So much for the theory that AGW increases water vapor and positive feedback

The Atmospheric Circulation system with associ...

The Atmospheric Circulation system with associated pressure belts and latitudes (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

I liked this part:

According to the study an important issue remains as to why the poleward expansion is largest in autumn, and there is still uncertainty about the role of external forcings – such as greenhouse gases – as climate models underestimate the southward expansion of the Hadley cell edge.

From CSIRO Australia

Southern Hemisphere becoming drier

A decline in April-May rainfall over south-east Australia is associated with a southward expansion of the subtropical dry-zone according to research published today in Scientific Reports, a primary research journal from the publishers of Nature.

CSIRO scientists Wenju Cai, Tim Cowan and Marcus Thatcher explored why autumn rainfall has been in decline across south-eastern Australia since the 1970s, a period that included the devastating Millennium drought from 1997-2009.

Previous research into what has been driving the decline in autumn rainfall across regions like southern Australia has pointed the finger at a southward shift in the storm tracks and weather systems during the late 20th century. However, the extent to which these regional rainfall reductions are attributable to the poleward expansion of the subtropical dry-zone has not been clarified before now.

Mr Cowan said rainfall patterns in the subtropics are known to be influenced by the Hadley cell, the large-scale atmospheric circulation that transports heat from the tropics to the sub-tropics.

“There has been a southward expansion of the edge of the Hadley cell – also called subtropical dry-zone – over the past 30 years, with the strongest expansion occurring in mid-late autumn, or April to May, ranging from 200 to 400 kilometres,” Mr Cowan said. The CSIRO researchers found that the autumn southward expansion of the subtropical dry-zone is greatest over south-eastern Australia, and to a lesser extent, over the Southern Ocean to the south of Africa.

“The Hadley cell is comprised of a number of individual branches, so the impact of a southward shift of the subtropical dry-zone on rainfall is not the same across the different semi-arid regions of the Southern Hemisphere,” says CSIRO’s Dr Wenju Cai.

The researchers tested the hypothesis that the dry-zone expansion would give rise to a southward shift in the average rainfall during April and May, and questioned how rainfall across semi-arid regions, including southern-coastal Chile and southern Africa, would be affected.

“During April and May, when the dry-zone expansion is strong, rainfall over south-eastern Africa, south-eastern Australia and southern-coastal Chile is higher than over regions immediately to their north,” Dr Cai said.

Using high-quality observations and an atmospheric model the CSIRO team found that for south-eastern Australia, up to 85% of recent rainfall reduction can be accounted for by replacing south-eastern Australia rainfall with rainfall 400km to the north. Such a southward shift of rainfall can explain only a small portion of the southern Africa rainfall trend, but none of the autumn drying observed over southern Chile.

“For south-east Australia, autumn is an important wetting season,” Dr Cai explained. “Good autumn rainfall wets the soil and effectively allows for vital runoff from follow-on winter and spring rain to flow into catchments.”

According to the study an important issue remains as to why the poleward expansion is largest in autumn, and there is still uncertainty about the role of external forcings – such as greenhouse gases – as climate models underestimate the southward expansion of the Hadley cell edge.

This research was conducted through CSIRO’s Water for a Healthy Country Flagship, and was funded by the Goyder Institute for Water Research and the Australian Climate Change Science Programme. Wenju Cai, Tim Cowan and Marcus Thatcher are from CSIRO’s Marine and Atmospheric Research division.

###

UPDATE:

Some commenters can’t look beyond the title and see the bigger picture, so here’s an update just for them. Note that the study deals with the Hadley cell, which is NOT regional, but hemispherical. They looked not only at Australia, but also rainfall in southern-coastal Chile and southern Africa.

This is where I was coming from, which I thought would be obvious to anyone who’s been following the positive water vapor feedback issue for any length of time.

http://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/bibliography/related_files/hall0001.pdf

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

Abstract. Using two versions of the GFDL coupled ocean-atmosphere model, one where
water vapor anomalies are allowed to affect the longwave radiation calculation and one
where they are not, we examine the role of water vapor feedback in internal precipitation
variability and greenhouse-gas-forced intensification of the hydrologic cycle. Without
external forcing, the experiment with water vapor feedback produces 44% more annualmean, global-mean precipitation variability than the one without.

We diagnose the reason for this difference: In both experiments, global-mean surface temperature anomalies are associated with water vapor anomalies. However, when water vapor interacts with longwave radiation, the temperature anomalies are associated with larger anomalies in surface downward longwave radiation. This increases the temperature anomaly damping through latent heat flux, creating an evaporation anomaly.

The evaporation anomaly, in turn, leads to an anomaly of nearly the same magnitude in precipitation. In the experiment without water vapor feedback, this mechanism is absent. While the interaction between longwave and water vapor has a large impact on the global hydrologic cycle internal variations, its effect decreases as spatial scales decrease, so water vapor feedback has only a very small impact on grid-scale hydrologic variability. Water vapor feedback also affects the hydrologic cycle intensification when greenhouse gas concentrations increase. By the 5th century of global warming experiments where CO2 is increased and then fixed at its doubled value, the global-mean precipitation increase is nearly an order of magnitude larger when water vapor feedback is present.

The cause of this difference is similar to the cause of the difference in internal precipitation variability: When water vapor feedback is present, the increase in water vapor associated with a warmer climate enhances downward longwave radiation. To maintain surface heat balance, evaporation increases, leading to a similar increase in precipitation. This effect is absent in the experiment without water vapor feedback. The large impact of water vapor feedback on hydrologic cycle intensification does not weaken as spatial scales decrease, unlike the internal variability case. Accurate representations of water vapor feedback are therefore necessary to simulate global-scale hydrologic variability and intensification of the hydrologic cycle in global warming.

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

So if positive water vapor feedback were occurring, based on this idea, we’d see an “intensification of the hydrologic cycle”, i.e. more rainfall, runoff, and evaporation. That would apply to the southern hemisphere continents too.

And the researchers by their own admission can’t even fit GHG feedbacks into the Hadley cell migration equation successfully. It is just more evidence of uncertainty in the “settled science” of AGW.

About these ads
This entry was posted in Stratospheric water vapor and tagged , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

292 Responses to So much for the theory that AGW increases water vapor and positive feedback

  1. Bob Mount says:

    Climate models fail again!

  2. ericgrimsrud says:

    (((Note to moderator, please discard my first comment and replace it with this one in which I have corrected a typo)).

    I don’t get the title of this piece. As the atmosphere gets warmer, it holds more water. But the amount of water in (evaporation) still will equal the amount of water out (condensation. Thus, in very general terms, on the surface of the Earth dry places will tend to get drier and wet places will tend to get wetter (or collect more snow). Therefore, evidence of drier places does not justify the title of this piece – while it might fool the public that does not generally understand what I have said here.

  3. Stephen Wilde says:

    Well, they are moving onto the right track at last but the process they describe has been starting to reverse since around 2000 in my opinion.

    And they haven’t made any attempt to identify a natural process that might lead to such observations.

    As it happens the shift they describe occurred at a time of high solar activity, generally positive AO and AAO, reducing global cloudiness and a cooling stratosphere.

    The evidence is pretty convincing to me that upper atmosphere effects from solar variations are the true natural cause.

    All those features are now going in the opposite direction with low solar activity, more negative AO and AAO, increasing global cloudiness and the stratosphere warming a little.

  4. Tim Ball says:

    Another example of the challenges of climatology as a generalist discipline. I wrote about these issues with general circulation and specifically the Hadley Cell and the failures of the IPCC and other models as representations of reality years ago and again recently in two articles.

    http://drtimball.com/2012/static-climate-models-in-a-virtually-unknown-dynamic-atmosphere/

    http://drtimball.com/2012/errors-and-omissions-in-major-tropical-climate-mechanism-invalidate-ipcc-computer-models/

    The real travesty is CSIRO and all government run weather and climate agencies are just catching up with what we knew thirty years ago. They are victims of the hijacking of real climatology by the pseudo- climate science of the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) sanctioned IPCC.

    Get the government and the politics out of climatology and stop pretending that a specialist in one small part of a vastly complex interconnected system is a climate scientist and we might have a chance at better understanding. Something about not seeing the forest for the trees.

  5. Billy Liar says:

    ericgrimsrud says:
    October 4, 2012 at 8:34 am

    Quite a lot of what you have said appears to have been lost in translation.

  6. dp says:

    Like Eric I don’t see the connection between this article’s title and decreased humidity in the atmosphere (a negative feedback). I also don’t yet see a positive feedback. What is demonstrated is a change in regional rain fall pattern as a result of changing atmospheric circulation patterns, not atmospheric warming, chaning humidity levels, or increased storm activity. This probably means I need to find and read the original paper. I would also say that if the only thing that changes as a result of heating from increased CO2 is an expansion of the dry zones then we have a problem. That alone is bad enough to be a concern. I hate to invoke the old joke, but this analysis probably needs more grant money to discover the whole truth. The grain belts in both hemispheres are facing significant change if this is an accurate portrayal of the effects of CO2 warming. No feedbacks needed, apparently, as this appears to be a direct affect of CO2 warming warming alone.

  7. MarkW says:

    “over the past 30 years”

    Nicely coinciding with the warm cycle of the PDO.
    (Yes, I know correlation is not causation. But as I said earlier, it gives you real good clues as to where to look.)

  8. richardscourtney says:

    dp:

    re your post at October 4, 2012 at 9:10 am.

    Be not afraid. The “study” “demonstrated” nothing. It reported the output of a climate model. None of the climate models (except perhaps one) emulates the climate of the real Earth, so the “study” reports the result of playing a computer game.

    As to the “effects of CO2 alone” if their are any then they are too small for them to be discernible.

    You say you share the concerns of Eric Grimsrud. That alone should be sufficient to cause you to question your concerns.

    I commend you to read the post of Tim Ball (i.e. a real climatologist) at October 4, 2012 at 8:45 am and to study the links he provides. Your fears will be assuaged to give you peace of mind.

    Richard

  9. son of mulder says:

    ericgrimsrud says:
    October 4, 2012 at 8:34 am

    It seems quite consistent to me that as the dry zone moves further south so the amount of water vapour from above the warmer parts of the planet decreases, so more radiation can escape from the more strongly radiating parts of the earth. Hence there might be more water vapour overall but it acts less effectively at producing back radiation and so the overall positive feedback could well decrease.

  10. Joel Shore says:

    So much for the title of posts on WUWT having anything whatsoever to do with the study that is discussed in the body of the post!

    The article discussed didn’t have anything whatsoever to do with the water vapor feedback. It had to do with region variations in rainfall patterns that are observed and also predicted by climate models.

    And, the water vapor feedback is already well-verified by observations as discussed in these two articles, for example:
    http://www.sciencemag.org/content/323/5917/1020.summary
    http://www.sciencemag.org/content/310/5749/841.abstract

    REPLY:
    So much for you being able to look at the bigger picture of research. This is where I was coming from:

    http://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/bibliography/related_files/hall0001.pdf

    Abstract. Using two versions of the GFDL coupled ocean-atmosphere model, one where
    water vapor anomalies are allowed to affect the longwave radiation calculation and one
    where they are not, we examine the role of water vapor feedback in internal precipitation
    variability and greenhouse-gas-forced intensification of the hydrologic cycle. Without
    external forcing, the experiment with water vapor feedback produces 44% more annualmean,
    global-mean precipitation variability than the one without. We diagnose the reason
    for this difference: In both experiments, global-mean surface temperature anomalies are
    associated with water vapor anomalies. However, when water vapor interacts with
    longwave radiation, the temperature anomalies are associated with larger anomalies in
    surface downward longwave radiation. This increases the temperature anomaly damping
    through latent heat flux, creating an evaporation anomaly. The evaporation anomaly, in
    turn, leads to an anomaly of nearly the same magnitude in precipitation. In the
    experiment without water vapor feedback, this mechanism is absent. While the interaction
    between longwave and water vapor has a large impact on the global hydrologic cycle
    internal variations, its effect decreases as spatial scales decrease, so water vapor feedback
    has only a very small impact on grid-scale hydrologic variability. Water vapor feedback
    also affects the hydrologic cycle intensification when greenhouse gas concentrations
    increase. By the 5th century of global warming experiments where CO2 is increased and
    then fixed at its doubled value, the global-mean precipitation increase is nearly an order of
    magnitude larger when water vapor feedback is present. The cause of this difference is
    similar to the cause of the difference in internal precipitation variability: When water
    vapor feedback is present, the increase in water vapor associated with a warmer climate
    enhances downward longwave radiation. To maintain surface heat balance, evaporation
    increases, leading to a similar increase in precipitation. This effect is absent in the
    experiment without water vapor feedback. The large impact of water vapor feedback on
    hydrologic cycle intensification does not weaken as spatial scales decrease, unlike the
    internal variability case. Accurate representations of water vapor feedback are therefore
    necessary to simulate global-scale hydrologic variability and intensification of the
    hydrologic cycle in global warming.

    So if positive water vapor feedback were occurring, based on this idea, we’d see an “intensification of the
    hydrologic cycle”, i.e. more rainfall, runoff, and evaporation. That would apply to the souther hemisphere continents too.

  11. lowercase fred says:

    For those who do not see the connection, Eric, dp, the difference is WHERE the moisture is located relative to insolation, the energy input from the sun. If the greenhouse gases are not in the region where most of the energy is coming in, then they cannot trap it, it reflects and re-radiates.

  12. joeldshore says:

    Anthony Watts says:

    So if positive water vapor feedback were occurring, based on this idea, we’d see an “intensification of the
    hydrologic cycle”, i.e. more rainfall, runoff, and evaporation. That would apply to the souther hemisphere continents too.

    There are many things going on, including shifting weather patterns, as described in this study. Surely you are aware of the fact that climate models predict greater drought in some regions? It is not just a uniform increase in precipitation everywhere!

    As for intensification of the hydrologic cycle, that has in fact been seen. In fact, on this site some have claimed (in comments if not in the body of posts themselves) that one study by Wentz et al. that shows precipitation increasing MORE than models seem to have predicted (although there are in fact significant uncertainties and variability) is somehow evidence against AGW.

    So, the question is which story do you guys want to go with: Is the hydrologic cycle intensifying more than expected or not as expected? And, does either way it turns out somehow lead to the same conclusion (i.e., that AGW is wrong or overstated)?

    REPLY: The story is that none of you supposed climate experts have any real clue of how it all works, nor does anybody for that matter, and this is just another example of the uncertainties of a science in its infancy. Reminds me of “knobs”. A few years ago they were predicting “permanent drought” for Australia, now its floods. Sure whatever. See the update above. See also Dr. Tim Ball’s comment. – Anthony

  13. Bill Illis says:

    In August 2012, global water vapour levels were 0.13 mms/m2 or 0.6% above normal – ie. nothing.

    Australia’s individual levels are very highly dependent on the ENSO pattern (in La Nina’s, there is more rain and more water vapour and there are lower values during El Ninos) versus some Hadley cell explanation. There is no long-term trend in the ENSO so one would expect no long-term trend in Australia rainfall either.

  14. What they are saying WAS the case when the sun was active.Since 2005 the sun has become inactive and the Hadley -cell is most likely moving equatorward, as the Antarctic vortex expands N.

    They are in the past, not the present.. It figures.

  15. Stephen Wilde says:

    When the hydrological cycle intensifies it doesn’t produce more humidity globally if the cycle is faster.

    A faster hydro cycle can be larger without increasing humidity because the water is in vapour form for a shorter time.

    Nor need it be accompanied by a higher temperature globally as opposed to locally because a faster or larger hydro cycle ejects energy to space faster as a negative feedback.

    My position is that solar cycles, ocean cycles AND GHGs all produce a negative system response via a change in the hydro cycle which manifests itself as a change in the global air circulation including the position, sizes and intensities of the subtropical high pressure cells.

    However, the contribution from human CO2 emissions would be imperceptible compared to that from sun and ocean variability.

  16. The big problem with increasing the pace in the hydrological cycle is the latent heat, 2500 joule per gram water. I calculated once that in order to keep the relative humidity constant at higher temperatures as per alleged CO2 doubled forcing at the same cycle rate, you’d need something about double the energy that is allegedly avaible for doubling CO2 for the additional evaporation.

  17. MiCro says:

    The other point is, without extra water to multiply the warming of CO2, CO2 alone doesn’t come close to cause enough heating to match measurements. As the paper said, approximately the correct amount of water is falling Australia, but further to the south (this did not apply to Africa or Chile, but that is possibly a measurement issue ie maybe the rain is falling into the ocean). So at least in Australia there’s no indication of the excess water required to create CO2 warming.

  18. John Trigge (in Oz) says:

    From the rainfall graphs available from the Oz BOM (http://reg.bom.gov.au/cgi-bin/climate/change/timeseries.cgi?graph=rain&area=seaus&season=0112&ave_yr=0), it appears there was an increase in overall rainfall from 1900 – 1970 whilst 1970 onwards shows a decline.
    Whilst the study concentrated on our Autumn rainfall, perhaps taking into account ALL available data might be useful to identify causes, particularly cyclic ones.

  19. Dale says:

    They could’ve saved time and money and just asked any Melbournian. We could’ve told them we observed this change. During the 80’s Melbourne’s weather would track in a pretty much Easterly direction from the Great Australian Bight, then in the 90’s our weather would track South-East across Australia bringing hotter drier weather. Then during the 00’s the weather tracks moved further South so now our weather tracks North-East from the direction of Antarctica (reversal occurred about 2008).

    You can physically notice the difference as we USED to know we’d have the same weather as Perth 3 days later (Adelaide got it 2 days later). Then we had to start looking at the Western Australia Central Coast in the 90’s. Now we look at what comes out of the Southern Ocean. These last 3-4 years have been cold and wet as a result.

  20. JP says:

    The Southwest US can see this intensification of the hydrologic cycle evertime the Hadely Cell expands into the Desert Southwest during the summer. Heavy thunderstorms, flash floods, and tropical cyclones hitting Baja follow in the wake of this expansion. Downstream, across the Lee of the Rockies, there are drought conditions; but, this is induced by geography more than anything else.

  21. Rosco says:

    Eastern Australia has just experienced 3 of the wettest years in more than a decade including 2012 which was the wettest since the 1974 flood year.

    CSIRO abandoned science years ago and now produce propaganda for sale.

  22. Couple of things.
    Water vapour ‘feedback’…eh?
    So these clowns claim to have detected/measured and fixed a ‘stable’ rate of evaporation from the tropical OCEANS!!! and then proceed to claim that they have detected/measured a deviance from this rate which they assign to ‘greenhouse gases’. Wow.
    Blind Freddy (he’s the politically incorrect, dumb Australian who is gifted with seeing the bleeding obvious)…yes Blind Freddy himself could point out that there are major shifts in SSTs in the vicinity of this vast continent which totally and directly affect the rainfall wildly different climate areas.
    For instance right now, to the north of Australia the SSTs are unusually cool and the evaporation rates subsequently lower, hence the dry spring we have been having on the northern part of the east coast.
    Second thing.
    Blind Freddy could also point to the vast swathes of rain falling in the Pacific Ocean to the East of Australia where of course it is not measured by the droughtist, angst ridden CSIRO but goes on it’s merry way into the ocean currents.
    The CSIRO really is in the grip of CO2 Warmism, it rides the vagaries of the Australian Climate (land of droughts and floods) like a surfer. It is only interested in funding.

  23. Rosco says:

    Oh – and included in that devastating 1997-2009 millenium drought were the 2001 floods of northern NSW and South East Queensland – road transport severly disrupted due to flooding.

    Eastern Australia has seen way above average rainfall since the drought broke in Spring 2009 – especially northern NSW and SE Queensland.

    Wivenhoe dam in SE Queensland went from <15 % in Spring 2009 to over 65 % after the 09/10 wet season (Summer here) to 199% in January 2011 where it nearly created an even worse flood disaster because politicians listened to climate scientists claiming it would never rain again and refused to lower what is essentially a flood control dam – then tried to blame the engineers for the politicians stupidity in believing the lie that it would never rain again.

    January to June 2012 was the wettest six months since 1974 – despite no major flood event like 2011.

    Every major wet season in my life has coincided with LaNina conditions in Eastern Australia.

    After 2 major wet years I am hoping that the ENSO meter stays in neutral territory and we have a more normal summer – but I wouldn't bet on it though.

  24. Dale says:

    Rosco:
    The paper only takes into consideration up to 2009, just after the Hadley Cell started moving north again. As I noted above, since 2008 Melbournians have started looking at what weather is coming to us from the Southern Ocean instead of what’s coming across WA.

  25. Annie says:

    Dale @ 1:01 pm:

    Yes, in Melbourne a few years ago you could always rely on getting a dose of Perth’s weather 3 days later. Not so more recently.

  26. William says:

    What’s the point? As Lindzen has shown. all of the models have feedback from water vapor which is just opposite to the feedback operating in nature. If the models are inherently unreliable, how they change with tweaks of individual model parameters (whether it be in relation to CO2 or water vapor) is irrelevant.

  27. old construction worker says:

    “So if positive water vapor feedback were occurring, based on this idea, we’d see an “intensification of the hydrologic cycle”, i.e. more rainfall, runoff, and evaporation. That would apply to the southern hemisphere continents too.”

    The only “positive water vapor feedback” or “intensification of the hydrologic cycle” only happen in the “Gore Effect”.

  28. MonktonofOz says:

    Dear Mr CSIRO, We live in country SE Oz and though I don’t know about the science I can tell you our water tanks are full. Perhaps you could risk leaving your laboratory and get your “model” to stick its head into the tank to check?

  29. kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:

    Once again the task shall fall to CSIRO to show to Australia and the world the proven damages wrought by Anthropogenic Climate Change. The models are in agreement, now backed by real world confirmed evidence. There is only one solution to save Australia from the horrendous ravaging drought to come.

    Build more desalinization plants.

    Hopefully CSIRO will be able to bring about this certain cure for ACC before the Great Barrier Reef is irrevocably destroyed beyond any hope of recovery, again.

  30. X Anomaly says:

    More or less, here is whats being spoken of:

    http://www.bom.gov.au/cgi-bin/climate/change/timeseries.cgi?graph=high_density&area=sth&season=0305&ave_yr=0

    Looks like quite a signal, although it is lacking the last 3 years worth of SH autumn data (including this autumn). That’s interesting because there has been plenty of autumn rain during the last three years:

    http://www.bom.gov.au/cgi-bin/climate/change/timeseries.cgi?graph=rranom&area=seaus&season=0305&ave_yr=0

    with 2010, 2011, and 2012 autumn rainfall anomaly being + 18, 0, and 41 mm respectively.

    But that does fit the anthropogenic alarmist dogma, which is why the omit the month of march, because as you can see here (I know, its s good one):

    http://www.bom.gov.au/cgi-bin/climate/change/timeseries.cgi?graph=rranom&area=seaus&season=03&ave_yr=0

    It’s been bucketing down in march!!!, resulting in record flooding. In fact, the 2012 march rainfall for south eastern Australia was the HIGHEST on record.

    Now, for the alarmist at heart, this is not a problem, since it can be argued that the recent March anomalies where due to unseasonal tropical rainfall, and that of course can be blamed away on global warming.

    One problem though, do they really expect us to believe they know the source of all the March rainfall events since 1900? I mean seriously, who the f@@k are these people!

    Tropical, extra tropical, sub polar, etc…? You only have that data since the 1980’s, which is why I’m still looking for that radial button which diverts funding from these cargo cult hacks.

  31. Mark says:

    Rosco, Nelson, and others have got that right. CSIRO “science”: By the government, for the government. The propaganda that CSIRO churns out, at the public’s expense, is no more reliable than its models. They don’t even have the right balance of energy.

    http://www.climatedepot.com/a/17674/Climate-scientist-Dr-Murry-Salby-explains-why-manmade-CO2-does-not-control-climate

    Who cares how one of their internal cogs affects another? Yet, those models are the excuse for building expensive but pointless desalination plants, which have inflated water costs, and our big new tax burden, through which power bills have jumped dramatically.

    This must be the payoff of “Trickle Down Government”.

  32. clipe says:

    Oxygen isotopes in tree rings are a good proxy for Amazon precipitation and El Niño-Southern Oscillation variability</code?

    http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2012/09/27/1205977109

  33. clipe says:

    Oxygen isotopes in tree rings are a good proxy for Amazon precipitation and El Niño-Southern Oscillation variability

    http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2012/09/27/1205977109

  34. anthonyvioli says:

    Most people are missing the whole point. Is it supposed to be raining more from positive feedback, or less? Are they just changing theories as they go along? First it was droughts, but that didnt work. Then the floods came and that went out the window. Now its been dry in Perth during Autumn and its the Hadley cell.

    Why wouldnt you look at this instead, since the warm PDO the Southern Annular mode has been predominately positive.

    http://www.lasg.ac.cn/staff/ljp/data-NAM-SAM-NAO/SAM(AAO).htm

    Now we are in the Cold PDO, lets see if it responds for the next 30 years the other way. The thing to come out of it is no one knows for sure. They are throwing theories around left right and centre in the hope one is right.

  35. dp says:

    REPLY: The story is that none of you supposed climate experts have any real clue of how it all works, nor does anybody for that matter, and this is just another example of the uncertainties of a science in its infancy. Reminds me of “knobs”. A few years ago they were predicting “permanent drought” for Australia, now its floods. Sure whatever. See the update above. See also Dr. Tim Ball’s comment. – Anthony

    Ok – this I can understand. There are a lot of people that are big on decrying the well-understood CO2 heating (as a result of doubling blah blah blah) but can’t begin to get past the 1.2ºC limit of that doubling. Meaning they ignore that a lot of knock-on forcings absolutely have to happen for global warming to be a bother and nobody knows if these forcings are net positive or net negative.

    But – according to Planet Earth, that big ball under our feet, and the output created by defective but never the less the very best climate models available, the forcings are not positive else there would not be a growing divergence between projected and observed temperatures.

    You will find not shortage of experts who will decry the direct warming of CO2 (which is unimportant and would have happened even without human intervention given the natural growth of CO2) but who cannot close the deal by showing the process by which forcings finish the job CO2 starts (Mosher, for example).

  36. RoHa says:

    Seeing the name “Thatcher” attached to anything connected with climate gives me the shivers.

    But I’m sure this stuff is consistent with the AGW conjecture. Everything, no matter what, is.

  37. ericgrimsrud says:

    To Dp,

    I have had a go around before with the person named richardscourtney who scolded you above for seriously considering my comment. FYI, in that go around, I learned that he has no demonstratable background in science, in general, and certainly no record of contribution to climate science. In addition, when drawn into a discussion of the simplest aspect of climate science, I found that he cried foul and ran for cover, asking the moderator to ban me instead of him from participation in WUWT. Yet he is encourage to pontificate very regularly at WUWT for reason I do not know. It must have something to do with the clever British put downs that litter his comments. While that are they carry no content and come from nowhere scientific.

    On the other hand, I have a very long record of accomplishment in the field of atmospheric science that was been domonstated and can be inspected at ericgrimsrud.com. Therefore, there is a distinct possiblity that you might just happen to be in better company when you also noted that the problem I immediately had with the title of this post.

    Cheers to you and, of course, his excellency, Sir Richardcourney, whoever you are.

  38. Steve Short says:

    That’s odd! I am a PhD geoscientist directing a small consultancy in SE Australia specializing for the last 15 years in surface and shallow groundwater management and impact assessment for the mining industry. There is a frequent call for us to construct Cumulative Monthly Rainfall Residual Plots at a wide range of long term rainfall monitoring stations – most BOM (Bureau of Meteorology) stations. We do this in order to better interpret shallow groundwater level trends, small catchment productivity trends etc. above or in proximity to underground mining (which produces mine subsidence). We typically use long term monthly records going back to 1970 – 1980 to establsihed long term mean monthly rainfalls.

    In actual fact, in recent years, following the drying trend of the 2001 – 2006 Millenium Drought (which BTW was a drying trend that following an even longer wetting trend) monthly rainfalls (in SE Australia) have moved more or less back into proximity e.g. within one standard deviation, to the long term means of the 1970/1980 – 2011, 30 – 40 year period. There is no evidence of a significant drying relative to the long term means of the last 30 – 40 years except at a very few locations.

  39. Fred Love says:

    Sadly, today’s C(anti-)SIRO creates mountains out of statistical molehills. Try a full set of data from 100+ years, eg., Condobolin in the wheat belt. Total annual rainfall trend (1890 to 1911) is upward and autumn rainfall shows no trend at all. Even from 1970- there is no “drying-out” if 2008-11 is included. These people are shameless propagandists, not scientists.

  40. John Brookes says:

    As a resident of Perth, Western Australia, it has seemed to me that these days we get rain from warm tropical moist air more frequently than we used to, and rain from southern cold fronts less frequently.
    So I’d agree that the weather patterns seem to be moving south, away from the equator.

  41. tty says:

    These people badly need to read up on world climates:
    “semi-arid regions, including southern-coastal Chile ”
    Southern coastal Chile is one of the wettest places in the World. Presumable they are thinking of northern coastal Chile, which is indeed arid.

  42. spartacusisfree says:

    There can be no GHG-AGW because GHG thermal emission from the atmosphere annihilates that band emission from the Earth’s surface.

    The physics is very simple: the net UP IR in any wavelength interval at the surface is the vector sum of the Poynting vectors arriving at that point. This is required by Poynting’s Theorem, the most basic axiom derived from Maxwell’s Equations.

