t seem to happen in reality, although we are continuously told that it is the mechanism by which CO2 will overheat the planet. So what is the magic with CO2 if this effect isn’t observed for other causes of warming?

  155. ‘Moreover, relatively few APS members conduct climate change research, and therefore the vast majority of the Society’s members”

    … are in no place to endorse, by vote or committee, any result of said research.

    They damn themselves quite transparently.

  156. The adoption, so quickly, by the APS of the phrase “climate disruptions” show that this reply by the APS to Hal Lewis’s resignation letter is no more than a PR damage-limitation exercise and not a rebut of the scientific criticisms of man-made global warming.

    That speedy adoption of words directly attributable to President Obama’s Science Czar John Holdren highlights how much trouble the APS now feel they are in over its global warming advocacy.

    “Climate disruption” now translates to a fear of recriminations and finger-pointing within the APS.

  157. Anyone round here a bookie? I’d like to place a bet on the first institute/society to come out and admit that they had to toe the AGW line or there funding would be cut.

    I’m not sure who will be the first though as all the scientific institutes/society’s seemed to have no bollox, seems to me money > integrity.

  158. “James Sexton says:
    October 13, 2010 at 6:18 pm

    cementafriend says:
    October 13, 2010 at 5:58 pm

    I am surprised you offer criticism without offering a basis for such criticism. If you have knowledge, share it. For instance, show where Dr. Cohen is wrong, or better yet, answer my question above.”

    I would like to apologize to Dr Cohen, I wrongly put his name instead of Dr (Curtis) Callan. I have no problem with Dr Cohen’s comment. I, now, see on LUbos Motl’s site that the person who wrote the reply was actually Tawanda Johnson the press secretary who certainly has no knowledge about climate or the engineering subjects of thermodynamics, heat and mass transfer (which includes evaporation and condensation).
    With regard to CO2 being an Infra-red absorber, it only absorbs in three very narrow wavelengths (2.7, 4.3 and 14.9 micron). Water vapor absorbs over a much larger range including at 2.7 and 14.9 micron, it also absorbs in the microwave range. Around the 14.9 micron area water vapor will absorb more radiant energy because there is an order of magnitude more present

  159. Eric Anderson
    —-Can you clarify what you mean by a “closed system where the energy budget is balanced?” What would you consider the system to be: the surface and atmosphere of the earth; the entire earth (including hydrocarbons extracted from below the surface and burned at the surface); the entire Sun/earth system?—
    Dr. Cohen said ” However, a substantial body of other research points to a much lower value, much closer to the zero feedback value of 1 deg. C, or even lower. ” I had seen a few studies that list this sensitivity number but they were not using data from the complete globe. While those sensitivity numbers may be useful, ie estimating cloud feedbacks in the tropics, it can be inadvertently confusing to those who don’t understand the importance of ocean oscillation and the transport of energy over the entire globe when estimating the climate’s sensitivity to certain forcings.

    —-And how is the particular definition of the “closed system” relevant to the question of whether or not there are amplifying feedbacks that would drive the temperature higher than CO2 alone?—-
    It’s a question of using data that gives a complete picture of climate sensitivity.

  160. bob says: October 13, 2010 at 7:36 pm

    Thanks Bob for replying so nicely, and at such length. I was tired, so noisier and less exact than I usually try to be. However, I still disagree with you, and for the same reasons.

    * Ca++ has the power to replenish itself constantly, drawing on CaCO3 worldwide rocks, and to be leached constantly by supplying material for shells – thus the balance continues, naturally.

    * Here and here are papers challenging your “CO2 isotopes levels shows human interference” thesis. I’ve seen others too.

    * Re us being responsible for CO2 increase, I respectfully disagree with both you and Ferdinand Engelbeen, because I think you both wrongfully dismiss the power of the vast natural flux to more than absorb comparatively tiny human inputs of plant food. The flux itself is an order of magnitude bigger. I’ve seen even the similarities disappear under the microscope. Your thesis depends on a mechanistic interpretation where a human surplus can accumulate; but in reality we have a huge turnover in the ocean / atmosphere, and the living biomass is highly responsive to any extra CO2. Therefore, despite apparent similarities in patterns of increase, I hold that this is fortuitous, accidental, of minimal significance re causality.

    * Since I’ve been persuaded by evidence for the maintenance of a natural equilibrium, I’m really not worried about microscopic changes in oxygen levels. What I abhor is the squandering of oil as nonrecyclable plastic containers, bottles, wrappers, etc that mess up our landscape all too visibly.

    I object to the alarmist ideas which assert that (a) warming is bad for us (b) CO2’s increasing GHG effect is serious (c) we, rather than the natural flux, are the cause of increase, and thus conversely can decrease the CO2 levels. I say, due diligence has not been done. I say, the understanding of the most basic Science held by the experts is being eroded, not maintained, and certainly not improved. To talk about CO2 as “pollution” shows this. I think the research that suggests natural homeostasis has been systematically downplayed, because it’s not alarmist, and therefore not a money-attractor.

  161. gryposaurus says:
    October 13, 2010 at 4:25 pm
    “…And I mean a closed system, where the energy budget is balanced.”

    Good points. Of course the Earth is not a closed system and the ‘energy budget’ is never in balance. It is an open system driven by the turbulence of deterministic chaos and energy balance varies at all time scales. No wonder that the laws of ‘ideal’ physics break down when applied to our messy ball of rock.

  162. Dennis NIkols, P. Geol. says:
    October 13, 2010 at 11:34 am
    “From my point of view the APS’s attempt at face saving is just that and little more. They are of course just as entitled to their opinions as is Dr. Lewis his. ”

    Actually, no. No academic society is entitled to have any such opinion, or it ceases to be an academic society and becomes a pressure group. All the individual members are entitled to their differing opinions, and to have them treated on an equal footing, none being given any official preference over any others.

  163. It’s difficult to see why they’re endorsing a theory of global warming when, as they admit in the statement, its provenance is based on climate models which “are far from adequate”. If they were just plain adequate, would it endorse the theory any more?

    Pointman

  164. coldfinger says:
    October 14, 2010 at 2:19 am

    Is there some magic about CO2 that it causes additional warming by “feedbacks”? It seems to me that if such significant feedbacks existed they would respond to any warming however caused. Any minor warming would be amplified by feedbacks, causing even more warming and even more feedback, etc., etc., runaway warming, death of the planet, etc.

    Depends how much positive feedback is given. If the total loop of cause + feedback increases with less than 1 times (100%), then there is an extra increase but no runaway of the process. The climate models result in runaway, but feedbacks like clouds are implied as positive feedback in all models, while in reality these are a negative feedback…

  165. Lucy Skywalker says:
    October 14, 2010 at 3:33 am

    Here and here are papers challenging your “CO2 isotopes levels shows human interference” thesis. I’ve seen others too.

    The first paper is by Tom Quirk. He alleges that the change in d13C is mainly from the Southern hemisphere / El Niño, because the NH lags some 5 months the changes in the SH. That paper was challenged by Jack Barret and me in E&E, as the method that Tom Quirk used doesn’t make a difference for changes occuring now or by any multiple of 12 months. In reality, the SH lags the NH with 3-5 years and his conclusion is completely wrong.

    The second paper is a comment that has several true remarks, however, the oceans can’t be the cause of the declining d13C, simply because (especially the upper level) ocean CO2 is too high in d13C: any huge release of oceanic CO2 would increase the d13C levels of the atmosphere, even without increasing the total amount of CO2 as is the case for the huge turnover of in/out CO2 from/to the (deep) oceans. That is the reason that the decrease of d13C in the atmosphere is less (about 1/3rd) than what can be calculated from fossil fuel use.
    And vegetation is definitely not the cause of the decrease, as there is a slight deficit in oxygen use, thus vegetation is a net producer of O2, thus a net absorber for CO2 (the “greening” earth) and preferentially 12CO2, thus leaving more 13CO2 in the atmosphere, thus increasing the d13C ratio. But we measure a decrease (compassing the noise caused by e.g. an El Niño after 3-5 years).

    we have a huge turnover in the ocean / atmosphere, and the living biomass is highly responsive to any extra CO2.

    A huge turnover has nothing to do with gain or loss of CO2: Even if the turnover of CO2 increased a 10-fold, that wouldn’t remove one gram of CO2. Only the difference between inputs and outputs removes or adds CO2. As humans add 8 GtC/year and we measure an increase of 4 GtC/year, that means that nature as a whole is a net sink for CO2. Not 100%, only around 50%. If you double CO2 levels in greenhouses and around open air trees and other vegetation, the extra growth is 20-80%, not 100%. Thus extra CO2 (from any source) is partly removed, but not immediately every bit of it.

  166. The APS response demonstrates this is all politics and has nothing to do with science. We already knew that but now it is so obvious a cave man could see it.

  167. This is not a direct comment of Dr Lewis’ resignation, which I heartily applaud as an
    outstanding example of a scientist who believes in the full application of scientific principles and ethics in their work (and comments).
    However, as the question has been raised that the heat absorbtive power of CO2 may be influenced by atmospheric water vapour (which I believe is a grossly over-rated attribute), I pose the following question for some knowledgeable physicist(s) to
    clarify :-
    If the atmospheric level of CO2 was reduced to zero ppm, what difference would it make to (i) global temperature and the “greenhouse effect”, and (ii) the “greenhouse” effect of atmospheric water vapour – i.e. does CO2 have much to do with it at all?
    I suggest that the whole question of AGW appears to rest on the vastly over-rated properties properties of CO2 and that this should be banished from the debate so that some genuine scientific research could be done to answer important questions about our environment.

  168. Bret says:
    October 13, 2010 at 10:54 am

    “This passes over the fact that carbon dioxide absorption lines are nearly saturated.”

    Is it? At all relevant altitudes?

    I’m not sure what altitude has to do with it. There is a “fixed” (if you will) incoming radiation parcel that the earth gets every day on the absorption lines of CO2. Whether those lines are absorbed at a high altitude or a low altitude, their energy is still absorbed by the earths atmosphere and are not doubly-absorbed by both high and low altitude. This seems akin to arguing whether you put your home insulation up against the inside wall or the outside wall, it should make no difference to the overall energy flow.

  169. The fact that it has been warmer during the mediaval warming & considerably warmer during the Climate Optimum of 9-5,000 BC (the name predates the current scare) shows that, at temperatures well above those CO2 increase might predict the feedbacks simply must be miniscule, zero or more likely negative. Anthing else would have produced the threatened runaway effects then.

  170. @Ammonite
    I fully understand the difference between CO2 residence time and “effective residence time” of lifetime or adjustment time to a step change in CO2 concentration.

    However, can you or any CO2 expert explain the evidence for claiming this CO2 lifetime is a 100 years (or up to 500 years as some claim- Doug Mackie at skepticalscience.com ). What experimental evidence for this critical element of the climate models?

    The only support I can find is from modeling ‘experiments’ – a totally circular argument.
    For example, in AR4, I found in Sect 2.10.2 only a table for greenhouse gasses with CO2 being an exceptions under footnote a:
    Footnote a: “The CO2 response function used in this report is based on the revised version of the Bern Carbon cycle model used in Chapter 10 of this report” – a model study, no observation.

  171. Reading the names of some of the advisors to the investment banks, such as Rajendra Pachauri and Lord Oxborough, reminded me of the advice I was given by a friendly lecturer immediately after graduating as a teacher;
    “Always remember that the education system is the same as any large organisation, they all function in the same manner as a sceptic tank; the big chunks will always float to the top!”
    I know many posters here enjoy the cut and thrust of discussing the concepts associated with climate, but it seems to me that those discussions are a distraction; the problem with APS is not a lack of science but a lack of ethics.

  172. First I want to contradict Dr. Roger Cohen on carbon dioxide infrared absorption spectrum. It so happens that Ferenc Miskolczi* has shown, using NOAA weather balloon database that goes back to 1948, that the optical thickness of the atmosphere in the infrared band has not changed for 61 years and has a value of 1.87. This means that constant addition of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere for 61 years straight has not had any effect on the transparency of the atmosphere in the infrared where carbon dioxide absorbs or the optical thickness would have increased, and this did not happen. This is an empirical observation, not some theory, and must take precedence over predictions by Arrhenius et al. If you want to go against it you will have to disprove both his theory and his observations and I have not seen this done. Roy Spencer tried, unconvincingly, to explain it away with poor quality of older observations. In the meantime, validity of carbon dioxide greenhouse effect right now stands empirically nullified. Respond to it or live with it. Furthermore, I have proven, using satellite temperature measurements, that the so-called “anthropogenic global warming” has never been observed. It starts with Hansen’s testimony in 1988 that global warming has arrived. That was false – satellite observations prove that there was no warming in the eighties and nineties. Real warming started in 1988, ten years after Hansen’s pronouncement. In four years global temperature rose by a third of a degree and then stopped. Its origin was oceanic, not carboniferous. And if you want to bring out arctic warming you can. It is very real, has been going on for more than a hundred years, and is caused by warm water brought north by currents, not some magical arctic amplification of the greenhouse effect. It looks like Miskolczi was right – anthropogenic global warming simply does not exist.
    *Ferenc Miscolczi, E&E 21(4):243-262 (2010)

  173. Lucy Skywalker, Bob and Ferdinand Engelbeen, :

    I write to request that you discontinue your debate in this thread on the possible cause(s) of the recent rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration.

