The Dr. David Viner moment we’ve all been waiting for…a new snow record

WUWT readers surely recall this most often quoted prediction about snow. From the Independent’s most cited article: Snowfalls are now just a thing of the past by Charles Onians:

However, the warming is so far manifesting itself more in winters which are less cold than in much hotter summers. According to Dr David Viner, a senior research scientist at the climatic research unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia,within a few years winter snowfall will become “a very rare and exciting event”.

“Children just aren’t going to know what snow is,” he said.

It seems despite the sage advice from that East Anglia CRU scientist, a new record for snowfall has been set for the month of December.

From the Rutgers University Snow Lab, we have this graph for the Northern Hemisphere for all months of December. December 2012 was a clear winner.

nhland12[1]

Source: http://climate.rutgers.edu/snowcover/chart_anom.php?ui_set=1&ui_region=nhland&ui_month=12

Increased evaporation combined with more heat loss in the Arctic due to a record low amount of Arctic sea ice is the likely cause.The Great Arctic Cyclone of 2012 was a big factor in this.

To be fair though, lets look at all the data for all months. The 70’s were peak years, so was 1993 (post Pinatubo eruption) as was the winter of 2002/2003.

anom_nhland[1]

Source: http://climate.rutgers.edu/snowcover/chart_anom.php?ui_set=0&ui_region=nhland&ui_month=12

While we surely don’t have a new annual snow record yet, the winter is not yet over and it remains a possibility. We’ll revisit this come spring.

h/t to Pierre Gosselin via Marc Morano

About these ads

248 thoughts on “The Dr. David Viner moment we’ve all been waiting for…a new snow record

  1. Dr Viner now runs the Climate Change programme at the British Council (the UK’s English Language and Cultural global outreach programme. You may well ask why such a programme exists, to which the only answer must be a BC adeptness at leaping on to a (funding) bandwagon. Their website offers Dr Viner for interviews, but if you request an interview and pitch in skeptical questions in advance, he refuses to talk. At least he did to me!

  2. Consider the .2C temp anomoly for Dec. with all the latent heat released by the snow formation. Unless there was a whole lot of evaporation in the souther hemisphere the world has cooled considerably. Back to baseline for the first half of next year?

  3. So, where is Dr. Viner now? Here he is, at Mott-MacDonald:

    20 November 2012
    Mott MacDonald appoints Dr David Viner as principal advisor for climate change

    “Mott MacDonald has appointed Dr David Viner as principal advisor for climate change. An internationally recognised expert, David brings with him 20 years of experience working in the area of climate change.”

    About Mott MacDonald
    The Mott MacDonald Group is a diverse management, engineering and development consultancy delivering solutions for public and private clients world-wide.

    David was a co-recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize in 2007 for his contributions to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change between 1993-2007.

    Mott MacDonald’s uniquely diverse 1 billion global consultancy works across 12 core business areas.


    So he is now a highly paid climate consultant (and, like Mike Mann, a co-recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize!). Long live the Climate Ca$h!

    (PS: Mott-MacDonald is not affiliated with either Mott the Hoople or MacDonalds Restaurants…)

  4. In defense of Viner’s prediction, all that’s required to set things right is to doctor the good doctor’s words in his prediction : replace “less” with “more,” “never” with “always,” and insert
    “not” before each of his verbs. With these minor adjustments, see how close he came to being spot on? Amazing.

  5. Trevor Jones
    What was Your awkward question ? Was it anything along the lines of :
    “So Dr Viner , now that snow is a thing of the past , what ARE We going to call all this cold white stuff My car is buried under ?”

  6. Perhaps you’d also like to look at temperature records in NE Eurasia this winter – seems currently to be rather cold over there.

  7. The Cryosphere Today Sea-Ice map, on Anthony’s “Sea Ice Page,” also shows snow-cover (although I’m not sure how accurate it is.) As the snow-cover first started extending south in September it was startling how swiftly nearly all of Russia was covered, right down into China.

    On that same “Sea Ice Page” you can compare the current Cryosphere Today map with one from the low-ice year of 2007. While everyone else was focusing on the regrowth of the sea ice, I was noticing how much less the snow-cover was in 2007 than it is this winter.

    Things have changed.

  8. Snow cover might not equate to snowfall, it might relate to snow cover “endurance”. I got one inch of snow before Christmas and that’s about it, and two weeks later there still is one inch of snow on the ground. Even the snow on the deck hasn’t melted. It was mostly cloudy and cold all those days but it seems rather odd that it isn’t melting.

  9. For Byron, my awkward question was: ” I really liked your statement about winters being free of snow, because it felt like a falsifiable bit of prediction. In view of the run of cold winters we have had, what are your views now?”