    Engineers like me calculate this from the difference of the S-B emission from the bodies in radiative equilibrium. So every GHG atmospheric thermal emission band reduces the equivalent emission from the surface. The Aarhenius GHG blanket is not possible and anyone who believes in it betrays their lack of basic physics’ knowledge.

    The addition of ‘back radiation’ to net UP IR in the Trenberth ‘Energy Budget’ recreates the UP Poynting vector, most of which can do no thermodynamic work.

    The real GHE is mostly the result of the rise in temperature needed to overcome reduced surface emissivity. Check this argument with any physics’ professional and they will confirm I am right.

  43. richardscourtney says:

    ericgrimsrud:

    At October 4, 2012 at 8:16 pm you claim

    On the other hand, I have a very long record of accomplishment in the field of atmospheric science that was been domonstated (sic) and can be inspected at ericgrimsrud.com.

    Allow me to save people the time of conducting that “inspection” by listing your entire
    very long record of accomplishment in the field of atmospheric science.
    1.
    Read SKS.
    2.
    Wrote an ebook that gets almost everything wrong.
    3.
    Paid to publish the ebook at your own expense.
    4.
    Visited WUWT and made a fool of yourself in various ways; e.g. called davidmhoffer and myself “feces” for pointing out your mistakes.
    5.
    At October 4, 2012 at 8:16 pm on this thread claimed to have a very long record of accomplishment in the field of atmospheric science.

    Richard

  44. Another nail in the GHG theory. Keep them coming.
    Increased water vapour in the atmosphere will adsorb more SIR and emit more LIR to cause more evapouration etc.

  45. Patrick says:

    Oh dear! More computer simulated “science” from the CSIR “Cane Toads are good” O. Along with my sides, my Playtex 24 girdle is showing signs of wear from laughter!

  46. wayne Job says:

    “External forcings such as green house gases”. What sort of statement is that! External to what? The world, are these CO2 molecules attenuated out in space and emitting evil forcings at the Earth. My understanding of a forcing is the gaining of entry through a door by breaking it down.

    Using real speak it could be interpreted as “external forces such as the sun”
    That however may lead to a lesser career path and pay cheque. These people really need to just do the science and stop the BS.

  47. D Böehm says:

    ericgrimsrud says:

    “I learned that (Richard Courtney) has no demonstratable background in science, in general, and certainly no record of contribution to climate science.”

    Where did you “learn” that? If I am not mistaken, Mr Courtney is a published, peer reviewed author.

    You may post your apology here.

  48. Bill Illis says:

    Here is the current water vapour levels back to 1948 and the IPCC water vapour forecast which will be in AR5 going out to the year 2100.

    http://s19.postimage.org/pk8wtzxqr/WV_IPCC_AR5_Forecast_2100.png

    And then more of a close-up going out to just 2020 where we can also see that the ENSO is the dominant control mechanism of global water vapour levels (which lag behind it by 3 months – this is one of the most important climate drivers there is, global water vapour levels – this relationship is taken advantage of by the climate science community since any paper dealing with water vapour levels deliberately starts their analysis in a La Nina and ends in an El Nino so they can show an increase in water vapour levels – they should instead be trying to understand why the ENSO is so dominant here and what the implications of that are.)

    We can also see that the “hindcast” of IPCC AR5 which should be using actual observational data up to about 2010 is already way off of the actual values. IPCC AR5 has water vapour levels up by 5.4% already and have it increasing by 23.5% by 2100 (similar to the theory that water vapour should increase by about 7.0% per 1.0C increase in temperatures – so they have just built this theory directly into the models – it is needed to get to 3.0C per doubling – perhaps that is why the ENSO relationship is so downplayed – because it would throw a wrench into 3.0C per doubling if the ENSO continues its historic pattern of no trend over the long-term.)

    The theory is missing something very important here.

    http://s19.postimage.org/rnjc1nxjn/WV_IPCC_AR5_Forecast_ENSO_Sept2012.png

  49. ericgrimsrud says:

    to D Böehm,

    You can see my full resume including over 100 research papers published in the top journals over a period of 40 years along with my educational background prior to that on my website, ericgrimsrud.com. My experiences in atmosphere sciences go back to 1974 when I made rhe first quanitative determinations of the two most abundant chlorine containing compounds in the background atmosphere, CFC-12 and methyl chloride (See Grimsrud and Rasmussen, Atmos. Sci. 1975). This work was done the same year, 1974, as the theory of stratospheric ozone depletion was proposed by Rowland and Malino. For the following 29 years at Montana state, my research group continued to develop new methods of trace analysis, often resulting in first detections of myriad other trace components of the atmosphere (again see resume) including numerous trace level greenhouse gases.

    Now concerning the scientific record of Mr. Richards Courtney, where is the evidence of that? In the previous thread he refers to above, I repeated asked him the same question and received no response to those requests. I asked because he seemed to me to be nothing more than a BSer whose ignorance of the basics became apparent when discussing even the very basic simple aspects of the greenhouse effect. (go look back at the long thread concerning Senator Inhofe.

    So you suppose that he is simply to shy to provide the public such a resume – as all other real scientists do when holding forth on the important issue of climate change. What Mr. RC is very good at is undermining the input and credibility of real scientists who comment on WUWT and then hiding behind claims of political correctness when any of them counter attack.

    I’ll look forward to the results of your own search for Mr. Richards Courtney’s credentials and remember that you suggested that “Mr Courtney is a published, peer reviewed author”. Personal letters to His Majestry’s Government or comments on open web sites, for exampe, will not do.

  50. D Böehm says:

    ericgrimsrud,

    Considering that most everything you believe has been falsified, your ad-hom insistence that anyone with a scientific point of view must be a member of the AGW priesthood is ridiculous.

    Mr Courtney is a peer reviewed climate author, and also a peer reviewer. Your false statement is that “he has no demonstratable background in science, in general, and certainly no record of contribution to climate science” is provably wrong.

    Obviously you are wrong. It took only a minute to find that reference to Mr Courtney’s peer reviewed publication. There may be more, but one example falsifies your derogatory statement.

    It is not my ox being gored, so I am not concerned about your ignorance. But you do owe Mr Courtney an apology for your baseless ad hominem attack. A stand-up guy would admit it when he is shown to be wrong. We will now see if you possess any character, or if you instead continue to argue the man instead of the science.

  51. Ken Gregory says:

    Bill Illis October 5, 2012 at 6:13 am
    provides a link to an interesting comparison of the AR5 total precipitable water vapour forecast and hindcast to the observations. The modelers apparently make no attempt to match the historical record.

    Changes to water vapour in the upper atmosphere above the clouds have a much greater effect on out-going radiation than changes in water vapour near the surface. There is so much water vapour near the surface that it absorbs most of the upward radiation from the surface except in the “window” region of the spectrum where water vapour has very little effect. Heat transported by convection and evapo-transpiration to the upper atmosphere can escape as radiation only where the amount of water vapour is small. Both radiosonde and satellite measurements show declining water vapour in the upper atmosphere, just where it has the greatest effect on climate. Simulations show an absolute change of water vapour in an atmospheric layer from the 300 mb to the 400 mb level has 30 times the effect on out-going longwave radiation as the same change near the surface. So the total water vapour column trends are a minor part of the story. Changes in the upper atmosphere is much more important.

    Here is a graph water vapour specific humidity versus CO2 content in the tropics upper atmosphere.
    http://www.friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/FOS%20Essay/SH400TropicsVsCO2.jpg
    The water vapour content shows a downward trend with R2 of 0.71. CO2 replaces water vapour as a greenhouse gas in the upper atmosphere.

    The graph of relative humidity by layer versus time from the NOAA data is
    http://www.friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/FOS%20Essay/GlobalRelativeHumidity300_700mb.jpg

    The NASA water vapour project (NVAP) uses multiple satellite sensors to create a standard climate dataset to measure long-term variability of global water vapour. The satellite based water vapour content in the 300 to 500 mbar pressure range (about 6 to 9 km altitude) is shown here:
    http://www.friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/FOS%20Essay/NVAP_500-300_WV.jpg

    I requested the data by atmosphere layer by email. Janice L. Bytheway of the NVAP-M Team, Colorado State University replied 24/07/2012 12:18 PM,
    “As for your interest in the trends at the upper versus lower levels of the atmosphere, we unfortunately don’t have the staff or funding to provide subsets of the data at this time. This feature should be provided in about 6 months after the NASA Langley ASDC has taken stewardship of the data.”

    The total column amount is the sum of the layers, but they can’t provide the data by layer. Very strange!

  52. eric1skeptic says:

    ericgrimsrud, no wonder you keep changing the topic to CFCs. Yet even in your area of expertise you are prone to spouting nonsense like “CFC’s were completely destroying ALL stratospheric ozone over the continent of Antarctica every Springtime.” see http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/09/28/the-president-decides-to-stick-with-climatism/#comment-1094768

    There are at least two problems with your thinking and approach. First you are prone to stating exaggerations. You later correct and said “near zero”. But you never acknowledged the fact that natural processes could also bring stratospheric ozone down to near zero and CFCs simply made that natural occurrence worse. Your inexactitude is distressing for someone who supposedly taught science to students who probably don’t know any better and end up poorly trained.

    Second, you seem to be equating your knowledge of CFCs with an understanding of greenhouse gas warming. But above you demonstrate ignorance of weather when you state (at the beginning of this thread): “But the amount of water in (evaporation) still will equal the amount of water out (condensation. Thus, in very general terms, on the surface of the Earth dry places will tend to get drier and wet places will tend to get wetter”

    It is possible that wet places will get wetter due to increased water cycle. It is even possible but less likely that drier places will get drier due to weather pattern changes. But the latter is *not* because of the balance of evaporation and condensation as you claim. The latter can only happen due to (speculated) changes in circulation such as enlargement of the Hadley cells.

    In short your expertise in some atmospheric science field does not apply to the discussion in this thread and most threads on this site. It’s mildly amusing and a little sad that you think it does and keep posting your nonsense.

  53. ericgrimsrud says:

    To D Böehm,

    Very good!! You managed to find a publication with Sir Richards Courtney’s name on it. I guess he was too shy after all to produce evidence of his scientific background when repeatedly asked to do so.

    Concerning who are “stand up guys”, however, you should read some of your friend’s mindless smears of me on this and the previous Inhofe treat and see for yourself if due respect was demonstrated by him. For example, read his “summary” of my contributions to science that he posted on this threat above and then look them up yourself at ericgrimsrud.com.

    Since I suspect that your admonitions for showing proper respect at WUWT will go only one way in this case, I don’t expect to hear from you on that one. That is, it is OK for Sir Richard to post mindless smears but not OK for the recipent of those smears to respond in kind.

    During my last 5 years of interacting with the public on the subject of AGW, my feces detector for sensing pseudo science has become increasingly expericenced and I reserve the right to hold my own opinions of the pseudo scientist thereby dedected that are endeavoring to make the lives of my greadchildren even more difficult than we already know they will be. Let Sir RC have his 30 pieces of gold for services rendered to the fossil fuel industries, but apologize to him? You much be kidding !!

  54. richardscourtney says:

    ericgrimsrud:

    Among other falsehoods about me which ytou have asserted in this thread at October 5, 2012 at 8:57 am you write

    What Mr. RC is very good at is undermining the input and credibility of real scientists who comment on WUWT and then hiding behind claims of political correctness when any of them counter attack.

    Actually, I point out the nonsense of people – including you – who pretend to present knowledge which they do not have, and I welcome their response because it encourages them to reveal the nature of their pretensions.

    I get snipped on WUWT because of my lack of “political correctness”.

    You are trivial, but a NASA GISS ‘climate scientist’ such as Perlw1tz is not. A currently ongoing example of my encouraging him to display his ‘true colours’ can be read in the WUWT thread at
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/09/28/dr-leif-svalgaard-on-the-new-scientist-solar-max-story/
    (In checking this link I notice that he has still not learned the First Rule Of Holes so I shall return to that thread).

    I don’t need to justify my posts because people can judge my contributions for themselves, as they can judge your contributions.

    Richard

  55. eric1skeptic says:

    ericgrimsrud, even though Richard Courtney warned me, I bought your book at Amazon ($3.99) so I could see for myself what was in it. Already you mislead : “…detrimental effects of compounds which have extremely long lifetimes (such as the CFC’s and carbon dioxide) will persist for several centuries even after their man-caused emissions are entirely stopped.”

    Some effects may persist but the compounds do not. As you well know, CFCs break down immediately in the upper atmosphere upon exposure to UV. The chlorine remains, so perhaps you meant to say the chlorine has a long lifetime. The CFCs do not. As for CO2, it will be absorbed into the ocean at the same rate that it is today and therefore drop half way back to preindustrial in less than 40 years. The “lifetime” of CO2 in the atmosphere would be “extremely” long were it not for the ocean absorbing lots of it. Your answer in the other thread was wrong, namely that if we stopped emitting the ocean would start to off gas. No, it would not, it would keep absorbing the excess.

  56. ericgrimsrud says:

    D Boehm,

    There you have one answer straight from a pseudo scientistist’s mouth. Sir RC said, “I don’t need to justify my posts because people can judge my contributions for themselves”.

    I hope this statement also applies to me with the additional understanding that I am alway willing and pleased to explore any details of the science that I have related with any interested party. In my first comment at the very top of this thread I did just that and no more – until Sir Richardscourtney showed up, starting with a personal insult to me. That man will not stick to scinence. When losing on the science front, he switches to personal insults. When treated in kind by the person he insults, he then claims violations of political correctness. Yes to me, he does seem to be both a charlatan and a wimp who does a great disservice to public discussions of AGW. But as the man himself says, “people can judge my contributions for themselves”. My own goal at ericgrimsrud.com is to help the public learn the basic science to that they can do just that.

  57. D Böehm says:

    ericgrimsrud,

    You stated categorically that Richard Courtney “has no demonstratable background in science, in general, and certainly no record of contribution to climate science”.

    I proved you are wrong. Mr Courtney has demonstrated a more learned science background than most. He is a peer reviewed climate author.

    You owe Richard an apology. Instead, you exhibit the shabby and unprofessional qualities we have come to expect from the climate alarmist crowd. Despicable. Now readers can judge your lack of character for themselves.

  58. richardscourtney says:

    Friends:

    I wish to make clear that one of the lies by Eric Grimsrud is his repeated assertion that I have a knighthood. I do not.

    Richard

  59. eric1skeptic says:

    More from the Grimsrud book: “First the relatively thin surface layers of the ocean mix exceedingly slowly with the colder depths beneath them, and many hundreds of years are required for the complete mixing to occur throughout the oceans. Therefore the surface layers become saturated relatively quickly and absorb much less CO2 than they would if the vertical mixing of the oceans was relatively fast.”

    Your writing reminds me of certain politicians who like to pontificate to the camera with hand wavy cliches instead of concise and precise facts. Your adjective “exceedingly” is simply exaggeration. Your implication that complete mixing is required is wrong. Your statement about saturation is exceedingly simple-minded designed to appeal to ignorant individuals and keep them ignorant.

    The fact is that the each year the oceans as a whole absorb at least 1/80th of the total CO2 that we have added to the atmosphere. That’s why if we stopped producing CO2 the levels in the atmosphere would drop half way back to preindustrial levels in less than 40 years. That means there is more than enough mixing between the surface layers and deep ocean to do that.

    Either you know this fact and withheld it from your readers, or you didn’t know and you should not have written such a book from your poor state of knowledge.

  60. ericgrimsrud says:

    to D Boehm,

    Evidently you did not read Sir RC’s comments on this post, as I suggested you should – such as the one he posted at 1:07. With respect to acceptable decorum, you seem to have one set of standards for your friends and another for the “climate alarmist crowd”, as you can American scientists.

    Instead, you return here to nitpick on the point that I had not noticed that SirRC had actually managed to get his name on one scientific paper in the past – and I did admit that I missed that detail – while am still waiting for his full resume to be made available to the public – as I and all other scientists have.

    I don’t know who you are either of course, Mr. Boehm (resume please!), but from our breif interactions here, I am inclined to think that it is you who is “despicable”. And for good measure, let me add that I’ll bet my Dad is stronger than your Dad. So there!! And if you call me despicable again, I’ll look into the rumors concerning the footware favored by your grandmother !!

    (Note to others: toying with the self-righteous is so much fun!!)

  61. Eric

    With your extensive knowledge of the Ozone Layer perhaps you can answer a question that has defeated both Cambridge University and the Max Planck Institute.

    ‘How do we know the ozone hole has’nt always been there, prior to the ability of instruments to detect it in the 1950’s?’ Thank you

    Tonyb

  62. eric1skeptic says:

    More ignorance from the Grimsrud book: ” In addition, during the first half of the twentieth century, a gradual increase in the solar intensity of about 0.1 percent was observed. While the change might have contributed to a small increase in temperature over that fifty-year period, it would have had no effect after 1950.”

    Wrong in several ways. Solar intensity rose through 1950, but then stayed historically high fully into the 1980’s and only recently decreased drastically. More importantly solar radiation heats the ocean more than the atmosphere and (along with the warming from increased CO2) is lagged in reaching the atmosphere. So the atmospheric warming would clearly not stop in 1950 as you state. My conclusion is the same as Richard Courtney’s, you cribbed this information from SkepSci or a related site but you do not understand it. At the very least you should have read through the commentary below the “myth” articles presented there because often people will point out the flaws.

  63. richardscourtney says:

    eric1skeptic:

    I write to provide you with a warning.

    You are fast approaching the point where Grimsrud proclaims to the world that you are “feces” in the pay of “the fossil fuel industry”.

    Richard

  64. ericgrimsrud says:

    [Snip. Do not refer to scientific skeptics as "deniers" here. You have been warned several times. This is strike two. — mod.]

  65. ericgrimsrud says:

    Eric1sceptic,

    I just read Sir RC’s last note to you. Please know that I have no reason or intention to call you any such names. I reserve such names for those who have clearly shown they deserve them. You are not in Sir RC’s “class” so to speak. That is, one who pretends to be someone he is not and uses that pretense to fool the lay public. We used to call such people “snake oil salesmen” but the coarser term he claims I have assigned to him will do just a well.

  66. silver price says:

    The most obvious feature that this model captures qualitatively is the subtropical dry zones. Air parcels in these driest areas have either been carried down and warmed due to compression by the mean subtropical subsidence after losing most of their water in upward motion near the equator — or they have traveled down the midlatitude isentropic surfaces after having condensed most of their water during an earlier poleward and upward excursion. (The point of this paper was to think about how to quantify the relative importance of these two classes of trajectories.) Differences with the comprehensive models on the left are due in part to the absence of realistic boundary layer mixing spreading the evaporated water upwards, the absence of a seasonal cycle and monsoons that move subtropical dry zones and wash out the minima in the annual mean figure shown on the left, and the distortion of the vertical structure of the outflow from the tropical rising motion. (In the dry model, this outflow is spread over a broad layer of the troposphere, whereas in more realistic models with moist convection this outflow is confined more sharply to a layer near 200mb, causing the dry zone to be displaced upwards compared to the passive water model.) The bottom line is just that the atmospheric flow is what prevents this model atmosphere from becoming saturated everywhere – by wringing water out of parcels of rising/cooling air and then bringing these parcels back down so their relative humidity drops as they warm.

  67. ericgrimsrud says:

    To climatereason,

    Time here for a quick response. The reason we believe this is because the British measurement of the total ozone content in the column above their facitily on the Antarctic stared back in the 50s, I believe, when those measurement undoubtedly showed a close to natural ozone lever. Then in the 70’s and 80’s a distinct and severe decrease was noted to occur in the springtime. It was only then in about 1985 that high elevation aircraft began to fly though the region and determine where exactly the ozone loss was occurring. So it was the simpler ground level measurments from the 50’s to the present that suggest that the present condition constitutes a change from the past.

    If you can’t find those ground level O3 measurements, let me know and I’ll point you to them later, as time allows.

  68. ericgrimsrud says:

    eric1skeptic,

    You comments concerning the measured intensity of the Sun at the Earth’s location will be easy to check out. Such measurement have been made since about 1850, as I recall. My statement was made by looking at those measurements and I have a graph in from of me that suggest what I said in my book. When I get back (need to run at the moment) I will retrieve another graph from source on the internet. Why don’t you do the same and refer me to your information souce. Then we will see if you are just nitpicking or talking about something important.

    By the way, have you learned yet for yourself that the CFC molecules are not quicky restroyed. If not get a sample from your backyard and bring it into your neighborhood analysis store. They will tell you that your samle contains about 550 pptril CF2Cl2 – essentially the same as your backyard had twenty years ago just before the use of the compound was discontinued.

  69. richardscourtney says:

    ericgrimsrud:

    At October 5, 2012 at 1:44 pm you say

    I reserve such names for those who have clearly shown they deserve them. You are not in Sir RC’s “class” so to speak. That is, one who pretends to be someone he is not and uses that pretense to fool the lay public.

    That is demonstrably untrue because if it were true then you would apply those names to yourself.

    Richard

    PS Please inform who Sir RC is. Would that be the founder of RealClimate?

  70. richardscourtney says:

    eric1skeptic:

    Although Eric Grimsrud knows nothing (and understands less than nothing) about climate science, he claims authority on CFCs and ozone depletion.

    At October 5, 2012 at 2:17 pm he says to you

    By the way, have you learned yet for yourself that the CFC molecules are not quicky restroyed (sic). If not get a sample from your backyard and bring it into your neighborhood analysis store. They will tell you that your samle contains about 550 pptril CF2Cl2 – essentially the same as your backyard had twenty years ago just before the use of the compound was discontinued.

    This is yet another case of Grimsrud either not knowing what he is talking about (which is very probable) or his being willfully misleading.

    What happens to CFCs in the lower atmosphere is not relevant to your point that they are rapidly broken down in the stratosphere where the ozone layer exists. For example,the ‘Ozone Layer Protection Glossary’ of the US Environmental Protection Agency says at
    http://www.epa.gov/ozone/defns.html at

    Chlorofluorocarbon (CFC): a compound consisting of chlorine, fluorine, and carbon

    CFCs are very stable in the troposphere. They move to the stratosphere and are broken down by strong ultraviolet (UV) light, where they release chlorine atoms that then deplete the ozone layer. CFCs are commonly used as refrigerants, solvents, and foam blowing agents. The most common CFCs are CFC-11, CFC-12, CFC-113, CFC-114, and CFC-115. The ozone depletion potential (ODP) for each CFC is, respectively, 1, 1, 0.8, 1, and 0.6. A table of all ozone-depleting substances shows their ODPs, global warming potentials (GWPs), and CAS numbers. CFCs are numbered according to a standard scheme.

    If CFCs don’t reach the stratosphere then they cannot affect the ozone layer, and if they do reach the stratosphere they break down so their chlorine disrupts ozone. But Grimsrud says
    (a) CFCs have not depleted at ground level since they were banned 20 years ago
    but
    (b) CFCs have destroyed the ozone layer over that time.

    I await Grimsrud’s explanation of this magical ability of CFCs to be destroyed but continue to exist. On the basis of previous experience, I anticipate that his explanation will consist solely of foul-mouthed personal abuse at me for pointing out this inconsistency in his assertions.

    Richard

  71. ericgrimsrud says:

    Eric1sceptic:

    I have found a graph showing the solar irradiance from 1850 to 2003. You can see it at colli239.fts.educ.msu.edu/2003/12/31/solar-activity-2003/ and is provided by the Met Office of Great Britian. My intent was mainly to show how solar intensity has been essentially constant along with the small (less than 1 watt/m2) 11-year cycle superimposed on that cycle. As to your suggestion that the additional increase of about 1 watt/m2 observed before 1950 has caused recent temperature increases, I’ll leave you to explain and provide support for that one.

  72. bushbunny says:

    SE Australia, are they including the red center and Great Victorian Desert, hmmm, DESERT!
    Perth has been short of water, but had floods not so long ago, in Australia it is drier following flooding! Since when has it been different, you tell me, certainly it is normal for Australia, as most people live within 50 miles of the coast as from their on, depending on altitude precipitation decreases, like in America. The whole point of water in Australia is much more crucial as the cities have failed sometimes to store enough water and have to put on water restrictions or build an expensive salt water conversion plant. Out in the rural areas the same, but also they sometimes depend on only dams, river water or reticulated water for animals. Rainwater tanks for domestic use.

  73. Crispin in Singapore's perpetual summer says:

    @joeldshore

    “The story is that none of you supposed climate experts have any real clue of how it all works, nor does anybody for that matter, and this is just another example of the uncertainties of a science in its infancy.”

    Something worth checking is if the lunar cycle of just under 19 years (precession of its orbit) has been considered in these models. There is a huge influence on the rainfall in the summer rainfall area of Southern Africa cause by the position of the moon. The leads to changing sea water temps and wind patterns that fluctuate is a clearly sinusodial cycle with the same period as the moon’s. For example, presently Southern Africa is at the wettest point of the cycle (2012) with extended summer rains, early spring rains and above average total precipitation.

    In 2021 when they are at the dry end of the cycle, the moon having heaved its tilted orbit to the ‘other side’ as it were, there will be a drought ‘of unprecendented magnitude’ like that last unprecedented one in 1983, 1964, 1945 etc. While there are significant inconsistencies because ‘it is weather’ in the pattern, the cycle period is well known and is used to make long term weather predictions. This year is a good one to plant 60,000 maize seeds per hectare, not 30,000, for example in the good rains areas.

    As the influence of this cycle is so large as to cause floods and droughts in a cycle (the winter rainfall area cycle is 10 years long) I can’t see it being over-run with the considerations in the paper above, above all, CO2’s influence. This ‘dry areas get drier and wet areas wetter’ looks like nonsense to me. There are good reasons to doubt the analysis and even if it were true, it is minor compared with the other known cycles and would be swamped to the point of undetectability, where it remains to this day.

  74. ericgrimsrud says:

    Please Mr. RichardsCourtney,

    Do you not know !!!!! that it takes a long time (several decades) for a CF2Cl2 molecule that happens to find itself tranported into the lower stratosphere to then diffuse high enough into the upper stratosphere where one of its C-Cl bonds will be ruptures by UV light.

    That is why the total effective half life of CF2Cl2 is about 100 years – nothing happens to it in the troposphere and it takes so long for any molecule emitted at the surface to find itself in the upper stratosphere.

    That is also why: YES, the CFC’s are being destroyed when they get to the upper stratosphere while that loss due to that process occurs so slowly that the background level to today is only slightly less than it was 20 years ago. So that is the simple and well known reason behind “Grimsrud’s explanation of this magical ability of CFCs to be destroyed but continue to exist.”

  75. bushbunny says:

    EricGrimsod, can you quote references to support your argument, rather than just attack the previous and renown writers, i.e., Prof. Tim Ball and Dr Richard Courtney. This is the problem with posters like you, you can’t provide any scholarly argument that justifies your comments. If you went to University you would not pass a first year unit in science or arts without quoting references to back up your argument.

  76. ericgrimsrud says:

    To the moderator: RichardsCourtney says “I await Grimsrud’s explanation of this magical ability of CFCs to be destroyed but continue to exist”. So if you will allow this one to go through (my previous one did not make it), I will provide that explanation. Warning: the answer might still prove to be quite embarrassing to RC because it profound simplicity. In any case, here is it:

    A given chemical reactant can “continue to exit” for a very long time if the rate of that reaction is sufficently process as to cause the concentration of that reagent to decrease very slowly.

    That is the case for stratospheric ozone depletion caused by the CFC’s. The rate is very slow in this case because it takes a several decades for any molecule to diffuse from the lower to the upper stratosphere – where UV intensity is large enough to break the C-Cl bonds of the CFCs. Thus, the CFC’s destroy ozone in the upper startosphere while the % loss of that CFC throughout the total atmosphere is very small over a given time period. Thus about half of CF2Cl2, for example, will disappear from our background atmosphere in about 100 years.

    I hope this lesson provided to Mr. RC is sufficient to answer Mr. RC’s question and does not prove to be too embarrassing WUWT, its moderator or to its frequent climate expert as to block its submission.

  77. Allan MacRae says:

    tty says: October 4, 2012 at 11:43 pm
    These people badly need to read up on world climates:
    “semi-arid regions, including southern-coastal Chile”
    Southern coastal Chile is one of the wettest places in the World. Presumable they are thinking of northern coastal Chile, which is indeed arid.

    Tty – I have not been to southern Chile, but can attest that northern coastal Chile is very dry – in fact the Atacama Desert is reputed to be the driest place on Earth. When I was there in the early 1990’s it supported NO apparent life – I mean nothing – probably not even bacteria and maybe not even viruses.

    Wiki:
    The Atacama Desert is commonly known as the driest place in the world.

    On another topic, Bill Illis and Ken Gregory have posted some very interesting information on this thread.

  78. D Böehm says:

    No matter how many times ericgrimsrud is proven to be wrong, he keeps posting his nonsense.

    grimsrud is to science as astrology is to astronomy.

  79. ericgrimsrud says:

    Dear Pushbunny, Who is this Prof Tim Ball that I have supposedly offended. I have never heard of the man, but when you see him, please offer my profound applogies. Concerning the inclusion references for everything we say on blogs like this, would you please show us how that is done by providing references to your numerous statements offered at 6:19 pm? Alternatively, here’s another idea that might work: if you see something that someone says and want to know the reference behind it, just ask the author to provided it. If he knows that which he talks, he should be able to provide.