    The subject of this thread is the APS response to Dr Hal Lewis’ letter of resignation.
    In my opinion, that subject is sufficiently important for it to not be distracted by – or deflected onto – consideration of any other issue.

    In WUWT Ferdinand has recently had his chance (four times) to put his flawed case on why he mistakenly thinks the recent increase in atmospheric CO2 certainly has an anthropogenic cause. The increase may or may not have an anthropogenic cause or a natural cause in whole or in part, but the available evidence cannot prove the matter. And I would welcome another opportunity to show the many errors in Ferdinand’s arguments.

    But this thread is not about that. And the subject of this thread is very, very important in its own right.

    Hence, I respectfully request that in this thread you desist from discussion of the possible cause(s) of the recent rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration.

    Richard

  174. James Sexton says:
    October 13, 2010 at 7:56 pm
    “In other words, can someone, without the vehement rhetoric, explain if a CO2 molecule absorbs and emits uniformly, and if extraterrestrial IR is the primary source of heat,”

    It isn’t. The primary source of heat is sunlight, which is twenty times hotter (shorter wavelength) than the thermal radiation trying to get out. Your question is like asking how a bullet can get through a glass window when rain cannot.

  175. Luboš Motl says:
    October 13, 2010 at 12:42 pm

    It’s just totally disgusting. The first thing is that Callan, instead of answering himself, gave the task to his bodyguard who has no idea about science and who just wrote a meaningless and dishonest stream of intimidation. More comments of mine:

    http://motls.blogspot.com/2010/10/aps-thinks-that-tawanda-may-teach.html

    I am ashamed of Mr Callan.

    REPLY:Thanks Luboš. Reading your post, for the record, I didn’t analyse anything in the APS statement, see the foreword. Also, I think your response is a bit over the top regarding the APS executive secretary. She’s probably just caught in the middle. – Anthony

    With respect to Lubos remarks on the observation that on purpose they let a woman of a minority take the chestnuts out of the fire, it probably is correct and it probably is used as a tool in managerial courses :; . I remember when once we had with a colleague to go through a lot of bureaucracy in the ministry, he and I would go together and have a look at the office to be visited. If a man was sitting there, I went and presented the case, if a woman, he did. It worked like a charm in facilitating our request. And that was in the 70s before one upmanship etc became well known in our corner of the world.

    As for Anthony’s comment, she probably participates enthusiastically. The most fanatical followers are the ones with little understanding of the dogma.It seems she is a reporter who has specialized on the issue, not a physicist.

  176. Sorry, typo in my comment! Real warming started in 1998, not in 1988 as I typed. It was brought by the super El Nino of 1998. Its cause was warm water from the Indo-Pacific region, deposited by a storm surge at the beginning of the equatorial countercurrent and carried by that current to South America. This water mass caused the warming which created the twenty-first century high. A third of a degree is half of what was supposed to have happened during the entire twentieth century. This, and not some greenhouse effect is responsible for the first decade of our century being the warmest on record.

  177. sharper00 says:
    October 13, 2010 at 2:47 pm

    Hey, thanks for your considerable reply. Here is my semi-considerable response.

    I think we both agree that there isn’t an issue with the public process that Dr. Lewis is following; nor the public process that the APS is following; nor the public process that other members of the APS are following; nor the public process that WUWT (and other blogs) are following. We disagree on the substance of what is being said by all the above parties in the process, but the process is OK. Do you agree?

    I think we both agree that there are significant issues of data / methodology / code availability; in published papers (paid for by the public) upon which the IPCC was/is basing assessments. Do you agree?

    I think we disagree on the most fundamental of levels on the assessment the current overall situation in climate science. That is not surprising. It is really a discussion of different views of the world. It will continue to be interesting to discuss . . . I look forward to it.

    One of your statements in your latest comment to me was very interesting. You said, “ Is it possible there exists any organisation anywhere both relevant and expert enough to render an opinion while not having the perception of corruption? Based on the comments here (in which the APS is simultaneously accused of both) I guess not.”

    In answer to that interesting statement; I know that in public life or in business or in academe, the merest perception of an integrity issue is just as serious as an actual one. That is the reality of our culture. Therefore, bodies like the IPCC ( and APS, CRU, UoV, APS, RS , etc ) need to maintain the highest conceivable standards to prevent even the slightest perception of a lack of integrity. Their recent track record wrt climate science has given the global public the perception of integrity issues. I suggest they must open up voluntarily to public inquiry, indeed to embrace public inquiry, or they will suffer escalating integrity concerns. Appearance of covering up integrity issues is worse, in my opinion, than just the perception of having an integrity issue.

    Finally, we clearly still disagree on the Cuccinelli legal actions. Time will tell on that one . . . the clock is ticking and the likely results of the USA elections in early Nov will probably embolden Cuccinelli. Therefore, the timing of the Mann WaPo editorial piece. : )

    John

  178. Re Tom Carter and the Dogma of 1610

    The Catholic and other Churches were almost certainly ignorant of, and not in agreement with, the arguments for heliocentric theory in 1610, probably because they wished the idea would go away, and also because they felt threatened financially if a major part of their dogma was found to be wrong. Not exactly greed though, just trying to stay in the business of soliciting money from people to help communicate with the creator of heaven and earth. The evidence for that creator is also said by them to be incontrovertible. They are still in business 400 years later and in the face of some major advances in our understanding of the way the universe works, so they must be pretty good and arguing their case to the believers.

  179. Lucy, you are more than kind.

    But there are annual cycles in both the atmospheric concentration of CO2 as well as the C12/C13 ratio that indicate that the biomass is not an inexhaustable sink for CO2.

    And I agree that the change in O2 concentration is of little consequence, it is just evidence that we are indeed burning tons of fossil fuels, and that is having an effect on the composition of the atmosphere.

    During the holocene climatic optimum 7000 years ago or so, temperature was a bit warmer than today and CO2 levels were flat. If the current warming causes the current increase in CO2, then we should have seen similar changes 7000 years ago, but we didn’t.

  180. Richard S Courtney, thanks for agreeing with the point I was attempting to make in my own peculiar and unscientific way; the ethics of the APS require discussion on the thread, not the science.

  181. “On these matters, APS judges the science to be quite clear. However, APS continues to recognize that climate models are far from adequate, and the extent of global warming and climatic disruptions produced by sustained increases in atmospheric carbon loading remain uncertain.”

    At the risk of this question making me look a tad stupid, can someone please explain the above quote from the APS response letter. The issue that is constantly rammed down our throats is that increased carbon dioxde levels are causing a “greenhouse” type feedback, warming the planet and leading to climatic “disruptions”

    But, if what APS says is true, ie, climate models far from adequate and uncertainty about the effects of atmospheric CO2 on global warming and climatic changes, HOW do they deduce that the science is “quite clear” ? Am I missing something here ?

    By the way, isn’t the term “far from adequate” pretty much the same as saying “inadequate” ?

    (I’ve been a daily visitor here since finding a link on Joe B’s blog. WUWT is a fountain of much appreciated information, so kudos to Anthony and all the contributors. Brilliant site. )

  182. Richard Courtney,

    You are such a spoilsport as I think Lucy and I were having such a nice discussion.

    And you are absolutely wrong,

    in the very APS response to Dr Hal Lewis we find

    “On the matter of global climate change, APS notes that virtually all reputable scientists agree with the following observations:

    ■Carbon dioxide is increasing in the atmosphere due to human activity;”

    It is in the APS response and thus it is germane to the thread at hand.

    We are burning fossil fuels and sending the resulting CO2 out the many stacks and exhaust pipe and some expect that the atmospheric increase of CO2 is due to some other cause.

    Frankly you have some hill to climb to provide evidence for that.

    Got any?

  183. Bob:

    In the probably forlorn hope that this will end the distraction of this thread from its proper purpose, I will answer your question: viz.

    “We are burning fossil fuels and sending the resulting CO2 out the many stacks and exhaust pipe and some expect that the atmospheric increase of CO2 is due to some other cause.
    Frankly you have some hill to climb to provide evidence for that.
    Got any?”

    Yes. We explain the matter fully in
    Rorsch A, Courtney RS & Thoenes D, ‘The Interaction of Climate Change and the Carbon Dioxide Cycle’ E&E v16no2 (2005)

    Now, please, on this thread let us discuss the disgraceful response from the APS to the letter of resignation from Hal Lewis and cease discussion of other matters (however strongly we feel about them).

    Richard

  184. I don’t think that this is very good at all. You climate change deniers are always misrepresenting things. It’s just a lot of noise. You come across as being very silly, you know.

    John

  185. Richard S Courtney says:
    October 14, 2010 at 9:25 am

    Yes. We explain the matter fully in
    Rorsch A, Courtney RS & Thoenes D, ‘The Interaction of Climate Change and the Carbon Dioxide Cycle’ E&E v16no2 (2005)

    I see that Dr. Lewis seems to agree with the statement that the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere is man-made (as many other skeptics of fame do), as he doesn’t make any comment on that statement.

    In short, the human cause fits all observations, while I still haven’t seen any alternative explanation that doesn’t violate one or more observations. But let us not repeat the 1200+ responses to the series about that topic here… There are more interesting items to discuss now.

  186. John Terry says:
    October 14, 2010 at 9:36 am

    I don’t think that this is very good at all. You climate change deniers are always misrepresenting things. It’s just a lot of noise. You come across as being very silly, you know.

    ——————

    John Terry,

    An argumentative venue is a good thing, n’est pas? We certainly are argumentative here. Your comment doesn’t look very argumentative; sort of more like a morally patronizing statement. Please try again soon, we can help you with the argument thing . . . .

    Well, apparently we did our good deed today, helping you out with your need for comic relief problem. Was it good for you? Hey, if we have entertained you so successfully . . . . then please hit the tip jar . . . . you know, like you would to a ragged pitiable street comedian who has his hat upside down on the sidewalk.

    Have a great day there John Terry.

    John

  187. I agree with Luboš Motl, to have a secretary respond to Prof. Lewis letter is a deliberate insult. The letter was addressed to Prof. Curtis Callan. Callan should have responded to it and signed the response.

  188. Richard,

    If that is your paper, maybe you could provide a direct link.

    I cut and pasted the whole thing into google and got bumkis.

    I did go the first hit and got a blog where someone was using percentages on top of percentages to show no direct link between carbon emmisions and carbon dioxide levels, which I find very dodgy at least if not downright non-scientific, wrong, misleading, erroneous and superficial.

    If Dr. Hal Lewis charges that the science behind AGW is fraudulent and the APS is deriving benefit from it, I think he should put up some evidence.

    And mail it to Cuccinelli, cause he so needs and wants it.

    If you want to discuss trillions of dollars over lunch, well I’m game.

    Well, what trillions of dollars?

  189. John Terry says:
    October 14, 2010 at 9:36 am

    I don’t think that this is very good at all. You climate change deniers are always misrepresenting things. It’s just a lot of noise. You come across as being very silly, you know.

    John
    =======================================================

    John, here’s something silly, there are 213 posts here. Find one that denies any change in our climate, no one denies that the climate changes. But, if you had any reading comprehension skills, you’d know that already. Actually, far from being silly, I think you may have come here to attempt to besmirch a group of people and marginalize the people who suffered during the holocaust or probably more likely, you’re simply a childish little troll devoid of any intellectual value or ability to contribute to the discussion at hand.

  190. John Terry,

    I believe most posters here are not “climate change deniers”. I do concede that many of us deny that the “science is settled” or that the “evidence is incontrovertible”. In fact, for me, the concept of a” settled science” or an “incontrovertible” piece of evidence is quite disturbing. Even the idea that there is no man made global climate change (as a denier might assert) is questionable. But is the evidence of man caused, catastrophic, climate change strong enough to justify the actions suggested by many? This more subtle issue is at the heart of the debate.

  191. Richard is correct, back to the original post.

    I thought I would look at the petition Dr. Lewis et al submitted to the APS Council.

    I counted 243 signees in the petition (not +260 or whatever)

    Two of these should be automatically discounted because they have the evil words “ExxonMobil” after their names (totally tongue in cheek for you slower readers).

    In the list there are about twelve that (based solely on an informal keyword perusal: climate, weather, geophysics, climate change, marine physics, etc) might be considered to have some expertise when it comes to climate change scepticism. This is about five percent of the overall signees which is probably a considerably higher percentage than in the overall APS membership. This discounts all the other signees who may have decades of experience that colours their perception of the direction taken by the APS.

    Ms. Johnson’s letter states:
    “On the matter of global climate change, APS notes that virtually all reputable scientists agree with the following observations”.

    While this does not directly address the concerns raised in the petition or in the letter of resignation, it indirectly belittles Dr. Lewis and his petition co-signers.

  192. Freddy says:
    October 13, 2010 at 5:48 pm

    I just visited Lubos’ blog. He is such an idiot, attacking the press secretary, posting a photograph, and talking about her race.