  10. “winter is not yet over”

    Had enough of it already Anthony? And I thought winter just started two weeks ago.

  11. I doubt the missing ice theory. Today’s precipitable water does not come from that small bit of ice-free Arctic in September, but from bulk of Atlantic and Pacific oceans. There were both positive and negative records in 70ties, so an individual record is hardly *tiable* to anything specific.

  12. Frank K. says:
    January 4, 2013 at 5:44 am

    “…
    David was a co-recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize in 2007 for his contributions to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change between 1993-2007.

    Waitaminnit…

  13. Wasn’t it Yogi Berra who said something along the lines of, “Predicting the future ain’t what it used to be.” Whether it’s snow, drought, rain, temperatures, sea level rise, or as in the case of predicting the number of salmon to return to the Sacramento River to spawn, the envirofools are almost never even close to correct. An yet, they keep their jobs, keep making massively wrong forecasts and the media keeps printing and broadcasting the baloney as if it’s the true, revealed word of God. Just as with the results of the last election, the only explanation is a truly ignorant populace that will believe anything.

  14. I lived in East Anglia from 1979 through most of 1982. While the winters were not as harsh as those I had experienced in the US upper Midwest (western South Dakota, to be exact), there was one near-blizzard storm that struck just before the winter solstice in December 1981. Unlike most of the snow falls we experienced, that one paralyzed transportation for a day or two and the snow was deep and persistent. At the time, the local response to a snow fall was “let it melt,” but that one didn’t oblige.

  15. Increased evaporation combined with more heat loss in the Arctic due to a record low amount of Arctic sea ice is the likely cause.

    and

    The 70′s were peak years,…..

    I have to ask what caused those peak years? I’m no weatherman, just asking.

  16. Frank K. says: January 4, 2013 at 5:44 am

    Mott the Hoople. . .

    Showing your age there. Me too.

  17. @Scott

    I have the same nit-pick. What is the snow mass v.s. what is the snow cover. Freezing water expels CO2. If there is a lot of extra snow and ice globally, then the CO2 level should rise. If you look at http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/ you can see the kicking upwards as the North goes into the winter freeze. If the slope of that line is steeper upwards than other years, we could surmise the amount of water freezing is greater than usual. If not, it is a dusting over a larger area.

    I have been unable to locate a ‘snow mass’ and ‘ice mass’ index. We do have one WUWT reader here in Point Barrow AK who notes there is a relatively rapid rise or fall in the local CO2 level that might be caused by ice/snow. Perhaps he can commment. The low temps in AK right now should be pushing out extra CO2.

  18. I tried quoting Viner at a warmist true believer at The Guardian recently only to be told that this was so long ago and predictions have moved on.
    Of course they have, as soon as the predictions are proved wrong new predictions come along with zero change to the belief system which produced the wrong predictions in the first place or acknowledgement that they were talking rubbish then and equally might be doing so now..

  19. In that very same Independent newspaper we have this EXCLUSIVE back in the day.

    Independent Friday 27 June 2008
    By Steve Connor , Science Editor
    Exclusive: Scientists warn that there may be no ice at North Pole this summer

    It seems unthinkable, but for the first time in human history, ice is on course to disappear entirely from the North Pole this year.

    http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/exclusive-scientists-warn-that-there-may-be-no-ice-at-north-pole-this-summer-855406.html

    [My bolding]

    Now what’s so shocking is he was wrong twice in the same sentence.

    Below is evidence of ice free Arctic Ocean summers during the last ~11,000 years.

    http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.quascirev.2010.08.016

    http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007AGUFMPP11A0203F

    http://geology.geoscienceworld.org/cgi/content/abstract/21/3/227

  20. To be fair (for once) he was referring to the UK and we haven’t got much snow (other than in the far north of Scotland) just a load of floods and the second wettest UK since records began in the 1950’s.
    Of course this rather mucks up the Mediterranean climate we were supposed to get with Global Warming

  21. I hope we can get a lively discussion going about whether the evaporation of the Arctic Ocean contibutes much to snowfall totals. A few Ideas I’ve had, just thinking about it:

    1.) It seems evaporation of the Arctic Ocean would contribute most in the early winter. Already a lot of the Arctic Ocean is frozen over.

    2.) From memory, looking only at the Cryosphere maps, 2007’s “open” Arctic Ocean didn’t have the same effect. What was different?

    3.) Another definate influence is whether you have a zonal pattern or a blocking pattern. A zonal pattern keeps the cold air bundled up at the pole, however a blocking pattern has big loops in the jet stream, which allows surges of cold to spill south and generate snowstorms.