  80. bushbunny says:

    Ericgrimsod,
    Look at Tim Ball’s comment *4 Oct 8.45 am* he puts references, and if you have more informed knowledge, that I doubt you do, as these gentlemen are specialists in their field and published on the subject of climate AGW change. Understand that anyone can make a comment without references to scholarly papers of course, but when you criticize published scholars you must make your point more than just saying they don’t know what they are talking about! And you do? That is ignorant opinionated bullshhhh in my book and you have to take a minus – 10 for the arguments you raise. Oh – by argument I refer to the tertiary scholarly terminology, means also hypothesis or thesis is an ‘argument’ not a set two of just name calling. Better men/women have tried to down grade intelligent and informed scholars on this site, that they fear contradicts their hypothesis if one can call it, or their green political agenda. You know most of us here have a green mentality and push for sustainability and against pollution, that occurs when you have too many people living in a small area and without sufficient resources to clean up after themselves, they pollute. But it doesn’t change the global climate. So when you graduate from high school and go to college or university, you will thank me for giving you that advice. Cheers from Oz. I don’t mind being labelled ‘pushbunny’. It’s funny isn’t it folks?

  81. ericgrimsrud says:

    Concerning D Böehm who shared with us at 7:09 pm,

    “No matter how many times ericgrimsrud is proven to be wrong, he keeps posting his nonsense.
    grimsrud is to science as astrology is to astronomy”.

    I am wondering why the moderator allows such silly, meaningless ditties through. So let me respond in kind to Mr. Boehm with “my dad is stronger than your dad” So there!

  82. bushbunny says:

    PS – Eric wot’s your name, you could have pulled me up on my comment 5 Oct – South East Australia Perth is SW Australia. My mistake, but we still have flooding in North NSW, as I live there. Sure the El Nina seems to have finished for a while, but usually our continent has a habit of drying up and then getting a surplus of rain. It is does not have a predictable precipitation pattern. And Eric the watt, there is really nothing d…n all we can do to effect it to our liking. Climate is what we ‘expect’ but weather is what we get, and weather and natural calaminities, earthquakes, volcanoes, tsunamis, hurricanes, typhoons is what is recorded as killing us in large numbers.

  83. D Böehm says:

    ericgrimsrud says:

    Richard Courtney “has no demonstratable background in science, in general, and certainly no record of contribution to climate science.”

    grimsrud is as wrong about that statement as he is wrong about every other statement. He is nothing but a wild-eyed alarmist troll.

    Retract your lie, grimsmud. Or everyone will see you as the alarmist propagandist that you are.

  84. kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:

    From ericgrimsrud on October 5, 2012 at 9:13 pm:

    Concerning D Böehm who shared with us at 7:09 pm,

    So let me respond in kind to Mr. Boehm with “my dad is stronger than your dad” So there!

    Who’s your daddy?
    ;-)——-===8

  85. bushbunny says:

    D.B.,

    Richard is asleep right now living in UK, and so is Tim in Canada, I presume.. I am sure they won’t lose any sleep over Eric the Red, (If you follow a well known TV series you’ll know whom I am referring) Eric might live in America, I’m not sure of the timelines around the globe, but in Oz it is 2.37 pm in NSW. And 3 hours behind in Western Australia. Oh dear, his/her timeline is the same as mine on this site, not in reality, he’s a Aussie or Kiwi?

  86. eric1skeptic says:

    Sorry I was out, I would have responded sooner. But we can see from the discussion above that ericgrimsrud doesn’t wish to enlighten lay people with facts. Instead his book states that the life of CFC is very long but fails to point out “YES, the CFC’s are being destroyed when they get to the upper stratosphere” He admits it here, but not in his book. His book is mostly propaganda for readers who don’t know any better.

    Regarding solar energy, you pointed out the graph at colli239.fts.educ.msu.edu/2003/12/31/solar-activity-2003/ which shows a clear rise up to 1950 and then it stays high. You ask “As to your suggestion that the additional increase of about 1 watt/m2 observed before 1950 has caused recent temperature increases, I’ll leave you to explain and provide support for that one.”

    The solar energy is mainly deposited in the ocean. Some immediately warms the atmosphere, some increases the water cycle (no net effect) and some is stored in the ocean. Net storage is mostly during La Nina, and subsequent release during El Nino (Bob Tisdale writes a lot on that in this blog). A lot of heat was stored in the 80’s, some released in the early 80’s El Nino, and a lot was released the 1997/8 El Nino. The satellite temperature record shows a nice step up at that El Nino and a good amount of that warming was stored solar. Of course there was also CO2 warming during that interval but obviously slow and steady. The recent dip in solar energy has yet to manifest as much cooling, there is still plenty of leftover heat in the ocean. Of course there is ongoing CO2 warming, but slow, steady and very modest.

  87. bushbunny says:

    What book has he/she written. CSIRO have a few problems with ex-staff who didn’t toe the line on climate change and actually there are a few challenging them on unfair dismissal charges.

  88. eric1skeptic says:

    Bushbunny, according to his book the other Eric lives in Montana. No, he didn’t says lives. He said “during the author’s recent existence in rural Montana” whatever that means. It is typical of the whole book, full of pontifications but woefully inadequate on specifics, much of it misleading.

  89. eric1skeptic says:

    Read some more of the book. Lots of Montana this and Montana that. So I supposed the author actually does live in Montana. It is somewhat surprising that he wishing for colder weather, but to each his own I guess. What is most noteworthy about this book is how thin the author’s knowledge is and how he repeats every cliche that the catastrophic alarmists have published on the internet especially the one about how AGW = CAGW.

    He claims in his book to have studied “skeptical” websites. I find no evidence of that. In fact he mostly seems to have cribbed SkepSci which we all know is not the least bit skeptical about CAGW. Any mention of skeptical arguments is “myths” very similar the list at SkepSci or a straw man or red herring.

  90. richardscourtney says:

    ericgrimsrud:

    I am writing in response to your post which fails to answer a question I posed to you at October 5, 2012 at 3:32 pm; viz.

    If CFCs don’t reach the stratosphere then they cannot affect the ozone layer, and if they do reach the stratosphere they break down so their chlorine disrupts ozone. But Grimsrud says
    (a) CFCs have not depleted at ground level since they were banned 20 years ago
    but
    (b) CFCs have destroyed the ozone layer over that time.

    I await Grimsrud’s explanation of this magical ability of CFCs to be destroyed but continue to exist.

    At October 5, 2012 at 6:20 pm you respond to that but do not answer the question.

    Your answer says;

    A given chemical reactant can “continue to exit” for a very long time if the rate of that reaction is sufficently process as to cause the concentration of that reagent to decrease very slowly.

    That is the case for stratospheric ozone depletion caused by the CFC’s. The rate is very slow in this case because it takes a several decades for any molecule to diffuse from the lower to the upper stratosphere – where UV intensity is large enough to break the C-Cl bonds of the CFCs. Thus, the CFC’s destroy ozone in the upper startosphere while the % loss of that CFC throughout the total atmosphere is very small over a given time period. Thus about half of CF2Cl2, for example, will disappear from our background atmosphere in about 100 years.

    OK. You say “about half of CF2Cl2, for example, will disappear from our background atmosphere in about 100 years”. So, assuming linearity, about a fifth will disappear in about 20 years (in reality much more will disappear because the decay rate is exponential and not linear). And please note that I am accepting your statements about decay rate for clarity and not because they are right.

    I asked my question because at October 5, 2012 at 2:17 pm you said to eric1skeptic,

    By the way, have you learned yet for yourself that the CFC molecules are not quicky restroyed (sic). If not get a sample from your backyard and bring it into your neighborhood analysis store. They will tell you that your samle (sic) contains about 550 pptril CF2Cl2 – essentially the same as your backyard had twenty years ago just before the use of the compound was discontinued.

    So, you said the levels now and 20 years ago were “essentially the same” and – my having questioned that – you now say they differ by (much) more than 20% because their destruction of ozone depletes them.

    In other words, you said CFCs are not noticeably destroyed over the 20 year period but now you admit that is not true because failure to admit that falsehood would refute your claim that CFCs are destroying the ozone layer.

    Perhaps you will – for the first time on record – admit you were wrong and apologise for making such misleading statements.
    Your apology should be easy in this case because your exageration is a relatively minor error when compared to most falsehoods you present.

    Richard

    PS I shall be leaving for one of my frequent periods when I am out of communication so I shall be unable to educate you further in your mistakes, misunderstandings and bad behaviour for about a week.

  91. tonyb says:

    Ericgrimsrud

    Thank you for your reply regarding the ozone hole.

    It still doesn’t get away from the fact that we have no idea of the nature of the ozone hole prior to the 1950’s.

    Please take a look at the second graph of my artice here whereby I compared BEST with CET;

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/08/14/little-ice-age-thermometers-historic-variations-in-temperatures-part-3-best-confirms-extended-period-of-warming/

    If you were taking these measurements in the 1690’s you would surmise that the natural state of things was that it was very cold. Therefore around 1700 you would become alarmed when the temperature rose rapidly and surmise that something strange was happenng. Indeed, this see saw against a slowly rising temperature trend throughout the instrumental record helps put the latter part of the 17th century into context.

    From it we would surmise that;
    * sometimes the temperatures are very cold and sometimes very warm
    * They have neen rising for 350 years
    * There are sometimes dramatic changes-the period around 1690 is the sharpest rise in the instrumental record.

    If we were to produce this as an analogy of the ozone hole might it not be reasonable to surmise that perhaps-like temperatures-it oscillates in size considerably and taking the 1950’s as a start point, merely because that is when we first had instruments, doesn’t tell us whether or not a hole hasnt always existed?

    tonyb

  92. Crispin in Singapore's perpetual summer says:

    The lifetime of CFC’s is well known in my view and the mechanisms are well described. Prof Li in Waterloo has a really good description of CFC’s over Antarctica in his papers on the effect of GCR on ozone which is where ‘all the damage’ is supposed to have been. Turns out to be alarmism I see. Quelle surprise.

    If the trolls haven’t heard of Tim Ball and RC they have not surveyed ‘skeptical’ sites. Simple as that. It is not sites that are skeptical, it is scientists, real ones, who won’t swallow what they are offered without first checking it for pathogens.

  93. ericgrimsrud says:

    To Tonyp,

    You are correct, of course. We can not say for sure that an ozone hole never existed prior to 1950 because we then did not have the means of measuring one. All we can say is that an ozone hole did develop between the years 1950 and the present. Due to the more comprehensive set of measures of ozone, CFC’s, ClO and Cl atom, along with stratospheric cloulds made since 1985 we now also know why the hole forms each springtime. Note also that the development of the ozone hole paralleled the addtion of the CFC’s to the atmosphere of that same period.

    So if the hole is caused by CFC’s it seems unlikely that a hole occurred prior to 1950, but there are other possibitlies that might interest you (but not me). For example, perhaps the Romans or even the Neanderthals produced CFC’s so that we had an ozone hole then. Or perhaps Mother Nature put our CFC’s at any other futhere time – possibly from volcanoes, now extinct. Or better still perhaps the suggestion that the ozone holes are produced by the CFC’s is all a big hoax. So Tonyp, take you pick and carry on with that line of thought if you wish.

  94. ericgrimsrud says:

    To RC,

    Some more detail here concerning the conc of CFC’s in the atmosphere. First pull up the data for the most abundant of these, CF2Cl2, at http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/16/Ozone_cfc_trends.png

    This graph shows that its conc 20 years ago was about the same as today. Looking more closely one sees that it reached a slightly higher value, about 540 ppm, its all time max, about 10 years ago which just happens to be when also all industrial production around the world is thought to have been finally stopped. Even after 2000, however, there were undoubedly some residual emissions occurring due to folks who had saved some and then used it after that date. Also there are still rogue nations that don’t pay any attention to world wide environmental issues.

    Understanding these additional details enables one to see why the turnaround from slight increase to slight decay in the F12 conc shown in this figure occurred. The real situation was not one in which the emission of CF2Cl2 was immediately stopped at one specific point in time. Thus the Conc of F12 happens to be about the same today as it was 20 years ago and one of the primary reasons for this is that it has a very long livetime in the atmosphere. Go forward from the present date we might expect to see a decay rate that is in near perfect agreement with its expected half life. This, because eventually we will run out of our “leftover” CF2Cl2.

    AS I stated before: what is still clear in all of this is that while F12 is destroyed itself in the process of destroying ozone in the upper stratosphere, it still persist in our background atmosphere for a very long time. Hopefully, what I just said if no longer a “mystery”.

  95. ericgrimsrud says:

    To Cripspin,

    You are right and I plead guily. I do tend to pay far more attention to the peer-reviewed literature than I do the information provided on websites.

    That possibly explains why I feel like a black man and a KKK rally while participating on this web site. Nevertheless, I thank WUWT for at least letting me in the door. The only complaint I would have is that when some of the WUWT regulars heap personal insults on me, I am not always allowed to respond in kind. I can take to abuse because I have a wife and dog that appear to like me quite a lot. As Harry Truman once said, if you want to have a friend is Wash DC, get a dog (note that Harry’s wife, Bess, preferred to stay back in Missouri).

  96. ericgrimsrud says:

    Concerning eric1skeptic’s comments onOctober 5, 2012 at 10:44 pm

    Read some more of the book. Lots of Montana this and Montana that. So I supposed the author actually does live in Montana. It is somewhat surprising that he wishing for colder weather, but to each his own I guess. What is most noteworthy about this book is how thin the author’s knowledge is and how he repeats every cliche that the catastrophic alarmists have published on the internet especially the one about how AGW = CAGW.

    He claims in his book to have studied “skeptical” websites. I find no evidence of that. In fact he mostly seems to have cribbed SkepSci which we all know is not the least bit skeptical about CAGW. Any mention of skeptical arguments is “myths” very similar the list at SkepSci or a straw man or red herring.

    Yes, I do love Montana and have lived here for some 37 years in total. I am also indebted to the states of Minnesota, Wisconsin, Washingtion and Alberta, Canada where I spent at least 4 years in each working at their major Universities and loved every minute of it. All seemed have an abundance level headed and appropriately progessive people.

    If you did read my book you apparently missed one of its major chapters, chapter 3 in which I searched for a major flaw in the notion of AGW. I went through about 20 of the most ofter seen in the sceptic’s “literature”. You say I pick only a “straw men” to shoot down. I am sure, however, if I have picked 100 of them, you would undoubedly dismissed them all in the same way. Your “review” of my book was quite shallow. Why not try the free short course offered on my website, ericgrimsrud.com. It goes further into the science involved and deals with subjects described everywhere in the official scientific but not so famiar to many of the sceptics who frequent this web site.

  97. ericgrimsrud says:

    To RC, Let me separately here respond to you additional comments in you last request to explain CFC chemistry. You said:

    “Perhaps you will – for the first time on record – admit you were wrong and apologise for making such misleading statements. Your apology should be easy in this case because your exageration is a relatively minor error when compared to most falsehoods you present.”

    As you have now noted, I did provide with something of greater value – an explanation of CFC chemistry with additional supportive details. I suspect, however, that you will not satify you. You appear to be far more interested in non-scientific, personal issues such as domination, if possible, and face saving, when necessay. While I can’t help you with those latter issues, I hope that you were able to see that I did help you with the former. If you place any value on understanding the science involved, I might expect a thank you from you. But instead, I fully expect to be treated with yet more requests for some sort of apology from either you your devotee, Mr. Boehm.

  98. Gary Pearse says:

    ericgrimsrud: re the ozone hole

    I suspect that you and other ozone hole experts are largely unaware that the magnetic susceptibilities of oxygen and ozone are quite different: that of O2 is paramagnetic and attracted to a magnetic field whereas O3 is diamagnetic and is pushed away from a magnetic field. This effect would be to create an ozone hole at the poles. Maybe CFCs also have the celebrated effect, but magnetics might just be enough to account for it!

  99. ericgrimsrud says:

    Please stop, Mr. Boehm,

    Ohh, It hurts too much when you say “Retract your lie, grimsmud. Or everyone will see you as the alarmist propagandist that you are”. Please stop! I am afraid that you will soon be telling everyone about my grandmother and her preference for military footware!

    Couldn’t you instead contribute something of a scientific nature – with a bit of content in it. For example, look back at my very first post on this threat – long before our discussions were make silly and mundane by initial entrance of RC. I asked there a straightforward and honest question concening the title of this post.

    Your turn, and if you take it, please try to restrict your comments to scientific, as hard as that might be for you. Whether I am an alarmist or whether you are a BS artist has no bearing on what Mother Nature is likely to do in responce to the impacts of mankind.

    Thanks, Mr. grimsmud (to you)

  100. ericgrimsrud says:

    To bushbunny,

    My apologies for referring to you as “pushbunny”. It was not intentional. As everyone has undoubtedly noted, I misspell often while posting (I wonder how many errors I have in this short comment). Or perhaps I just thought that a “b” becomes a “p” downunder where you live. In any case, no disrespect was intended and I deserved any retort you might have provided.
    Sincerely, EricGrimsod

  101. ericgrimsrud says:

    To Gary Pearse who said to me:

    “I suspect that you and other ozone hole experts are largely unaware that the magnetic susceptibilities of oxygen and ozone are quite different: that of O2 is paramagnetic and attracted to a magnetic field whereas O3 is diamagnetic and is pushed away from a magnetic field. This effect would be to create an ozone hole at the poles. Maybe CFCs also have the celebrated effect, but magnetics might just be enough to account for it!”

    Yes I am aware of the fact that O2 surprizingly has 2 unshared pairs of electrons and, therefore, is paramagnetic. In teaching Gen Chem many times, we even did the experiment many times in which liq O2 was suspended in air between the two poles of magnet. However, I don’t get the part about a diamagnetic substance being “pushed away” by a magnetic field. I thought that any interactions between a diamagnetic substance and a magnetic field would be too small to be of importance.

    Thanks for this observation and I look forward to your response to my followup question.
    Eric

  102. JPeden says:

    ericgrimsrud says:
    October 6, 2012 at 9:22 am

    “I do tend to pay far more attention to the peer-reviewed literature than I do the information provided on websites.

    That possibly explains why I feel like a black man and a KKK rally while participating on this web site. Nevertheless, I thank WUWT for at least letting me in the door. The only complaint I would have is that when some of the WUWT regulars heap personal insults on me, I am not always allowed to respond in kind.”

    eric, you in fact just did respond “in kind”, at least according to your own feeling of being black at a good ol’ Democrat KKK rally instead of actually being at WUWT.

    The problem with the particular “peer review” world which you seem to inhabit is that its CO2 = CAGW hypotheses have not produced even one relevant correct prediction yet, a point that this main blog post supports by referring to a “peer reviewed” study from the publishers of Nature!

  103. Stephen Wilde says:

    ericgrimsrud

    We have recently seen the ozone hole ‘recover’ somewhat at the same time as the stratosphere has stopped cooling.

    That suggests a link between ozone amounts and stratospheric temperatures. That is hardly surprising because it is well established that that the presence of ozone in the stratosphere is the cause of the temperature inversion between tropopause and stratopause.

    The change in trend of stratospheric temperatures appears to coincide with the fall in solar activity from cycle 23 to 24.

    It therefore seems likely that both the changes in ozone amounts in the stratosphere AND the temperature trend in the stratosphere are dictated by the level of solar activity.

    We can rule out CO2 as a factor because CO2 emissions continued to rise despite the observed change in the trend of stratospheric temperatures.

    One could say that the ozone amounts recovered because of reducing human emissions of CFCs but that proposition would put CFCs in absolute control of climate variations.On that basis we have solved any problem already via the Montreal Protocol and need not consider CO2 at all.

    The problem you then have is that we have seen similar climate variations before such as Roman Warm Period, Dark Ages, Mediaeval Warm Period, Little Ice Age and the Current Warm Period all long before CFC emissions and all those changes correlate well with solar variations.

    What is your position in light of all those facts ?

  104. Eric said

    ‘Or better still perhaps the suggestion that the ozone holes are produced by the CFC’s is all a big hoax. So Tonyp, take you pick and carry on with that line of thought if you wish.’

    Eric, we were having a perfectly reasonable discussion before you went off at this absurd tangent.

    I never suggested for a moment that the ozone hole was a hoax any more than I think that CAGW is a hoax.Why make such a leap in the dark to suggest that i have that line of thought?

    I am merely pointing out-and Cambridge Universty and Max Planck institute agree- that with the ozone hole we have only a very recent history and any sceptic is surely going to wonder what occurred prior to the very recent instrumental readings.

    We can observe a temperature rise for 350 years and also know the MWP was at least of comparable warmth to today, so we can reasonably assert that -based on science-we know that todays conditions are not unique. It may be that similarly- if we could backtrack a thousand years- the ozone hole might be found not to be unusual.

    Can I suggest you read one of the papers by Quing Bin Lui on ozone and stop suggesting that I might believe the Romans produced cfc’s or I believe it to be a hoax. The proper response from a scientist would surely be ‘we don’t know.’
    tonyb

  105. ericgrimsrud says:

    JPeden, A couple of responses here to you post above.

    You think my “in kind” responses have made it throught the filter at WUWT, do you. Do you not realize that what you read is only what made it through. Just as well, at least the moderators at WUWT read my originals and they own WUWT, not me, and have the right to control what they want to public to see.

    Concerning whether or not we have yet seen “convincing” evidence of AGW depend on one’s definition of the word, convincing. You appear to be too smart to be fooled by trivial changes such as those occurring in the Arctic, in vast semiarid regions of the world, Greenland, the frequency of extreme weather events, East Pakistan, changes in rainfall in many formerly lush regions of the world, ect. So I won’t go into these and, instead, try another approach.

    The only thing we have going for us today is the “thermal inertia” of the Earth – due mainly to the great mass of our our oceans and land ice. It takes a while for any heating effect to overcome such a large themal inertia. If you place an electric iron on a snow covered sidewalk, it would also take a while to see the effect of the iron’s heating. Keep coming back after several hours, however, and the effect of the iron will become increasingly noticable. That’s the only factor we have going to us – that is, the time lag between the causes of AGW and the final effects. Since the lifetime of the EXCESS CO2 we presently have in our atmosphere, that “iron” is not going to be unplugged for many centuries. You and I are now seeing only the beginning of changes. Our grandchilden will be witnessing far more convincing evidence by the time they are young adults and very likely be overwhelmed by them in the latter portions of their lives.

    So three cheers for thermal inertial, It is the only thing the contrarians have going for them today. I only wish we had much more of it – because I happen to love my grandchildren and I wish they could plan for a future similar to that we have been blessed with.

    [You (your replies) have NOT been cut, killed, trimmed, or eliminated. The Mods.]

  106. kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:

    From ericgrimsrud on October 6, 2012 at 8:26 am:

    (…)We can not say for sure that an ozone hole never existed prior to 1950 because we then did not have the means of measuring one. All we can say is that an ozone hole did develop between the years 1950 and the present. (…)

    So if the hole is caused by CFC’s it seems unlikely that a hole occurred prior to 1950, but there are other possibitlies that might interest you (but not me). For example, perhaps the Romans or even the Neanderthals produced CFC’s so that we had an ozone hole then. Or perhaps Mother Nature put our CFC’s at any other futhere time – possibly from volcanoes, now extinct. Or better still perhaps the suggestion that the ozone holes are produced by the CFC’s is all a big hoax. So Tonyp, take you pick and carry on with that line of thought if you wish.

    If that is indicitive of your scientific understanding of the ozone “hole”, then I am impressed, at your lack of knowledge.

    See this collection of images of the region of ozone deficit known as the “hole” from 1995 to 2007, note how it is always surrounded by a region of ozone surplus.

    Read this piece from January 2011, New rate of stratospheric photolysis questions ozone hole. As quoted from the linked Nature article:

    Markus Rex, an atmosphere scientist at the Alfred Wegener Institute of Polar and Marine Research in Potsdam, Germany, did a double-take when he saw new data for the break-down rate of a crucial molecule, dichlorine peroxide (Cl2O2). The rate of photolysis (light-activated splitting) of this molecule reported by chemists at NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, California, was extremely low in the wavelengths available in the stratosphere – almost an order of magnitude lower than the currently accepted rate.

    “This must have far-reaching consequences,” Rex says. “If the measurements are correct we can basically no longer say we understand how ozone holes come into being.” What effect the results have on projections of the speed or extent of ozone depletion remains unclear.

    The evidence is clearly pointing to the “ozone hole” being a natural effect caused by the Polar Vortex. This was recently thoroughly discussed in the comments of an August 2012 WUWT post, this link to it goes right to a highly informative comment by WUWT regular “Just The Facts”.

    Since the ozone “hole” that forms within a ring of ozone surplus is a natural effect arising from the Polar Vortex, you would have to argue the CFC’s caused the vortex to say CFC’s caused the ozone hole.

    Hopefully this knowledge will further your scientific education, thus allowing you to not have to resort to such extreme sarcasm when confronted on your obvious lack of scientific knowledge.

  107. Stephen Wilde says:

    “The only thing we have going for us today is the “thermal inertia” of the Earth – due mainly to the great mass of our our oceans”

    That would be thousands of years then, not hundreds.

    Nothing to worry about at all.

    Even assuming the thermal effects of more CO2 can get into the oceans in the first place against the net cooling effect of more evaporation.

    But CO2 is no longer an issue anyway because the stratosphere stopped cooling despite increasing CO2 so the initial premise is falsified.

  108. ericgrimsrud says:

    to Stephen Wilde, You say:

    “we have seen similar climate variations before such as Roman Warm Period, Dark Ages, Mediaeval Warm Period, Little Ice Age and the Current Warm Period all long before CFC emissions and all those changes correlate well with solar variations.
    What is your position in light of all those facts ?”

    I say this:
    First are they indeed “facts” concerning the entire globe? There is a great difference, you know between global average climate and local and regional weather. But let’s for the moment assume that the periods you mention reflect a global average.

    CFC,s of course had nothing to do with anything until the last few decades. Then they mainless affected ozone levels in the stratopshere and since ozone is a GHG, have probably had an affect on climate and the overall dynamics of the atmosphere.

    Concerning the more ancient events you mentioned: let’s start by remembering one important point The average surfice T of the Earth is determined by just 3 factors (see my shot course on my web site for elaboration). These are the intensity of the Sun, the albedo (reflectivity to incoming sunlight) and the greenhouse effect. The last two of these can be affected by events occurring on the Earth – for example, the eruption of a very large volcano can send particles into the stratosphere that will stay their for 2 to 4 years during which time they will increase the aldebo of the Earth and cause some cooling.

    So the significant global changes that undoubedly occurred in the near and very distance past had to be caused changes in any one or more of these three variables, the intensity of the Sun, the albedo, or the greenhouse effect, a change in the average T and climate of the Earth would have occurs.

    So let’s consider : what if we find in the ancient literature that a warming trend occurred in the 5 th century BC. What caused it? We would not know because we do not have sufficient records concerning the 3 factors involved. We can be sure, however, that if a change occurred it was due to changes in one or more of those 3 factors. The same is true for all other events prior to the modern age of science when people finally were able to make and save such records.

    IN the last century or two, we have become much more aware of all factor affecting those three varibles. So if you are saying that the predictions that we can now make based on modern measurements are no good because we cannot explain all of the past, I think you have to give that notion some more thought. It makes no sense. Of course we can not explain what is called the Roman Warm Period. We do not have suffient information concerning what was happing all over the globe. We don’t even know if was a regional or global phenomenon. Concerning the Little Ice Age, do we know, just to pick one possibility, were their a series of very large volanic eruptions prior to that which might have set off a cooling period via the injection particle into the air. Note also that a human being might not have noted that change in atmospheric conditions – for example, after Pintatubo went off in 1991 and significantly cooled the Earth for about 2 years, did you note a change in appearance of the atmosphere whose stratosphere then contained more particles? I did not , but modern instrumentation did.

    In short, we can explain our current climate conditions far far better than historic ones – for very good and obvious reasons. To discount the former because we are not so good at the latter is foolish as well as suicidal.

  109. Stephen Wilde says:

    “In short, we can explain our current climate conditions far far better than historic ones ”

    How can you know that ? What is the test ?

    Unless one understands historical changes one cannot understand current changes.

    Your long post is of no value and fails to address the pertinent points.

  110. ericgrimsrud says:

    to the Mods, concerning your comment,

    “You (your replies) have NOT been cut, killed, trimmed, or eliminated. The Mods.”

    Please lets no even go there. You know as well as I that I have a lot of evidence to the contrary concerning my submissions to WUWT in recent months. But please so know that I also do not want to go there. It is off the scientific points and, furthermore, I recognize that WUWT is yours to run and manage as you prefer. Also note that I am not complaining. I only want to beat down a false statement before it morphs into a fact and then used irresponsibly by some of the folks at WUWT who are continuously trying to undermine my reputation and input to WUWT.

  111. Stephen Wilde says:

    “So the significant global changes that undoubtedly occurred in the near and very distance past had to be caused changes in any one or more of these three variables, the intensity of the Sun, the albedo, or the greenhouse effect, ”

    We have recently seen that global albedo changes when the climate zones shift latitudinally and/ or the jetstream tracks change their degree of meridionality / zonality.

    We saw just such changes from LIA to date with no involvement of human sourced CO2. There is evidence of a similar shift from MWP to LIA.