    Lubos should never be invited again to post here!
    _____________________________________________________________

    I completely disagree, although I can certainly understand your initial reaction.

    Lubos’ comments reflect the present, hyper-sensitive state of political correctness and race baiting in American society. Lubos recognizes that by having a black woman deliver the APS response, negative counter-arguments can be more easily brushed aside and deflected; motivated by the respondent’s veiled racial and/or gender bias, rather than addressing the strength of the counter argument itself. Your initial reaction is a perfect example of how this odious tactic works.

    Lubos is European; I don’t think he has the average American’s hypersensitivity to race and gender issues. His “janitor” comment has to do with the level of apparent academic and scientific competence (or the lack thereof) as demonstrated by the dodgy quality of the APS response. I have no reason to think any of Lubos’ comments have anything to do with gender or race.

    Lubos fires multiple salvos at the real target of his disgust, Dr. Callan, for hiding behind the skirts (if you will) of his press secretary, rather than issuing a line item response and refutation to Dr. Lewis himself. While I can understand Lubos’ ire at Dr. Callan for the apparent use of Ms. Johnson as a pawn, I would agree that the language regarding the press secretary could have been more diplomatically phrased.

  193. Bob and Ferdinand:

    No, I will not bite. Your attempts to side-track this discussion are not worthy.

    And Bob, you assert:

    “If Dr. Hal Lewis charges that the science behind AGW is fraudulent and the APS is deriving benefit from it, I think he should put up some evidence.
    And mail it to Cuccinelli, cause he so needs and wants it.
    If you want to discuss trillions of dollars over lunch, well I’m game.”

    There is no “science behind AGW”. There is only hypothesis that has no supporting empirical evidence but is refuted by empirical evidence (e.g. the’hot spot’ is missing).

    Hal Lewis rightly points out that the “fraud” is to claim there is some “science behind AGW” when there is none.

    Cuccinelli already knows this if he has read the ‘climategate’ emails, and his deposition strongly suggests that he has.

    AGW-research is funded to the tune of ~5 billion dollars p.a. and the US government alone is funding it by ~2 billion dollars p.a.. Your suggestion that the APS and its Membership does not benefit from this is risible.

    I don’t want to discuss “trillions of dollars” (not over lunch or at any other time) but since you seem to like Google you could try to Google for “carbon trading” and see what you get. And the costs of reducing world total CO2 emissions would result in many trillions of dollars lost to economic activity.

    Richard

  194. It appears my suppositions in my previous post were correct on Lubos and the APS using race/gender centered political correctness being used as a shield. – B. Smith
    ___________________________________________________________

    Lubos responds to Reference Frame reader, Ray:

    Dear ray, thanks for your comment. Concerning the point you (and others) find controversial, I have made sure that the word “black” only appears once in the article.

    But I won’t erase the last occurrence because I do think it is a part of the mechanisms and indeed, it was a part of the reason why I wrote about this topic in the first place. So it was no typo that this comment has appeared in the blog entry.

    Women, blacks, and other minorities are being systematically hired to do similar dirty job – to stifle the discussion about important topics because given the non-free atmosphere of political correctness in the U.S., almost no one would dare to disagree with them, being afraid of possible charges of racism.

    It is not quite a coincidence that this is what’s going on – and these non-coincidences play a huge role in the suppression of the debate about important matters. And in some sense, the dirty work that the “minorities” are pushed to do – by folks such as Callan – is dirtier than what many of their ancestors did on the Southern slaveowners’ fields.

    At least I think that working hard to suppress any debate about the climate in the APS or to insult a veteran physicist with a hostile, intimidating, political-styled reply to his important letter is a dirtier job than to collect potatoes or whatever one could do in the past. In this sense, the racism has become worse with the expansion of the political correctness.

    After a decade in the U.S., be sure that I have noticed that political correctness is not restricted to the far-left “progressives”. But the fact that many Republicans worship it as well doesn’t mean that it is automatically legitimized. At least for me, it’s surely not.

    Please try to understand that I, my ancestors, or my nation, for that matter, have never held any slaves or anything of the kind. We’ve been mostly suppressed. Although it wasn’t that bad, the suppression wasn’t too different from that of other (often colored) nations from colonies and similar places, so if some people with English or other “imperial” ancestors play their games to regulate their feeling of guilt, could they please kindly notice that despite my or my countrymates’ skin color, I/we have no feeling of guilt and no reason to participate in such a dumb game?

    Thank you very much. ;-)
    Oct 14, 2010 3:07:00 PM …

    http://motls.blogspot.com/2010/10/aps-thinks-that-tawanda-may-teach.html

  195. I’ve said this before concerning the APS or ANY kind of professional organization like it – the ones who most desire to run the organization are usually the ones least able to represent the membership. They are the ones who have time on their hands, ones who are insecure about themselves and their professional ability, mostly egotists who think being elected somehow makes them more important than other people who don’t have the time or desire for politics. I think it’s especially true for science organizations, the best and brightest in any given field are so absorbed by their work that they can’t be bothered with politics and probably wouldn’t be very good at it anyway.

    Sure there have got to be exceptions to that, but probably not many….

  196. Thanks for the responses, and thanks for the brainless insults like troll, they say so much about the sender, and so little about anything else.
    None of the intemperate responses, though, made much sense.
    If a bank or an oil company makes the great majority of its income from non-“Green” sources, as this particular bank and oil company do (check their accounts sometime), it is perverse to suggest that its in their interests to scheme to undermine the source of their wealth.
    The fact that some on this site maintain this is evidence only of their ability to fit anything into the absolute certainties of their world-view. To repeat; an oil company wants to ban oil. From this line of objective engagement, one could conclude literally anything.
    Its like believing a sugar producer is trying to ban adding sugar to food because it has a small line in diet chocolates.
    I know the considered response to this will be insults, and no doubt these will be seen by the writers as proof of their fair-minded , rational decency, so I’ll go and beat my head against a rock. That will make them happy, and I’ll get the same level of open-minded debate.

  197. While it may be tempting for APS members to follow suit and likewise resign, it is preferable and more productive to stay in and voice your dissatisfaction as a member.

  198. Dr. Lewis writes in annotations to the OP
    We have yet to receive a response to our Petition …delivered last spring and signed by 260+ members and former members, including nearly 100 Fellows, 17 members of national academies and 2 Nobels.

    Is that supposed to impress me? Two Nobels means diddly squat these days. By comparison IIP sports 10 living (+ 1 dead) Nobel international scholars + The Lucasian Prof. of Mathematics.

    You have been hopelessly out-Nobeled. Next petition, spend more time trophy hunting for prominent signatories. You *might* be taken more seriously.

    Credibility has become meaningless.

    As with the ornate engraving on penny stock certificates, stacking the deck makes the item look important and genuine.

    We live in an age where science, insurance policies, and politicians are all sold with the same hype. Maybe you should go prime time with a spot at the super bowl?

  199. @ John Whitman.
    No. Argumentative is not a good thing at all. Arguing about something is just arguing. Noise, if you will.

    @James sexton.
    Yes climate changes. Yes it is changing now. This is because of the amount of CO2(e) that we are emitting. Unless you have another theory. Maybe the sun. Or something else?
    Besmirching? Marginalizing 6million jews and millions of homosexuals, disabled people, Romanys, mentally handicapped killed methodically by a fascist regime? Childish little troll devoid of etc etc.

    Really James.

    @AllanJ

    Much of the science of, say, cloud formation is settled.
    Much of the science of climate change is settled. This can be proved. One person throwing his toys out of the pram, especially one with such a careful approach to record keeping, won’t change this fact.
    Meanwhile I’ll keep an eye on worst case scenarios thank you very much. Due to, you know, scientific stuff.

  200. APS continues to recognize that climate models are far from adequate, and the extent of global warming and climatic disruptions produced by sustained increases in atmospheric carbon loading remain uncertain.

    Yet, somehow:

    “The evidence is incontrovertible,”

  201. Lubos says that the response from the APS was written by the secretary (African-American female) as a way to shield the APS from criticism (in the sense that criticising may appear as attacking the secretary).

    I think this is poor taste. Just because we feel strongly about the content of the response of the APS, this does not constitute reason to attack the messenger (well, the secretary in this case).

    Are we serious? Did the APS hired an African-American woman as secretary with foresight of this event, so that the response does not get criticised? We can always give comments on the APS response and ignore the individual who composed it.
    This whole saga is simply getting out of the way.

    What shall we think next? That organisations would specifically hire disabled minority secretaries so that they are invincible to criticism?

    We need to improve. The weird theories are weakening the positions.

  202. I have an idea. SkepticalScience.com has a list of skeptic arguments (see the thermometer on the left), and for each one of them they have counter arguments. For each counter-argument, there are three levels of detail, Basic, Intermediate, Advanced.

    Could we have something similar? Use the exact same arguments and explain in a concise way the justification for each argument. It is important to make the answers short and to the point, with scientific backing.

    (If such a webpage already exists, please inform me!)

  203. John Terry says:
    October 14, 2010 at 3:05 pm

    No. Argumentative is not a good thing at all. Arguing about something is just arguing. Noise, if you will.

    ———————

    John Terry,

    It is a trusims that >2,400 yrs + of this (healthy) western civilization does not discount any argument.

    There can be no argument of subects that you dictate? I thought that stuff went out with the religious mandates of the dark ages . . . or neo-kantianism at the least. I understand North Korea doesn’t have a lot of argumentors that live very long.

    No Pressure . . . stay away from the red butttons. OK?

    John

  204. Freddy says:
    October 14, 2010 at 4:24 pm

    I have an idea. SkepticalScience.com has a list of skeptic arguments (see the thermometer on the left), and for each one of them they have counter arguments. For each counter-argument, there are three levels of detail, Basic, Intermediate, Advanced.

    Could we have something similar? Use the exact same arguments and explain in a concise way the justification for each argument. It is important to make the answers short and to the point, with scientific backing.

    (If such a webpage already exists, please inform me!)

    —————–

    Freddy,

    I have an idea that independent thinkers can just decide stuff without organized media or blog campaigns; including deciding the merits of your stuff or my stuff or John Cook’s stuff or Anthony’s stuff or joe-q-public stuff . . . . .

    Your stuff just isn’t doing so well in the last ten years or so with the unorganized independent thinkers, the increasing strident tone of your discourse is actually makes it worse of you. We can help. Let us know.

    John

  205. John Terry:

    You say to me at October 14, 2010 at 4:07 pm :
    “Richard t Courtney says
    There is no “science behind AGW”. There is only hypothesis that has no supporting empirical evidence but is refuted by empirical evidence (e.g. the’hot spot’ is missing).

    http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2010/08/doing-it-yourselves/#more-4881

    you’ll find that here. I hope you will now change your erroneous view in light of this new information.
    Looking forward to reading your next post.”

    OK. I looked at your link and it doesnot mentionthe missing ‘hot spot’ so I wonder why you think it refutes the evidence.

    Anyway, I prefer the IPCC AR4 to any silly comments from that propoganda blog. The pertinent item is Chapter 9 and specifically Figure 9.1

    The Chapter can be read at

    http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-chapter9.pdf

    and its Figure 9.1 is on page 675.

    The Figure caption says;

    Figure 9.1. Zonal mean atmospheric temperature change from 1890 to 1999 (°C per century) as simulated by the PCM model from
    (a) solar forcing,
    (b) volcanoes,
    (c) wellmixed greenhouse gases,
    (d) tropospheric and stratospheric ozone changes,
    (e) direct sulphate aerosol forcing and
    (f) the sum of all forcings.
    Plot is from 1,000 hPa to 10 hPa (shown on left scale) and from 0 km to 30 km (shown on right). See Appendix 9.C for additional information. Based on Santer et al. (2003a).

    Only Figures 9.1(a) and 9.1(b) show the ‘hot spot’.

    In other words, the ‘hot spot’ is a unique effect of “wellmixed greenhouse gases” predicted by the PCM model the IPCC approves. And that effect is so great that the model predicts it has overwhelmed all the other significant forcings.

    But the ‘hot spot’ has not occurred, and this is indicated by independent measurements obtained by radisondes mounted on balloons (since 1958) and by MSU mounted on satellites (since 1979).

    In other words,
    IF ONE BELIEVES THE IPCC THEN THE ABSENCE OF THE ‘HOT SPOT’ IS A DIRECT REFUTATION OF THE AGW HYPOTHESIS.

    I hope this post was worth waiting for and has removed your delusion.

    And I think you would be wise to concentrate on your football career instead of demonstrating your ignorance of climate science.

    Richard

  206. Lubos responds to Reference Frame reader, Ray:

    almost no one would dare to disagree with them, being afraid of possible charges of racism.

    Errm, isn’t the reluctance to speak up because of a fear of being seen as racist called ‘racism’? The presidential race is won and it’s time to desensitize.

    _____________________________________________________________________

    There is an obvious way of managing the APA’s rebuttal. Locate the email addresses of as many of the 47,750 members as possible who didn’t sign the petition and ask them if they agree/disagree/abstain/undecided regarding the following …

    On the matter of global climate change, APS notes that virtually all reputable scientists agree with the following observation:

    * The dwell time of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is hundreds of years.