  22. Isn’t it amazing how you can talk complete b*ll*cks about climate and climate change and then a few years later (without a trace of embarrassment) a different set of rubbish AND people still want to pay you for advice. It must be the nearest thing to perpetual motion you can get.

    The UK has had a 2001 conference on how farmers will cope in a wetter world – 2012 conference on how to cope in a drier world (see article below)

    http://www.fwi.co.uk/Articles/12/03/2012/131835/Climate-change-predictions-are-drying-up.htm

    Now the UK is flooded only 9 months later- the old 2001 PowerPoint must be being dusted off ready to go.

  23. Couple of odd things in the graph provided.

    Note that it is FALL snow cover that peaks in the various past years, with the exception of what looks like 76 or 77, where Winter snow cover peaked. I think Curry et al did a study on Arctic sea ice cover and general snowiness in the Norther hemisphere.

    A peek-a-boo analysis (eyes only) looks like the 21st century NH is having less snowy springs and summers, and more snowy falls and winters.

    I have some doubts about the quality of the graph, as there are two instances of high SUMMER snow cover — 67 and 76 — I am having trouble remembering either of these summers with an extra 4 million sq km of snow.

  24. To Oldjim:

    Just wait, your turn is coming. Much of Asia and Eastern Europe is very cold right now.
    When that air mass shifts West, watch out!

  25. Tell me Dr David Viner,

    When you made the claim that snow was a thing of the past, were you expressing a scientifically based conclusion, or were you speaking as a Global Warming zealot [snip . . mod].

    You are not a scientist. [snip . . mod].

  26. Luckily Germany found a sweet spot of warmth and no snow at the moment. Even more bizarre, all our leftist groups including the Greens are due to local elections so fixated on class warfare rethoric that nobody mentions it. Maybe they printed so much class warfare material that they can’t turn around their campaigns to exploit the current snow-less situation.

    So, we seem to be one of the few countries not affected by the Viner Effect (which is the abundance of snow caused by the prophecy of no snow ever again.)

  27. Clowns like Viner should be ignored. It is obvious he uses the tools and tricks of illusionists to spread his dogma. I guess if the people of the UK are stupid enough to fund these people then they are receiving what they are paying for. But then any society that allows bankers to get away with swindling and massive fraud with only a slap on the hand fine instead of jail time must find it difficult to get much of anything right.

  28. Onians of the Independent newspaper is a human rights issues journalist, not a scientific reporter! So if the newspaper did not assign the correct person to the task that’s the first mistake. To compound the mistake he goes on to quote bizarre sources such as, a toy shop, a skating club, a local historian, etc, and Viner, who does not offer peer reviewed evidence for example! Anyhow the interview may have happened over a ‘liquid lunch’ a typical journo exercise on expenses and Onians then made a mountain out of a molehill of Viners answers!

  29. “Predictions are very difficult, particularly if they are about the future.” You are all forgetting that global warming is out and climate change is in, so more snow is OK as it is caused by glo…er…climate change.

  30. Oh the UEA, IPCC, and all the rest will be all over this, hauling out the old increased albedo chestnut as a “hider” of the strong CAGW trend.(sarc?)

  31. Allen Cic says:
    January 4, 2013 at 6:53 am
    Whether it’s snow, drought, rain, temperatures, sea level rise, or as in the case of predicting the number of salmon to return to the Sacramento River to spawn, the envirofools are almost never even close to correct.
    ………………………………

    It’s worse than that! When a prediction turns out to be false, the contrary evidence disproving the prediction is, they argue, “consistent with” cAGW. These people have no scruples.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/topics/weather/4436934/Snow-is-consistent-with-global-warming-say-scientists.html

  32. Would it be out of place for us to forward this posting (and Comments) to Mott MacDonald Group? (If it is okay, could we please have the e-dress to save us time looking for it?)

    IanM

  33. >Crispin in Waterloo says:
    >Freezing water expels CO2

    Sorry…WHAT?!??! That’s a new one on me – References please.

    Jeff

  34. The main reason we get snow is that the Earth spins….and in doing so gives us frontal weather. Also basic physics seems to
    elude to the fact that the vertical air currents on earth that circulate hot/cold air are not going to vary much if at all due to a modestly warming world ( if it ever does start to warm again ). BUT it would seem a plausible outcome the more you dig into these natural forces that a warming world would lead to extremes of heating at the equator , but then also modest cooling at the poles, then to follow the planets attempt to balance ( whilst still spinning by the way ) , the only result of this that keeps popping up in my fag-packet-jottings [ thats cigarette packet for my non uk chums ] is SNOW…. and LOTS of it…..