    I accept that more GHGs would have a similar effect on the atmospheric circulation but the evidence is that any such effect from human emissions is miniscule compared to the natural variations.

    I would guess that our emissions might shift the global air circulation less than a mile compared to 1000 miles from MWP to LIA and LIA to date.

  112. ericgrimsrud says:

    To Stephen Wilde,

    NOT!! It takes a few decades, not centuries to overcome the thermal inertia of the oceans. In addition, remember that inertia works both ways – what takes a long time to warm up takes a long time to cool off.

  113. ericgrimsrud says:

    To Climatereason,

    OK sorry if I did not know where you where going with your argument about the likelihood of prior ozone holes in the Antarctic. I find it hard to imagine that there would have been one because we know that the one we now have is due the the CFC’s and, as you agree, the Romans or Neanderthals of Mother Nature very likely did not make CFC’s in the past. So that leaves you exploring with an entirely difference mechanism that might possibly have produced ozone holes in the past even though we don’t know that there have every been any. And of course, I agree with you that we also don’t know for sure that their have never been ozone holes before. I cant’ image what that would be, however, would be very pleased to read anything you can point me to on that topic.

    If true if would be most interesting, of course, but also would likely have little to do with our present ozone hole problem, right? Our present one appears to have been caused by the CFC’s and will presist until the CFCs decrease sufficiently during the next a few centuries via their contact with UV light when they very occasionally find themselves near the top of the stratosphere – leading to a very slow net process.

    Nevertheless, because it is an interesting thought, please do point me to literature that shows how ozone holes can occur via mechanisms other than that presently operative in our Antarctic. I am all ears. If this mechanish is described in one of Dr Lui’s papers please point out to me which one that would be. Thanks, EPG

  114. ericgrimsrud says:

    To Stephen Wilde, You just said,

    ” I accept that more GHGs would have a similar effect on the atmospheric circulation but the evidence is that any such effect from human emissions is miniscule compared to the natural variations.”

    My own understanding is that the emissions of CO2 for example by plants and those from the oceans are each about 100 Gitatons (of carbon) per year while that due to fossil fuel combustion is about 7 to 8 Gitatons per year. Note also that the fossil fuel carbon is added to the tolal biological carbon every year, year after years, thus increasing the total carbon in the air, ocean, and plants by that much each year. Thus, we have about 800 Gigaton of C in the atmosphere today while we had only about 550 Gigatons C in the atmsphere prior to the industrial age.

    And you call the human emissions miniscule comparted the the natural ?? !!! Why not trying to think it through again. If you like, we can try to see which of us is full of it right here. It is an extremely important point that we can not afford to have misunderstood by the public. So in responding please do not change the subject

    Your turn

  115. D Böehm says:

    ericgrimsrud says:

    “My own understanding is that the emissions of CO2 for example by plants and those from the oceans are each about 100 Gitatons (of carbon) per year while that due to fossil fuel combustion is about 7 to 8 Gitatons per year.”

    Wrong, as usual. Grimsrud misunderstands even the most basic facts. Human emissions are only around 3% of the total of about three quarters of a million gtons. And that ratio is the same number whether you’re measuring CO2 or ‘carbon’.

  116. ericgrimsrud says:

    Stephen, Again you say things are transparently silly, though very commonly encountered in the contrarian “literature”, when you said,

    “Unless one understands historical changes one cannot understand current changes.” Uffda !!!

    The reason why we have a chance of understanding our present environment and climate is because of the scientific advancements we have made in recent decades in measuring all of the myriad factors: those that affect both the albedo and greenhouse effects and also the instruments which after about 1975 could be mounted on satalites – making accurate measurements of solar intensity possible without interferances from the atmosphere.

    Studies of the past are important but the far greater difficulties presented in them should not restrict our much better understanding of the present. Your suggestion is one that would prevent action against AGW forever – which just might possibly be the only reason you made it.

  117. ericgrimsrud says:

    D Böehm just said
    ericgrimsrud says:

    “My own understanding is that the emissions of CO2 for example by plants and those from the oceans are each about 100 Gitatons (of carbon) per year while that due to fossil fuel combustion is about 7 to 8 Gitatons per year. Wrong, as usual. Grimsrud misunderstands even the most basic facts. Human emissions are only around 3% of the total of about three quarters of a million gtons. And that ratio is the same number whether you’re measuring CO2 or ‘carbon’.”

    Now lets see: my calculator says 7 divided by 100 + 100 gives 0.035 or 3.5%. Mr Boehm gets 3 % from his sources and makes a big deal about the difference – I am “Wrong” he says. Is it his calculator or his brain that has a few loose screws. In any case, if 3 % is the more accurate number (and human emissions do vary from year to year) , that number will also work for my intended purpose above.

  118. kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:

    From ericgrimsrud on October 6, 2012 at 1:00 pm:

    to the Mods, concerning your comment,

    “You (your replies) have NOT been cut, killed, trimmed, or eliminated. The Mods.”

    Please lets no even go there. You know as well as I that I have a lot of evidence to the contrary concerning my submissions to WUWT in recent months. But please so know that I also do not want to go there. It is off the scientific points and, furthermore, I recognize that WUWT is yours to run and manage as you prefer. (…)

    So you are saying: PLEASE don’t even try to DENY it as I have PROOF you have been CENSORING and DISTORTING my words for months, it is obviously TRUE, but it is YOUR SITE so you can CENSOR and DISTORT my words AS YOU CHOOSE and YOU HAVE OBVIOUSLY DONE SO.

    Put up or shut up.

    Also note that I am not complaining.

    Hurling accusations without providing proof, throwing out ‘you know what you did’ as justification, basically stating WUWT is as bad as sites like ReallyRealClimate and SkepSci in their moderation, with those sites just as justified in doing so for the same reason, that you have done.

    Stating in classic passive-aggressive fashion ‘Now I’m not complaining’… What, you think you’re on a Seinfeld episode? Actually, maybe you do, as you also tossed out “Not that there’s anything wrong with that”…

  119. D Böehm says:

    grimsrud, I pointed out that your claimed total natural CO2 emissions 200 gtons, when the actual amount is much higher. When you’re wrong, you’re wrong.

  120. ericgrimsrud says:

    To the Mods, As you know I objected the your recent comment to me because it was not true and because I thought if I corrected it right away the bottom feeders might not rise to bait. Wrong!!! as is beautifully illustrated by kadaka (KD Knoebel) above. Note how long and spirited it is. While not being able to contribute to the science around which this threat is based, he finally found his niche. The force of Hate over reason should never be underestimated and some are blessed with so much of it. Thus, web sites like this one do a great public service in letting our scientifically illiterate wackos vent.

    REPLY: The “force of hate”? Scientific illiterate wackos? Why not tell us what you really think? I find your comment emotionally ironic.

    I think you need to step back a bit and get some quiet time for yourself. If you don’t like the comment policies here, which have worked quite well now for over 900,000 comments, approaching a million, you are welcome to defer from commenting further. You can take your knocks and continue, or be upset and stay away, your choice. But, know that your comment above is out of line, but I’ll tolerate your emotions to help get the point across this one time. – Anthony Watts

  121. ericgrimsrud says:

    D Böehm just said:

    “grimsrud, I pointed out that your claimed total natural CO2 emissions 200 gtons, when the actual amount is much higher. When you’re wrong, you’re wrong.”

    OK so why did you also get about 3 %, the same number I got using my numbers. If my numbers are wrong and yours are why do we get the same result.

  122. D Böehm says:

    ericgrimsrud,

    Where did you get your “200” total? Was it your own WAG? Or did you find it at RealClimate, or SkS?

  123. ericgrimsrud says:

    To D Boehm,

    Concerning your assignment to me, “where did I get my value of about 200 gton for natural emissions” I get it everywhere I look using a google search for “Carbon cycle”. For example have a look at “the carbon cycle” at NOAA’s web site on climate change or that any other government agency of the USA. Sorry, but as far as I a can tell the total natural emissions of CO2 appear to be about 200 gton per year.

    So new, of course, I must ask you how you are coming on your assignment. That is how did you arrive at the same fraction, about 3 % for fossil fuel versus natural emissions as I did using different numbers.

    In addition, can you show us where you got you number for tolal natural emissions of 750,000 gtons per year, which is many times greater than mine (200 gtons). Looking forward to your report. If you require any addition detail concerning mine, don’t hesitate to ask.

  124. D Böehm says:

    I posted the link. Click on it. The IPCC is the ‘authority’.

  125. ericgrimsrud says:

    D Boehm,

    So you prefer IPCC as a source. Fine, it appears that the IPCC also supports my estimate of total natural emissions of about 200 gtons, roughly the same as everywhere else I have looked. You can see the one at IPCC at
    http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/figure-7-3.html

    In return could you provide me a that link the leads to your number of about 750,000 gtons per year? You said you posted a link, but I can’t find it. I saw nothing to “click on” in your last post..

  126. D Böehm says:

    ericgrimsrud,

    Really, this is like hand holding:

    http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/02/eia_co2_contributions_table3.png

    Now, since you have avoided answering my post showing that CO2 has no measurable effect, the following is a step by step explanation showing that rising CO2 has no measurable effect on global temperature, and thus why the “carbon” scare is a false alarm:

    To avoid complaints about ‘cherry-picking’, we will begin with a very long time period; more than three centuries. Let’s look at the natural global warming trend:

    http://i35.tinypic.com/2db1d89.jpg

    As we see, the long term trend is the same, whether CO2 is low or high. That is confirmed in this Wood For Trees chart. The naturally rising global temperature trend since the LIA has remained within its long term parameters. There is no acceleration of global warming. It is on the very same long term trend line that it was on before the start of the industrial revolution, thus falsifying the CO2=CAGW conjecture.

    The fact that CO2 has no measurable effect on global temperature is confirmed here. Notice that the two recent warming episodes — again, one when CO2 was low, and the other when CO2 was high — show conclusively that any effect from CO2 is so minuscule that it is not even measurable, because the rising temperature trends are exactly the same.

    Empirical measurements also show conclusively that CO2 follows temperature on all time scales, from decades to hundreds of millennia.

    That proves that the alarmist crowd has cause and effect reversed. Temperature changes cause CO2 changes; not vice-versa. There is no empirical, testable scientific evidence showing that rising CO2 causes rising temperatures (if you disagree, post a chart for us showing that changes in CO2 precede temperature changes). The false belief that CO2 leads temperature is based on an entirely coincidental short-term correlation, which is now breaking down. There has been no global warming in more than 15 years, while CO2 has risen steadily. (I should point out that CO2 may cause an insignificant temperature rise; that is not ruled out by the logic of this argument. But since the effect is too minuscule to measure, it can be completely disregarded for all practical purposes).

    Finally, the planet is starved of harmless, beneficial CO2. More is better. With added CO2 the biosphere will thrive, and there will be no global harm or damage. The “carbon” scare is a false alarm.

    Using verifiable scientific facts based on empirical evidence, it is demonstrated here that CO2 has no measurable effect on temperature. None. The rising temperature trend since the LIA remains the same, whether CO2 was low or high. There are no testable measurements showing otherwise. Therefore, CO2 does not have the claimed effect.

    The reason that the alarmist crowd cannot get anything right is because they are fixated on the false and disproven presumption that measurable temperature change is driven by CO2 — when, in fact, exactly the opposite is true.

    Now, explain why CO2 has had no measurable effect on temperature since the LIA.

  127. eric1skeptic says:

    EricGrimsrud said: “If you did read my book you apparently missed one of its major chapters, chapter 3 in which I searched for a major flaw in the notion of AGW. I went through about 20 of the most ofter seen in the sceptic’s “literature”.” I read your chapter 3. You failed to address the #1 skeptic argument which is that AGW is not CAGW. Here’s a summary:

    1. AGW is mild. Part of the increased warming in the 80’s and 90’s was from stored solar energy from the ongoing increased solar output. That ended with the 90’s and so did the “rapid” warming that was claimed to be 100% CO2 (some even say more than 100% using hypothesized but unmeasured aerosols as a source of AGC.

    2. AGW is not catastrophic. No catastrophic weather is shown to result from AGW. There are increases in “extreme” rainfall events. Those are easily dealt with stormwater management in settled areas and ignored otherwise. Drought starts naturally and ends naturally. An added amount of warmth will make summer drought worse until it ends naturally with the end of the season or a change in the pattern. Strong tornadoes are currently decreasing. Hurricanes are probably decreasing long term but natural cycles rule in any case.

    3. AGW will not become catastrophic. A continuation of the above with the addition of sea level rise of 1 inch per decade (not catastrophic and not accelerating).

    4. Models don’t model weather so they can’t show what happens to weather in a warmer world. CAGW is based upon unsupportable positive feedbacks based on parameterized weather. Change the parameters and CAGW disappears.

  128. eric1skeptic says:

    EricGrimsrud, your chapter 3 mostly reflects your poor understanding of weather. Let’s look item by item: #1. “We can’t predict the weather” – obvious red herring. #2. “Warming is simple: solar, albedo and GHG” – no it is not simple. Global average temperature can change naturally in one week the same amount as a decade of AGW. Natural variations exceed AGW on every time scale. #3. “CO2 is not a powerful GHG” – red herring by the use of the word “powerful”. #4. “CO2 is secondary to water vapor” – you say it’s not true, but reality says otherwise (see #2). The distribution of water vapor controls the forcing from water vapor and natural factors control the weather patterns which control the distribution. # 5. “CO2 lags temperature” – there are a handful of posters here who dwell on that, but the red herring part of your statement is that skeptics believe the CO2 rise is natural. No serious skeptic believes that the rise is anything other than manmade.

    #6. “Other GHG’s could become more important than CO2″ – I have never heard that from a skeptic ever. That’s probably your projecting from your speciality of CFCs an similar gases. #7. “clouds”. Your cloud explanation is comically oversimplified. You claim with your usual handwavy lack of quantification that clouds will be neutral. Skeptic sites talk about tropical convection based thermostats. If you had read any skeptic site you would have known that. #8. “Global dimming offsets CO2 warming”. In this are you are just repeating some crap about aerosols which is contradicted by real world measurements (particularly the claim that aerosols are causing the current lull in warming). If you thought that garbage came from a skeptic site then you obviously don’t know the difference between alarmist and skeptic.

    #9 “natural factors”. Your explanation is once again comically oversimplified. You do not seem to comprehend that the increased solar energy in the mid 20th century could be stored in the ocean yet you talk about CO2 heat storage in the thread above. #10 earth is massive. I’ve nver seen that on a skeptic site. #11 “Oceans will absorb CO2″. Your explanation is just wrong, I’ve addressed it here before. #12 “CO2 is saturated.” Not a red herring and your explanation is decent, congratulations you got one right. #13, “a need for real world observations”. You point to glacial transition data to support a claim that doubling CO2 leads to 11F temperature. Wildly misleading. Albedo changes will not be replicated today, there are no continental ice sheets. Dust changes will not be replicated. Weather pattern changes will not be replicated. You do not understand the inapplicability of glacial period data to today’s climate.

    #14 “climate models are flawed”. It’s true that is a skeptical argument. Your answer is that they are “entirely adequate”. Obviously your knowledge of those models is entirely inadequate. Start by looking at the spatial and temporal resolution, then go outside on a day with cold air aloft and think about how models miss cooling (diurnal clouds, increase water cycle, etc). #15 “a temperature change of 1.6F won’t do any harm.” Red herring. Part of that change is natural as any skeptic will tell you. #16 “global cooling in the last year”. nope, the real skeptic argument is that global cooling to offset a decade of CO2 global warming occurred in one week. #17 “the sun” Already addressed on another thread. Your claim that solar based warming had to stop in 1950 is wrong. #18 “we have time” Yes a good skeptic argument, but your answer is awful. You claim the last time CO2 was 500ppm the seas were 70 meters higher. You inadvertently support the skeptic argument that we have time since at 1 inch per decade we have 27,000 years to go. #19 “scientists cannot be trusted” Your answer is I’m a great scientist, other scientists are great, blah blah blah. Have you heard of climategate?

    #20. “looking for additional arguments” You claim in this section that you have scoured the web for anti-AGW arguments. As I detail above, you have not. You looked at a couple sites that you thought were skeptic, one was likely skepticalscience.com which contains almost zero skepticism of CAGW arguments. Then you mention Svensmark and dismiss it with your trademark combination of hand wave and red herring. Specifically you say it is not well supported and not well understood. Then you claim that skeptics want to delay action on AGW because of Svensmark. That’s mostly a red herring since Svensmark is not a major player in alternative explanations of warming, nor in suggesting that sensitivity is low, or any other major skeptical arguments.

    So in summary, your 20-odd points in chapter 3 are only partly irrelevant and where they are relevant you provide thin counterarguments that are frequently incorrect and designed to appeal to people who don’t know any better. That is basically the purpose of your book, to propagandize using various well known pro-CAGW talking points and a few of your own. Where you occasionally provide a good explanation for a skeptic myth it stands out because it so rare.

  129. ericgrimsrud says:

    To Anthony Watts,

    As I think you know, I have no problem with your comment policies. I am glad, actually, that some of my comments do not get through. At the same time, if you look back at this thread you will see that this little detour that we are now concerning with was set in motion by a comment posted by your moderator who said to me “You (your replies) have NOT been cut, killed, trimmed, or eliminated” We both know that that is not at all true and I pointed that out.

    Also, further back in this threat, you will find that one of your trusted regularsl, Mr. RichardsCourtney, announced his entrance with a mindless and personal insult to me. And, of course, he continues to lob them continuously – that apparently is his role at WUWT and I know and accept that. One your primary objectives here is to influence public opinion and that can be done with silver-tongued snake oil sailmen, as well as legitimate scientists. But please don’t ask me to hold any respect at all for the former who pretend to be the latter.

    Nevertheless, I am still here – I am used to being the bullseye for the AGW “contrarians” of the world. Have a look, for example, at a past website called “climateclash.com” where I battled every wingnut in the country, it seemed, on the subject of climate change. If you don’t want a professional scientist who can hand it back in kind on your threads, I can understand that. I was also kicked out of climatechange.com for that difficiency and in that case, did not mind at all – climate class was a distinctly low class and rediculously rigged show trial. I have held a higher regard for WUWT, even though I am also often referred here in the same insulting terms by some of your participants without admonisher issued to them.

    Words will never hurt me and I’ll also try harder to not use them in kind on some of your sensitive participants, as you request. I know that one should treat others as you would have them to treat you and not as they treat you. Will try harder to remember that.

    Eric

  130. ericgrimsrud says:

    To D Boehm,

    Concerning your last long post on a different subject, would you please first finish the business we were on – before changing the subject. That is, where is a reference in support of your claim that natural emissions are about 750,000 gtons and not closer to 200 gtons as I thought.

    Eric

  131. D Böehm says:

    ericgrimsrud says:

    “Concerning your last long post on a different subject, would you please first finish the business we were on…”

    No. I did what you wanted. I posted the link you asked for. Twice. But you have never responded to essentially the same post a few days ago that I just posted again. Now it’s your turn to answer a question: why has CO2 had no empirically measurable, testable effect on temperature since the LIA? If you believe it has, then post a verifiable chart showing unequivocally that ΔCO2 causes ΔT — like the chart I posted showing the true cause and effect: that CO2 lags T on all time scales.

    Also, still waiting for you to admit you were wrong when you wrote:

    “I learned that (Richard Courtney) has no demonstratable background in science, in general, and certainly no record of contribution to climate science.”

    What you ‘learned’ was that you were wrong. I posted peer reviewed proof. Man up and admit it. Then I will be happy to respond. Unlike alarmists, I can support my position, while you try to hide out and change the subject.

    Then you owe eric1skeptic a response.

  132. ericgrimsrud says:

    To D Boehm, So the following was how you posted the link to your source:

    “D Böehm says:
    October 6, 2012 at 5:26 pm
    I posted the link. Click on it. The IPCC is the ‘authority’.”

    Would someone on WUWT tell me what I am supposed to “click on” here. Please look back at teh actual post placed at 5:26 pm. Sorry I can’t figure out how to get to the reference that Mr Boehm promised to provide as related in our recent discussions above. Some help please from anyone ?

    On the other hand, someone knows D Boehm better than I could clue me in on how this gentleman typically does business at WUWT. If, for example, he tends to run away from his commitments and previous statements, that would explain things. I don’t know the man or how he operates. I might be learning, however, and that knowledge will be useful in dealing with him (or not) in the future.

  133. D Böehm says:

    ericgrimsrud, HERE IS THE LINK. Sheesh! Third time.

    Now, answer the question. And man up and admit you were wrong.

  134. ericgrimsrud says:

    To all, I just read D Böehm’s latest and see that he has no intention of providing that source concerning his claim that natural emissions of CO2 are about 750,000 gtons / year. If he had one, of course, he would be glad to show it and thereby prove me wrong, wrong, wrong as he claimed above. So why do you support he is longer willing to reveil his source?

    ” October 6, 2012 at 7:36 pm
    ericgrimsrud says:
    “Concerning your last long post on a different subject, would you please first finish the business we were on…”
    No. I did what you wanted. I posted the link you asked for. Twice.”

    OK and again can someone show me how to find that post? He then chances things with:

    “But you have never responded to essentially the same post a few days ago that I just posted again. Now it’s your turn to answer a question: why has CO2 had no empirically measurable, testable effect on temperature since the LIA? If you believe it has, then post a verifiable chart showing unequivocally that ΔCO2 causes ΔT — like the chart I posted showing the true cause and effect: that CO2 lags T on all time scales.”

    Since I have never made such claims here at WUWT, Mr. Boehm must be confusing me with someone else. I have no response, of course, because I never made any statement of this sort.
    Then he adds,
    “Also, still waiting for you to admit you were wrong when you wrote:
    “I learned that (Richard Courtney) has no demonstratable background in science, in general, and certainly no record of contribution to climate science.” What you ‘learned’ was that you were wrong. I posted peer reviewed proof. Man up and admit it. Then I will be happy to respond. ”

    OK I’ll admit that my search for Mr. Courtney’s research accomplishments failed to review the paper Mr. Boehm referred to, While I therefore appologise that omission, I had also repeatedly ask Mr. Courtney to help me find his resume and record of accomplishments in science and climate change. He refuse to so I was left to myself to dig thing out. Apparently I did not try quite hard enough and for that I applogize. By the way if anyone is interested in finding the resumes of other scientists, one can usually get to the compete resumes with a simple Google search . I don’t know why it was so much more difficult in the case of Mr. Courtney.

    There I have “Manned up” so now Mr. Boehm will be “happy to respond” (provides he does not add additional conditions before he “Mans up”)

    So I am looking forward to that response and this time please provide a real link on which I will be able to “click”.

    (Reply: The link has been posted several times. Your duplicitous responses are noted. — mod.)

  135. bushbunny says:

    Dear Eric G., I thought your apology for addressing me as pushbunny instead of bushbunny, being down under was priceless!. Thanks I will remember this and I do accept you apology, although I wasn’t asking for one. This poster is a skillful propagandist for the alternative theory. I’ve seen it happen in political agendas. I remember one person who told me while handing out leaflets for the Greens party, ‘I have a Ph.D in Science U Know!’ I replied then you have heard of the RWP and Mini Ice Age and the Medieval Warm Period. He replied, “These have not been proven yet?” What!!!!. And so it goes on, and on, and you feel like banging your head on a brick wall. Be warned that is their objective. Probably being paid too, where as we are not! Change the subject Eric G. It’s boring.

  136. ericgrimsrud says:

    Hallelujah,

    Mr. Boehm just sent me a link that worked. So what does it say?

    It says that in the 90’s the natural emission of CO2 were 770,000 million tons. That is 770 billion tons or 770 gtons. Changing this from weight of CO2 to weight of carbon (x 12/46) we get about 200 gtons of carbon.

    You will recall that I had claimed that natural emission of carbon were about 200 gtons and Mr. Boehm had claimed that is was 750,000 gtons. What say you Mr. Boehm? Perhaps there is yet another information source you were thinking of – this one says the same as all of mine.

  137. bushbunny says:

    Some trolls and also legitimate posters especially during the American elections, and Australian elections, are paid to combat negative opinions on their chosen candidate and positive ones on their other sides nominee or even invent some.
    So the more he posts the more he gets paid, that is why he repeats himself. He is trying to promote debate making negative accusations etc., for purely financial reasons and not genuine scientific ones. If he gets $10 a post, just think how much he has earned so far.

  138. D Böehm says:

    grimsmud,

    OK, troll, answer my question. And man up, and admit that you were WRONG about Richard Courtney.

  139. ericgrimsrud says:

    Eric1sceptic,

    Thanks for reading so much of my book and making extensive comments. I will go through all of them as time allows.

    Since you seem to be interested in the basic science, I would also be interested in your feedback on my short course. It is still in rough form and I plan to refine it a bit soon. Any detailed suggestions you might have at this time would be appreciated.

    One detailed point for discussion now – I have never used the term, CAGW and am not sure what it should stand for. First, given the unknowns and uncertainies of climate we don’t know so much about exactly what will occur and when as we do know that something will and already is occurring. My goal is to do what I can to prevent AGW from becoming CAGW – and I don’t even know if that is possible. Some very good scientists think that CAGW and worse is ahead and that the only thing we have going for us at the moment is the thermal inertia of the Earth. The degree to which AGW will occur is, indeed, the big question and concerning it the most uncertain variable and the only one Man has any control over is how much more of our fossil fuels will be burn.

  140. dp says:

    richardscourtney says:
    October 4, 2012 at 10:02 am

    dp:

    re your post at October 4, 2012 at 9:10 am.

    Be not afraid. The “study” “demonstrated” nothing.

    Just between you me and the fence post I think you’re a bats**t crazy left wing nutter. But in your defense that is what I get from your posts, not from you personally. For all I know you are not bats**t crazy off line. By your own admission you are a left wing nutter, though.

  141. ericgrimsrud says:

    While one might expect Mr. Boehm to be thinking about how to respond to his now apparently false claim concerning the natural emissions of CO2, instead he writes:

    “D Böehm says: October 6, 2012 at 9:27 pm
    grimsmud,
    OK, troll, answer my question. And man up, and admit that you were WRONG about Richard Courtney.”

    First note how he refers to me and note also how he refured to me in our previous argument concerning the natural emissions of CO2. (by the way what is a troll?). Mr. Boehm does not seem to be a very nice person. He told me repeatedly in our argument about natural source that I was “wrong, wrong, wrong, as usual” and then says nothing when we find you that he was the one that was wrong by a factor of about 1,000! While do not expect to receive an apology from a man of ilk, he again asks me again here admit that I was wrong about RichardCourtney.

    No problem when one is wrong one should admit it. And again I now admit that I was wrong in saying that I did not think RC had any evidence of a scientific background. Turns out he does have his name on a paper dealing with climate change and I apologized for my omission of this detail. I simply did not know about that paper. Again, I had repeatedly asked RC to point me to his full resume but never did get or find one via a Google search.

    In spite of this forgettable interaction with Mr Boehm, one always comes away with something learned. In this case, I have been encouraged to think that my own limited understanding of natural versus man-caused CO2 emissions are actually pretty good and about three orders of magnitude better than those of another “scientific expert” who holds forth at WUWT much more frequently than I.

  142. kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:

    From ericgrimsrud on October 6, 2012 at 9:09 pm:

    (…) Changing this from weight of CO2 to weight of carbon (x 12/46) we get about 200 gtons of carbon. (…)

    Consult a good Periodic Table. Use 12 for Carbon, 16 for Oxygen.
    Carbon Di-oxide
    12 + 2(16)
    = 12 + 32
    =44

    Use 12/44 (or 3/11) for the ratio, not 12/46. Yields 210 Giga-Tonnes (GT) Carbon from 770 GT CO₂, not 200 GT C.

  143. tonyb says:

    Ericgrimsrud

    You comment that DBoehm did not provide a link to back up his claims of co2. With respect he did, for example the word ‘wrong’ here upthread contained the link

    “Wrong, as usual. Grimsrud misunderstands even the most basic facts. Human emissions are only around 3% of the total of about three quarters of a million gtons. And that ratio is the same number whether you’re measuring CO2 or ‘carbon’.

    Forgive me for saying this but you appear to be a somewhat abrasive character on line, (although no doubt delightful in real life) This is possibly why you get a certain amount of on line abuse. For example, I am known for being polite but my very reasonable questions to you about the ozone layer was lobbed back with a heavy topspin of unpleasant sarcasm. Perhaps if you were more even handed other commenters would tone down their responses.

    So that I know where we are with you historically, and can discuss matters from a mutually agreed platform, would you agree that studies show that the temperatures have been rising since the start of the instrumental record 350 years ago? I wrote about it most recently here;

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/08/14/little-ice-age-thermometers-historic-variations-in-temperatures-part-3-best-confirms-extended-period-of-warming/

    I noted that CET was a reasonable proxy for ‘global’ temperatures in my much longer article here;

    http://judithcurry.com/2011/12/01/the-long-slow-thaw/

    The sharp drop in CET over the last decade is noted by the Met office here;
    http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcet/

    Separately I have conducted personal research at such places as the Met Office Archives in Exeter and The Scott Polar Institute in Cambridge whereby I can look at original documents. This is augmented by patiently sifting through other sources such as the library of our Norman Cathedral here in Exeter. This all demonstrates the reality of the MWP, a subsequent decline and a slow rise in temperatures again in recent decades to levels that are not unique.