    That should get people talking.

  207. Ooops.

    I should have written;
    “Only Figures 9.1(a) and 9.1(f) show the ‘hot spot’.”

    Sorry.

    Richard

  208. Aaargh!

    I should be in bed and not trying to do this at 2 am.

    The correct statement is not as I said in my two above posts but is

    “Only Figures 9.1(c) and 9.1(f) show the ‘hot spot’.”

    I am very, very sorry for these errors and I am now going to bed.

    Richard

  209. Richard Courtney mistakenly claims:

    “Only Figures 9.1(c) and 9.1(f) show the ‘hot spot’.”

    It may appear that way to someone who does not understand contour plots and the limits of resolution due to the contour intervals that are used. To those of us who do, your conclusion is not in fact correct. To see whether amplification is predicted if you go up in the tropical troposphere, you have either have a smaller contour interval for the weaker forcings or you have to artificially magnify the strength of the weaker forcings (as was done here: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/12/tropical-troposphere-trends/ ). Then you find that the amplification is predicted for a variety of forcings, which isn’t surprising given that the physics in the models that cause it to occur is related to the fact that the temperature profile in the tropical troposphere is expected to closely follow the moist adiabatic lapse rate.

    A predicted difference in the vertical structure for a forcing due to greenhouse gases and forcing due to solar is seen, however, if you look in the stratosphere: For greenhouse gases, one expects cooling of the stratosphere whereas for solar forcing one expects warming. What is seen is cooling, thus providing evidence in support of the forcing being due to greenhouse gases (although part of that cooling is also understood to be due to decreases in stratospheric ozone).

  210. Michael Cejnar says: October 14, 2010 at 6:34 am
    I fully understand the difference between CO2 residence time and “effective residence time” of lifetime or adjustment time to a step change in CO2 concentration. However, can you or any CO2 expert explain the evidence for claiming this CO2 lifetime is a 100 years… What experimental evidence for this critical element of the climate models? … The only support I can find is from modeling ‘experiments’ – a totally circular argument…

    Hi Michael. My understanding is that the order of “100 years” figure is an estimate arrived at from examining the results of various modelling approaches, as you state. A bottom-up model of the carbon cycle in which carbon is exchanged via various physical processes need not be circular in arriving at such an estimate.

    William Nordhaus, Managing the Global Commons: The Economics of Climate Change, p. 23, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA 1994, provides a much simplified (and accessible) model consisting of a single equation to obtain a figure of 77 years (a value less than more complex IPCC simulations, but a do-it-yourself ball-park sanity check if you will).

    As for direct experimental evidence, I am not aware of anything that would qualify. To be clear, I make no claim to be a CO2 or climate expert, so this represents my lack of knowledge, not necessarily anyone else’s.

  211. John Terry says:
    October 14, 2010 at 3:05 pm

    @James sexton.
    Yes climate changes. Yes it is changing now. This is because of the amount of CO2(e) that we are emitting. Unless you have another theory. Maybe the sun. Or something else?
    Besmirching? Marginalizing 6million jews and millions of homosexuals, disabled people, Romanys, mentally handicapped killed methodically by a fascist regime? Childish little troll devoid of etc etc.

    Really James..
    +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

    Yes, really……

    Are you asserting the climate doesn’t change without anthropological CO2? I’ll re-assert……childish little troll devoid of an intellectual capacity beyond pejorative words. Or do you wish to debate whether the climate changes naturally or not? I assert that it does with or without anthropological co2. Care to engage?

  212. @james sexton.

    If a car is on a hill with the handbrake off it will move. If you press the accelerator the car will go faster. Is my analogy clear?

    Yes climate changes without anthropololoological co2. We know this. Duh!
    We also know that anthroupopoololgical co2 will have (theroretically) and is having (empirically) an effect on the climate ie it is changing it.
    What is really interesting about this particular time is that if you take the anthroppoplogically emitted co2 out of the models then the climate would in fact be cooling slightly. Which makes the warming that we are seeing even more worrying.
    Does that answer your question? Am I engaging enough?

    and please stop with the name calling.
    love
    the childish little troll devoid of an intellectual capacity.

  213. President Callan’s action in having the APS’s secretary write the response to Prof Hal Lewis’s resignation letter and avoiding the personal responsibility of composing a thoughtful and respectful response to the letter, which was written and addressed to him by a Fellow of that organisation, is arrogance personified and speaks volumes about his attitude to the Association’s membership and to that Associations’ constitution.
    The facts of Tawanda Johnson’s ethnicity and gender are irrelevant; she should never have been tasked to respond to Prof Lewis’s resignation letter as that was Callan’s responsibility alone. Callan’s abrogation of responsibility has placed Tawanda Johnson in a position that was not of her making.

  214. Dear Mr Awatts
    you said:
    This passes over the fact that carbon dioxide absorption lines are nearly saturated.

    But this is what is actually happening:
    If the CO2 effect was saturated, adding more CO2 should add no additional greenhouse effect. However, satellite and surface measurements observe an enhanced greenhouse effect at the wavelengths that CO2 absorb energy. This is empirical proof that the CO2 effect is not saturated.

    Can you please change your comment above? It seems such a shame to have a glaring mistake like that in your piece. I hope this helps in your quest for truth!

    Regards

    [REPLY: It would be inappropriate for Anthony to alter the indicated content. The words are not his. They are in blue italics and thus are comments of either Dr. Roger Cohen, Dr. Will Happer, or Dr. Hal Lewis. …. bl57~mod]

  215. neo5842 says:
    October 15, 2010 at 2:26 am

    http://www.suite101.com/content/royal-society-humiliated-by-global-warming-basic-math-error-a296746

    From that source:

    Taking the Royal Society to task Kaiser refers to several peer-reviewed papers reporting the half-life of CO2 in the atmosphere to be “between 5 and 10 years.” The chemist calculates that with a half-life of 5 years means that more than 98% of a substance will disappear in a time span of 30 years.

    Well Kaiser is wrong too, as good as the Royal Society is. The 5-10 years is the residence time, that is how long a CO2 molecule in average is in the atmosphere before being replaced by another one from the oceans or biosphere. That has nothing to do with the decay rate of an excess amount of CO2 added to the atmosphere…

    The thousands of years “dwell” time in the APS statement is based on the long tail of the Bern model, where 25% of an extra amount of CO2 has a very long decay rate (170 years half life time) and 20% remains in the atmosphere near forever. But the APS fails to warn that this is only the case if we burn 3,000 to 5,000 GtC from fossil fuels, that is near all reachable oil and gas and lots of coal.

    The total emissions in the past year were some 300 GtC. If that gets all in the deep oceans over time, that increases the 40,000 GtC already present there with less than 1%. Thus after return to the atmosphere some 800 years later, that would increase the atmospheric CO2 content also with about 1% at equilibrium, or a (semi)permanent increase of 3 ppmv over the pre-industrial equilibrium of around 290 ppmv for the current temperature. No problem at all.

    The straight-forward sink rate of CO2 is currently about 40 years half life time, still going strong without any sign of decrease in rate. See the calculation of Peter Dietze at:

    http://www.john-daly.com/carbon.htm

    The difference between the Bern model and the (observed) single decay rate can be found at the pages of Hans Erren:

  216. John Terry says:
    October 15, 2010 at 2:44 am

    Dear Mr Awatts
    you said:
    This passes over the fact that carbon dioxide absorption lines are nearly saturated.

    But this is what is actually happening:
    If the CO2 effect was saturated, adding more CO2 should add no additional greenhouse effect. However, satellite and surface measurements observe an enhanced greenhouse effect at the wavelengths that CO2 absorb energy. This is empirical proof that the CO2 effect is not saturated.

    Can you give a link for this assertion: ( ignoring that the post talks of “nearly saturated”and is commented at the end), “that satellite and surface measurements observe an enhanced greenhouse effect at the wavelength that CO2 absorb energy”.

  217. Joel Shore:

    At October 14, 2010 at 7:15 pm
    you assert:

    “To see whether amplification is predicted if you go up in the tropical troposphere, you have either have a smaller contour interval for the weaker forcings or you have to artificially magnify the strength of the weaker forcings (as was done here: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/12/tropical-troposphere-trends/ ). Then you find that the amplification is predicted for a variety of forcings, which isn’t surprising given that the physics in the models that cause it to occur is related to the fact that the temperature profile in the tropical troposphere is expected to closely follow the moist adiabatic lapse rate.”

    OK. I will buy that. It says that the ‘hot spot’ would be induced by any increase to forcing from a varirty of cause including “wellmixed greenhouse gases” because “it results from the temperature profile in the tropical troposphere is expected to closely follow the moist adiabatic lapse rate.”

    But the’hot spot’ is missing. As I said, the independent measurements from baloons and satelites both show it has not happened.

    So, which do you want to assert:

    1. As the IPCC explanation says, the absence of the ‘hot spot’ indicates there has been no increase to radiative forcing from “wellmixed greenhouse gases”?

    Or

    2. As the propoganda blog you quote says, the absence of the ‘hot spot’ indicates there has been no increase to radiative forcing from a “a variety of forcings” including “wellmixed greenhouse gases”?

    Richard

  218. John Terry says:
    October 15, 2010 at 1:31 am

    [gentlemen, I think the argumentum ad homenim should stop now ~ac]

  219. John Terry:

    At you make an assertion which demonstrates the truth of “fraudulent science” asserted by Hal Lewis and which the APS has not refuted. You assert:

    “What is really interesting about this particular time is that if you take the anthroppoplogically emitted co2 out of the models then the climate would in fact be cooling slightly.”

    So what? That only demonstrates what the models say. And a claim that the models’ indications provide information on the behaviour of the real climate system is demonstrably fraudulent.

    It is certain that the climate models do not reproduce reality and are totally unsuitable for the purposes of future prediction (or “projection”) and attribution of the causes of climate change.

    All the global climate models and energy balance models are known to provide indications which are based on the assumed degree of forcings resulting from human activity resulting from anthropogenic aerosol cooling input to each model as a ‘fiddle factor’ to obtain agreement between past average global temperature and the model’s indications of average global temperature.

    This ‘fiddle factor’ is wrongly asserted to be parametrisation.

    A decade ago I published a peer-reviewed paper that showed the UK’s Hadley Centre general circulation model (GCM) could not model climate and only obtained agreement between past average global temperature and the model’s indications of average global temperature by forcing the agreement with an input of assumed anthropogenic aerosol cooling.

    And my paper demonstrated that the assumption of anthropogenic aerosol effects being responsible for the model’s failure was incorrect.

    (ref. Courtney RS ‘An assessment of validation experiments conducted on computer models of global climate using the general circulation model of the UK’s Hadley Centre’ Energy & Environment, Volume 10, Number 5, pp. 491-502, September 1999).

    More recently, in 2007, Kiehle published a paper that assessed 9 GCMs and two energy balance models.

    (ref. Kiehl JT,Twentieth century climate model response and climate sensitivity. GRL vol.. 34, L22710, doi:10.1029/2007GL031383, 2007).

    Kiehl found the same as my paper except that each model he assessed used a different aerosol ‘fix’ from every other model.

    He says in his paper:

    ”One curious aspect of this result is that it is also well known [Houghton et al., 2001] that the same models that agree in simulating the anomaly in surface air temperature differ significantly in their predicted climate sensitivity. The cited range in climate sensitivity from a wide collection of models is usually 1.5 to 4.5 deg C for a doubling of CO2, where most global climate models used for climate change studies vary by at least a factor of two in equilibrium sensitivity.

    The question is: if climate models differ by a factor of 2 to 3 in their climate sensitivity, how can they all simulate the global temperature record with a reasonable degree of accuracy.

    Kerr [2007] and S. E. Schwartz et al.
    (Quantifying climate change–too rosy a picture?, available at http://www.nature.com/reports/climatechange )
    recently pointed out the importance of understanding the answer to this question. Indeed, Kerr [2007] referred to the present work and the current paper provides the ‘‘widely circulated analysis’’ referred to by Kerr [2007]. This report investigates the most probable explanation for such an agreement. It uses published results from a wide variety of model simulations to understand this apparent paradox between model climate responses for the 20th century, but diverse climate model sensitivity.”

    And Kiehl’s paper says:

    ”These results explain to a large degree why models with such diverse climate sensitivities can all simulate the global anomaly in surface temperature. The magnitude of applied anthropogenic total forcing compensates for the model sensitivity.”

    And the “magnitude of applied anthropogenic total forcing” is fixed in each model by the input value of aerosol forcing.

    Kiehl’s Figure 2 can be seen at http://img36.imageshack.us/img36/8167/kiehl2007figure2.png
    Please note that it is for 9 GCMs and 2 energy balance models, and its title is:

    ”Figure 2. Total anthropogenic forcing (Wm2) versus aerosol forcing (Wm2) from nine fully coupled climate models and two energy balance models used to simulate the 20th century.”