  35. Dennis Nikols says:
    January 4, 2013 at 8:47 am

    Clowns like Viner should be ignored. It is obvious he uses the tools and tricks of illusionists to spread his dogma. I guess if the people of the UK are stupid enough to fund these people then they are receiving what they are paying for. But then any society that allows bankers to get away with swindling and massive fraud with only a slap on the hand fine instead of jail time must find it difficult to get much of anything right.

    Sorry – although I agree with your assessment of Viner, I have to call you out on your sweeping generalisation: If you think the “people of the UK” have any say whatsoever in who gets funding, and on what happens to white-collar criminals, you are deluding yourself, and insulting a great number of good people. Dial it back, and actually think before you type. Unless, of course, you have some personal axe to grind?

  36. Oldjim had a good point, that Dr. Viner could claim his comment is just about England. The Met office does have data on snowfall and since 2000 the UK has seen a good amount of snow, especially 2008, 2009, 2010 and 2012. But UK info on specific snowfall amounts I have not found.

  37. Elftone, Dennis Nikols is absolutely correct in his assessment of the general populace of the UK. As a matter of fact, he is also correct r.e. the good old U.S. of A. Politicians in the UK and US are elected. The politicians, or their appointees, make the decisions about funding the global warming crap. Therefore it is the people’s fault for the wasted money and other resources of the CAGW hoax. When the voters wise up, the CAGW gravy train will stop.

  38. William Marshall says:
    January 4, 2013 at 9:10 am

    Onians of the Independent newspaper is a human rights issues journalist, not a scientific reporter! So if the newspaper did not assign the correct person to the task that’s the first mistake. To compound the mistake he goes on to quote bizarre sources such as, a toy shop, a skating club, a local historian, etc, and Viner, who does not offer peer reviewed evidence for example! Anyhow the interview may have happened over a ‘liquid lunch’ a typical journo exercise on expenses and Onians then made a mountain out of a molehill of Viners answers!

    I’m not so sure you should let the Independent get away with it so easily. As I pointed out above here we have a science editor from the Independent who made a failed prediction and a factual error.

    Now regarding the article from 2000 Dr. Viner said in quotes:

    “a very rare and exciting event”.
    “Children just aren’t going to know what snow is,”

    Well, it’s not rare and children still know what snow is.

  39. @ Timothy Sorenson
    The Met Office has snow data between the 1950’s and 1992 where it seems to stop?
    Maybe they new then that it would be a rare and interesting event.

    As to Viner he appears to have lost his job after the British Council came to their senses and cut their £2million a year on climate change nonsesnse to £3000.
    Never mind Dave no doubt you amassed a suitable number of air miles whilst there?

  40. Kip Hansen says:
    January 4, 2013 at 7:40 am

    Couple of odd things in the graph provided.

    Note that it is FALL snow cover that peaks in the various past years, with the exception of what looks like 76 or 77, where Winter snow cover peaked. I think Curry et al did a study on Arctic sea ice cover and general snowiness in the Norther hemisphere.

    A peek-a-boo analysis (eyes only) looks like the 21st century NH is having less snowy springs and summers, and more snowy falls and winters.

    I have some doubts about the quality of the graph, as there are two instances of high SUMMER snow cover — 67 and 76 — I am having trouble remembering either of these summers with an extra 4 million sq km of snow.

    It of course depends on how they are defining “summer” presumably it is any snow that falls after the spring equinox and before the autumnal equinox. Here in Colorado we do have snows in the Denver Metro area as late as the first week in June and earliest snow the first week of September, both of which would qualify as “summer snow falls”. That coverage could easily be accomplished by both a late last snow and an early first snow in a calendar year covering several of the northern plains states, even if the snow only lasted for 24 hours in each storm.

    Larry

  41. Kip Hansen-
    I believe the ’67 summer cover “high” figure was due to the lingering snow cover in the Rockies.

  42. I’m sure Dr Viner was speaking about the UK. The temps over the last few days have been around 11 and 12C – almost like a UK summer. Could it be he was right? (nah!).

  43. @JKrob says:
    >>Crispin in Waterloo says:
    >>Freezing water expels CO2

    >Sorry…WHAT?!??! That’s a new one on me – References please.

    This is not complicated at all. Consider the ice cores everyone is happy to talk about. Inside the packed snow (eventually ice) are tiny pockets of air that contain ‘air samples’ from long ago. They analyses these little packages to find out what the CO2 was centuries ago. They to not analyse the ice because there is no CO2 in the snow or the ice. Why? because ice and snow contain no CO2 at all, zero.