    It appears evident that such measurements as GISS from 1880 merely noted the continuation of the warming trend and didn’t identify the start of it and the long slow thaw precedes large scale emissions of co2. Can we agree on that and then you can tell me why the past has no relevance to the future. Thank you

    Tonyb

  144. wikeroy says:

    ericgrimsrud says:
    October 6, 2012 at 10:20 pm

    “And again I now admit that I was wrong in saying that I did not think RC had any evidence of a scientific background. Turns out he does have his name on a paper dealing with climate change and I apologized for my omission of this detail. I simply did not know about that paper. ”

    You followed the AGW’ers ordinary tactics and attacked the man, instead of discussing science. And got caught. And admits it. Very good.

    Will you please change your ordinary AGW tactics from now on? Please don’t embasass us Norwegians any further.

  145. RACookPE1978 says:

    ericgrimsrud says:
    October 6, 2012 at 10:20 pm

    “And again I now admit that I was wrong in saying that I did not think RC had any evidence of a scientific background. Turns out he does have his name on a paper dealing with climate change and I apologized for my omission of this detail. I simply did not know about that paper. ”

    So the only people who you will “allow” to discuss climate issues, analyze problems with theories and exaggeration and wild speculation (by the IPCC or any other body) about “climate change” are so-called “scientists” who have a published paper in your approved list of journals with your approved editors and pal-reviewers?

    I know and daily work with heat transfer, fluid flow, thermodynamics, CAD and finite element analysis and modeling, materials engineering, nuclear physics and plasma circulations and neutron physics and nuclear reactor power rates, thermal and electric generation, magnetic fields and and gamma fluxes, heat absorption (by radiation, convection, and conduction) and thermal insulation design and support. Plus structural engineering, electrical engineering, mechanical engineering, and welding and materials engineering applied to electric controls and pipe design, fabrication, testing, and repair. People rely on my experience and decisions for their plant operations, plant safety, and plant reliability.

    But you do not consider “me” qualified to read a paper or press release from your NSIRDC/NOAA/NASA-GISS self-funding press agents, and calculate the reflectivity of light from ice and rough water at various latitudes, and then subtract the energy lost from evaporation?

    That’s algebra. Geography. And your NASA and sea ice “scientists” are dead wrong.

  146. Thierry says:

    One has to read French climatologist Marcel Leroux to undertand that there is simply no “Hadley Cell” or “Polar Cell”, but only a global circulation system involving polar Mobile Highs originating from the poles and traveling towards the equator. Failing to understand that leads to non-sense studies.

  147. wikeroy says:

    ericgrimsrud says:
    October 5, 2012 at 1:58 pm

    “Then in the 70′s and 80′s a distinct and severe decrease was noted to occur in the springtime. It was only then in about 1985 that high elevation aircraft began to fly though the region and determine where exactly the ozone loss was occurring. So it was the simpler ground level measurments from the 50′s to the present that suggest that the present condition constitutes a change from the past. ”

    James Lovelock;

    “I have seen this happen before, of course. We should have been warned by the CFC/ozone affair because the corruption of science in that was so bad that something like 80% of the measurements being made during that time were either faked, or incompetently done.”

    From here;
    http://tomnelson.blogspot.no/2010/03/james-lovelock-on-value-of-sceptics-and.html

    Do’t think you should put too much into the measurements back then…..

  148. Gary Pearse says:

    ericgrimsrud

    “Nevertheless, because it is an interesting thought, please do point me to literature that shows how ozone holes can occur via mechanisms other than that presently operative in our Antarctic.”

    Eric your disingenuousness is palpable. I offered such an explanatikon: that the O2 is paramagnetic and attracted to a magnet and ozone is diamagnetic and repelled from a magnetic field (like the poles). You gave a quickly looked up Wiki statement about unpaired electrons to demonstrate to me that you knew what paramagnetism was and then offered:

    “I don’t get the part about a diamagnetic substance being “pushed away” by a magnetic field.”

    You thought it would be too weak. To complete your freshly acquired grade school education about magnetism, you should know that a magnetic field causes a diamagnetic substance to set up an opposite field, thereby being repulsed. Aluminum, for example can be levitated above a mag field:

    “The repulsion force produced on the diamagnetic aluminum by the electromagnetic field pole was strong enough to be felt by hand (as it levitated above the mag- added by G Pearse).”

    http://bing.search.sympatico.ca/?q=diamagnetics%20demonstration&mkt=en-ca&setLang=en-CA

    I should add that strong magnetic storms from the sun probably also shift O3 around. Now if I have judged you correctly from your previous response, you will dance around this explanation, show off what will again be clearly more newly acquired simplistic knowledge of magnetics. Man, you have been an expert in the ozone hole for 40 years and have been teaching innocent students chemistry and this diamagnetic phenomenon is something you learned from me today and brushed it off in the manner of an uneducable mind set in concrete. Trust me, the fact that O3 is diamagnetic has an effect, but I know it won’t have an effect on you.

  149. eric1skeptic says:

    EricGrimsrud said “Some very good scientists think that CAGW and worse is ahead and that the only thing we have going for us at the moment is the thermal inertia of the Earth.”

    Appeal to authority: check. Hand wave (no attempt to quantify anything): check. Conflating CAGW and benign AGW: check. Ignoring some basic facts: check. Eric, I’ve pointed out a number of times now that the same thermal inertia that you claim is hiding catastrophic AGW so we only see benign AGW applies to the rise in solar input during the second half of the 20th century. You found and posted this link showing the rise in TSI: colli239.fts.educ.msu.edu/2003/12/31/solar-activity-2003/ It shows that TSI rose through 1950, then stayed historically high for nearly the remainder of the 20th century.

    In contrast, your book contains this incorrect statement: “In addition, during the first half of the twentieth century, a gradual increase in the solar intensity of about 0.1 percent was observed. While the change might have contributed to a small increase in temperature over that fifty-year period, it would have had no effect after 1950.” The main flaw in that statement is that the rise in TSI is not what causes warming of the planet, but TSI staying historically high that causes warming of the planet. It’s like you are trying to say that you slowly turned on a heater until 1950, but that could not possibly cause heating after you finished turning it on (i.e. no effect after 1950). A child might ask, “did you turn the heater off in 1950?” Answer, no it stayed on high through the 80’s and then was gradually turned down to the mid-2000’s and only recently turned off.

    The second flaw is that you are ignoring the thermal inertia that “some very good scientists” believe is delaying the true rise in temperature due to CO2. Why would CO2 warming be delayed but not solar warming? If anything solar warming would be more delayed since solar warms the oceans more efficiently than CO2-warmed air. Lagged warming from high solar would appear in spurts during El Nino as Bob Tisdale has pointed out here many times (have you read any of his articles?) Sure enough there was a major warming from El Nino in the early 80’s that was masked by El Chichon. There was another huge El Nino in 1997/98 that released enough stored warmth to warm the world significantly (about 1C). That very large spike in warmth dissipated but much remained. It was essentially a step function in warming. See http://www.drroyspencer.com/latest-global-temperatures/ for a depiction.

    The third flaw in your statement (the one that ends in 1950) is that it fails to acknowledge the water vapor feedback from solar warming. The same positive feedback that will allegedly almost double the small warming from increased CO2 also applies to the warming from solar. So we should not only have seen 0.1 percent warming through the 20th century, but it should have also been amplified (i.e. 0.3 percent). That comes to around 0.8C (0.3 percent of 277). That leaves a very modest amount of warming due to CO2, probably a few tenths of a degree.

    If I had all the time in the world I would love to provide the same feedback for your “online course”. Unfortunately I don’t. I suspect it is full of the same hand wavy misrepresentations, oversimplifications, and cliches from the CAGW cabal that are found in your book. Let me ask you one question about it since I haven’t looked at it. Does it contain the same wrong claim about solar warming ending in 1950? If so, do you understand why it is wrong? Are you going to correct it?

  150. tonyb says:

    Thierry

    I quoted the great Leroux in one of my recent articlres;

    “Global’ records are much less reliable than local ones due to the manner in which they are assembled, and the reality of a meaningful single global temperature is the subject of much debate, as observed by French climatologist Marcel Leroux. (who said) ‘Yet, they know very well that there is not one “global” climate, but a large variety of climates, depending on latitude, geographic conditions, and atmospheric dynamics.’ (18)

    Brown and Jones commented on the many instances of local cooling trends, seemingly recording different- and cooling- climates to that observed in the global – and warming- record (19)
    tonyb

  151. ericgrimsrud says:

    kadaka (KD Knoebel)

    Thats for the minor correction. The MW is indeed 44 and not 46.
    The “new” result however, is still about 200 gton per year.

  152. D Böehm says:

    grimsrud says:

    “You will recall that I had claimed that natural emission of carbon were about 200 gtons…”

    No, you specifically referred to CO2, not “carbon”:

    “…as far as I a can tell the total natural emissions of CO2 appear to be about 200 gton per year.”

    You just got caught trying to move the pea under a different thimble.

  153. ericgrimsrud says:

    To Tonyb, you ask,

    “then you can tell me why the past has no relevance to the future.”

    I certainly will not do that. Studies of the past are exceeding important. Major portions of my short course on my website deal with the past, from 65 myrs ago to the present. That said, it is also true that we can not understand all climate events of the past and perhaps never will because we don’t know enough about all relevant factors. That knowledge decreases roughly in proportion to the distance of past time. Thus, what do we know about the climate in the year 5000 BC for example. We know more about the year 1000 AD, but still not much compared to what we know about the present Earth. My point here is; to say that we can’t take action of AGW until we understand all past climate anomolies in detail is a foolish suggestion.

  154. ericgrimsrud says:

    to wikeroy,

    Yes, the Norwegians of the world now know that RC has his name on one research publication and perhaps some day they will be able forgive me for taking so long to discuss that he actually had one. You, however, could make us Norwegians really proud if you could produce the full scientific resume of RC. Since he holds forth so much on the subject of climate change at WUWT, knowing his background and level of professional expertice would be useful. Most Norwegians, I believe, would agree.

  155. ericgrimsrud says:

    to RACookPE1978 who on October 7, 2012 at 6:07 am said

    “So the only people who you will “allow” to discuss climate issues, analyze problems with theories and exaggeration and wild speculation (by the IPCC or any other body) about “climate change” are so-called “scientists” who have a published paper in your approved list of journals with your approved editors and pal-reviewers?”

    Of course, I do not think that. What I do think is that when one gets involved in an extended discussion with anyone concerning any subject, it is appropriate to ask them to inform you of their previous experiences in the subject being discussed. This is a common practice in science and all other human endeavors as well, I believe. You for example described your background and should we ever get into a discussion of anything, that knowledge would be helpful to me. I would not “pull rank”, that knowledge would simply be helpful to me to know where you are coming.

    Unlike you, I have no idea where RichardsCourtney is coming from because, unlike you he will not provide a resume showing his professional experiences and accomplishments. When people come on very strong and especially when they regularly lob insults at others with differing opinions and do not also inform us of their professional experiences and accomplishment, my s-detector starts to twitch. It has now fully fired.

  156. ericgrimsrud says:

    wikeroy, you say

    “Do’t think you should put too much into the measurements back then…..”

    Why not ? Because one person made a public comment somewhere? Those stratosphere measurements have continued every since 1985, you know, by numerous countries and research groups. YOu should look and see that those measurements suggest – a much better source of info.

  157. ericgrimsrud says:

    to Gary Pearse who says,

    “Eric your disingenuousness is palpable. I offered such an explanatikon”

    In order to get his full meaning, I will have to refer to a dictionary, but to respond to the science, I don’t need to look anything up – most chemists know what paramagnetism and diamagnetism is.
    Substances that have the former interact strongly with magnetic fields and those of the latter try interact much more weakly.

    Now, concerning your “explanation” for anything concerning the ozone chemistry of the atmosphere, it would be up to you, of course, to expain in more detail how ozone’s diamagnetism under the influence of the Earth’s magnetic field could be large enough to affect the climate in a significant way. Also if ozone is thereby affect, what about oxygen which is paramagnetic and interacts much more strongly with that field. All will agree that it is diamagnetic, but as for your suggestion that this might explain anything concerning the greater physics and chemistry of the atmosphere – that next step would be up to you. And, of course, if someone else has been this, please let us now.

    So why don’t you settle down a notch or two and go to work. Also don’t be offended if I don’t take up your quest. This is “your thing” so do it.

  158. tonyb says:

    Eric

    * We know that one third of global stations are cooling, not warming (BEST)

    * Of the renainder some are static, some are undoubtedly affected by UHI, some have moved location, some are warming.

    *We know that CET appears a reasonable proxy for global temperature (if there is such a thing)

    * We know that CET has dropped over the last decade and is now on a par with the 1730’s

    *We know that global temperatures have been rising for some 350 years-long before Co2 could have had an impact (if it did have an impact back then man can’t live on this planet at present population levels)

    * We know the MWP was probably warmer than today and the Roman and Minoan period were certainly warmer. It is likely therfore that 280ppm marks some sort of limit as to the likely sensitivity to co2.

    * We know that in the case of the UK our co2 emissions are trivial and tryng to reduce them even further will cost around £30Billion a year we haven’t got

    * Trying to move to a green economy is making us uncompetitive (petrol is $10 a gallon) and energy costs are impacting severely on the UK population with many in fuel poverty

    * In an attempt to go green it is likely we will have to ration our energy or impose power cuts within 3 years (Indeprendent report this weekend) .

    In all these circumstances what compelling reason is there to make the huge effort required to radically change our ways? Imperfect and controversial physics that cant take into account clouds nor natural variability?

    Climate is infinitely and naturally variable and I dont know the future, I assume the long term trend will continue but it is worrying we are back to the 1730’s and reasonable to suggest we need a plan ‘B’ for cooling as well as the numerous plan A”s we have for warming.
    tonyb

  159. ericgrimsrud says:

    Eric1skeptic, Thanks for your additional comments.

    You are right, of course, that the effects of all sources of heating are delayed by the thermal inertia of the Earth, including the heating we get from an increase in the solar intensity. My statement in my book concerning the effects of solar radiation on T after 1950 is, indeed, too simplistic. In the next revision, I will correct that.

    At the same time there is a large difference between the magnitude of increased heating by the solar increase (clearly very small) and that due to our increased GHG heating. Thus looking forward it is primarily the heating effect of the GHG’s that is presently being delayed by the Earth thermal inertia.

    If you require numbers for this statement, start with Hanson et al 2008, “Target Atmospheric CO2″. It is very referenced so you can go on from there.

  160. D Böehm says:

    eric1skeptic,

    Thanks for pointing out ericgrimsrud’s numerous errors of fact. It is important that alarmist pseudo-science like that is refuted, lest a new reader might accept grimsrud’s fallacies as something other than the anti-science that it is.

    I also note that grimsrud has again avoided attempting to refute my October 6 @6:06 pm post, in which I logically, step-by-step challenge the belief that CO2 has any measurable effect on temperature. If it does, where are the empirical measurements? Where is a chart showing that temperature is a function of CO2?

    Now, CO2 may have a minusule effect. But if so, it is too small to measure. Therefore, CO2=AGW stops at the conjecture level of the scientific method. It may be true (or not). But without testable measurements, it is only a conjecture; an opinion. A belief. Those treating it as an established fact need to post their charts. The fact that they don’t greatly undermines their argument.

  161. ericgrimsrud says:

    to tonyb, My own best and most thorough answer to your concluding question is provided by my short course. I developed it so that I would not have to repeat the entire ten yards every time asked to do so. Also it provides more effective way of doing this. Just look up ericgrimsrud.com, and hit the “short course” tab. and sit back, listen and watch. I consists of about 90 slides and lasts about 90 minutes with regular breaks for coffee or whatever.

  162. ericgrimsrud says:

    To all,
    Yesterday D Boehm posted this, including quote of my earlier statement.

    D Böehm said:
    October 6, 2012 at 2:32 pm
    ericgrimsrud says:
    “My own understanding is that the emissions of CO2 for example by plants and those from the oceans are each about 100 Gitatons (of carbon) per year while that due to fossil fuel combustion is about 7 to 8 Gitatons per year.”

    Today he writes
    D Böehm says:
    October 7, 2012 at 8:26 am
    grimsrud says:“You will recall that I had claimed that natural emission of carbon were about 200 gtons…” No, you specifically referred to CO2, not “carbon”

    I would prefer not to have to respond to the continuous stream of misinformation (natural emissions of CO2 are 750 gtons /year?), untruths (illustrated above)and personal insults (read all his comment concerning me on this thread). But, of course, if one doesn’t the viewers of this website would be misled with respect to the science involved..

  163. ericgrimsrud says:

    To the moderators: when Mr Boehm says.

    “I also note that grimsrud has again avoided attempting to refute my October 6 @6:06 pm post, in which I logically, step-by-step challenge the belief that CO2 has any measurable effect on temperature ”

    Am I obliged to response to every point raised here by other – points which I never raised? There are myriad statements made here by some who seem to know of what they speak and others who do not. I read most of them, respond to some, and do not respond to some, as I choose. In not responding to everything considered to be “avoiding” at WUWT?

    Whats Up With this Guy, Boehm anyway – he acts like he runs the place.

    REPLY:
    You can choose to respond or not, not our call nor our duty beyond determining if the comment violates policy. I do think you just don’t know how to handle online criticism well – Anthony

  164. eric1skeptic says:

    Eric, I read the Hansen paper and it looks like I need to divide the solar energy change by 4 to account for TSI/4 hitting the sphere of the earth. Also multiply by 0.7 since 0.3 gets reflected away (albedo is 0.3). That means the energy increase from the link you found which is about 1.7 W/m2 from 1900 to 1950 turns into about 0.3 W/m2 on the earth’s surface. Using Hansen’s 3/4 K/(W/m2) that means 0.2 degrees from increased solar upon reaching short term equilibrium.

    We should assume the planet spent most of the rest of the 20th century trying to reach that equilibrium with solar while tracking the coincident rise in that equilibrium due to CO2 increases.

    Based on that I would make a very rough estimate that about 1/3 of the rise in the 80’s and 90’s was from solar, the rest from CO2. I can also make a crude prediction that the solar minimum will cause a 0.3C drop in worldwide temperatures over the next 4 decades offset by the 0.4 rise from CO2. IOW, *if* the sun stays quiet and nothing else changes, temps will go nowhere through mid century.

  165. eric1skeptic says:

    D Böehm, I wish I could say with some certainty what the warming is from the rise in CO2. Unfortunately all the science has been skewed to the warming side, especially the models that calculate sensitivity. So I do the best I can with the science that has been presented (by Hansen and others) with the caveat that it could be wrong. But I do believe that the 4 W/m2 from a doubling of CO2 is relatively solid and that would translate into 1C of warming before any feedbacks.

  166. ericgrimsrud says:

    To Anthony, Thanks for your response shown below.

    REPLY: You can choose to respond or not, not our call nor our duty beyond determining if the comment violates policy. I do think you just don’t know how to handle online criticism well – Anthony

    You might be right about my deficiencies in handling criticism. Almost all of it caused my inclination to treat people like they treat me. I have to work on that because on sites like this one, I regularly get treated very poorly. Many show little respect for the scientists who they often refer to as “alarmists” (a term used here routinely while the term, denier, is appearently not allowed). Learning to survive on a playing field that is not level provides a worthwhile experience and I’ll try to get better at it.

    REPLY: “Alarmists” has no purposeful negative connotation related to holocaust denial, such as illustrated by Iran’s current president, so it is a more acceptable term than “deniers”. Witness some of the claims by Hansen, Serreze, and others, and you’ll see how “alarmist” fits, but doesn’t necessarily apply to everyone. Pro AGW advocates and climate skeptics would be better terms all around though. If you want to complain about being treated poorly online, I suggest you walk a mile in my shoes first. As for this thread, I think you overestimate the importance of your sensitivity. – Anthony

  167. eric

    I will try to watch your short course during the week.
    tonyb

  168. David Ball says:

    ericgrimsrud says:
    October 7, 2012 at 11:27 am

    Mr. Grimsrud, I would like to point out that you have engaged in a very ugly and contentious subject. I suggest you read what has been written about my father Dr. Tim Ball. A Phd in climatology. Just type his name in google and see what comes up. Note specifically Desmogblog and then note the smear that they engage in. He is far and away better schooled in climate than you are and has received egregious attacks for DECADES. You need to accept the yoke that you yourself have taken on in all it’s glory and suffering.

    Just to let you know, the censuring and smears that skeptics receive at the hands of AGW proponents are FAR worse than the jabs that you are getting here. Suck it up, buttercup.

  169. Eric

    Further to Anthony’s comments It would help if you realised that sceptics are not ignorant knuckle draggng neanderthals with two heads and that actually some of us go to great lengths to look closely at the evidence we are given.

    As I previously remarked you seem to have a short fuse which, combined with the obvious dislike and incerdulity you have for sceptics, does tend to wind up some of the people here.
    Treat us with more respect and be less abrasive and it will be more pleasant for everyone. I for one welcome people with different views to the majority here.
    tonyb

  170. ericgrimsrud says:

    To Anthony, With respect to your additional comment shown below”

    “REPLY: “Alarmists” has no purposeful negative connotation related to holocaust denial, such as illustrated by Iran’s current president, so it is a more acceptable term than “deniers”. Witness some of the claims by Hansen, Serreze, and others, and you’ll see how “alarmist” fits, but doesn’t necessarily apply to everyone. Pro AGW advocates and climate skeptics would be better terms all around though. If you want to complain about being treated poorly online, I suggest you walk a mile in my shoes first. As for this thread, I think you overestimate the important of your sensitivity. – Anthony”

    OK, I did not know that reason for not allowing use of the term, Denier, that is, your envisioned connection to the holocaust. To me it simply meant what the dictionary says in meant. The term “skeptics” does not cut it for me. All thinking people are skeptics and should be skeptical of many if not all things. One of the first books every written in the field of chemistry was “the Skeptical Chemist” by one of the very best chemists early scientist, Robert Boyle.

    In my view we don’t have another word yet to replace “denier”. A Denier of anything is someone who knows the answer and knows he will not change and does not even indulge in meaningful discussions on the issue with anyone excess fellow choir members. Too bad the holocaust stoled that word from us.

    Finally, let me correct you of one impression you have of me – just for the record. I am not a complainer but I do point things out that do not seem fair or proper to me. There is a difference you know between that and complaining – the former is an effort simply to keep the record straight while the latter is an argument for change. I just like everyone involved to understand what the rules will be. Most say I have pretty thick skin in going forward from there.

    Note how so many of your faithful followers “pile on” and come to the defense of your bonifide crybabies when the insult they lob are returned in kind (RC would be the best examples of this I have ever seen). One of these days I might find one such supporter at WUWT but very like not do not need it. I hope it is obvious to all that I run under my own steam when it somes to discussions of science and the rest is all meaningless noise.

    REPLY: In another comment you said “I love skeptics, they drive science.” and above you say. “The term “skeptics” does not cut it for me. “, and “In my view we don’t have another word yet to replace “denier”.”. Those contradictory statements show your true colors, which are of contempt, IMHO.

    Be as upset as you wish then, but please do stop whining, as we all have better things to do that argue about your emotive views of how you are interacted with here. – Anthony

  171. ericgrimsrud says:

    Climate Reason,

    I love skeptics. They drive all of science. One of the first books writen in science was called “The Skeptical Chemist” by Robert Boyle in about 1660. If a scientist is not a sceptic it is very unlikely that he will become a good scientist. We should always to skeptical of ideas, theories and even measurement (which happened to be my own field).

    As apposed to a skeptic, one who thinks he knows the answers to the big questions and ceases to consider other notions if not longer a skeptic. One who denies something no matter what and no longer is open to alternate views could be called a “D…….. ” I can’t say the word here because it appears that the holocaust has usurped it so that it can no longer be used to convey its traditional meaning. So until we get it back, we need another term and “skeptic” will not do. We are hopefully all skeptics. Also I think many are “contrarians”. Some of the best scientists have been “curmudgians”. Other than “brain-dead dumb s. t’s” (which would not pass the PC test) I can’t think of a word that can replace “D….. er” . You can???

    In any case, if you are a skeptic, tonyb, I am very pleased to hear it.

  172. ericgrimsrud says:

    To David Ball,

    Let them pile it on all they like – and especially if their remarks pertain to science.

    And rest assured that I can “take it”. If you saw how cute my 5 grandchildren are, you might better understand why I can and will.

    And I am pleased to learn about your father who has gone through similar experience. Give him my regards when you see him. I will, indeed, learn more about him myself via the usual information sources. He probably even has a resume that he has made available to the public – imagine that! A standup guy, it appears, who could possibly serve as a model to others also who hold forth regularly at WUWT.

    Best Regards, EPG

  173. ericgrimsrud says:

    [snip - take a 12 hour time out - Anthony]

  174. Richard S Courtney says:

    Friends:

    I have obtained brief internet access before my next stop, and I used it to see what has happened here.

    I notice that Eric Grimsrud having been proven wrong in his assertion that I “have no background in science” by reference to one of my peer reviewed publications now asserts the lie that I have only one publication.

    Of course, in reality it would not matter if I did have no background in science and I had published nothing. What matters is whether what I say stands up to scrutiny or if it is the kind of superficial junk spouted by e.g. Grimsrud. People will judge such matters for themselves, and boasts of self-proclaimed authority do not assist that.

    I write because at October 7, 2012 at 1:08 pm ericgrimsrud writes:
    “Other than “brain-dead dumb s. t’s” (which would not pass the PC test) I can’t think of a word that can replace “D….. er” .”

    Well, an obvious word which fits that description is a ‘Grimsrud’. I thank him for raising the point and will use the description “a Grimsrud” in future.

    Richard

  175. kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:

    Timeline:

    October 6, 2012 at 2:21 pm
    ericgrimsrud says: “My own understanding is that the emissions of CO2 for example by plants and those from the oceans are each about 100 Gitatons (of carbon) per year while that due to fossil fuel combustion is about 7 to 8 Gitatons per year.”

    October 6, 2012 at 2:32 pm
    D Böehm says: “Wrong, as usual. Grimsrud misunderstands even the most basic facts. Human emissions are only around 3% of the total of about three quarters of a million gtons. And that ratio is the same number whether you’re measuring CO2 or ‘carbon’.”

    Note 1: linked table is CO₂, “three quarters of a million gtons” of CO₂ verified.
    Note 2: There are other carbon fluxes than CO₂, thus exact ratio human/total for CO₂ is not exactly the same for carbon.

    October 6, 2012 at 2:58 pm
    ericgrimsrud mashed together his quoted words and D Böehm’s words, quoted the clump as from D Böehm, then says:
    “Now lets see: my calculator says 7 divided by 100 + 100 gives 0.035 or 3.5%. Mr Boehm gets 3 % from his sources and makes a big deal about the difference – I am “Wrong” he says. Is it his calculator or his brain that has a few loose screws. In any case, if 3 % is the more accurate number (and human emissions do vary from year to year) , that number will also work for my intended purpose above.”

    Note 3: Ratio would be human/total, thus 7/(100+100+7) = 0.034 or 3.4%.
    Note 4: By the proper 12/44 ration, by the link provided by D Böehm, all human sources yield 6.3 GT carbon from CO₂, not “7 to 8″.

    October 6, 2012 at 3:39 pm
    D Böehm says: “grimsrud, I pointed out that your claimed total natural CO2 emissions 200 gtons, when the actual amount is much higher. When you’re wrong, you’re wrong.”

    Note 5: Misunderstanding due to confusing wording by ericgrimsrud: “…emissions of CO2 for example by plants and those from the oceans are each about 100 Gitatons (of carbon)…”

    Misunderstanding propagated:
    ericgrimsrud on October 6, 2012 at 4:00 pm.
    D Böehm on October 6, 2012 at 4:46 pm.
    Etc.

    Thus a misunderstanding due to confusing writing escalated to an ongoing debate.

    So just admit that’s what happened and move forward.

  176. ericgrimsrud says:

    Kadada, I believe you will find the error is due to Mr. Boehms reading of his own table. That is your check Note 1 in also inaccurate. As I said in one of my posts that table reads 750,000 million tons which is 750 billion tons = 750 gtons. When expressed in weigh carbon (x 12/44 ) becomes approximately 200 gtons, the number I claimed. Boehms had claimed a natural emision of about 1,000 clearly because he misread his chart. This is make additional clear by his repeated claim that my number was far too low (with accompanying insults, of course). One does not get a difference of x 1,000 via imprecise communications. One gets it from not reading the source correctly.

    Note 1: linked table is CO₂, three quarters of a million gtons of CO₂ verified. (NOT).

  177. kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:

    From ericgrimsrud on October 7, 2012 at 12:52 pm:

    In my view we don’t have another word yet to replace “denier”. A Denier of anything is someone who knows the answer and knows he will not change and does not even indulge in meaningful discussions on the issue with anyone excess fellow choir members.

    By that definition we are plagued with deniers who are certain about the existence of (C)AGW and refuse to engage in meaningful discussions with “deniers”.

    Too bad the holocaust stoled that word from us.

    And the “twisted cross” is an ancient religious/mystical symbol that was used positively worldwide in many cultures for millenia, and is now virtually banned in all “civilized” countries, even legally banned. Deal with it.

  178. ericgrimsrud says:

    [Snip. You were given a 12-hour time out. No commenting until tomorrow morning. — mod.]