    The graph shows the anthropogenic forcings used by the models show large range of total anthropogenic forcing from 0.8 W/m^2 to 2.02 W/m^2 with each of these values compensated to agree with observations by use of assumed anthropogenic aerosol forcing in the range -0.6 W/m^2 to -1.42 W/m^2. In other words, the total anthropogenic forcings used by the models varies by a factor of over 2.5, and this difference is compensated by assuming values of anthropogenic aerosol forcing that vary by a factor of almost 2.4.

    Anything can be adjusted to hindcast obervations by permitting that range of assumptions. But there is only one Earth, so at most only one of the models can approximate the climate system which exists in reality.

    The underlying problem is that the modellers assume additional energy content in the atmosphere will result in an increase of temperature, but that assumption is very, very unlikely to be true.

    Radiation physics tells us that additional greenhouse gases will increase the energy content of the atmosphere. But energy content is not necessarily sensible heat.

    An adequate climate physics (n.b. not radiation physics) would tell us how that increased energy content will be distributed among all the climate modes of the Earth. Additional atmospheric greenhouse gases may heat the atmosphere, they may have an undetectable effect on heat content, or they may cause the atmosphere to cool.

    The latter could happen, for example, if the extra energy went into a more vigorous hydrological cycle with resulting increase to low cloudiness. Low clouds reflect incoming solar energy (as every sunbather has noticed when a cloud passed in front of the Sun) and have a negative feedback on surface temperature.

    Alternatively, there could be an oscillation in cloudiness (in a feedback cycle) between atmospheric energy and hydrology: as the energy content cycles up and down with cloudiness, then the cloudiness cycles up and down with energy with their cycles not quite 180 degrees out of phase (this is analogous to the observed phase relationship of insolation and atmospheric temperature). The net result of such an oscillation process could be no detectable change in sensible heat, but a marginally observable change in cloud dynamics.

    However, nobody understands cloud dynamics so the reality of climate response to increased GHGs cannot be known.

    So, the climate models are known to be wrong, and it is known why they are wrong: i.e.

    1. they each emulate a different climate system and are each differently adjusted by use of ‘fiddle factors’ to get them to match past climate change,

    2. and the ‘fiddle factors’ are assumed (n.b. not “estimated”) forcings resulting from human activity,

    3. but there is only one climate system of the Earth so at most only one of the models can be right,

    4. and there is no reason to suppose any one of them is right,

    5. but there is good reason to suppose that they are all wrong because they cannot emulate cloud processes which are not understood.

    Hence, use of the models is very, very likely to provide misleading indications of future prediction (or “projection”) of climate change and is not appropriate for attribution of the causes of climate change.

    In other words, your claim is meaningless except that your claim is an example of the “fradulent science” which Hal Lewis deplores.

    Richard

  220. The University of Alabama at Huntsville’s Global Lower Tropospheric Temperature Analysis for September 2010 shows that almost the entire globe had above average lower tropospheric temperatures last month. This continues a trend seen throughout all of 2010. Roger Pielke, Sr. has noted that “if this persists while we are in a La Niña pattern (when we expect cooling) it will provide strong support for those who expect a long term warming to occur as a result of the accumulation of greenhouse gases in the Earth’s atmosphere. ”

    It’s about time people started paying attention to facts instead of rhetoric.

    Based upon satellite measurements of the lower troposphere:
    Sept. 2010 was hottest September in 32 years

    Global climate trend since Nov. 16, 1978: +0.14 C per decade

    September temperatures (preliminary):
    Global composite temp.: +0.60 C (about 1.08 degrees Fahrenheit) above 20 year average for September.

    Northern Hemisphere: +0.56 C (about 1.01 degrees Fahrenheit) above 20-year average for September.

    Southern Hemisphere: +0.65 C (about 1.17 degrees Fahrenheit) above 20-year average for September.

    Tropics: +0.28 C (about 0.50 degrees Fahrenheit) above 20-year average for September.

    All temperature anomalies are based on a 20-year average (1979-1998) for the month reported.

    Notes on data released Oct. 8, 2010:

    September 2010 was the hottest September in the 32-year satellite-based temperature dataset, with a global temperature that was 0.14 C warmer than the previous record in September 1998, according to Dr. John Christy, professor of atmospheric science and director of the Earth System Science Center at The University of Alabama in Huntsville.

    With September setting records, 2010 is moving closer to tying 1998 as the hottest year in the past 32. Through September, the composite global average temperature for 2010 was 0.55 C above the 20-year average. That is just 0.04 C (about 0.07 degrees Fahrenheit) cooler than the January-through-September record set in 1998.

    The record September high was set despite the continued cooling of temperatures in the tropics as an El Nino Pacific Ocean warming events fades away.

  221. John Terry says:

    Dear Mr Awatts
    you said:
    This passes over the fact that carbon dioxide absorption lines are nearly saturated.

    But this is what is actually happening:
    If the CO2 effect was saturated, adding more CO2 should add no additional greenhouse effect. However, satellite and surface measurements observe an enhanced greenhouse effect at the wavelengths that CO2 absorb energy. This is empirical proof that the CO2 effect is not saturated.

    Can you please change your comment above? It seems such a shame to have a glaring mistake like that in your piece. I hope this helps in your quest for truth!

    To which a moderator here replied:

    REPLY: It would be inappropriate for Anthony to alter the indicated content. The words are not his. They are in blue italics and thus are comments of either Dr. Roger Cohen, Dr. Will Happer, or Dr. Hal Lewis. …. bl57~mod]

    Sorry to inform you, ‘bl57~mod’, that the words in blue italics are in fact Anthony Watts’ own commentary. So John Terry is in fact perfectly entitled to ask Anthony to remove the obvious misinformation he inserted about the CO2 absorption of IR being saturated.

    What happens in Real Life™, as opposed to the alternate reality that WUWT denizens seem to inhabit, is that as the lower layers of the atmosphere become saturated w.r.t. CO2, the altitude at which the IR that managed to escape the troposphere is reflected back earthwards by CO2 just keeps moving upwards. The net effect is more warming. The CO2 absorption *will never saturate*.

    Science, folks. Reading up about it on sites which you would consider to be “propaganda” is a good way to actually learn about it.

  222. I find it quite difficult to see the ”awakening” of M. Lewis.

    If he did not agreed with all the AGW theory, science, and whatever – then beside getting a petition of 250 names (out of 45000 members), why did he never speak a word before on any of the published paper reviews for the last 30 years. Why did he always kept his beliefs silenced until today ?

    Has he resigned from his research ? Has he dropped science research. As he ever published a paper stating what he’s supporting today. Beside his political point of view, what has he written to demonstrate what he’s pushing today ?

    Is this simply an internal war within the APS – and he’s taking the AGW as an excuse to shoot at every one in charge within the APS.

  223. Richard S Courtney :
    October 15, 2010 at 5:26 am

    I would add that GCMs concentrate on anomalies and not on real temperatures, because they cannot even match real temperatures. Are you aware of this plot from Lucia’s the Blackboard?

    It is hubris, when models are off from real temperatures by the same order of magnitude as their prediction, to claim a fit to past temperatures.

  224. Raving says:
    October 14, 2010 at 3:01 pm

    Dr. Lewis writes in annotations to the OP
    We have yet to receive a response to our Petition …delivered last spring and signed by 260+ members and former members, including nearly 100 Fellows, 17 members of national academies and 2 Nobels.

    Is that supposed to impress me? Two Nobels means diddly squat these days. By comparison IIP sports 10 living (+ 1 dead) Nobel international scholars + The Lucasian Prof. of Mathematics.

    FWIW, the IIP does not make mention of global warming in its mission statement. It’s a general-purpose environmental organization, not a coven of catastrophists.

    You have been hopelessly out-Nobeled. Next petition, spend more time trophy hunting for prominent signatories.

    It’s not a competition in which the side with the most Nobelists wins the debate. Rather, their purpose is to allow a debate to begin. Lewis’s “names” were meant merely to demonstrate that his co-petitioners aren’t fringe/cranks with no standing whose petition can be dismissed out of hand, as “Samoth” attempted to do in the previous thread on this topic. He wrote:

    “I have been member of many clubs. You always find cranks and the noise that one crank in the middle of thousand others can make is always disproportionate.
    Enough said.”

  225. James Sexton says:
    October 15, 2010 at 5:19 am

    John Terry says:
    October 15, 2010 at 1:31 am

    [gentlemen, I think the argumentum ad homenim should stop now ~ac]
    ========================================================

    Mod, that’s fine, but I really was going somewhere with that thought. He entered the thread here . I thought turn about would be fair play, and it was. Later, he’s asking that I quit calling him names. To which, I responded, “sure”, and wanted to make sure he understood why the name calling had occurred to begin with. Apparently, you decided that I’ve already had enough fun in this titillating dialogue.

    Once that was behind us, I would have asked him to provide the empirical evidence he alludes to here. I would continue, later, in explaining that skeptics come in all different shapes and sizes for various reasons. For instance, personally, I don’t care one whit if the earth is warming or not, although there is plenty of evidence that shows us we haven’t a clue regarding whether we’re warming or not.

    Mr. Terry,

    You’ll get a much better reception here, or anywhere else for that matter if you don’t start a conversation with sweeping stereo-typical pejorative statements. And, if you refrain from such statements, the conversations would take a much more pleasant tone in which the exchange of thoughts and ideas can more easily occur. If you’d bother to read the content of this thread, I’m sure it would become apparent to you that there is much to learn regarding the climate. And, there are many here that can provide the learning opportunity. I assert there is plenty of evidence that mankind thrives better in warmer climates. Regardless if you believe warming is occurring because of “anthroupopoololgical”[sic] emitted CO2 or not. Now, that view isn’t reflected by everyone here, but it is by a few, including myself. In the interest of brevity, I’ll leave it there and await a response if you deem it necessary.

  226. Rick Marshall:

    At October 15, 2010 at 5:46 am you assert:

    “It’s about time people started paying attention to facts instead of rhetoric.”

    I agree.

    But you then say;

    “The record September high was set despite the continued cooling of temperatures in the tropics as an El Nino Pacific Ocean warming events fades away.”

    OK, but so what?
    The global temperature is still within the range that it has had in the past.

    The global temperature has been rising (with fluctuations up and down) for the 300 years since the LIA, and only the last 60 years of that rise could have been affected by anthopogenic emissions. Citing the present state of that rise without stating it is part of that 300 year trend is “rhetoric”.

    And a claim that the recent rise is a result of AGW would be an example of the “fraudulent science” that Hal Lewis condemns because no such claim can be substantiated by science.

    Indeed, the ONLY scientific conclusion is that there has been no discernible change to global climate behaviour in recent decades. And, therefore, the null hypothesis applies: i.e. there is no scientific reason to claim there has been any change to global climate behaviour in recent decades.

    Therefore, any claim that greenhouse gas emission reductions is required by the scientific evidence to halt the rise is “rhetoric” and “fraudulent science”. And the original APS statement does make that claim when it says;

    “The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring. If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth’s physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now.”

    It is that fraudulent science which Hal Lewis objects to, and the APS response to his objection has been to ignore it in their “response” and to ignore the APS’s Constitution.

    Richard

  227. Steve Metzler says:
    October 15, 2010 at 5:58 am

    you said, “Sorry to inform you, ‘bl57~mod’, that the words in blue italics are in fact Anthony Watts’ own commentary. So John Terry is in fact perfectly entitled to ask Anthony to remove the obvious misinformation he inserted about the CO2 absorption of IR being saturated.

    What happens in Real Life™, as opposed to the alternate reality that WUWT denizens seem to inhabit, is that as the lower layers of the atmosphere become saturated w.r.t. CO2, the altitude at which the IR that managed to escape the troposphere is reflected back earthwards by CO2 just keeps moving upwards. The net effect is more warming. The CO2 absorption *will never saturate*.

    Science, folks. Reading up about it on sites which you would consider to be “propaganda” is a good way to actually learn about it.”
    ========================================================

    Steve, I’d like to extend my personal thanks to you for exemplifying the alarmists” ……….shall we say, way of perceiving things.

    In the very first paragraph, second sentence, “APS Members Dr. Roger Cohen, Dr. Will Happer, and of course Dr. Hal Lewis have responded in kind, and have asked me to carry their response on WUWT. I’ve gladly obliged, and their inline comments are indented in blue italics in the document below. – Anthony”

    I’ve added the bold myself, in an effort to assist your reading comprehension. It plainly states that the blue italics are Drs Cohen, Happer, and Lewis.

    You see, what happens in real life, is that some people live their lives based on assumptions with out ever taking the time to challenge their own bias’ and beliefs. Others, have a more skeptical approach and endeavor to see if their beliefs conform to reality. You should try it some time. While reality is, at times, alarming, it isn’t near the doom and gloom our friends in the CAGW/Climate change/disruption camp makes it out to be.

    Did you honestly believe that a moderator here would make a declarative statement regarding this thread without actually checking to see if he/she was correct or not? Is that how the alarmists threads operate? Wait, no need to answer that, I’ve already been to several alarmist/propaganda websites. Its easier to sway people in those places because the readers blindly accept what the writers assert. This particular forum at WUWT is probably a bit foreign to you. Skeptics don’t blindly believe everything we’re told. We try to get it right rather than displaying an inability to perceive fact from fiction. Please stick around and see how this site really operates, you may find it illuminating.