    Each time water freezes it kicks out its absorbed CO2. When ice melts it almost immediately (within a few seconds of contact with air) picks up about 450 ppm CO2 (the average in the seas – yes, it is temperature dependent). So when for example the Greenland ice sheet melts, it will absorb:

    3.5 million cubic kilometers x 1 billion tons per cubic km x 1000 kg per ton x 420 ppm =

    1.47 x 10^15 kg of CO2 (if it is available at 390 ppm in the atmosphere)
    or 1.47 billion tons
    or 1.47 x 10^18 Petagrams as some like to measure it.

    It is an about equal to 1/2 the total CO2 in the atmosphere at present. If Antarctica were to go ice-free, it would absorb about 8 times that of the melted Greenland ice sheet.

    There is a heck of a lot more snow and ice out there than is present on the Greenland ice sheet. My question is, “What is the mass of water cycling into and out of the form of ice and snow each season?” And also, “How much CO2 is expelled by land+sea ice and snow seasonally?”

    It is often said (Willis repeated it today) that the CO2 rise and fall in the atmosphere is due to biomass growing in summer. Really? Well, how much biomass is cycling into and out of growing seasons (i.e. sub-tropical and tropical are not included) and much CO2 does it ‘draw down’ each year? Compare that with the amount of CO2 expelled by sea ice (volume and mass known) and snow (volume and mass unknown) and groundwater that freezes. Maybe it is not much after all. Maybe it is a lot. The temperature of the sea water has an influence, right? Maybe the colder water more than makes up for the ice. Let’s see some numbers.

    As the amount of snow and ice in the southern hemisphere changes comparatively little from season to season, the northern hemispheric contribution dominates and there is a clear cyclical variation in the overall CO2 level. As soon as the most northerly ice stops melting, the CO2 stops dropping. As soon as it starts freezing, the CO2 start rising again. Why? Because ice does not contain CO2 but the water from which it froze did.

    We have record snow cover in December for the NH. That means the ground moisture froze down to some point as well. What is the average moisture content of soil frozen down 4-10 feet in Canada and Siberia? Plus the mass of snow and ice upon it? Plus the sea ice? Freezing pushes out CO2; it’s as clear as the line on that chart from Hawaii.

    Please have a look at http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/ Can you see that the December 2012 (the last month shown) rise in CO2 is at a greater pace than other Decembers? Is it because of a colder than average December with unusually large amounts of NH water freezing? If it was drawn down by growing biomass in summer, why would the biomass hand it back in winter? Do trees shrink in winter? I think not. Household heating systems? No chance! Mere blip. Numbers are way too small. It can’t be emerging from the cooling NH oceans because they are taking up CO2 right now. The seasonal variation is 4.9 x 10^13 kg or about 6ppm. I think it is kicked into the air by water freezing. Ocean water can’t react fast enough to stabilise it completely.

  44. jayhd says:
    January 4, 2013 at 10:27 am

    Elftone, Dennis Nikols is absolutely correct in his assessment of the general populace of the UK. As a matter of fact, he is also correct r.e. the good old U.S. of A. Politicians in the UK and US are elected. The politicians, or their appointees, make the decisions about funding the global warming crap. Therefore it is the people’s fault for the wasted money and other resources of the CAGW hoax. When the voters wise up, the CAGW gravy train will stop.

    I see your point (although it fails to address the white-collar crime comment he made), but have to say that if voters in the UK and US were actually presented with a choice, then they could vote for something other than “meet the new boss, same as the old boss”. But that won’t happen in regard to CAGW, as it is seen as “the greatest revenue stream” in living memory by politicians. It’s a way to gain enough money, both for the respective government and personally, to get out of the staggeringly large debt holes they’ve all put us in. These are the same people who let their banking chums off with a slap on the wrist and a loan to help the poor dears out.

    So, no, Dennis is not correct, because the mechanism to remove these shysters has been removed (by said shysters). Until such time as a viable alternative to the current political monopoly (and its unholy alliance with CAGW alarmism and that wonderful tool of control, the Precautionary Principle), we are stuck with twerps like Viner making really, utterly stupid pronouncements. Makes me spit.

  45. “Children just aren’t going to know what snow is,”

    Dr David Viner must have meant children would be extremely dumb. They would not know that cold white fluffy stuff falling from the sky was snow, actually (due to brain damage brought over by increasing carbon dioxide levels, of course). Is it not worse than we thought?

  46. If you think this is bad … Just look at the Met Office winter forecast from last november ..

    http://metofficenews.wordpress.com/2012/11/12/whats-in-store-this-winter-responding-to-the-headlines/

    The last paragraph in particular says ..

    ”Ultimately, we’re heading into winter and we expect winter to be colder than the rest of the year – but it’s too early to say exactly what temperatures we can expect or where and when we might see snow.”

    Yes, they are expecting Winter to be colder than the rest of the year. Has that ever happened before ?