  179. ericgrimsrud says:

    [Snip.]

  180. ericgrimsrud says:

    [Snip.]

  181. ericgrimsrud says:

    [Snip.]

  182. bushbunny says:

    Silence is golden? I still feel he is a professional troll, but congrats to you all holding up the banner for disarming of the alarmist rationale. I was labelled a denier when I crossed swords over a history debacle, and was labeled a climate change, Holocaust, and JFK Assassination denier publically. Holocaust and JFK Assassination was not correct. Luckily one person in the audience questioned this, and the spokesman had to back down.

  183. ericgrimsrud says:

    [Snip.]

  184. eric1skeptic says:

    I don’t know whether or not EricGrimsrud is coming back. But I do know that if he doesn’t change his ways he will not last here. Mostly he needs to stop personalizing every argument. Also if he thinks he’s going to correct everyone he thinks is wrong, he needs to think again.

  185. Eric

    You werent banned just given a time out for infringement of plicy. It also happens to sceptics.

    You asked for more info on Qing bin lui ozone hole papers

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/10/08/a-paper-unifying-cosmic-ray-interaction-cfcs-ozone-and-warming/#comments

    This link below written using some of the data that lui discovered

    http://www.ucalgary.ca/engo_webdocs/KOK/12.20356_CharleneRadonsBeckie.pdf

    Just about to read your ‘short course’.
    tonyb

  186. sorry Eric, but the first two of your 10 short course files took three and a half minutes to download (broadband/modern computer) before I could even look at each slide. I’m obviously not going to spend 35 minutes just waiting so Ive bailed out.
    tonyb

  187. Eric

    I downloaded file 5 as well, as it concerned temperatures over the last 150 years.

    slide 2 ; Arrhenius substantially modified down his estimates of 1896 in his paper of 1907.you didnt mention that.

    I posted a link earlier in this thread to BEST/CET. This shows that temperatures have been rising for the last 350 years, well before any increase in co2 emissions and that the period 1700-1740 showed the steepest temperature increase in the record-not the modern rise. You might want to include that for better historical context.

    As I mentioned, Giss merely shows a staging post in temperature rise NOT the starting post.
    Todays tempertures are unremarkable in the context of the last 1000 years.
    tonyb

  188. eric1skeptic says:

    Eric G, I also downloaded file #1, and saw the slides. The file was huge compared to the number of slides. Also I don’t have powerpoint. My mac displayed the slides with the preview app, but I didn’t get any sound / narrative. I can’t evaluate the course on the basis of the slides alone, I have to hear the narrative.

  189. ericgrimsrud says:

    To All at WUWT, First please note a previous post of mine concerning the debate that D Boehm and I were having concerning the natural emissions of CO2.

    ericgrimsrud says: on October 6, 2012 at 5:21 pm
    “To D Boehm,
    Concerning your assignment to me, “where did I get my value of about 200 gton for natural emissions” I get it everywhere I look using a google search for “Carbon cycle”. For example have a look at “the carbon cycle” at NOAA’s web site on climate change or that any other government agency of the USA. Sorry, but as far as I a can tell the total natural emissions of CO2 appear to be about 200 gton per year.
    . So now, of course, I must ask you how you are coming on your assignment. That is how did you arrive at the same fraction, about 3 % for fossil fuel versus natural emissions as I did using different numbers.
    In addition, can you show us where you got you number for total natural emissions of 750,000 gtons per year, which is many times greater than mine (200 gtons). Looking forward to your report. If you require any addition detail concerning mine, don’t hesitate to ask.”

    Now concerning the previous claim by D Boehm referred to above, note that the post by D Boehm being referred to is no longer shown – at least I can’t find it.

    Then in a “time-line study” of our debate by Kadaka did not note D Boehm’s claim – a factor of 1000 higher than mine, either. Mine turned out to be correct.

    Thus we have not seen any admission of error by D Boehm and, therefore, a clarification of the debate outcome. Generally the one in error makes such a comment.

    So the obvious question is: What’s Up With That at WUWT. Prefer Mods can expalin why that post by D Boehm is no longer there?

    I am quite sure that D Boehm also knows exactly what I am talking about. But I doubt very much that he will confess up and clarify. I suspect that his interest in face saving far exceeds his sense of honesty. Nevertheless some “Manning up” seems to be required here.

  190. kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:

    From ericgrimsrud on October 10, 2012 at 8:46 am:

    Now concerning the previous claim by D Boehm referred to above, note that the post by D Boehm being referred to is no longer shown – at least I can’t find it.

    Looks like that’s what you referenced as: Concerning your assignment to me, “where did I get my value of about 200 gton for natural emissions”…

    First it’s not a real quote as D Böehm wouldn’t ask “where did I get” the value you were touting.

    The first reference of “200 gtons” is D Böehm’s here: “grimsrud, I pointed out that your claimed total natural CO2 emissions 200 gtons…” It is still there, and arises from simple addition from your earlier statement with the confusing wording of 100 and 100 gtons natural emissions from different sources.

    Thus your claim of comment editing has no proof, once again, this time claiming a D Böehm comment has been removed.

    Then in a “time-line study” of our debate by Kadaka did not note D Boehm’s claim – a factor of 1000 higher than mine, either. Mine turned out to be correct.

    I did not note what you are trying to say was D Böehm’s claim as it didn’t exist when I searched the comments, but I did note the “claimed total natural CO2 emissions” comment that I just linked to again.

    However, my timeline comment was originally started very late at night and finished the next day. When it was written, it seem like the linked table, the one whose link was posted three times before you noticed it, did support the ‘three quarters of a million gtons’ of CO₂, but later I noticed it was only showing about 3/4 of a million million tons, or 3/4 of a million megatons, 3/4 of a thousand gtons. So you do pick up that correction.

    Nevertheless some “Manning up” seems to be required here.

    Gee, according to your accusations WUWT has altered comments, deleted inconvenient stuff, concealed the truth. How much more “Mann-ing up” do you want?

  191. tonyb says:

    Eric

    Myself and another gave some helpful hints on the size of your short course files which in effect made it almost impossible to download them unless you were very motivated. I also commented on some omissions regarding Arrhenius and also that it would be helpful if the current temperature was put into context with the past instrumental records. That is to say that temperatures have been rising for at least 350 years and we must see the current warming in that wider context.

    You also said looking at your short course would answer my comments to you of October 7th at 9.57 (and others) but. I can’t see that it does, at least in the files I have downloaded.
    tonyb

  192. D Böehm says:

    kadaka,

    ericgrimsrud is fixated on D Böehm, and he is impotently trying to nitpick a minor point in order to avoid responding to my October 6 @6:06 pm post.

    Note to grimsrud: if you wish to make certain that someone will not respond, simply state that you are ‘assigning’ homework. And when you accuse me of dishonesty, see how far that gets you.

    Truly, you are the biggest complainer around, always whining. All your ‘poor me’ sniveling concerns ericgrimsrud, and your crazy world view. You can’t find mysterious comments? You can’t find the IPCC’s table that was posted in plain view three times? I am not surprised. You seem unable to hold a coherent view, preferring to play the crybaby role instead of answering my October 6, 6:06 pm post. The fact is that you cannot falsify that reasoning, which completely destroys your “carbon” Belief system. So you whine about irrelevant peripheral issues. It’s the ‘red herring’ fallacy, AKA: “Look over there! A kitten!” You are deliberately avoiding the central issue: there is no empirical evidence to support your CAGW belief.

  193. ericgrimsrud says:

    To all, First, note that when

    “Böehm says: October 6, 2012 at 3:39 pm
    grimsrud, I pointed out that your claimed total natural CO2 emissions 200 gtons, when the actual amount is much higher. When you’re wrong, you’re wrong.”

    Note that when Boehm turns out the be wrong (by a factor of 1000 !) and I point that out – he defines my comment to be “whining”.

    Note also that another post by Boehm slightly before that shown above is now gone! In it Boehm had clearly said that the natural emissions of CO2 were “three quarters of million gton” , three orders of magnitude higher than mine.

    My respect for Boehm and possibly for WUWT has taken a distinctly downward turn. It appeasr to me that much is done there to made their regular “skeptics” look credible and the injection of truth appear to be “whining”.

  194. D Böehm says:

    I note that grimsrud is still scrambling to avoid answering my October 6, 6:06 pm post. He avoids responding to it for one reason: he cannot falsify the conclusion, which destroys his entire Belief system. Poor eric. Continue whining, it amuses us.

  195. ericgrimsrud says:

    To D Boehm,

    On another thread, I once shared a bit of local Montana Ranch wisdom with one of your co-conspirators, RichardsCourtney. It went like this. “If one plays with feces, one is likely to get feces on one”. That adage now applies to you in spades, as well. You are free to interpret this as you wish – RC says that I have called him feces and you can also take to meaning if you wish – if you think the shoe fits. In any case, all I know is that when interacting with you, all one gets in return is feces.

    So concerning your silly questions above proving that CO2 has no effect on T, no thanks. Have you not heard of the PEMT maximun during which a huge natural carbon release 56 mYears ago produded massive warming throughout the planet lasting for some 150,000 years ?

  196. kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:

    From ericgrimsrud on October 11, 2012 at 8:15 am:

    Note also that another post by Boehm slightly before that shown above is now gone! In it Boehm had clearly said that the natural emissions of CO2 were “three quarters of million gton” , three orders of magnitude higher than mine.

    Nah, it’s still there. As mentioned in my timeline, that D Böehm comment is here, where it was before, where it still is, and hasn’t gone anywhere. “Human emissions are only around 3% of the total of about three quarters of a million gtons.”

    You may be remembering it slightly differently. But still, a total of “about three quarters of a million gtons” minus only 3% human emissions would still leave natural emissions of about 3/4 of a million gtons.

    Is your memory that faulty, do you have a reading problem, or is there another reason for you desperately trying to push your “WUWT is editing comments!” belief with this ongoing string of non-examples?

  197. D Böehm says:

    ericgrimsrud says:

    “So concerning your silly questions above proving that CO2 has no effect on T, no thanks.”

    And thus grimsrud concedes defeat. He will not admit it, of course. But readers can see that he has no way to falsify the conclusion. And as usual, grimsrud tries to drag another red herring across the path of the hounds with his irrelevant “PEMT” (sic) distraction.

  198. ericgrimsrud says:

    DB, What I actually said was: “Have you not heard of the PEMT maximun during which a huge natural carbon release 56 mYears ago produded massive warming throughout the planet lasting for some 150,000 years ?” Now that is not a silly question. Is that evidence of CO2’s effect too obvious for you ?

  199. ericgrimsrud says:

    Thanks for showing where the 3/4 of a million gtons. comment was.

    But in your analysis of our discussions, it appear that you did not note that 750,000 gtonCO2 is not the same as 200 gtons C. They differ by a factor of 1,000.

    If WUWT is an fault in moderating this discussion, it would appear that offense would only be if they asked you to do the timeline. Hopefully the mods did make that poor decision.

    [Reply: Stop your baseless speculating. Moderators did not suggest that anyone do a timeline. If you are so unhappy about how WUWT is run, please take your complaints elsewhere. — mod.]

  200. D Böehm says:

    ericgrimsrud,

    It is not the “PEMT”, as you keep calling it. It is the PETM — the “Paleocene–Eocene Thermal Maximum”. You have repeatedly mis-spelled that acronym, indicating that you are just throwing out talking points you picked up from one of your thinly-trafficked alarmist blogs. You really have no great knowledge of the PETM. And the relevant time frame is the modern Holocene, not the PETM.

    You tucked tail and ran from my step-by-step logical argument showing that CO2 has no measurable effect on temperature. Being unable to refute that argument, you have conceded the battlefield of ideas. To falsify my conclusion all you need to do is provide a verifiable chart showing that ΔCO2 leads ΔT. But you cannot do that, because there is no such chart. That is why you continue to post irrelevant nonsense. You hope to distract from the plain fact that your CO2=CAGW Belief has been falsified, by using your red herring arguments. As you can see, that doesn’t work here.

  201. kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:

    From ericgrimsrud on October 11, 2012 at 9:33 am:

    So concerning your silly questions above proving that CO2 has no effect on T, no thanks. Have you not heard of the PEMT maximun during which a huge natural carbon release 56 mYears ago produded massive warming throughout the planet lasting for some 150,000 years ?

    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/06/110605132433.htm

    Carbon Release to Atmosphere 10 Times Faster Than in the Past, Geologists Find

    ScienceDaily (June 6, 2011) — The rate of release of carbon into the atmosphere today is nearly 10 times as fast as during the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum (PETM), 55.9 million years ago, the best analog we have for current global warming, according to an international team of geologists. Rate matters and this current rapid change may not allow sufficient time for the biological environment to adjust.

    “We think the Spitsbergen core is relatively complete and shows an interval of about 20,000 years for the injection of carbon dioxide during the PETM,” said Kump.

    The outcome was a warming of from 9 to 16 degrees Fahrenheit and an acidification event in the oceans.

    “Rather than the 20,000 years of the PETM which is long enough for ecological systems to adapt, carbon is now being released into the atmosphere at a rate 10 times faster,” said Kump. “It is possible that this is faster than ecosystems can adapt.”

    See? The PETM build-up took 20,000 years, we’re currently releasing at 10 times as fast, so that’ll be 2000 years of increasing atmospheric concentrations at the current rate to reach PETM levels. Of course since then geography has changed, and C4 plants have evolved which are very efficient, while only 5% of the plant biomass they account for about 30% of terrestrial carbon fixation. Thus it is very likely the rate of absorption has increased, so it’ll be longer than 2000 years, likely much longer.

    At the rate we’re developing energy with lower carbon emissions, we’ll be below current rates of emission within 100 years. So we’ll never reach PETM-level atmospheric levels anyway.

    Plus the literature shows something else was going on. As published in Nature Geoscience in 2009:

    Carbon dioxide forcing alone insufficient to explain Palaeocene–Eocene Thermal Maximum warming

    (…) As a result, atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations increased during the main event by less than about 70% compared with pre-event levels. At accepted values for the climate sensitivity to a doubling of the atmospheric CO₂ concentration[1], this rise in CO₂ can explain only between 1 and 3.5 °C of the warming inferred from proxy records. (…)

    Since the references appear to be locked behind the paywall with the paper, the reasonable assumption is the “accepted values for the climate sensitivity to a doubling of the atmospheric CO₂ concentration” are similar to those found in the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, which more-recent research using real-world measurements has shown to be overstated.

    Thus not only will the “modern era” atmospheric CO₂ concentrations never reach what they were in the PETM, CO₂ at those very high PETM levels wasn’t doing all that much anyway. As far as we’re concerned, the increasing CO₂ will have minimal effect on temperatures, at best.

    Plus the evidence shows at current concentrations the logarithmic greenhouse effect of CO₂ is saturated, further concentration increases will yield a negligible effect on temperatures, at best.

    So CO₂ isn’t a problem now, won’t be a problem in the future. And as D Böehm has shown you, CO₂ lags temperature, which is logical with the CO₂ GHE being saturated at around current levels thus the CO₂ itself could not be leading temperatures.

    ===

    Re your comment on October 11, 2012 at 10:15 am:

    The timeline was my own idea, I did it to track down where the conversation had gone wrong. The way you shift things around wasn’t helpful. Still isn’t helpful.

  202. kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:

    D Böehm,

    Your WFT “CO₂ follows temp over decades” graph has a problem, which I find happens when one differs their option call-out from the order of appearance on the Help page. Although the MLO data starts in early 1958 and you clipped HADCRUT3 to “From: 1958″ to match, MLO doesn’t display until the midpoint of the first 5-year running mean of the Isolate function, and the late From is bringing up something earlier that couldn’t be from the Isolate option.

    Here is a cleaner version. Since MLO is not complete in 1958 I start from 1959 and call that out first for both, select a 13 month Mean for proper centering, then Isolate, and then Normalize to avoid playing with scaling.

    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/from:1959/mean:13/isolate:60/normalise/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1959/mean:13/isolate:60/normalise

    Hope you like it.

  203. D Böehm says:

    kadaka,

    Thanks for that. It still shows the central point: that CO2 follows temperature, not vice-versa. I’ll save it to my chart folder.

  204. ericgrimsrud says:

    [Snip. Policy. — mod.]

  205. ericgrimsrud says:

    Please!!! There is only one interpretation out there for the PETM. A huge CO2 bust throughout the planet caused a large T increase. If someone is confused on that one, they have no chance of being open to the present case of AGW.

  206. kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:

    From ericgrimsrud from October 12, 2012 at 7:59 am:

    Please!!! There is only one interpretation out there for the PETM. A huge CO2 bust throughout the planet caused a large T increase.

    Please indeed. That’s old thinking, as seen in this 2007 piece, “Climatic Chain Reaction Caused Runaway Greenhouse Effect 55 Million Years Ago”. Warming from CO₂ released by volcanic activity or something caused methane hydrates (clathrate) to melt, leading to a massive methane release, said methane then transforming into CO₂. This goes in with the Clathrate gun hypothesis:

    In its original form, the hypothesis proposed that the “clathrate gun” could cause abrupt runaway warming in a timescale less than a human lifetime,[1] and might be responsible for warming events in and at the end of the last ice age.[2] This is now thought unlikely.[3][4]

    However, there is stronger evidence that runaway methane clathrate breakdown may have caused drastic alteration of the ocean environment and the atmosphere of earth on a number of occasions in the past, over timescales of tens of thousands of years; most notably in connection with the Permian extinction event, when 96% of all marine species became extinct 251 million years ago.[5]

    So not only was it not a CO₂ release but actually CH₄, it also wasn’t a quick ‘burst’ but a long build-up.

    More-current understanding is seen in this 2011 piece, “Methane May Be Answer to 56-Million-Year Question: Ocean Could Have Contained Enough Methane to Cause Drastic Climate Change”.


    Some who study the PETM blame the worldwide burning of peat, volcanic activity or a massive asteroid strike as the source of the carbon, “but there’s no crater, or any soot or evidence of the burning of peat,” said Gerald Dickens, a Rice professor of Earth science and an author of the study, who thinks the new paper bolsters the argument for hydrates.

    While the event that began the carbon-discharge cycle remains a mystery, the implications are clear, Dickens said. “I’ve always thought of (the hydrate layer) as being like a capacitor in a circuit. It charges slowly and can release fast — and warming is the trigger. It’s possible that’s happening right now.”

    That makes it important to understand what occurred in the PETM, he said. “The amount of carbon released then is on the magnitude of what humans will add to the cycle by the end of, say, 2500. Compared to the geological timescale, that’s almost instant.”
    …..

    Interesting reading. Apparently the oceans were warmer then than they they are today, about as much methane hydrate built up as we have today, but it was in a thinner stability zone than modern deposits.

    So when the “clathrate gun” gets fired, the “trigger is pulled” by a small amount of warming, which starts the release of the methane by melting some methane hydrates, which yields more warming, more hydrate melting thus more methane releasing, and then the runaway greenhouse effect until the stored methane hydrates are depleted, and the resulting CO₂ is eventually absorbed.

    If someone is confused on that one, they have no chance of being open to the present case of AGW.

    Puh-lease! You seek to compare modern human releases of CO₂ to the PETM, when you have neither the timescales nor the specific gas and release mechanisms correct. Thus it is you who is clearly confused.

    And while you have dallied with an ultimately false worry about only 3% of the total global releases of a beneficial gas whose potential global warming effect is saturated, you have missed the big picture. With about as much hydrates stored as before the PETM albeit in a wider stability zone, there is a high risk of a similar event. With the natural warming occurring, the clathrate gun trigger may have already been pulled, and the reaction is unstoppable.

    August 16, 2009: Warming Of Arctic Current Over 30 Years Triggers Release Of Methane Gas

    September 3, 2009: Methane Gas Likely Spewing Into The Oceans Through Vents In Sea Floor

    March 5, 2010: Methane Releases from Arctic Shelf May Be Much Larger and Faster Than Anticipated

    April 24, 2010: Study Finds Surprising Arctic Methane Emission Source

    June 18, 2012: Seeping Arctic Methane Has Serious Implications for Florida Coastline

    Why should people join you in your panic over harmless human puffs of CO₂, when You have completely missed The Greatest Menace To The Climate?

    In the throes of your nakedly anti-human bias, did you completely miss the Coming Climate Catastrophe because It’s a natural process and what’s natural can’t be a threat to life?

    Oh, by the way, as can be read in this September 2012 WUWT piece, researchers found Arctic-area undersea methane vents that have been active for hundreds of years, long before any possible noticeable AGW.

    So either you were wrong about the PETM and the methane hydrates are the thing to worry about, with there being clear evidence the long path to a runaway greenhouse effect has begun,

    Or you were wrong about the PETM but the methane hydrates are not something to worry about.

    In any case, as shown repeatedly, you are wrong about carbon dioxide. So why would anyone believe you about AGW being real and a credible threat?

  207. Friends:

    I have now returned and have checked developments on the thread. I write to correct yet another of Grimsrud’s delusions about me.

    At October 11, 2012 at 9:33 am ericgrimsrud wrote to D Boehm saying,

    On another thread, I once shared a bit of local Montana Ranch wisdom with one of your co-conspirators, RichardsCourtney.

    I write to state that
    (a) I am not aware of any conspiracy involving D Boehm,
    and
    (b) I am not involved in any conspiracy with anybody.

    It can be hoped that Grimsrud will obtain appropriate assistance to correct his delusions, assertions and behaviour. Other than that, he and his comments warrant no interest from anybody.

    Richard

  208. ericgrimsrud says:

    Kadaka,

    FYI, it does not matter whether the PETM was caused by busts of CO2 or CH4. CH4 turns into CO2 with a half life of 10 years. Also, it does not matter if the busts occurred over a period of 100 years, 1000 years or even 10,000 years. On the time scale involved here all of these can be considered to be essentially “instantaenous” because the warming effect lasted about 150,000 years.

    IN any case, it is clear that the bust of CO2 caused the warming and like the present situation the emission of CO2 preceeded the warming.

    So yes it does appear that my statement “Please!!! There is only one interpretation out there for the PETM. A huge CO2 bust throughout the planet caused a large T increase.” is correct.
    Eric

  209. ericgrimsrud says:

    to the Mods,

    My appologies for wondering if you had cut a previous post. I should have known bettter. Afterall, at the end of my comment on Oct 6 12:03 pm, you assured me that:

    “[You (your replies) have NOT been cut, killed, trimmed, or eliminated. The Mods. ”

    Silly me for suspecting that you were not totally honest.

    Eric

  210. bushbunny says:

    Methinks that your arguments are not being heard and I would change the record Ericgrimsud.
    I think you are dislusional in saying Richard and D B are in anyway connected to you, after all you said originally You did not know a Richard Courtney. Do your homework and take a sleeping pill.

  211. D Böehm says:

    ericgrimsrud says:

    “So yes it does appear that my statement ‘Please!!! There is only one interpretation out there for the PETM. A huge CO2 bust throughout the planet caused a large T increase.’ is correct.”

    Not really. That is simply a textbook example of the Argumentum ad Ignorantium fallacy; the argument from ignorance: “Since I can’t think of any other reason, then it must be due to CO2.” Nonsense.

    At least grimsrud is finally spelling the ‘PETM’ acronym correctly. Thanks to me. ☺

  212. bushbunny says:

    Ericgrimsrud, it snowed in Oz a few days ago, after some joker announced we would have an extremely hot 4 C increase soon. Well – can you explain this, watch out Northern Hemisphere, if we get snow in mid spring here, and we have had snow closer to Christmas some years, can you imagine what that will do for your hemisphere?

  213. ericgrimsrud says:

    Bushbunny, Thanks for the great news. I am so glad to hear that the Southern Hemisphere is getting colder. Eric

  214. ericgrimsrud says:

    D Boehm,

    Concerning the PETM, I did not jsut recently learn about it. See my coverage of it on my short course and especially the impact of the PETM on fossils in Montana and Wyoming in the Oct 11 issue of National Geophaphic.

    Sure, there is always a remote possibility that something other than a carbon explosion might have caused it – just as there might really be a tooth fairy. The evidence is clear that a carbon explosion preceded the 150,000 – year increase in temperature that followed.

    Just another coincidence you say !! And this is how you try to sell your anti CO2 campaign to the public. Your motto must be : “no one ever went broke by underestimating the intelligence of the public”. I hope my faith in the intelligence of the public is better placed.

  215. ericgrimsrud says:

    To Bushbunny, So pleased to hear that the Southern Hemisphere is getting colder (as evidenced by your discovery of some snow in it). Eric

  216. ericgrimsrud says:

    To Richardscourntey,

    The list of things you “are not aware of” is far greater than the ones you listed, expecially if you include the basics of climate change. If you need help in making that list, just let me know. Many of these “beauties” would come from a previous thread concerning Senator Inhofe and his book.

    I do realize, of course, that in “your profession”, actual knowledge of science is not necessary and, in fact, might be detrimental. What is important to one in your profession is simply to project an image of knowledge and experience to a public that often does not know the difference between a real expert and an pretend expert – who, for example, can not even provide a resume when asked for one.

  217. ericgrimsrud says:

    To all: note again, the exchance shown below between two foolish people:

    “D Böehm said on October 11, 2012 at 2:20 pm
    kadaka, Thanks for that. It still shows the central point: that CO2 follows temperature, not vice-versa. I’ll save it to my chart folder.”

    And these guys would have you believe what happened during the PETM and what is happening today !

  218. richardscourtney says:

    ericgrimsrud:

    Your post at October 14, 2012 at 8:44 am is offensive, ridiculous and untrue.

    For example, my “profession” was a research scientist for more than 3 decades. I was the Senior Material Scientist at the UK’s Coal Research Establishment: I would have been sacked if I were less than competent because people may have died from my incompetence. Whereas you are merely a failed academic who demonstrates no understanding of – or ability at – science.

    I choose not to boast of my achievements merely because you want me to. There is no purpose in “casting pearls before swine”.

    You demonstrate a complete ignorance of climate and climate change in your blog, in your silly book, and in your posts on WUWT. And your arrogance in your ignorance is astonishing.

    In the Inhofe thread (where you made such a complete fool of yourself) you claimed to know more about climate science than Senator Inhofe, the IPCC and Richard Lindzen. In the unlikely event that you manage to think for a moment, then you would benefit from thinking about why you are so deluded about your own knowledge and abilities. If you manage to do that then you will stop being so resentful of your betters (i.e. almost everybody).

    And, yes, in common with everybody else I am almost completely ignorant of the causes of climate change. Only you claim to have been given the deific power to know the unknowable: we mere mortals do not claim such deific powers. For example, I don’t know if recent climate change is or is not a result of internal climate system variability. Richard Lindzen states the matter more clearly than I could so I quote his words from
    http://www.glebedigital.co.uk/blog/?p=1450

    For small changes in climate associated with tenths of a degree, there is no need for any external cause. The earth is never exactly in equilibrium. The motions of the massive oceans where heat is moved between deep layers and the surface provides variability on time scales from years to centuries. Recent work (Tsonis et al, 2007), suggests that this variability is enough to account for all climate change since the 19th Century.

    I understand that this response to your offensive rant will have upset you, so I suggest you now take your Valium and ask the nurse to tuck you up for the night.

    Richard

  219. D Böehm says:

    grimsrud says:

    “And these guys would have you believe what happened during the PETM and what is happening today !”

    That literally makes no sense. We appear to be debating a fake expert who cannot write a coherent sentence. Occasionally lunatics appear on WUWT, but their pseudo-science cannot be allowed to go unchallenged, lest new readers believe what they read on the internet’s “Best Science” site.

    Just to clear up the PETM nonsense [and I note that grimsrud has quietly changed his "PEMT" acronym on his blog to the correct spelling], the PETM has no connection with current CO2 levels. The only relevant time scale is the Holocene.

    grimsrud speculates that the high CO2 levels during the PETM caused rapid global warming. Wrong. The warming took place over many millennia. And CO2 levels have been much higher in the past, without triggering global warming. CO2 has been very high during times when the planet entered, and remained in great Ice Ages for millions of years, and CO2 has been very low when the planet was warming. There simply is no correlation between CO2 levels and temperature prior to the Holocene. Thus, the PETM is simply a coincidental event. CO2 was not the cause, no matter how strong grimsrud’s religious climate belief is. He has zero evidence showing any cause and effect, only a one time coincidence from 55 million yeas ago.

    This has been a lengthy Whack-A-Mole discussion. Every bogus claim by grimsrud has been falsified, only to have him move the goal posts, and cherry-pick his next false claim to be deconstructed in turn. He is wrong because his basic premise is wrong: there is no scientific evidence proving that human emitted CO2 causes global warming. As Richard Courtney so accurately describes ericgrimsrud: “You demonstrate a complete ignorance of climate and climate change in your blog, in your silly book, and in your posts on WUWT. And your arrogance in your ignorance is astonishing.” Exactly so.

  220. ericgrimsrud says:

    To Richardscourtney and D Boehm,

    Please stop your pathelic whining and complaining. If you can’t take it, don’t dish it our. What goes around, comes around. So, crybabies, try to grow up!! Buck up!!

    I noted, however, that D Boehm did include just a bit of science in his last comment and I will knock those silly points out of the park soon when I have a few minutes spare time (speaking down to scientifically illiterate crybabies is really not that rewarding)

  221. D Böehm says:

    grimsrud’s psychological projection is amusing. No one has been more of a whiny sniveler, therefore grimsrud assumes that when others correct his pseudo-scientific nonsense, it is complaining. Wrong. Speaking for myself, I get much pleasure from deconstructing grimsrud’s falsified belief system. It is fun ‘n’ easy. Give me more, and I will knock ‘em out of the park.