  228. John Terry says: “HOT SPOT FOUND HERE! READ ALL ABOUT IT!”

    Gosh – I went straight to the link to see what it had to say, but I didn’t find anything. Should we we take that as a bit of a of wind-up then?

    On a more serious note, the predicted tropospheric “hot spot” is what I would consider to be an acid test of the enhanced GHE assertion. At least for me personally. If the predicted pattern can be confirmed through observations and to my reasonable satisfaction, I could easily have a change of mind on that whole AGW thang. There is enough of the hypothesis wrapped up in that particular prediction to enable me to sweep aside my doubts – if it were observed.

    I know that “my reasonable satisfaction” is subjective, and may sound insincere. But there is no better way of putting it. When it comes to comparing two-dimensional patterns, my own hard-wired pattern recognition system is always going to be more persuasive than some correlation index or expression of statistical significance (and that has nothing to do with whether or not I have an understanding of stats).

    Some people have said to me: “there has been cooling in the upper stratosphere, surely that confirms the predicted pattern”. But it’s just not persuasive. Those observations don’t have a “hot spot” where there is supposed to be one.

    Right now, the lack of the “hot spot” is the most persuasive evidence I use to satisfy myself that the enhanced GHE (and various consequential catastrophe theories) are falsified.

    I see more merit in Ferenc Miskolczi’s arguments that, incrementally, the GHE is fully saturated. As a very minimum, Miskolczi’s assertions appear to be consistent with observations.

  229. The more genuinely curious scientists give due time to this issue, the more they will admit the trouble of giga-CO2 emmissions–as borne out by basic radiation physics, the fact that to get a model that doesn’t agree you have to make a demonstrably crappy model, the agreement of recorded temperature with most decent models, and the agreement of most conceivably constructed pre-measurement temperature with the models.

    Soon enough we will be able to quantify the damage caused by the already recorded temperature change (as predicted by basic physics and every non-laughable model) in terms of damage to agricultural output and damage to standard of living for various peoples. Of course, that resulting damage was also predicted, if only by common sense and not empirically.

    If a scientist is worth his salt and devotes enough time to looking at the real research, he’ll always agree. Lewis didn’t devote enough time to this study. He bought into enough of the smoke and mirrors so that his emotions would not let him continue to devote more resources to digging deeper.

  230. Revkin did a hatchet job on Dr. Lewis. He went entirely off topic and made the story about Lewis and 20 y/o writings as opposed to the APS’ shenanigans.

  231. Anderlan says:
    October 15, 2010 at 12:42 pm

    The more genuinely curious scientists give due time to this issue, the more they will admit the trouble of giga-CO2 emmissions–as borne out by basic radiation physics, the fact that to get a model that doesn’t agree you have to make a demonstrably crappy model, the agreement of recorded temperature with most decent models, and the agreement of most conceivably constructed pre-measurement temperature with the models.

    “Give me four parameters and I can fit an elephant. Give me five and I can wag its tail — (The source? Variants have been attributed to C.F. Gauss, Niels Bohr, Lord Kelvin, Enrico Fermi.)”. Source:

    http://wiki.xtronics.com/index.php/Ockhams_Razor

    Because I did want to know what climate models do and can’t do (have some experience with models in chemical processes), I followed a one-day course at Oxford University. They had a simple EBM (energy balance model) on a spreadsheet, which btw performs as good or better than the multi-million-dollar models currently in use. That had a nice possibility to change the sensitivity to any of the four main forcings (GHGs, volcanic and human aerosols and solar). By reducing the sensitivity for human aerosols (which are quite problematic), the sensitivity for GHGs needed to be reduced too, to obtain the same (even slightly better) fit to the past temperatures. Which gives quite a difference in possible future warming. See:

    http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/oxford.html

    And which long-term temperature reconstruction you use makes a lot of difference too: the HS shape MBH’99 has only 0.2°C MWP-LIA difference, thus needs a lot of CO2 sensitivity for the past century uptick. But if you use Moberg or Esper with 0.8°C natural variability in the past, then the effect of increased CO2 is far less.

  232. Anderlan:

    At October 15, 2010 at 12:42 pm you make two assertions:

    First, you say:
    “The more genuinely curious scientists give due time to this issue, the more they will admit the trouble of giga-CO2 emmissions–as borne out by basic radiation physics, the fact that to get a model that doesn’t agree you have to make a demonstrably crappy model, the agreement of recorded temperature with most decent models, and the agreement of most conceivably constructed pre-measurement temperature with the models. ”

    Absolute rubbish!

    The models are all “crappy” because that is the only way they can be made to agree with past mean global temperatures. And they each model a different climate system but none of them models the climate system of the Earth. I spelled this out at October 15, 2010 at 5:26 am above.

    If that explanation is a bit too technical for you, then I suggest the point added to my explanation by anna v at October 15, 2010 at 6:06 am may be easier for you to grasp. She says there:

    “I would add that GCMs concentrate on anomalies and not on real temperatures, because they cannot even match real temperatures. Are you aware of this plot from Lucia’s the Blackboard?

    http://rankexploits.com/musings/2009/fact-6a-model-simulations-dont-match-average-surface-temperature-of-the-earth/

    It is hubris, when models are off from real temperatures by the same order of magnitude as their prediction, to claim a fit to past temperatures.”

    Having made that horrendous howler you assert:

    “If a scientist is worth his salt and devotes enough time to looking at the real research, he’ll always agree. Lewis didn’t devote enough time to this study. He bought into enough of the smoke and mirrors so that his emotions would not let him continue to devote more resources to digging deeper.”

    OK. I will bite.

    What is this “real research” which shows AGW is a real effect?
    I and all scientists worth their salt (including the IPCC authors) would like to be told of it.

    Richard

  233. Anderlan says:
    October 15, 2010 at 12:42 pm

    In addition to the comment of Richard Courtney: None of the models does “predict” any natural cycle of the oceans. The oceans are the main buffer for any heat change (over 80%) due to changes of in/out radiation balance. See fig. S1 in the supplementary material of Barnett e.a. “Penetration of Human-Induced Warming into the
    World’s Oceans”:

    http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/data/1112418/DC1/1

    Thus the partitioning of the warming over the past century between natural and human induced still is an open question.

  234. Anderlan says: The more genuinely curious scientists give due time to this issue, the more they will admit the trouble of giga-CO2 emmissions–as borne out by basic radiation physics

    The more genuinely curious scientists would not be satisfied with the mere coincidence of rising Co2 with a relatively short period of warming. The more genuinely curious scientists are smart enough to spot potential issues with past warm and cool periods going back hundreds or thousands of years with no apparent link to CO2.

    With regard to our CO2 emissions in recent times, the more genuinely curious scientists have the benefit of a prediction of a particular pattern of warming in the atmosphere (I mentioned just a couple of posts above). You can be assured that observation of that pattern (or anything remotely like it) would immedialtely be elevated to the new poster child of the catastrophe theory by the less genuinely curious scientists and their cohort.

    The more genuinely curious scientists are rational enough to accept that there is no observation to confirm that pattern. Given the failure of that prediction genuinely curious scientist would be the first to conclude the enhanced GHE hypothesis is falisifed.

    Anderlan – what is it that tells me that your curiosity falls well short of the gold standard of the genuinely curious scientist you mention?

  235. Richard Sexton, hi,

    Yeah, well it’s now apparent to me that I blew right by Anthony’s lead-in paragraph there. My bad, and there’s no denying that it makes me look foolish. I just assumed those were his comments. But the majority of them are comments that I vehemently disagree with nonetheless.

    OK then. Notwithstanding my blatantly unsuccessful attempt at segueing into the comments here, anyone care to address the point that both John Terry and myself were originally trying to make: that the absorption of IR by CO2 is *not saturated*, if you consider the fact that the troposphere is not where Earth’s atmosphere ends, by a long shot?

    Just to head off any dismissals of the role that CO2 plays as insignificant to that of water vapour… I acknowledge that CO2 by itself accounts for (only :-) about 20% of the greenhouse effect.

  236. [I think I may have submitted this comment pre-maturely by an accidental keystroke.]

    But the’hot spot’ is missing. As I said, the independent measurements from baloons and satelites both show it has not happened.

    Richard,

    You’ve been around in this game long enough to know the actual history. When Spencer and Christy first released the satellite data, they showed the lower troposphere was supposedly cooling…and I am sure you were one of those harping on this fact. Then, the combination of a longer record and correction of errors in the data analysis turned the cooling trend into a warming trend, but still significantly lower than the warming trend at the surface…and the harping continued. Then, a still longer record and further corrections (and the competing RSS analysis) resulted in the global trends coming into alignment within error bars. But, there is still a discrepancy in the tropics; the discrepancy is actually not just between empirical data and theory but between different analyses and re-analyses of the various data sets.

    What we have here is a “God of the Gaps” argument. For those, like people in the coal industry, who want to continue to believe that AGW is wrong if there are any discrepancies between data and models / theory, you will always be able to find such discrepancies because neither data nor models are foolproof.

    However, the facts in this particular case are:

    (1) The tropical tropospheric amplification is in fact seen in the data for fluctuations over the timescales of months to a few years. Interestingly, this is a timescale over which the data is reliable. Where there is some discrepancy is in the multidecadal trends; this is exactly where the data, both satellite and radiosondes, has artifacts…i.e., the data is subject to long term drifts due to changes in instruments, stitching together of data from different satellites, etc. It is strange that people who constantly question data when they don’t like what it shows are ready to embrace data known to have artifacts when it supports what they want to believe.

    (2) Even if the data were to be correct and the amplification were absent, it still wouldn’t tell us anything about what the cause of the warming that we have seen has been because the prediction of such amplification is robust in the models, whether one is talking about radiative forcings due to greenhouse gases, solar, or simply fluctuations in temperature due to ENSO. The most direct thing it would suggest is that the models are wrong on assuming a lapse rate feedback, a negative feedback that reduces the warming predictions. (By a more indirect change of argument, one could make some claims that it would say something about the water vapor feedback possibly be wrong too…but this is more indirect and in conflict with other empirical data that supports the feedback.)

  237. Steve Metzler says:
    October 15, 2010 at 4:35 pm

    “Richard Sexton, hi,
    ……………………………………………………………….”
    ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

    Steve, Hi back from James Sexton,

    Steve, I’m probably the wrong person to engage with over this subject, as I stated in one of my posts to Mr. Terry, skeptics come in all shapes and sizes, and are skeptical for many different reasons. Personally, I hold no opinion about CO2 warming or not. It simply doesn’t matter to me in that I hold that a bit of warming will be good for humanity and not worse. That said, I have great difficulty with the logic of the CO2 warming theory as I understand it.

    First, this is only the second time I’ve seen the 20% number. I’m very curious as to how we arrived to that ratio given CO2 is only a trace gas, or how one even quantifies the GH effect.

    Secondly, specific to the saturation issue, there may be a confusion to the exact meaning. Saturation in this case may mean how much wavelength absorption can be or how much CO2 can be put in the atmosphere. If the oil and coal reserves are anywhere near the levels presented by some, we simply lack the capacity to put much more meaningful CO2 in the atmosphere.(I don’t agree with much of that, but its been postulated.) Also, it is widely accepted that the curve is logarithmic and we’ve already achieved the most significant angle of the curve. For instance, the doubling of CO2 = 1 degree, the next 0.5…..etc. (Note, I’m only using that as an illustration and the figures aren’t to be taken literally.)

    I know that CO2 has been presented as a more powerful GHG than H2O vapor, but I remain unconvinced. If the bandwidth absorptions overlap, then they overlap. Displacing H2O in favor of CO2 wouldn’t seem to make much difference in my view. Also, CO2’s absorption is specific and narrow in bandwidth, there’s only so much heat that’s going to be reflected back. As you noted, “troposphere is not where Earth’s atmosphere ends”, if CO2 is blocking it one way, it will also block it the other way. The higher up the CO2 is, the less likely the heat will be reflected back down. N’est-ce pas? I alluded to this earlier, but I fear I was too cryptic.

    Now to the topic I’ve been contemplating. If the GH/CO2 theory is correct……..well here, I’ll re-post from another blog, I haven’t received a reply to yet.

    Assume a baseline CO2 level. It doesn’t make any difference what it is, because the theory is emitted CO2 runs free in the atmosphere for 100s of years doing all of that blocking heat thing. Right? Man finds a lump of coal or a tree to use as fuel. He’s emitting CO2…..he’s exhaling…..he’s putting more CO2 out in the atmosphere….always. Some may get absorbed by the flora, but most (according to theory) is mucking about warming the earth. This has been occurring for thousands of years!