  47. @elftone – you are absolutely spot-on with your assessment.

    Oh for a political party that would call out on this CO2/Climate Change crap – they would get my vote, for sure

  48. Predictably when we had drought conditions in the UK it was due to AGW April – December has been second wettest year since 1910, guess what? Yes, AGW. The last two weeks of November and first two weeks of December it was very cold, guess what? Silence. The last few weeks we have had SW and W winds (which we have had for a few weeks every winter for as long as I can remember) bringing very mild weather, with temperatures of 12 celsius, guess what? AGW.
    We have been told that vines can be cultivated here in the North East of England, that we will be getting climate refugees from Southern Spain.
    Forgive my scepticism!!

  49. Here’s another one (from express.co.uk):
    ——————————————————————————–
    WHY WINTER NO LONGER EXISTS
    Friday February 8,2008
    By Polly Buchanan
    Winter has gone for ever and we should officially bring spring forward instead, one of the country’s most respected gardeners said yesterday.

    For climate change has wiped out the season of traditionally long, hard frosts and replaced it with brightly blossoming gardens bursting into flower months early.

    Dr Taylor added: “Like most scientists, I’m fairly convinced that climate change is down to man’s reckless use of fossil fuels and destruction of natural habitats.

    http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/34252/Why-winter-no-longer-exists

    ———————————————————————————————
    ..and please notice alexjc38 brilliant “Hallo Polly” comment:

    CALLING POLLY BUCHANAN

    21.12.10, 12:37pm

    Hello? Polly Buchanan in 2008? Don’t ask me to explain but I’m posting this back to you via a time warp from December 2010. Yes, the future! You probably won’t believe me and will think I’m mad or joking, but get this. Britain is suffering its third extremely cold winter in a row – we have enough snow, ice, frost and freezing fog to cobble dogs with (whatever that means.) Far from being “gone forever”, winter has become a major hazard in this country twice this year – and we haven’t even got to January and February 2011 yet. Also (again you will probably think I’m joking) but the Met Office has become even more of a national liability than it was in 2008. As for moving spring forward a few months – woah, better hold your horses! I urge you to pull this article immediately, as it – and Dr Nigel Taylor’s reputation – is likely to become a laughing stock in years to come. Polly? Hello? Hello? … Rats, I’m probably too late.
    Posted by: alexjc38

    LOL overload…

  50. I will be more interested to see what the March snow cover looks like. December is the least significant month of the year as the NH insolation is at minimum. A March snow cover above the average (which it has not been for several years) would be significant.

  51. The 70′s were peak years,…..

    I have to ask what caused those peak years? I’m no weatherman, just asking.

    From what I recall, they were caused by the Coming Ice Age. Thankfully, the same human activities that would have caused the Ice Age turned around and started to cause Catastrophic Global Warming and we were saved.

  52. Most ridiculous statement from BBC main news reader, peak time, a couple of days ago;

    “many people were hoping climate change would bring a Mediterranean climate to Britain….” and then goes on to tell us we were wrong and we can expect very wet weather from now on, according to the Met office.

    We weren’t ‘hoping’ for it – we were told by the scientists and government for the past 10 years that it would happen. Then along comes a wet year and they completely forget what they said. How the MSM let them get away with it I don’t know. I thought journalists were supposed to interrogate politicians and scientists???

  53. In my long experience Wingco is right. The average brit is thicker than 6 short planks and can be lead by the hand easier than a cow by the nose or a horse by the halter.

  54. Looking at the top graph I can only say “3 out of the last 4 years are in the top 5 for snowfall in the last 5 decades! Panic everyone! Panic!”. Sorry I just can’t do alarmist rhetoric very well :)

    To all in the UK just take it easy on the roads and leave extra time to get anywhere. Be safe and try out cross country skiing, tobogganing and other winter stuff. It is quite fun given the correct clothing.

  55. Crispin in Waterloo says:
    January 4, 2013 at 11:04 am

    @JKrob says:
    >>Crispin in Waterloo says:
    >>Freezing water expels CO2

    >Sorry…WHAT?!??! That’s a new one on me – References please.

    This is not complicated at all. Consider the ice cores everyone is happy to talk about. Inside the packed snow (eventually ice) are tiny pockets of air that contain ‘air samples’ from long ago…..
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    It is more complicated…

    … carbon dioxide in glaciers is contained in
    (1) interstitial air in firn
    (2) in Air bubles in ice
    (3) in clathrates
    (4) as a solid solution in ice crystals…..

    The concentration of CO2 in air recovered from whole ice is usually much higher that that in atmospheric air….

    pg 47

    Even in the antarctic liquid water is found in the ice at microscopic levels.