    For example, look at this chart again. grimsmud wrongly claims that the PETM was caused by skyrocketing CO2. Looking at the chart, however, we see that CO2 levels were trending downward throughout the PETM, ≈55 million years ago.

    And of course grimsmud cannot explain why runaway global warming did not occur when CO2 levels were eighteen times higher than now. But I can easily explain: CO2 does not have the claimed effect. Simple as that, and the geologic record proves it. grimsrud’s anti-science globaloney is based on the falsified belief that CO2 matters. So prove it, grimsrud. I challenge you to produce a verifiable chart showing that rising CO2 causes a rise in temperature. If you cannot, you lose the argument.

  222. ericgrimsrud says:

    to Richardscourtney,

    Let me help you with your reservations and very touching shyness concerning the public exposure of your resume. You do not have to “force” it on us, you know. All one has to do is tell us where it can be found – for the sake of those like me that would like to look it up. This is how all scientists I know do this so you don’t need to worry about being perceived to be “bragging” as you said you did.

    On the other hand, if your resume showed very little evidence of education and/or professional contributions to science – then, yes, can understand your “shyness” concerning a discloured of your “professional” background. Also, of course, a resume usually clearly shows who you have worked for in the past and, perhaps, you are just a bit “shy” about revealing those associations, as well.

  223. ericgrimsrud says:

    To All
    Please note that the [snip] now says:

    “grimsmud cannot explain why runaway global warming did not occur when CO2 levels were eighteen times higher than now.”

    A couple of simple points here: 50+ mill years ago the temperature was very much higher than today – so that aligators lived in Alaska – and sea levels were about 70 meters higher than today. We think that a major reason for that was the increased CO2 levels of that time.

    Teaching elementary level climate science to folks that claim greater knowledge gets a bit comical does it not.

  224. D Böehm says:

    ericgrimsrud,

    You are quite the despicable character. You were forced to issue an apology for falsely claiming that Richard Courtney never wrote a peer reviewed paper. I found the first paper within one minute of searching. Now you are reneging/welching on your apology by raising the same ad hominem issue again.

    You are obviously unable to support your pseudo-science beliefs, so you revert to character and attack an individual rather than conceding that your beliefs are falsified.

    And I am still waiting for you to post a chart showing that ΔCO2 causes ΔT. If you are unable to post such a chart, you lose the scientific argument. That is why you fall back on your attempted ad hominem nonsense. You have already been proven wrong, and you have been forced to apologize. But we see that your ‘apology’ was insincere. Despicable.

    Finally, grimsrud bloviates: “We think that a major reason for that was the increased CO2 levels of that time.”

    You ‘think’ wrong. That is a classic example of the Argumentum ad Ignorantium fallacy: ‘Since I can’t think of any other reason, then CO2 must be the cause’. Ignorant nonsense. But prove me wrong: post that [non-existent] chart showing that changes in CO2 cause changes in temperature. Otherwise, you lose the argument, just like you have lost every other argument.

  225. ericgrimsrud says:

    To All, While the positive temperature effect of CO2 and the other GHG’s is obvious to all, DBoehm continues to whine and babble “stuff” about some additional proof he apparently needs in order to see that increased CO2 will result in increased temperatures.

    As I would to an elementary school student, I would prefer to first get D Boehm past his silly notion that there is no such effect by reminding him of “Mother Natures opinion” is on this topic. Via the information She left us in both the ocean core samples over the last 100 mYears and the information She left us in the ice record of the last 800,000 years, She has told us what “She thinks” the relationship between CO2 and Temperature is. Also, on another planet in our solar system, She has shown us what conditions are like when its atmosphere contains a very large amount of CO2.

    I do not want to get into a theoretical babble, babble, bable – bla, bla bla so called “disscussion” with anyone who does not even know and acknowledge the most basic information that Mother Nature has placed right in front of our nose. Need I once again relate that time-tested bit of wisdom we have here in the ranch lands of Montana concerning the perils of playing with feces?

  226. ericgrimsrud says:

    to all:

    [Snip. Dial it back. - Mod.]

    #1) 50 million years ago the average temperature of the Earth was about +12 C higher than today. If not due largely to the GHG effect of CO2 (which was then about 1,500 ppm, much higher than the our preindustrial level of 280 ppm) why do you think the temperature then was so much higher then – so that aligators lived in Alaska.

    #2) The surface of Venus has a temperature of about 700 degrees Fahrenheit. It is closer to the Sun but only about 33% closer. So why do you suppose the surface of Venus is so hot (sufficent to melt lead).

    [snip]

  227. D Böehm says:

    ericgrimsrud apparently forgot how thoroughly we deconstructed his Venus/CO2 beliefs with a link that he probably did not even read. Otherwise, he would not embarrass himself by referring to that debunked nonsense again. At the same atmospheric pressure, Venus’ temperature is fully explained by its distance from the sun. CO2 has no measurable effect on Venus, despite Venus having an atmosphere of 96% CO2. If the atmosphere of Venus was 96% Nitrogen the temperature would be the same.

    I note that grimsrud is incapable of producing any charts showing that CO2 changes cause temperature changes. That is because there is no such scientific evidence. grimsrud’s childish, scatological responses show clearly that he has no evidence to support his belief. The only charts available are those showing that CO2 is a function of temperature. In other words, grimsrud’s belief is baseless.

    Finally, grimsrud is still engaging in his usual psychological projection. I am providing verifiable links showing that his belief is wrong, but grimsmud’s response is to pretend that I am complaining. Of course, I am not. I am actually enjoying proving grimsrud is wrong. It is fun ‘n’ easy, and I’ll be here all week.

    And grimsrud should drop his constant references to ‘feces’. He is obviously fixated on feces, but showing his weird psychology in public is questionable at best.

  228. ericgrimsrud says:

    Attention World, DBoehm has declared:

    “At the same atmospheric pressure, Venus’ temperature is fully explained by its distance from the sun. CO2 has no measurable effect on Venus, despite Venus having an atmosphere of 96% CO2.”

    Amazing!!! Amazing !! Amazing !! And the surface T of Venus is about 700 degrees F and the solar flux at Venus’s location in the solar system is only about twice that of Earth and that factor of distance accounts for its exceedingly high temperature !!

    I think I’ll just sit back and watch to see if any readers on WUWT will step up to help Mr. DBoehm out and thereby tell him how totally out of it he is w.r.t. scientific knowledge and understand.

    So Venus has no greenhouse effect !!!!! And this guy regularly holds forth at WUWT without being corrected by the readership (with the exception of myself). Both amazing and sad.

  229. D Böehm says:

    I have provided this resource several times now, but ericgrimsrud has either neglected to read it, or it was beyond his understanding:

    http://theendofthemystery.blogspot.com/2010/11/venus-no-greenhouse-effect.html

    grimsrud makes the basic error of presuming that the temperature of the Venusian surface is the issue. It is not. As I have patiently explained to him, the temperature comparison must be made at the same atmospheric pressure as Earth’s surface. When that comparison is made, there is no difference between Earth and Venus that is not accounted for by their respective distances from the sun, per the inverse square law. Thus, it would make no difference if Venus had a Nitrogen atmosphere or a CO2 atmosphere. At the same barometric pressure, the temperatures of both planets is the same, after accounting for their distance from the sun.

    This same explanation has been provided to ericgrimsrud several times now, but he still cannot comprehend it. There is simply no measurable ‘greenhouse effect’ on Venus. “Amazing!”. But scientifically factual. Sorry about that catastrophic AGW nonsense.

  230. Anthony Watts says:

    The effects of sulfate aersols in the Venusian atmosphere are likely stronger than the greehouse effect anyway

    “It turned out that the greenhouse effect of sulfate clouds reflecting heat back to the surface of Venus was outweighed by cooling due to their reflection of incoming sunlight.”

    This is all from Carl Sagan and Jim Hansen in the early days of space exploration, when GISS actually did space studies before they became a CO2 whore to save their outfit from the funding chopping block post NASA Apollo.

    http://www.aip.org/history/climate/Venus.htm

    There’s no financial interest in revisiting the early claims about Venus for Hansen, so he doesn’t.

    Here’s the current understanding of Venusian sulphates in the atmosphere via Wikipedia:

    Sulfuric acid is produced in the upper atmosphere of Venus by the Sun’s photochemical action on carbon dioxide, sulfur dioxide, and water vapor. Ultraviolet photons of wavelengths less than 169 nm can photodissociate carbon dioxide into carbon monoxide and atomic oxygen. Atomic oxygen is highly reactive. When it reacts with sulfur dioxide, a trace component of the Venusian atmosphere, the result is sulfur trioxide, which can combine with water vapor, another trace component of Venus’s atmosphere, to yield sulfuric acid. In the upper, cooler portions of Venus’s atmosphere, sulfuric acid exists as a liquid, and thick sulfuric acid clouds completely obscure the planet’s surface when viewed from above. The main cloud layer extends from 45–70 km above the planet’s surface, with thinner hazes extending as low as 30 km and as high as 90 km above the surface. The permanent Venusian clouds produce a concentrated acid rain, as the clouds in the atmosphere of Earth produce water rain.

    The atmosphere exhibits a sulfuric acid cycle. As sulfuric acid rain droplets fall down through the hotter layers of the atmosphere’s temperature gradient, they are heated up and release water vapor, becoming more and more concentrated. When they reach temperatures above 300 °C, sulfuric acid begins to decompose into sulfur trioxide and water, both in the gas phase. Sulfur trioxide is highly reactive and dissociates into sulfur dioxide and atomic oxygen, which oxidizes traces of carbon monoxide to form carbon dioxide. Sulfur dioxide and water vapor rise on convection currents from the mid-level atmospheric layers to higher altitudes, where they will be transformed again into sulfuric acid, and the cycle repeats.

    Here’s a couple of gaseous absorption spectra graphs that might help in understanding:

    Earth: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Synthetic_atmosphere_absorption_spectrum.gif

    Venus: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Synthetic_Venus_atmosphere_absorption_spectrum.gif

    Note that very little visible light reaches Venus surface through the atmosphere, so there’s very little conversion of Visible light to LWIR as we see on Earth, and thus less upwelling LWIR to be reflected back by the Greenhouse effect.

    There’s a upwelling greenhouse effect on Venus no doubt, I also have no doubt it is small in comparison to the sulfate aerosol effects. While the analysis done by Henry Dale Huffman here http://theendofthemystery.blogspot.com/2010/11/venus-no-greenhouse-effect.html doesn’t explain everything about the Venusian atmosphere, it explains a lot.

    Mr. Grimsrud would do well to at least read it.

    Here’s another paper that tackles the subject: http://www.firmament-chaos.com/papers/fvenuspaper.pdf

    EXCERPT:

    The large amount of radiation escaping (from Venus) was measured by five different Pioneer Venus vehicles. In fact, a number of analyses, discussed below, were published confirming that its intensity is approximately 250 times that radiated by the Earth.The large net radiated energy measured by the Pioneer Venus instruments essentially ruled out the runaway greenhouse effect (RGE) hypothesis of Sagan and Pollack as the cause of the high temperature.The carefully worded NASA report Pioneer Venus, belies the truth of the matter (5).

    In fact, it fails to support the runaway greenhouse effect, since these words are never used. It states only that a [ordinary] greenhouse mechanism is apparently active between 50 and 35 kilometers, and that ‘global dynamics’ transfer the heat down to the surface. But the temperatures where the greenhouse effect exists, are only about minus 13 and 63 degrees Celsius. At most, the greenhouse effect creates a temperature comparable only to that at the surface of the Earth, and any ‘global dynamics’ must provide the means by which the temperature is increased to the 475 degrees, measured at the surface of Venus. This is precluded by the stable stratification of the lower atmosphere, and the absence of significant horizontal winds (6).

    Based on the small amount of H2O measured by Venera 11 and 12 and the large up- versus down-welling thermal flux measurements from Pioneer Venus Net Flux Radiometers on three separate probes (SNFR), Pollack and his successors pushed every parameter to its limit in order to make the runaway greenhouse model reproduce the measured surface temperatures. But the model has never come close to duplicating the up- and down-welling radiation measured by the three SNFR instruments in the lower atmosphere (Figure 2).Ackerman Fig 2This is a fatal flaw in what is essentially a one dimensional radiation model.

    To compound the problem, the model predicted that the atmosphere as a whole was losing energy by thermal radiation to space at a rate of about 205 W/m2 – an amount far in excess of the incident solar energy absorbed by the planet, which is 132_+13 W/m2, thus contradicting the fundamental assumption on which it is based – that the Sun is the sole source of heating.In one paper (7), Pollack ignored the measured up-welling radiation and instead contrasted the measured down-welling flux with an ‘expected’ value of up-welling energy predicted by a theoretical paper (9) written prior to the Pioneer Venus mission.

    Assuming Venus is an ancient planet, he dismissed the possibility of a significant internal heat source and declared that solar heating is the sole determinant of the surface temperature. Pollack acknowledged that the measured net cooling flux is two or three times greater than predicted by his model, stating that “better understanding” of the data is necessary. This has never been realized.Several other papers, published after the Pioneer Venus mission, confirm the fact that the data indicate much more energy is being radiated from the planet than is being received from the Sun. Measurements made from the orbiter outside the atmosphere, indicate that Venus is radiating 153 + 13 watts/meter2 while absorbing only 132 + 13 watts/meter2 from the Sun, constituting a net outflow of 21 watts per square meter over the entire surface of the planet (6).

    Discussing the net upward flux measured by the four probes that sounded the atmosphere, the same paper states that below 13 km Venus is radiating a net flux of between 15 and 30 watts/m2. In fact, a large part of the data from the most sensitive infrared radiometer (LIR) on the large probe, designed to detect visible and near infrared, were discarded because, from the lower cloud layer (~ 48 km) to the surface, “all channels produced signals that increased unreasonably” (9).Thus independent measurements on five vehicles, one measuring the energy emitted into space from the cloud tops, and four measuring some component of the up-welling or net (up- welling minus down-welling) energy flux in the atmosphere at completely different geographic locations, are consistent and indicate that Venus is radiating an enormously larger amount of energy than it receives from the Sun.

    In spite of this data, the authors of every one of these papers deferred to the theoretical model of Pollack, suggesting that all five of the radiation instruments on which their analyses are based, might be in error – even though there was no indication of problems in the calibration data. Based strictly on a thermodynamic analysis of the Pioneer Venus radiation data another group stated that neither the greenhouse effect nor global dynamics can explain the net outflow of energy, and that an internal source on Venus must be responsible for the emanating some 250 times the flux radiated by the Earth (10). Unfortunately, these authors also defer to the Pollack model, suggesting the possibility of instrumental error or that perhaps two of the three small probe sites are atypical of the planet as a whole.Later re-analysis of the SNFR and LIR measurements were said to identify ‘plausible’ sources for the measurement ‘errors’ and derived ‘corrected’ fluxes (11). When these were incorporated into the model they only confirmed earlier results which suggested that an additional source of thermal opacity was required to match the Pioneer Venus data. In spite of all attempts to address the so-called ‘opacity deficit’, a complete, self-consistent model of the Venus deep atmosphere thermal structure has still not been developed

  231. D Böehm says:

    Thanks, Anthony. As usual, you are up to speed on the subject.

  232. ericgrimsrud says:

    Anthony. Before working my way through the references you provided (none of which have appeared in the peer-reviewed literature, it appears), I have a couple of comments for your consideration right off the top.

    Yes, the solar radiation at Venus is about x2 that of Earth.

    But the albedo (reflection of that incoming sunlight) of Venus is about 90% versus 30% for the Earth. Thus, Venus actually receives less solar radiation than Earth.

    The only remaining factor that can affect the surface T of Venus is a greenhouse effect. Thus the GH effect of Venus is enormous – in order to account for its 700 degree F surface T. Note that there as not other factors that affect T other than solar intensity, albedo and the GH effect of gases and cloud.

    So what are the GH gases of Venus. They are CO2 and SO2 and many some other minor molecules – their water is gone, I believe. The cloulds are sulfate abased and reflect solar on the top side and due emit some IR in all directions even though they are high and probably relatively cold.

    So I don’t get it. What heats the surface of Venus other than a very strong GHG effect of the clouds and IR active molecules – that is, the same thing as on Earth.

    IN short and to save time, what additional mechanism are you suggesting that can add heat to the surface of Venus? There is only solar intensity (x2 of Earth), the albedo (90% versus 30% for Earth) and the greenhouse effect? Yet, these reference claim that there is no GH effect operative on Venus. I don’t see where this new insight is going and can already see why it has not (I believe) made it into the literature (where I would have noted it).

  233. D Böehm says:

    The atmosphere of Mars is more than 95% CO2. Even at a lower atmospheric pressure, Mars has MUCH more CO2 than the Earth has ever had.

    Where’d all that Martian global warming go?? ☺

  234. ericgrimsrud says:

    Just off the top, I would not expect Mars to be hot. First, Mars has no liquid water. Only the solid and gas forms are possible since the total atm pressure of Mars is only about 0.01 Atm and the triple point of water lies above 0.01 Atm). Thus water vapor can not be emitted in abundance in the warmer zones as it is on Earth. I believe some solid water is present in the solid CO2 packs at the poles of Mars. Thus Mars probably enjoys very little amplification of CO2’s effect by attendant rises in water vapor concentration and cloud formation as the Earth does. Also since there is no liquid water and probably little total water, Mars has much less thermal inertia in its various zones compared to Earth. Thus, temperatures at its Equator can be Earthlike during the day and colder than anywhere on Earth during the evening. Since Mars is on average is much colder than the Earth, its most intense IR emissions are undoubtedly at longer wavelengths than the Earth’s – thus not being so centered as the Earth’s emissions are near the main absorption band of CO2 at 16 um (CO2’s other other absorption bands are at even shorter wavelengths). The upshot of all of this is that Mars undoubtedly does enjoy a greenhouse effect, but it is not strong enough to make the planet hot anywhere and does not make it warm throughout the day anywhere. On a nice day at its Equator, it is thought to be pretty nice – about 70 degrees F. Not bad considering everything.

  235. D Böehm says:

    Both Mars and Venus deconstruct the pseudo-science fantasy that ericgrimsrud is so desperately peddling. There is no scientific evidence showing that human CO2 emissions cause catastrophic anthropogenic global warming — or any measurable global warming, for that matter. That is why grimsmud is incapable of producing a chart showing that CO2 causes any warming. He cannot back up his speculations with scientific evidence.

    If I am wrong, grimsmud needs to produce the chart. Otherwise, he loses the argument.

  236. ericgrimsrud says:

    DBoehm,

    You need charts? Have a look at the the temperature and CO2 levels indicated by the ice core records. Or CO2 concentrations and average temperature over the last 100 years. Of course, you will then say that correllation does not prove causation. Then I will say, of course not, cause is only suggested by a model or theory for which correlation provides evidence that either supports or refutes the model. And then you will say, Just as I thought its only a theory. And then I will say but that’s the way science always works. And you will say ……… etc.

    I deal with science which always involves probabilities as well as uncertainties. You seem to think someone can provide a chart that “proves” that increased CO2 is causing warming – a scientifically impossible request. Thus, until you learn what science can do and the proper language of science, there is no conceivable endpoint to your “argument”. It is an argument that only two scientifically illiterate persons would indulge in. So I am afraid you’ll have to find someone else to hold up the other end.

  237. D Böehm says:

    ericgrimsrud is now trying to imply that CO2 leads temperature in the ice core records.

    grimsrud is wrong, as usual.

    On all time scales, from years to hundreds of millennia, CO2 always follows temperature, never the reverse.

    Every claim made by grimsrud has been easy to falsify. The reason is clear: grimsrud begins with a false premise, that “carbon” causes runaway global warming. But empirical evidence falsifies his belief. There is no runaway global warming. Currently, there is not even any global warming. The real world is not being kind to grimsrud’s delusions.

    I will never alter grimsrud’s anti-science belief system, which is purely religious in nature. But I am happy to correct the nonsense he posts, and I will continue to correct him for the benefit of other readers. We cannot allow wild-eyed climate alarmists to go unchallenged when they post their provably wrong ‘facts’.

  238. Anthony Watts says:

    @ Grimsrud

    Highlighted above:

    “It states only that a [ordinary] greenhouse mechanism is apparently active between 50 and 35 kilometers, and that ‘global dynamics’ transfer the heat down to the surface.”

    Top down heating, transmission of heat (Brownian motion) down to the surface due to the thick gaseous atmosphere (100x density that of Earth) combined with high insulative properties of the atmosphere. There may by internal heat sources rising to Venus surface as well, either from radioactive decay and/or volcanism and the thick atmosphere prevents efficient radiation of that heat to space.

    “Volcanic features are abundant on the surface of Venus and are presumably the source of the sulfuric acid in the Venus atmosphere.”
    http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/solar/venusurf2.html

    How much volcanic activity is going on? We simply don’t know.

    How much of the heat is radioactive decay?

    The surface temperature of Venus is about 480°C, higher than any other solar system planet. While Venus does trap solar radiation in its atmosphere greenhouse fashion, data from Pioneer Venus Orbiter show that the planet radiates 15% more energy than it receives from the sun. In other words, Venus’s surface is hotter then it would be if only the greenhouse effect were operating. Where could this extra energy come from? If it arises from the decay of naturally occurring radioactivity, Venus would have to have 10,000 times as much radioactivity as the earth. If this is the case, Venus must have had an origin radically different from the earth’s. “The Mystery of Venus’s Internal Heat,” New Scientist, 88:437, 1980.

    We don’t know much about that either. What we do know is that the planet radiates more energy than it receives. The Greenhouse effect can’t possibly cause that.

    We know so little about the dynamics of the Venusian planet that even basic discoveries are still being made. For example from earlier this month:

    http://www.sci-news.com/space/article00629.html

    To simply hold on to a decades old pronouncement of “CO2 is the cause” when even less was known about the dyanmics of Venus is pure folly in my opinion.

    When we have a complete understanding of the atmosphere and the planetary heat budget based on measurements, then we’ll have a complete understanding of the role of CO2 and other gases in the atmosphere. Right now all we have are speculations and educated guesses.

    Hell, we don’t even have that for Earth yet, given the limited measurements, why could we fully understand Venus?

  239. ericgrimsrud says:

    @ Watts,

    If the energy emitted by Venus is 15% greater than the energy it receives from the Sun then, yes, that does suggest that an ancient fuel, radioactive nuclides, is contributing to the surface T of Venus. I will look into that.

    The reference you provided, however, is quite old (1980). Certainly we know a lot more today about the interesting questions it raised 30 years ago. Will look into that.

    In the meantime, however, I don’t see why you and others at WUWT can rule out the possibility of a run away greenhouse effect on Venus and embrace this other possibility.

    In addition, I don’t see how your other suggestion of some sort of energy transfer from the top of the Venus atmosphere to lower levels goes anywhere. If this were so, one still requires an additional energy source for that mechanism if you are suggesting that it adds additional heat to the planet.

  240. D Böehm says:

    ericgrimsrud cannot accept the fact that there is no measurable greenhouse effect on Venus. That fact alone negates his entire belief system. And the fact that the atmosphere of Mars has immensely more CO2 than Earth’s atmosphere, without any greenhouse effect, proves that any putative warming from CO2 is so small that it can be ignored for all practical purposes. If any such warming exists at all, it is too minuscule to measure.

    There might or might not be an effect, but at this point it is only a conjecture. If so, it is well below 0.5ºC per 2xCO2. That is what the real world is telling us in no uncertain terms, just as Venus is telling us that the excess heat produced at the surface must come from internal sources.

    ericgrimsrud will never admit that his CO2=CAGW belief has been completely destroyed by scientific evidence and real world observations. Such is the effect of his cognitive dissonance. But he has served the scientific method well in this thread, acting as the foil against which scientific truth has emerged triumphant.

    The catastrophic AGW conjecture has been falsified for all to see. That is the result of having a site that allows all points of view: the truth gets separated from the nonscience, like wheat from chaff. And that is why climate alarmist blogs can never allow skeptical points of view. If they did, the end result would be the same as here: their CAGW belief system would be destroyed by scientific facts. They cannot allow that, so they censor comments from scientific skeptics. And by censoring, they turn themselves into an echo chamber bubble, which forms the basis of their self-reinforcing anti-science cult.

  241. ericgrimsrud says:

    What credible scientist would ever claim that it is “fact” that Venus has no measurable greenhouse effect? None I should think. So when D Boehm says:

    “ericgrimsrud cannot accept the fact that there is no measurable greenhouse effect on Venus”

    What does that make him? Even Watts seems to acknowledge that we don’t know enough yet about Venus.

  242. D Böehm says:

    As predicted, ericgrimsrud cannot admit that his belief system has been falsified. I provided proof by H.D. Huffman that there is no measurable greenhouse effect on Venus. When faced with that fact, grimsrud blusters. He can hardly do otherwise:

    “I know that most men, including those at ease with problems of the greatest complexity, can seldom accept even the simplest and most obvious truth if it be such as would oblige them to admit the falsity of conclusions which they have delighted in explaining to colleagues, which they have proudly taught to others, and which they have woven, thread by thread, into the fabric of their lives”.
    ~Leo Tolstoy

  243. ericgrimsrud says:

    DBoehm, So you call that stuff on Huffman’s website “proof”, do you? Off da!!! If it was merely a valid idea, I should think it would have made it into the peer-reviewed literature by now, right? If so, could you tell us where this appears? If not, perhaps you should expand your own reading beyond comic books.

    REPLY: I’m about ready to give you another time out sir. Dial it down.

    Some people don’t want to go through the hassle of peer review, and some people have simply given up on peer review because it is so full of flaws and biases and gatekeeping from people exactly like yourself that have low tolerances for challenges. -Anthony

  244. ericgrimsrud says:

    Anthony,

    Thank you for clarifying an important point, that is apparently assumed to be true at WUWU. That is “peer review … is so full of flaws and biases and gatekeeping” even to the point that it is of questionable value to some.

    I agree that there is nothing wrong with the discussions and claims being made here at WUWT – and especially so if those ideas don’t get exposed via the traditional literature. Nevertheless and at the risk of being issued another “time out” let me add, even the arguments being made here can be strengthen if one can point to a peer-reviewed paper making such claims. This is especially appropriate if the claim in question is stated to be a “fact”.

    REPLY: Yes there’s a number of “facts” showcased on http://retractionwatch.wordpress.com/ Facts are stubborn things, they stand on their own merit, and generally don’t need to be bolstered by a stamp of approval from on high to be true. Traditional peer review/publication is about to go by the wayside, much like the dinosaurs. – Anthony

  245. D Böehm says:

    ericgrimsrud cannot falsify H.D. Huffman’s facts, so he falls back on an appeal to authority. That is simply hand-waving. If Huffman is in error, show us exactly where he is wrong in his analysis.

  246. ericgrimsrud says:

    Anthony, You make a good point when you say:

    “Traditional peer review/publication is about to go by the wayside, much like the dinosaurs”

    This statement presently applies equally to all of the exceptional efforts and accomplishments of man including those in the arts and all of the humanities. They are likely to all go the way of the dinosaurs

    We are presently on a course designed to please and fullfill human gratifications in order to cash in on the short term no matter what the environmental consequences might be for future generations. If science no longer helps us proceed in that direction, just define “science” to be something that no is longer trustworthy. So the bottom line opinions of all of our national scientific organizations say we are now in great danger from AGW that required forcefull action? What do they know? Just forget about it !!

    The dinosaur’s fate was not quite so far as our will be. They did not cause that meteorite to crash in the Yucatan peninsula. Our fate is more deserved thanks largely to the efforts of so many that presently do their very best to undermine the public’s confidence in their traditional communities of science so that business as usual can continue in the short term.

  247. ericgrimsrud says:

    [snip - you'll need to reword that BS about servants, you've earned extra moderation status - Anthony]

  248. ericgrimsrud says:

    Some clean up here. DBoehm claimed above that I said

    “ericgrimsrud is now trying to imply that CO2 leads temperature in the ice core records”

    Of course, I said not such silly thing. The ice core record tells us that temperature changed first due to the Earth’s orbital change followed closely by changes in the albedo. Then the change in T caused a change in CO2 levels. Anyone who has studied the ice core record knows that. They also know that the change in CO2 level, then caused a change in T ( that is commonly known as a “feedback effect”.

    So I can’t image why DBoehm made the statement quoted above. IF he would be so kind as to show me where I made such a statement, I would be most please to correct it.

  249. D Böehm says:

    ericgrimusmud says:

    “I think I’ll just sit back and watch to see if any readers on WUWT will step up to help Mr. DBoehm out and thereby tell him how totally out of it he is w.r.t. scientific knowledge and understand.”

    Well, Mr Grimsrud, no one seems to be coming to your rescue, are they? Anthony specifically corrected you regarding your Venus misconceptions, and I corrected you regarding both Mars and Venus. Mr. H.D. Huffman has logically proved that at the same barometric pressure, Venus temperatures are essentially identical to Earth temperatures. Your preposterous notion that the greenhouse effect raises the surface of Venus to 700º is not worth debating because it is not even wrong; it is so lacking in basic understanding that explaining to you what is happening would be a worthless time sink. Besides, Anthony has already explained it to you.