    Now, consider, flora nor the ocean nor any other known sink absorbs/breaths/eats atmospheric CO2. Why? Because trees and the ocean are ground or sea level. They can’t! So, for this GH/CO2 theory to be correct, we must have been very, very cold when we first got here and have increased in warmth from day one. This would defy logic, seeing that early man lacked many abilities to overcome nature. (Doesn’t matter if you are a creationist or evolutionist same holds for both.) Even today, it would be very difficult for man to thrive in Arctic or Antarctic conditions. By implication of this theory, it must be so, for us to be enjoying the climate which we do today. Further, while mercury thermometers have been around only a couple hundred years, there’s plenty of evidence that the earth in man’s history has significantly warmed and cooled. It can’t under the theory, only increase.

    There’s my take on CO2. Again, I’m the wrong one to be discussing this, but if you’ve answers, I’d be receptive if they don’t peg my BS meter. Which, BTW, the 20% figure does. I’m sure if you ask a couple of times, you’ll get a response that may be more scientific than what I gave you. You’ll find most to be respectful of dissenting opinions, but will vigorously defend their own. In other words, if you go there, come with it or be prepared to have your azz handed back to you.

    And welcome.

  238. @Steve Metzler

    Oh, sorry, apparently, through all of my verbosity I could have just said “Beer’s law” (who knew?) for much of the saturation part of my post. Google is such a cool thing! Also, I was unclear about the curve. doubling CO2 = the temp rise of the last doubling. So if doubling raises 1 degree, then the next doubling will also. Or, if raising 200 ppm raises 1 degree, then the next 200 will only raise 0.5 degree. <—— Is what I meant to say.

  239. Yet more on the “near saturation” of atmospheric CO2. For the technically inclined, here is a “back of the envelope calculation” of the zero feedback climate sensitivity for doubling of CO2. It is meant for instructional purposes to illustrate the basic physics.

    First, for a given atmospheric loading of CO2, there exists an altitude Hs such that for all altitudes h Hs, they are not. So if Ps (a fixed parameter) is the corresponding partial pressure of CO2 at h = Hs, and Po (a variable) is the pressure at sea level, and the atmosphere is approximately isothermal, we have from Boltzmann statistics:

    Ps = Po exp ( – M g Hs / k T )

    This equation says that the effective radiating height moves up and down as the partial pressure of CO2 moves up and down. Now for h Hs, heat is radiated. In reality, Hs is a layer of finite thickness that characterizes the transition from heat conduction to radiation. Then if K is the effective thermal conductivity of the atmosphere for h < Hs, and taking the temperature to be T at Hs and To at sea level, we have for continuity of heat flow at Hs:

    K ( To – T ) / Hs = σ ε T^4 with (To – T ) << T,

    where the right hand side is just the Stephan-Boltzmann radiation law. After rearranging we see that the surface temp goes up and down logarthmically with partial pressure Po:

    To = T + ( k σ ε T^5 / K M g ) x ln ( Po / Ps )

    The prefactor of the logarithm is the zero feedback climate sensitivity, aside from a factor of ln 2. The big point here is that the temperature varies logarithmically with partial pressure of CO2; that is, diminishing returns. Obviously the atmosphere is not isothermal, and the temperature of the stratosphere is not constant, but the argument captures the basics.

    From the above equation, one finds that the order of magnitude of the climate sensitivity for doubling of CO2 is in fact 1 degree C. To get this, take T ~ 250K; the emissivity of the earth ε ~ 0.6. Everything else is known except for K, which is estimated from T – To ~ 50 deg C for an altitude of about 10 miles ~ 2 x 10^4 meters. Taking a flux of 1000 watt/m2, this gives K ~ 4 x 10^5 watt/m-K. Then the prefactor of the logarithm is computed as ~ 2-3 deg C, and the climate sensitivity for doubling is of order 1 deg C.

    So as more CO2 is added, more and more of the atmosphere is saturated, and incremental warming becomes smaller. Even in 1860 before large emissions began, the earth was already well up on the logarithmic curve.

    Hope this helps.

  240. (There are subtle distinctions between raving and cranking.)

    Roger Knights says:
    October 15, 2010 at 6:11 am

    FWIW, the IIP does not make mention of global warming in its mission statement. It’s a general-purpose environmental organization, not a coven of catastrophists.

    As you describe, there is “much (implicit) ado” as to the manner of forcing.

    It’s not a competition in which the side with the most Nobelists wins the debate.

    Rather, their purpose is to allow a debate to begin.

    The debate began more than a decade ago yet is still being cranked with all the coordinated effort that torquing can muster. Over the course of time, the debate turned vulgar and is now obscene.

    “Samoth” wrote:

    “I have been member of many clubs. You always find cranks and the noise that one crank in the middle of thousand others can make is always disproportionate.
    Enough said.”

    No, not quite enough said yet. An uncoordinated multitude of cranks is ‘anarchy’.

    Coordinated cranking carried out relentlessly over a long interval produces over-revving. Such forcing and grinding raises quite the stink and squeal.

    Globalism is ‘Conspiracy Theory’.

  241. Somehow the paragraph beginning “This equation” was mangled. It should be:

    “This equation says that the effective radiating height moves up and down with partial pressure of CO2. Now for h Hs it is via radiation. In reality, … “

  242. Somehow the paragraph won beginning “This equation..” won’t take. Here is the errant segment in words:
    “This equation says that the effective radiating height moves up and down with partial pressure of CO2. Now for altitudes less than Hs, heat flow is predominately via thermal conduction because the mean photon mean free path is one intermolecular distance. However, for altitudes greater than Hs, heat flow is via radiation. In reality,..”

  243. I always find it interesting that none of the alarmists will discuss Miskolczi. The theory is there, it’s supported by real data, the math has been done AND it shows that the greenhouse effect is a constant. So, it doesn’t matter whether anyone believes CO2 is saturated, it doesn’t matter if anyone believes there’s a big climate sensitivity … it is all moot.

    Until the alarmists PROVE Miskolczi theory is wrong, they have NOTHING.

  244. Roger says:
    October 15, 2010 at 7:59 pm

    “Yet more on the “near saturation” of atmospheric CO2. For the technically inclined, here is a “back of the envelope calculation”………..
    ========================================================

    Lol, that’s quite a “back of the envelope calculation”! But thanks. Whether our friends Mr. Terry or Mr. Metzler appreciate it or not remains to be seen, but I liked it. Do you mind if I use that from time to time? It seems very reasoned.

  245. ” Roger says:
    October 15, 2010 at 7:59 pm” “back of the envelope calculation”
    For all interested this makes a few assumptions which many AGW people also do in pointing to simple physics.
    1/ It is assumed radiation takes precedence over convective heat transfer and evaporation
    Take a look at this article http://www.rsbs.anu.edu.au/Profiles/Graham_Farquhar/documents/271RodericketalPanreviewIGeogCompass2009_000.pdf

    and also think how you would explain the following BOM pan evaporator data from Alice Springs airport- 11sep 2009, hrs sunshine nil, evaporation 8.4mm, rainfall 11.2mm, max temp 21C, min temp 19C,
    2/ It is assumes that photons exist. It has been shown that particle like photon theory can not answer some experimental results for light but wave theory is applicable. No one has proved that photons exist for infra-red or microwave energy.
    3/ It is assumed that Stefan-Boltzman equation applies in an atmosphere of gases (ie not in a vacuum) and at low temperature.
    4/ It assumes that surfaces have no boundary layer which affects conditions at the surface. Any engineer working with heat transfer and fluid dynamics (eg drag on aerofoils) know that boundary layers exist.

    Miskolczi is probably correct when he states a new look at physics is required.

  246. cementafriend says:
    October 15, 2010 at 9:34 pm

    I can’t seem to get the link to work, keeps stopping. Just as well, I can only handle so much brain torture in a day, and I fear I’m pushing my limit today. I could be that I’ve 10 tabs open on my browser, too.

    I’m just sad our friends Terry and Metzler didn’t come to play! They seemed so eager at first.

  247. Jordan,

    Some people have said to me: “there has been cooling in the upper stratosphere, surely that confirms the predicted pattern”. But it’s just not persuasive. Those observations don’t have a “hot spot” where there is supposed to be one.

    But cooling of the stratosphere is specific to warming from an enhanced GHE whereas the “hot spot” is expected with warming from any source and doesen’t specifically indicate AGW. Therefore the former is surely a much better indicator of AGW than the latter.

  248. Joel Shore:

    Your post at October 15, 2010 at 5:24 pm is clear desperation.

    There is no “God of the gaps” argument from me.

    Two independent measurement systems each show the ‘hot spot’ has not happened.
    And that is a direct refutation of a clear prediction of the AGW hypothesis.

    There are no “gaps” in that unequivocal result.

    Your long post only asserts that the measurements may be wrong. Well, sorry, but your assertion is a clear example of the “fraudulent science” deplored by Hal Lewis.

    When measurements refute a hypothesis then the hypothesis is disproved (period).
    And that refutation remains true unless and until the measurements are shown to be wrong.

    Ifs, buts, and arm-waving do not cut it. Prove the measurements are wrong or admit that the AGW hypothesis is disproved. Assertions that the measurements may be wrong is a “God of the gaps” argument.

    Richard

  249. Andrew Adams:

    At October 16, 2010 at 12:18 am you assert:
    “But cooling of the stratosphere is specific to warming from an enhanced GHE whereas the “hot spot” is expected with warming from any source and doesen’t specifically indicate AGW. Therefore the former is surely a much better indicator of AGW than the latter.”

    No!
    Such an argument is another example of the “fraudulent science” that Hal Lewis deplores. Only one disproof of a hypothesis is sufficient: in real science you cannot choose which evidence to accept and which to ignore.

    And the “warming from any source” assertion defeats itself. I addressed this above in an answer that I gave to Joel Shore at October 15, 2010 at 5:15 am

    To save you finding it, the relevant part of my answer said:

    “OK. I will buy that. It says that the ‘hot spot’ would be induced by any increase to forcing from a variety of causes including “wellmixed greenhouse gases” because “it results from the temperature profile in the tropical troposphere is expected to closely follow the moist adiabatic lapse rate.”

    But the’hot spot’ is missing. As I said, the independent measurements from baloons and satelites both show it has not happened.

    So, which do you want to assert:

    1. As the IPCC explanation says, the absence of the ‘hot spot’ indicates there has been no increase to radiative forcing from “wellmixed greenhouse gases”?

    Or

    2. As the propoganda blog you quote says, the absence of the ‘hot spot’ indicates there has been no increase to radiative forcing from a “a variety of forcings” including “wellmixed greenhouse gases”?”

    Richard

  250. andrew adams says:
    October 16, 2010 at 12:18 am

    “But cooling of the stratosphere is specific to warming from an enhanced GHE whereas the “hot spot” is expected with warming from any source and doesen’t specifically indicate AGW. Therefore the former is surely a much better indicator of AGW than the latter.”

    There seems to be a problem there too: there is no increasing cooling of the stratosphere since about 1995, while CO2 increased some 30 ppmv in that period. See the TLS channel trend by the RSS team at:

    http://www.ssmi.com/msu/msu_data_description.html#figures

  251. Ozone expert assessment 2010

    New analyses of both satellite and radiosonde data give increased confidence in
    changes in stratospheric temperatures between 1980 and 2009. The global-mean
    lower stratosphere cooled by 1–2 K and the upper stratosphere cooled by 4–6 K between 1980 and 1995. There have been no significant long-term trends in global-mean lower stratospheric temperatures since about 1995. The global-mean lower-stratospheric cooling did not occur linearly but was manifested as downward steps in temperature in the early 1980s and the early 1990s.

  252. maksimovich says:
    October 16, 2010 at 5:07 am

    Ozone expert assessment 2010

    New analyses of both satellite and radiosonde data give increased confidence in
    changes in stratospheric temperatures between 1980 and 2009. The global-mean
    lower stratosphere cooled by 1–2 K and the upper stratosphere cooled by 4–6 K between 1980 and 1995. There have been no significant long-term trends in global-mean lower stratospheric temperatures since about 1995. The global-mean lower-stratospheric cooling did not occur linearly but was manifested as downward steps in temperature in the early 1980s and the early 1990s.

    Quite strange. If the cooling was the result of increased CO2 levels, one would expect a decreasing trend similar to the slightly exponential increase of CO2 in the atmosphere, within natural variability. In this case there are two drops after sudden warming caused by two large volcanic eruptions, El Chichon (1982) and Pinatubo (1991). The temperature doesn’t move down inbetween or after the eruptions (even slightly up). Seems not CO2 related, but a disturbance by the volcanoes (chloride – ozone depletion?) which lasts longer than the aerosol warming caused by the same.

  253. maksimovich says:
    October 16, 2010 at 5:07 am

    The global-mean lower-stratospheric cooling did not occur linearly but was manifested as downward steps in temperature in the early 1980s and the early 1990s.

    Quite strange. If the cooling was the result of increased CO2 levels, one would expect a decreasing trend similar to the slightly exponential increase of CO2 in the atmosphere, within natural variability. In this case there are two drops after sudden warming caused by two large volcanic eruptions, El Chichon (1982) and Pinatubo (1991). The temperature doesn’t move down inbetween or after the eruptions (even slightly up). Seems not CO2 related, but a disturbance by the volcanoes (chloride – ozone depletion?) which lasts longer than the aerosol warming caused by the same.