  56. Stephen Richards January 4, 2013 at 12:54 pm and Wingco

    Scientific Nobel prizes per capita
    UK 1.5 per million
    USA 1.0 per million
    New Zealand 0.7 per million
    Canada 0.6 per million
    Australia 0.5 per million

    We also have enough brains to know when tyranny needs to be resisted.

  57. Man Bearpig says:
    January 4, 2013 at 11:23 am

    If you think this is bad … Just look at the Met Office winter forecast from last november ..

    http://metofficenews.wordpress.com/2012/11/12/whats-in-store-this-winter-responding-to-the-headlines/

    The last paragraph in particular says ..

    ”Ultimately, we’re heading into winter and we expect winter to be colder than the rest of the year – but it’s too early to say exactly what temperatures we can expect or where and when we might see snow.”

    Yes, they are expecting Winter to be colder than the rest of the year. Has that ever happened before ?

    *

    Talk about a coffee-splatter moment…

    This is priceless! I guess they had to put it like that as it was the only way they would get it RIGHT. Note the rest of the sentence: “but it’s too early to say exactly what temperatures we can expect or where and when we might see snow.” – they’re not willing to say! They don’t want to get it “wrong”. I’ll bet anything that prediction was given with full confidence and perhaps a smirk (I mean, “C’mon,” they’ll be thinking, “Let’s see the skeptics poke holes in THIS.” sarc/off). Talk about hedging one’s bets…

    …The general population MUST be waking up by now….

  58. TRM says
    “To all in the UK just take it easy on the roads and leave extra time to get anywhere. Be safe and try out cross country skiing, tobogganing and other winter stuff. It is quite fun given the correct clothing.”

    And above all.. get used to it !!

  59. Elftone and TonyB (anothr one) With regard to the call for a political party “who would call out on this CO2 climate change crap” I must point out that the United Kingdom Independence Party does just that. Lord Monckton and Roger Helmer,MEP, are both sceptics and both members of UKIP. The Party’s position is that there may have been global warming and there may be global cooling coming, but it is unlikely that CO2 has any signifcant part in it. Before spending billions on trying to change the climate governments should wait and see, and then adapt. So now you know who to vote for.

  60. Help! Send snow!

    We’re hunkered down under 40-45 plus, lots of record temps, and there are numerous small fires. The firies have done a good job stopping these before they really get going, only a few houses burnt, and no uncontrollable wildfires so far.

  61. “Nigel S says:
    January 4, 2013 at 1:23 pm
    Stephen Richards January 4, 2013 at 12:54 pm and Wingco

    Scientific Nobel prizes per capita
    UK 1.5 per million
    USA 1.0 per million
    New Zealand 0.7 per million
    Canada 0.6 per million
    Australia 0.5 per million

    We also have enough brains to know when tyranny needs to be resisted.”

    Nobel prizes are evidently not a very good indicator of brains. Take some of the US winners lately. Algore, Obama. Take them, please.

  62. Jim G… those aren’t Scientific Nobel’s, those are just the Peace Prize, which has always been purely political. Heck, if I was ever “awarded” one I’d sure make a stir at my speech declining the dubious honor…

  63. This is not complicated at all. Consider the ice cores everyone is happy to talk about. Inside the packed snow (eventually ice) are tiny pockets of air that contain ‘air samples’ from long ago…..

    But those can be migratory within the ice. The mixture of gases you find in those pockets might or might not be the same as the mixture trapped in those pockets at the time. Or a “pocket” might migrate as the ice flows. Once ice reaches the stage where it begins to flow, it is possible that these “pockets” are actually an aggregate of even smaller “pockets” or are found at a different level from that at which they originally formed.

  64. I think to be fair to Dr Viner, he didn’t say there would never be a record created for snow falls somewhere on the planet. He said that snow would eventually be a rare thing. As for that claim, he is turning out to be correct with the diminishing Artic ice cap, retreat of glaciers and diminished snow falls in other regions.

  65. The main article is very unfair. It is perfectly clear from the original article that Dr Viner was talking about snowfall in the UK only, so statistics about snowfall in the Northern Hemisphere as a whole are irrelevant. Anthony, you run an excellent website but you ought to be absolutely scrupulous in not publishing misleading articles like this.

  66. Tony B (another one) says:
    January 4, 2013 at 11:33 am

    If you are looking for a party to vote for, then UKIP might suit. Here is an extract from their manifesto:
    “UKIP accepts that the world’s climate changes, but we are the first party to take a sceptical stance on man-made global warming claims. We called for a rational, balanced approach to the climate debate in 2008, before the extensive manipulation of scientific data first became clear. Polls now show a majority of the British people share this scepticism despite protests from another LibLabCon-sensus. UKIP now calls for an immediate halt to unjustified spending on renewable sources that has led to massive energy price hikes and fuel poverty. “

  67. Matthew Scott says:

    “The main article is very unfair. It is perfectly clear from the original article that Dr Viner was talking about snowfall in the UK only, so statistics about snowfall in the Northern Hemisphere as a whole are irrelevant.”