    If you can falsify Huffman’s logic, I will sit up straight and pay attention. But so far, all you have done is hand-wave. That wins no arguments here.

    I also posted a chart of ice core records proving that you have cause and effect exactly backward: CO2 lags temperature on all time scales, in all ice core records from both hemispheres, and on yearly, decadal, and millennial time scales. Therefore, ∆CO2 clearly is the result of temperature changes, not vice-versa.

    Grimsrud has already admitted that he cannot produce a chart showing that ∆CO2 causes ∆T. Therefore, all available scientific evidence supports the fact that ∆T is the cause of ∆CO2. There is no scientific evidence to the contrary.

    To recap: we have Venus, which at the same STP has the same temperature as Earth at the same STP, when accounting for their respective distances from the sun, and…

    We have freezing cold Mars, with >95% CO2 in its atmosphere and no greenhouse effect, and…

    We have empirical evidence showing that ∆CO2 always follows ∆T, on all time scales, and …

    We have at least one ‘credible scientist’, Dr. Ferenc Miskolczi, who gives the effect of a doubling of CO2 as 0.0ºC, thus falsifying grimsrud’s claim: “What credible scientist would ever claim that it is ‘fact’ that Venus has no measurable greenhouse effect? None I should think.”

    Grimsrud’s basic error is the result of his mistaken premise, in which he believes that rising CO2 will cause runaway global warming. But he has no empirical evidence to back up that Belief. In fact, all the available evidence falsifies grimsrud’s belief system.

    So who should we believe? Eric Grimsrud’s evidence-free, hand-waving nonsense, and his appeals to corrupt climate authorities? Or Planet Earth, and our lyin’ eyes? The answer seems pretty clear.

  250. ericgrimsrud says:

    DBoehm,

    Why all the bla, bla, bla, ripe with personal insults when you consider it to be a “fact” – that is, your point that Venus “has no greenhouse effect”. And instead of explaining the basis of your “fact” yourself, you ask me to prove why it is not a fact. You are the one that has declared this to be a fact. So please explain this fact in your own word (without simply sending us to some guy’s private web site) why you consider this to be a fact.

    If I claimed to you that 7 angels can sit on the head of a pin, would the next step be for you do explain why that might not be true? No you would first ask me to explain my reasons. Then you would examine my reasons and respond to them.

    Get it? Please explain why you believe in your “fact” and I will try to respond once you have clearly done that. Can you do that without plagerizing comments that you might not even understand yourself? The ball is in your court.

  251. D Böehm says:

    ericgrimsrud,

    I am not insulting you, I am holding your feet to the fire. Your squealing is because you cannot provide a credible response.

    Pay attention to the scientific method: skeptics have nothing to prove. Alarmists like you, on the other hand, have the onus of proving that your conjectures are scientifically verifiable. The fact that you fail to provide verifiable scientific evidence shows that your religious climate beliefs are falsified. So deal with that reality, since you have no scientific evidence to support your falsified Belief system. There is no scientific evidence for catastrophic AGW. Thus, your baseless conjecture fails.

    I suggest that you go back to your censoring climate alarmist blogs for some new talking points. The ones you are using here are old and busted.

  252. bushbunny says:

    I agree, change the ‘record’ Eric, because you are at present arguing with a brick wall.

  253. kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:

    From ericgrimsrud on October 16, 2012 at 8:14 pm:

    If I claimed to you that 7 angels can sit on the head of a pin, would the next step be for you do explain why that might not be true? No you would first ask me to explain my reasons. Then you would examine my reasons and respond to them.

    Now that’s just silly. D Böehm keeps asking for scientific evidence that can be verified, as he should. So you would be asked to provide the measured size and shape of the referenced pin head, and the average size and shape of an angel butt, with sources. Then there are hard numbers that can be verified, and calculations can be done verifying your result.

    And when the calculations and modeling shows that more than 7 angels can be seated on the pin head, no further weaseling from you such as saying you meant sitting comfortably, or that “more than 7 includes 7″. You have been weaseling and shifting all throughout these comments, your deviousness was already tiresome days ago.

  254. ericgrimsrud says:

    It is impossible to “prove” any complex relationship beyond all levels of doubt. So when some claims something to be a “fact” where in this case, that alleged fact is “Venus has no greenhouse effect”, that person is then the one obliged to provide the proof for their alleged fact. It is not appropriate to expect others to proof the opposite – because again no complex relationship can be proved or disproved beyond all levels of doubt.

    So OBoehm, please defend your claim – and in your own words, please, since you clearly believe in this “fact”. That is, man up. Step up to the plate. Follow through with your claim. Put up or you know what. Something defense of one’s statement is required instead of changing the subject.

  255. ericgrimsrud says:

    Kadaka,

    Couldn’t you please spend your time on something else, perhaps another “time-line” of sorts in order to hide the errors of your buddies from public view. ( I am still waiting to see an admission from DBoehm or detection from you that DBoehm’s estimate of the natural emissions of CO2 was about x1,000 too high while mine was essentially correct Will be a long wait I am sure!!). I don’t see that your input on this thread has been of any use to date. Your study of the time line missed the majoor point of confusion Thus, I applogize for tending to ignore you.

  256. Phil. says:

    D Böehm says:
    October 14, 2012 at 4:32 pm
    I have provided this resource several times now, but ericgrimsrud has either neglected to read it, or it was beyond his understanding:

    http://theendofthemystery.blogspot.com/2010/11/venus-no-greenhouse-effect.html

    Unfortunately this source is based on a fallacy:
    “Venus is closer to the Sun, and gets proportionally more power from it. Earth is 93 million miles from the Sun, on average, while Venus is only 67.25 million. Since the intensity of the Sun’s radiation decreases with distance from it as 1 over r-squared, Venus receives (93/67.25) squared, or 1.91 times the power per unit area that Earth receives, on average.”

    This is not true because the Bond albedo of Venus is ~3x that of earth so that Venus actually receives less power from the sun than earth.

  257. ericgrimsrud says:

    To Richardscourtney,

    On this or another thread, you took issue with my statement that there are only 3 factors that affect the energy balance of Earth. They are the intensity of solar radiation, the albedo, and the greenhouse effect (which of course includes cloulds as well as the GHG’s). You said that “natural variability” in another and, as evidence, pointed to a paper by Lintzen.

    That makes no sense. Natural variability does not cause heat to be added to or substracted from our planet. Sure natural variations of climate occur but these are due to the details of energy tranfer within our planet. Total Earth energy is not increases or decreased by these transfers of energy within the Earth. Thus, I think that my statement concerning the three factors that affect energy balance and average temperature is correct.

    If you don’t mind I will stop right there and await your response. I hope that I do not have to indulge in the personal insults you seem to love so much in order to get a response. Mine is an honest scientist question, with no intention of soiling your reputation.

  258. D Böehm says:

    ericgrimusmud says:

    “I think I’ll just sit back and watch to see if any readers on WUWT will step up to help Mr. DBoehm out and thereby tell him how totally out of it he is w.r.t. scientific knowledge and understand.”

    Still no knights in shining armor are appearing to rescue ericgrimsmud’s pseudo-science. No one wants to associate with a scientific illiterate who cannot refute — or even follow — a logical argument like H.D. Huffman’s.

    Venus has no measurable greenhouse effect. Mars has no measurable greenhouse effect. Earth has no measurable greenhouse effect. But those testable facts do not matter to religious fundamentalists like ericgrimsmud. All that matters to them is their evidence-free Belief.

    But that is not science, is it? No. That is credulous, uncritical acceptance of the repeatedly falsified “carbon” narrative. And of course, skeptics have nothing to prove. The onus is entirely on the lunatic “carbon” disciples to prove their conjecture. But they have failed miserably, as the real world shows. Still, they keep on digging, because that is what crazy people do.

    “The object in life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane.”
    ~Marcus Aurelius

  259. D Böehm says:

    Phil says:

    “…the Bond albedo of Venus is ~3x that of earth so that Venus actually receives less power from the sun than earth.”

    And therefore Venus must have an internal heat source, which accounts for its very high surface temperature. Thanks for supporting our argument.

  260. ericgrimsrud says:

    DBoehm,

    You said above: “— a logical argument like H.D. Huffman’s.” Great!, that is a start. Now please explain in your own words what that logical argument is. You believe it, right? So you can explain it, right?

    Or are you simply deferring to some sort of “climate authority” – that is someone whose theory you believe has risen to the status of “fact” but still can not even explain or defend the major points of his “logical argument”. ?

    Instead of attacking others all the time, why not take a moment to defend your own statement of “fact”. Isn’t that how science is supposed to work?

    To summarize: we were discussion the greenhouse effect of Venus. You have stated as fact the Venus (as well as Earth) has no greenhouse effect. So the ball is in your court. Please justify your statement – by explaining in your own words Mr. Huffman’s logical argument.

  261. ericgrimsrud says:

    Just to clarify a detail. Yes, my understanding is also that Venus has an albedo of about 0.9, about 3x that of the Earth, about 0.3. But that does not alone indicate that Venus has an internal heat source (such as might be derived from nuclear decay). The surface T could be high due to a huge greenhouse effect. On the other hand, the statement Anthony provided that Venus is emitting 15% more energy than it gets from the Sun does suggest an internal hear source. It does not, however, rule out a very significant greenhouse effect which contributed to the high surface T.

  262. D Böehm says:

    ericgrimsrud,

    Explain what good it would do you for me to repeat Huffman’s logical argument. If you cannot understand it or follow it, that is your problem, not mine. You have made no attempt to falsify Huffman’s logic, therefore your comment is only intended to obscure the fact that you cannot logically falsify it. I can understand his logic clearly. But you want me to repeat it again for you? Given your intellect, that would be a waste of time.

    You said: “You have stated as fact the Venus (as well as Earth) has no greenhouse effect.”

    As usual, you are flat wrong. I never stated that, it is a mendacious fabrication on your part.

    What I clearly stated was that there is no measurable greenhouse effect. I repeated that word three times in my last comment, so it is unlikely that you missed it.

    Do you understand “measurable”? It seems you do not. But for other readers, ‘not measurable’ means that any such effect is so small that there is no empirical evidence showing any such effect. If it exists, it is too small to measure. Therefore, any putative AGW is so minor that it can be completely disregarded for all practical purposes. And thus, your whole argument is deconstructed. But then, you never had a good argument from the get-go.

  263. richardscourtney says:

    ericgrimsrud:

    I copy your entire post addressed to me at October 17, 2012 at 9:28 am

    To Richardscourtney,

    On this or another thread, you took issue with my statement that there are only 3 factors that affect the energy balance of Earth. They are the intensity of solar radiation, the albedo, and the greenhouse effect (which of course includes cloulds as well as the GHG’s). You said that “natural variability” in another and, as evidence, pointed to a paper by Lintzen.

    That makes no sense. Natural variability does not cause heat to be added to or substracted from our planet. Sure natural variations of climate occur but these are due to the details of energy tranfer within our planet. Total Earth energy is not increases or decreased by these transfers of energy within the Earth. Thus, I think that my statement concerning the three factors that affect energy balance and average temperature is correct.

    If you don’t mind I will stop right there and await your response. I hope that I do not have to indulge in the personal insults you seem to love so much in order to get a response. Mine is an honest scientist question, with no intention of soiling your reputation.

    I would be interested to know how it is possible to insult you.

    There is nothing “honest” about your question because I have already answered it in this thread in a post addressed to you at October 14, 2012 at 9:21 am and in another post addressed to you in another thread.

    Perhaps the problem is that the explanation I provided is a quotation – with a link – from Richard Lindzen and his words are beyond your comprehension because he is a scientist.

    Richard

  264. ericgrimsrud says:

    DBoehm,

    OK, lets split some hairs and agree that the “fact” you claim exists is that their is “no measureable greenhouse gas effect on Venus” and that this has been proven by Huffman.

    OK, so please then explain that “fact”.

    OK, even if I am so dense as to not deserve your explanation – you owe it to others to share your understand in this “fact”. It is a point of great importance, I am sure you know. So please do share your insight concerning it with all of us.

    OK, so we’ve seen enough of your backside. Please sir explain and defend what you say. Your exact words were ” I clearly stated was that there is no measurable greenhouse effect”.

  265. kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:

    From D Böehm on October 17, 2012 at 11:01 am:
    (…) What I clearly stated was that there is no measurable greenhouse effect. (…)

    Be careful on your wording. We are in the age where dangerous chemicals can be measured down to truly infinitesimal concentrations, to the level where they will naturally be generated in the environment if absent, where the EPA will label them dangerous man-made pollution the EPA is mandated to control since they are measurable.

    Just as there are those certain they can measure fleas with a yardstick, there will be those who will find a measurable greenhouse effect. They’ll find a measurable greenhouse effect for Jupiter. They’ll find one for the Moon. They just have to keep “drilling into noise” to find the signal, just like Lewandowsky, you know?

  266. richardscourtney says:

    ericgrimsrud:

    You seem to be at an impasse with D Böehm so at October 17, 2012 at 11:25 am you ask him

    Please sir explain and defend what you say. Your exact words were ” I clearly stated was that there is no measurable greenhouse effect”.

    The record shows you react to anything I say with abuse, obscenity and insult, so I take an extreme risk in offering you anything. However, I will take that risk in hope of overcoming the impasse between you and D Böehm.

    Empirical – n.b. not model-derived – determinations indicate climate sensitivity is less than 1.0deg.C for a doubling of atmospheric CO2 equivalent. This is indicated by the studies of Idso from surface measurements
    http://www.warwickhughes.com/papers/Idso_CR_1998.pdf
    and Lindzen & Choi from ERBE satelite data
    http://www.drroyspencer.com/Lindzen-and-Choi-GRL-2009.pdf
    and Gregory from balloon radiosonde data
    http://www.friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/OLR&NGF_June2011.pdf

    If climate sensitivity is less than 1 deg.C for a doubling of CO2 equivalent, then it is physically impossible for the man-made global warming to be large enough for it to be detected because natural variability is much, much larger. If something exists but is too small to be detected then it only has an abstract existence; it does not have a discernible existence that has effects (observation of the effects would be its detection).

    This is similar to why global warming from cities is too small for it to be discernible. Every city is warmer than its surrounding countryside. This ‘city warming’ is known as the urban heat island (UHI) effect. The total UHI from all cities can be estimated as a contribution to global warming by measuring the UHI of each city and its area then adding that total warming from all cities to global warming in the same proportion as the total area of cities is to the total area of the Earth’s surface. But this global warming from cities is too small for it to be discernible although it can be estimated.

    Like the global warming from cities, AGW is also too small for it to be discernible because climate sensitivity is less than 1 deg.C for a doubling of CO2 equivalent.

    I tried to explain this to you on the ‘Inhofe thread’ but your abusive response was ridiculous. If you intend to do the same this time then count to ten before moving away from your keyboard.

    Richard

  267. D Böehm says:

    ericgrimsrud says:

    “OK, so we’ve seen enough of your backside.”

    Could you be any more obnoxious? You make comments like that because you lost the scientific argument quite a while back. I have no duty to educate you, a hopeless task anyway. I was doing errands. If you think I won’t correct your anti-science beliefs then you don’t know me.

    Regarding your continued insistence that I re-explain what H.D. Huffman has so lucidly explained, I suggest you re-read his link, and try to figure it out for yourself. You don’t require my translation. Huffman is very clear in his explanation. Your repeated insistence that I must also explain is due to the fact that you cannot falsify Huffman’s logic.

    I have told you this before, but you insist on changing the subject. No one else besides you seems to have any problem understanding Huffman’s argument. The fact that you cannot understand it is neither my fault, nor my problem.

  268. Phil. says:

    D Böehm says:
    October 17, 2012 at 9:46 am
    Phil says:

    “…the Bond albedo of Venus is ~3x that of earth so that Venus actually receives less power from the sun than earth.”

    And therefore Venus must have an internal heat source, which accounts for its very high surface temperature.

    No it recycles more of the energy in its atmosphere than Earth does, i.e. the Greenhouse effect.
    Lots of pressure broadening.

  269. Phil. says:

    D Böehm says:
    October 17, 2012 at 2:41 pm
    Huffman is very clear in his explanation. Your repeated insistence that I must also explain is due to the fact that you cannot falsify Huffman’s logic.

    I have told you this before, but you insist on changing the subject. No one else besides you seems to have any problem understanding Huffman’s argument. The fact that you cannot understand it is neither my fault, nor my problem.

    It’s not a question of understanding his argument, it’s flawed because it’s based on a false premise, apparently you fail to understand that. Huffman’s logic has been falsified.

  270. D Böehm says:

    Phil,

    If you don’t mind, I will take Anthony’s explanation over your… opinion. Why? Because Anthony has much more credibility. You, OTOH, are just another climate alarmist.

  271. Phil. says:

    D Böehm says:
    October 17, 2012 at 3:20 pm
    Phil,

    If you don’t mind, I will take Anthony’s explanation over your… opinion. Why? Because Anthony has much more credibility.

    You mean a 30 year old New Scientist article has more credibility?

  272. ericgrimsrud says:

    To D Boehm,

    Since you have been unwilling to explain the “proof” you believe Mr Huffman has provided for your “fact” that neither Venus or Earth have a “measureable” greenhouse effect, I decided to give it a go myself. So after reading the material he offers on his website, this is the summary of his case that you were unwilling to provide (I can now see why).

    His case is essentially this. If one compares the temperatures of Earth from sea level (about 1000 mbars pressure) up to a height where pressure is reduce to about 200 mbar with the temperatures of the Venus atmosphere from a height where its pressure is between 1000 nbars to 200 mbars, one apparently then gets a good correlation between the temperatures of those regions on those two planets after a small correction is made for the difference in the solar fluxes at the two locations of these planets in the solar system.

    He does not consider the Venus atmosphere at lower altitudes where temperatures are very much greater and does not consider the surface temperature where the temperature is more than 700 degrees F. This seemed a bit strange to me because the GH effect is generally invokes to help explain the surface temperatures of planets.

    From this information, he concludes that neither Venus or the Earth have a greenhouse effect ! That’s it !

    Note also that he just ignores direct and long standing evidence that refutes his conclusion. For example, the IR emissions measured everywhere on Earth, including those taken from the surface looking up at nighttime, bear the distinct IR emission signature of the individual greenhouse gases.

    Mr. Boehm, please feel free to add any details I have missed here is explaining how Mr. HHH has proved that there is no greenhouse effect operative on Venus and Earth – as you say he has. Some of us don’t get it and require your assistance in understanding your point.

  273. D Böehm says:

    ericgrimsrud,

    Well, it’s good to see that you have finally read the link. However, if you believe that the greenhouse effect causes Venus [but not Mars, eh?] to emit substantially more energy than it receives, there is no hope for you. Enjoy your religious experience. Because your Belief is certainly not based on science.

  274. ericgrimsrud says:

    (Snip. Read the Policy page. ~mod)

  275. ericgrimsrud says:

    To D Boehm,

    That’s all you have to add to what I said in support of Mr. Huffman’s “proof” that there is no greenhouse effect operative on Venus and the Earth? And you still believe in Mr. Huffman’s “theory” concerning …………… what was it that it concerned other than a means of provided the sought for “bottom line” with no beef associate with it.

    And by the way, I was not the one that claimed that Venus emits substantially more energy than it receives. That suggestion was made on this thread by Anthony Watts. So that is a point you should take up with him.

    And concerning “religions experience” ? You wander too far from science, Sir, to take you seriously anymore. As you continue to try to save face on this thread, please do not be disappointed is I ignore your meaningless comments from here on. One of my shortcomings is that there is a limit to the extent to which I can suffer fools gladly.

  276. D Böehm says:

    ericgrimsrud,

    Please, ignore my comments. Bravo! I absolutely approve of that decision.

    Rest assured, however, that I will not ignore your comments. Casual readers of WUWT will not be misled by your pseudo-science while I am around to correct your climate alarmist nonsense. I have deconstructed your entire Belief system, and will continue to do so every time you comment.

    For example, your underhanded attempt to pretend that Venus does not emit more radiation than it receives from the sun. By pointing the finger at Anthony, you tried to give the false impression that it isn’t so. But as usual, it is you who are emitting pseudo-scientific nonsense.

    Venus is an enigma. Mars is not. Both have extremely high CO2 levels, over 95%. Venus is hotter than we can account for without assuming an internal heat source. But Mars is freezing cold. Not much of a greenhouse there.

    Now, there may be a greenhouse effect, but if so it is too small to measure. On the other hand, you have stated your Belief in catastrophic runaway global warming due to rising CO2. The fact that you have no empirical evidence to support your Belief means that you have only a baseless opinion. A belief. That is not science, that is religion. And the planet itself is deconstructing your Belief. There is no sign of runaway global warming anywhere. You are only dreaming.

  277. ericgrimsrud says:

    To Richardscourtney,

    I have tried to respond to your last post – with a level of civility that matches your own – and with some relevant scientific comments. But they were blocked by the Mods. This is just to let you know that I tried and am not ignoring you. I am particularly interested to talking science without extensive use of one’s book of quotes. One can find anything one wishes to find on the bloggery.

    Hoping this passes mustard with the PC cops.

    Eric

    (Reply: your snipped comment did not mention Mr Courtney at all. ~mod)

  278. ericgrimsrud says:

    to Richardscourtney, Oh good, I am now again able to address you.

    So here I have a scientific question for you. As you know, you take exception to my previous statement that the energy balance of the Earth is determined by just three things. They are the intensity of the sun, the Earth’s albedo and the GH Effect. You claim that this is not true and for proof pointed to a scientific reference without explaining what that reference had to say about the point under consideration.

    So if you would, please tell us in your own words just one factor – that is not included in the three factors I listed – that affects the energy balance of the Earth.

    Simple question, right? And one that most readily understand, right. So why do I now suspect that you will try to change to subject and / or lob a view personal insults without ever addressing this very simple and very relevant question. We’ll see.

  279. ericgrimsrud says:

    Some person just said to me:

    ” For example, your underhanded attempt to pretend that Venus does not emit more radiation than it receives from the sun. By pointing the finger at Anthony, you tried to give the false impression that it isn’t so. But as usual, it is you who are emitting pseudo-scientific nonsense.”

    All I know about the possibitity that Venus emits more radiation than it absorbs is what Mr Watts told me in his posts on Oct 14, 5;13 pm and Oct 15, 8:22 above. I have no reason to doubt what he said and, until I learn otherwise, will accept the possibility that it is true. All of this is documented on the transcripts above. So who is that loose cannon polutiing every conversation he can at WUWT? So if the Mods can not help, I will try even harder to ignor all of his frequent posts on this and other threads. All one can do is post occasional corrections to any content, if any, included in his personal spasms.

  280. kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:

    So ericgrimsrud has returned to unsubstantiated accusations of WUWT censorship, eh?

    As fun as displays of slippery wriggling can be, I think this exercise in pig wrestling has run its course. As told by the old saying, the pig is enjoying it. Indeed, I can tell the pig is really enjoying it, as you’re wrestling a boar.

  281. D Böehm says:

    ericgrimsmud says:

    “I will try even harder to ignor [sic] all of his frequent posts on this and other threads.”

    You are simply not trying hard enough. You stated that you were going to ignore my comments. I approved of that decision. But you are weak.

    Not only weak, but wrong. As I clearly stated, I will correct all your anti-science comments. To date you have not made a convincing case that CO2 has any measurable effect on temperature. Your opinions are only baseless conjectures, and thus easy to deconstruct.

    Better run along back to your thinly-trafficked alarmist blogs. You need some new talking points, because the ones you have been parroting are old and busted.

    BTW, how is your search for my CV coming along? If you keep at it, you should find it within the next few weeks. Even less, if you really put in some serious time searching.

  282. wayne says:

    Anthony, maybe ericgrimsmud may have enough science background (questionable) to understand the concept of potential temperature in a gravitational field better than the molecular example of carrying heat deeper into Venus’s atmosphere than the one you used even though you are correct. Potential temperature explains it all it seems:

    Using the standard Φ = T ( p0 / p )^( R / cp )

    T.sv is temperature of Venus’s surface
    310K is temperature on Venus at one atmosphere
    8.315 is the gas constant
    37 is the specific heat capacity of CO2

    You get T.sv = 310 * (92/1)^(8.315/37) = 856K, a bit high but close knowing that the exact temperature at one atmosphere is in question and the specific heat capacity varies with the pressure and this assumes only co2 is present and even the surface temperature is a bit fuzzy, but simple potential temperature explains the large surface temperature even if no radiation ever made it deeper than 50 km at all. Pressure is temperature in an atmosphere and tell him any meteorologist knows this well… and to forget the GHE meme on Venus (or Earth).

    On Earth the ’76 standard atmosphere does not exactly follow this potential temperature parameter but roughly but also the our atmosphere, absorbing incoming radiation smoothly at all levels, has warmed each level more than if most of the temperature from absorption had originated high above as on Venus. That also explains that variance very clearly here, especially in the stratosphere’s case where potential temperature and actual temperature vary quite a bit.

  283. richardscourtney says:

    ericgrimsrud:

    At October 17, 2012 at 8:03 pm you write to me

    So here I have a scientific question for you. As you know, you take exception to my previous statement that the energy balance of the Earth is determined by just three things. They are the intensity of the sun, the Earth’s albedo and the GH Effect. You claim that this is not true and for proof pointed to a scientific reference without explaining what that reference had to say about the point under consideration.

    THAT IS A LIE.
    In the “claim” at October 17, 2012 at 11:18 am I wrote

    There is nothing “honest” about your question because I have already answered it in this thread in a post addressed to you at October 14, 2012 at 9:21 am and in another post addressed to you in another thread.

    Perhaps the problem is that the explanation I provided is a quotation – with a link – from Richard Lindzen and his words are beyond your comprehension because he is a scientist.

    If you had scrolled up to October 14, 2012 at 9:21 am you could have read

    Richard Lindzen states the matter more clearly than I could so I quote his words from
    http://www.glebedigital.co.uk/blog/?p=1450

    For small changes in climate associated with tenths of a degree, there is no need for any external cause. The earth is never exactly in equilibrium. The motions of the massive oceans where heat is moved between deep layers and the surface provides variability on time scales from years to centuries. Recent work (Tsonis et al, 2007), suggests that this variability is enough to account for all climate change since the 19th Century.

    The quotation from Lindzen provides a complete explanation for everybody who knows anything about the thermolhaline circulation and knows radiative flux from a surface is proportional to T^4 so small changes in distribution of the Earth’s surface temperatures have large effect on the average global temperature.

    Your knowledge of what is a “scientific question” is as lacking as your ability to understand a scientific answer.

    Richard

  284. Phil. says:

    D Böehm says:
    October 17, 2012 at 6:34 pm
    For example, your underhanded attempt to pretend that Venus does not emit more radiation than it receives from the sun. By pointing the finger at Anthony, you tried to give the false impression that it isn’t so. But as usual, it is you who are emitting pseudo-scientific nonsense.

    Venus is an enigma. Mars is not. Both have extremely high CO2 levels, over 95%. Venus is hotter than we can account for without assuming an internal heat source. But Mars is freezing cold. Not much of a greenhouse there.
    Not much of one but still measureable, percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere is not the relevant parameter, rather it is the partial pressure of CO2 and the influence of spectral broadening is very important, see a comparison between a portion of the CO2 IR spectrum under Earth conditions and Mars (note the large difference in transmittance):
    http://i302.photobucket.com/albums/nn107/Sprintstar400/Mars-Earth.gif

  285. Phil. says:

    D Böehm says:
    October 17, 2012 at 6:34 pm

    For example, your underhanded attempt to pretend that Venus does not emit more radiation than it receives from the sun. By pointing the finger at Anthony, you tried to give the false impression that it isn’t so.

    Anthony referred to a 1980 note in New Scientist magazine as the basis for that statement, there’s more recent science on the subject. The one below should be ‘paywall’ free:
    http://yly-mac.gps.caltech.edu/z_temp/venus_ref/Bullock_ClimateVenus_Icarus2001.pdf

    Work over the last 20 years or so have shown that Venus does have a powerful greenhouse effect, the above paper gives a very clear exposition of the basics.

  286. ericgrimsrud says:

    [snip - note above you've been given a 48 hour timeout - mod]

  287. ericgrimsrud says:

    [snip - note above you've been given a 48 hour timeout -mod]

  288. ericgrimsrud says:

    (Snip. ~mod)

  289. ericgrimsrud says:

    (snip ~mod)

  290. Phil. says:

    richardscourtney says:
    October 18, 2012 at 2:31 am
    If you had scrolled up to October 14, 2012 at 9:21 am you could have read

    Richard Lindzen states the matter more clearly than I could so I quote his words from
    http://www.glebedigital.co.uk/blog/?p=1450
    “Recent work (Tsonis et al, 2007), suggests that this variability is enough to account for all climate change since the 19th Century.”

    Although that is not a conclusion that Tsonis et al. draw themselves, they conclude:
    “The standard explanation for the post 1970s warming is that the radiative effect of greenhouse gases overcame shortwave reflection effects due to aerosols [Mann and Emanuel, 2006]. However, comparison of the 2035 event in the 21st century simulation and the 1910s event in the observations with this event, suggests an alternative hypothesis, namely that the climate shifted after the 1970s event to a different state of a warmer climate, which may be superimposed on an anthropogenic warming trend.”

Comments are closed.