  254. To: James Sexton. Sure. Just be aware that it is very simple. It’s purpose is to show more clearly what we mean by “CO2 lines are saturated.”

    To: cementafriend. That part is OK. Most of the heat transfer at low altitudes is via convection which is lumped into the effective thermal conductivity. At high altitudes, radiation dominates. But you are right that much is left out, and one should not use this simple argument to make big AGW points.

  255. Ferdinand Engelbeen says:

    Quite strange. If the cooling was the result of increased CO2 levels, one would expect a decreasing trend similar to the slightly exponential increase of CO2 in the atmosphere, within natural variability. In this case there are two drops after sudden warming caused by two large volcanic eruptions, El Chichon (1982) and Pinatubo (1991). The temperature doesn’t move down in between or after the eruptions (even slightly up). Seems not CO2 related, but a disturbance by the volcanoes (chloride – ozone depletion?) which lasts longer than the aerosol warming caused by the same.

    The heterogeneous chemistry is in wmo 2003 chapter 4.

    The assessment also states

    The evolution of lower stratospheric temperature is influenced by a combination of
    natural and human factors that has varied over time. Ozone decreases dominate the
    lower stratospheric cooling since 1980. Major volcanic eruptions and solar activity have clear shorter-term effects. Models that consider all of these factors are able to reproduce this temperature time history.

    Or to put it another way explanations are clearly in order.

  256. Richard S Courtney says:

    Your post at October 15, 2010 at 5:24 pm is clear desperation.

    There is no “God of the gaps” argument from me.

    Two independent measurement systems each show the ‘hot spot’ has not happened.
    And that is a direct refutation of a clear prediction of the AGW hypothesis.

    (1) It is not a clear prediction of the AGW hypothesis. It is a prediction of the current modeling of the atmosphere for any source of warming whatsoever.

    (2) It sure is a God of the Gaps argument. Back in the 90s, AGW was disproved because the satellite record showed the troposphere was cooling. Then, in the early part of the 2000s, it was disproved because, although the satellite record no longer showed it was cooling, it still showed it wasn’t warming sufficiently. Then, later, it was disproved because, although the satellite record no longer disagreed (within uncertainties) with the surface observations on a global scale, there was still some discrepancy…highly dependent on which data set you looked at…when you considered only the tropics and the expected amplification there specifically for the multidecadal trends. So, the record clearly shows that as the data and analysis are better understood, the issues have been resolving themselves, so far completely in favor of the theory.

    Your long post only asserts that the measurements may be wrong. Well, sorry, but your assertion is a clear example of the “fraudulent science” deplored by Hal Lewis.

    When measurements refute a hypothesis then the hypothesis is disproved (period).
    And that refutation remains true unless and until the measurements are shown to be wrong.

    This may be your dream of how science works when you in the coal industry don’t like the results but it is a fantasy. There would be no theories if every discrepancy between measurements and theory immediately meant that the theory was disproved. This is exactly why the forces of anti-science can pounce on science that they don’t like…They can always find discrepancies or “missing links” or what-have-you. The scientific issues may be very different but the anti-scientific forces tend to all use the same techniques.

    In the real world, scientific theories that have reached the status of theories have already passed numerous tests and it would be foolhardy in the extreme to abandon them every time there is some discrepancy with empirical data. What happens is scientists continue to ponder and try to resolve the discrepancies either with better data, better data analysis, modifications of the theory, or what-have-you….but it is an on-going process and new data, both in accord with and in apparent disagreement with the theory, are being presented all of the time. It is only once a sufficient number of discrepancies haven’t been able to be resolved…and usually also a better theory comes along…that the theory will be discarded.

  257. Joel Shore says:
    October 16, 2010 at 8:28 pm

    Then, later, it was disproved because, although the satellite record no longer disagreed (within uncertainties) with the surface observations on a global scale, there was still some discrepancy…highly dependent on which data set you looked at…when you considered only the tropics and the expected amplification there specifically for the multidecadal trends. So, the record clearly shows that as the data and analysis are better understood, the issues have been resolving themselves, so far completely in favor of the theory.

    Bold mine.

    If one makes uncertainties large enough, everything agrees with everything. That is my position on these “issues resolving themselves”.

    And to call “theory” what GCMs are is hubris, again in my opinion.

    I have watched the models being pulled one side and another and different models grabbed to make points, according to what they want to refute and how big the errors should be to assert “agreement” with the recent data, but I have not seen a full set of predictions coming out of these new runs, from the same model for all the controversial points :
    1) stasis in temperature,
    2)relative humidity,
    3) cloud cover,
    4) ERBE data refuting positive feedback,
    5) missing energy that is not the oceans,
    6)hydrological predictions being no better than random ones (Koutsoyannis et al)
    7) the hot spot
    and most damning
    8) the inability to predict the absolute temperatures so playing with anomalies instead

    I get models a la cart. A theory is a full menu.

  258. Joel Shore:

    I post this in response to your comment at October 16, 2010 at 8:28 pm solely to demonstrate that I have read it.

    As Anna V subsequently points out at October 17, 2010 at 12:34 am, your response is pure pseudoscience.

    The principles I stated in my post at October 16, 2010 at 3:16 am
    are known as ‘the scientific method’. You would do well to learn about it.

    Richard

  259. James Sexton says:

    @Steve Metzler

    Oh, sorry, apparently, through all of my verbosity I could have just said “Beer’s law” (who knew?) for much of the saturation part of my post. Google is such a cool thing! Also, I was unclear about the curve. doubling CO2 = the temp rise of the last doubling. So if doubling raises 1 degree, then the next doubling will also. Or, if raising 200 ppm raises 1 degree, then the next 200 will only raise 0.5 degree. <—— Is what I meant to say.

    I really shouln’t have engaged on this topic of the CO2 greenhouse effect being saturated, because I was travelling all day yesterday, and now things have moved on. One thing that is important to note though, John, is that the CO2 concentration has not doubled. That won’t happen till it hits 560ppm. So you can’t say there has been 1C since ‘doubling’. What there has been is a .8C increase since going from the pre-industrial level of 280ppm to today’s 390ppm. It looks like we are on course for the doubling to occur sometine around 2050, and for the resulting global temp increase to be 3C as a result, not 1C. It is not Co2 alone that accounts for the greenhouse effect. Higher temps mean that the atmosphere can hold more water vapour, which apmplifies the effect.

    The bottom line is that, aside from increased de-forestation, the only thing that could cause the increase in global average temps that we have seen since pre-industrial times is the CO2 that mankind has been pouring into the atmosphere by burning fossil fueals. Attempts to downplay this are just smoke and mirrors from the denier camp.

  260. Steve Metzler says:
    October 17, 2010 at 8:18 am

    The bottom line is that, aside from increased de-forestation, the only thing that could cause the increase in global average temps that we have seen since pre-industrial times is the CO2 that mankind has been pouring into the atmosphere by burning fossil fueals. Attempts to downplay this are just smoke and mirrors from the denier camp.

    Do a favor to yourself and study the temperature record over the last 400.000 years and think whether “the only thing that could cause the increase in global average temps that we have seen since pre-industrial times is the CO2 that mankind has been pouring ” is a logical conclusion. There are even larger variations than the variation from the little ice age recorded :

  261. Steve Metzler says:
    October 17, 2010 at 8:18 am
    “It is not Co2 alone that accounts for the greenhouse effect. Higher temps mean that the atmosphere can hold more water vapour, which apmplifies the effect.”

    Why does an increase in CO2 lead to higher temperature and more water vapor; and why does not more water vapor lead to higher temperatures and more water vapor, IOW, what makes CO2 so special that only an increase in CO2 can cause a water vapor feedback?

    Your answer will doubtlessly be “because we need CO2 as the root cause so we can introduce regulations and siphon off billions of dollars; we can’t do that with water vapor”.

  262. Joel Shore says:
    October 16, 2010 at 8:28 pm
    “[…] with the theory, are being presented all of the time. It is only once a sufficient number of discrepancies haven’t been able to be resolved…and usually also a better theory comes along…that the theory will be discarded.”

    So i think we can drop the Arrhenius theory now and use Miskolczi’s.

  263. Steve Metzler says:
    October 17, 2010 at 8:18 am

    What there has been is a .8C increase since going from the pre-industrial level of 280ppm to today’s 390ppm.

    You forget to add that half that warming was in the period 1900-1945, when CO2 levels were hardly above baseline. Then we had a cooler period with increasing CO2 levels 1945-1975. Again a warming 1975-2000, flat again 2000-2009 (and yet an El Niño 2009-2010, need a few years more to see if it remains warm after that). Thus most of the warming 1900-1945 was natural and a part of the 1975-2000 warming was natural too.

    Attributing the whole warming 1900-2010 to GHGs (with or without feedback) alone is way out of reality.

  264. From another site : —

    * 16 Sep
    *

    http://landshape.org/enm/government-science

    I’m seeing a few articles on Government-sponsored science lately that seem particularly applicable to the climate change research:

    A short review of Economic Laws of Scientific Research links to an overview of the area, particularly the Cato Institute

    Scientists may love government money, and politicians may love the power its expenditure confers upon them, but society is impoverished by the transaction.

    Another in a similar vein on medical research reminds me of Craig Venter’s decoding of the Human Genome. I was at the San Diego Supercomputer at the time, and his use of innovative use of supercomputing to assemble pieces of DNA — called shotgun sequencing — made the Government-funded competitors look like clods. There was a prize offered, and it was decided to award the prize to both – how very droll.

    A more balanced argument is presented here. Some infrastructural components, like large meteorological data sets, are better handled by government departments than others.

    Professor Sinclair Davidson shows that the standard economic analysis supporting public expenditure on research is fundamentally and methodologically flawed.

    The notion that throwing an infinite amount of money at public research will somehow, at some time, automatically lead to some benefit is a myth. The government spends a substantial amount on public science and innovation. It is not clear that any substantial benefit is derived from that expenditure.

    He identifies the following ‘stepping stones’:

    * R&D is not a public good.
    * The cost of public funds is not lower than the cost of private funds.
    * The returns to public science are low.
    * Governments have a poor track record of picking ‘winners’.
    * Publicly funded R&D has a negative impact on economic growth.
    * Economists are unable to explain how spillovers occur, or how valuable these spillovers are.

    The main argument against government science, that “publicly-performed R&D crowds out resources that could be alternatively used by the private sector” needs to be strengthened in the case of climate science.

    The push for taxes like the ETS, and subsidising impractical renewable energy schemes shows the impact of government climate science is regressive.

    Climate science seems to particularly prone to the worst aspects of government science, from the UN IPCC process, to ClimateGate and through the enquiries, it’s like an season of ‘Yes, Minister’. If global warming is eventually shown to be non-existent or harmless, no doubt the climate scientists will declare victory and say they were sceptics all along.

  265. DirkH:

    Why does an increase in CO2 lead to higher temperature and more water vapor; and why does not more water vapor lead to higher temperatures and more water vapor, IOW, what makes CO2 so special that only an increase in CO2 can cause a water vapor feedback?

    You’re just talking nonsense. The water vapor feedback applies to warming that occurs due to any mechanism. It just so happens that CO2 is the thing that is increasing at the moment and thus causing an increase in radiative forcing.

    So i think we can drop the Arrhenius theory now and use Miskolczi’s.

    Miskolczi doesn’t have a “theory”. He just had incomprehensible nonsense that some people have embraced because they want to believe it. Science is not some a la carte cafeteria where you can just choose the hypothesis that fits your fancy, which is why there is such a stark divide between the scientific community and the ideologues who want to science to reach a different conclusion than it is reaching.

  266. Joel Shore says:
    October 18, 2010 at 4:29 pm

    So i think we can drop the Arrhenius theory now and use Miskolczi’s.

    Miskolczi doesn’t have a “theory”. He just had incomprehensible nonsense that some people have embraced because they want to believe it. Science is not some a la carte cafeteria where you can just choose the hypothesis that fits your fancy, which is why there is such a stark divide between the scientific community and the ideologues who want to science to reach a different conclusion than it is reaching.

    Wow! Your intemperate words take my breath away!

    So you are equating the CAGW cabal with ‘the scientific community’? Surely the topic of this thread is discussing the fallacy of that assumption. It is very, very clear that once-scientific organisations like the AAAS have become political advocacy organisations and the real scientists, like Hal Lewis, cannot stomach it any longer. A similar situation persists with the Royal Society in England.

    Both organisations have strayed far from their founding principles and the causes of that would seem to be the corrupting influence of Government financing of ‘research’. The corruption is starkly obvious, especially in the white-washing of recent ‘enquiries’ into the behaviour of high-profile ‘scientists’ by their governing universities, all of which failed to address the issues in any semblace of the depth required to restore confidence in their work. Rather it was a quick discussion of how to sweep the issue under the carpet, drinks all round, then a carefully worded exhoneration that said nothing of substance. What a foundation on which to try and build a world-wide agreement to curb the use of energy!

    What is perhaps even more amazing is how the echo-chamber of pro-CAGW believers can swallow that sort of hypocracy without even the slightest qualm!

    Paul

Comments are closed.