    Right……
    So , what are the statistics about snowfall in the UK?
    Has there been a year since 2000 when there has been no snow in the UK?
    Has snowfall become “a very rare and exciting event” and don’t “children know what snow is” anymore?

  68. Isn’t record snow falls an indication the climate is changing. After all one, of the predictions of a warmer planet is more extreme weather events. Here in Australia, we are experiencing extreme heat and in the south very low rainfall. It has been a terrible year for cropping in the Mallee and Wimmera regions. Crops in the Mallee crops being virtually wiped out, with half the normal rainfall in the Wimmera drastically reducing crop yields.

  69. I should mention that Hobart (capital of Tasmania an island on the south of Australia, experienced its hottest day on record yesterday. 41 degrees C (or 106 degrees F, for those stuck on the old imperial metrics) which is extremely unusual as Tasmania is usually a very cool place.

  70. UKIP now calls for an immediate halt to unjustified spending on…

    The Leader of the Opposition in Australia is on the public record as saying, ‘Climate science is crap.’

    Since he was talking to an audience of BAU adherants at the time, we can only assume that he meant AGW climate scientists, and not climate scientists such as Nobel Laureate Lord Moncton.

    Whatever he actually meant, his (current) climate policies are to destroy Australia’s carbon pricing mechanism, and then spending $10 billion of taxpayers’ money on reducing greenhouse gases by buying out inefficient generators, subsidising soil carbon sequestration, and planting tens of millions of trees using by turning people on the dole into a Green Army.

  71. Lower up:

    Your post at January 4, 2013 at 3:31 pm begins saying

    Isn’t record snow falls an indication the climate is changing. After all one, of the predictions of a warmer planet is more extreme weather events

    Nice try but you don’t win a coconut.

    Climate is changing? Yes, it is. It would be strange and unprecedented if climate were not changing. Climate changes everywhere: it always has and it always will.

    In March 2000 Viner made a specific prediction about UK climate change; viz.

    ,within a few years winter snowfall will become “a very rare and exciting event”.

    That prediction is seen to have been plain wrong. For example, here in Cornwall (in SE England) where snow is unusual we have had severe snow falls in both of the last two winters. This is exceptional snow fall in both years.

    Astrologers, palm readers, and climastrologists alter their predictions after the event.
    But WUWT is a science site and we don’t allow it here.

    Richard

  72. Lower up says:

    “Isn’t record snow falls an indication the climate is changing. “

    So the climate is changing?
    Do you know anybody that says it doesn’t?
    And yes, our CAGW ‘scientists have predicted that lower snowfall, higher snowfall, increased rainfall, droughts, high temperature records, low temperature records are all signs of global warming.
    So far we have had it all so they must be right.

    “After all one, of the predictions of a warmer planet is more extreme weather events.”

    Only the CAGW adherents predict more extreme weather events when the planet warms.

  73. On the subject of predicting, I find those people who love to mock someone when they get a prediction wrong are people who never have to make a prediction themselves. There has never been a rule that states every prediction has to be correct, it has to be the best guess at the time it is made with the available data at hand. But still this mocking serves a purpose here in that it gives people who never have to be held to account for their prediction a sense of community of like minded people.

  74. You guys keep banging on about the Viner quote. But you always somehow fail to mention another quote from the same article.

    “Heavy snow will return occasionally, says Dr Viner, but when it does we will be unprepared. “We’re really going to get caught out. Snow will probably cause chaos in 20 years time,” he said.”

    In other words Viner is referring to 20 years from now, not this year. Yet you keep on juxtaposing your favorite quote with this years snow coverage.

  75. OtherAndy, it would appear the CAGW adherents are right then. For every extreme cold event you can mention I can match with an extreme warm event. So there are more extreme climatic events.

  76. Is there a possibility that Onians misquoted Viner? Given that climatologists prefer to look at changes over multi-decade timescales, I’m a bit skeptical that Viner actually used the words “within a few years”. Especially since those words are Onian’s, not Viner’s.

  77. Lower up says:
    January 4, 2013 at 4:18 pm
    On the subject of predicting, I find those people who love to mock someone when they get a prediction wrong are people who never have to make a prediction themselves.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>

    But we did make a prediction. We predicted they would be wrong. That’s why we’re mocking them.

  78. Richard C, just to clarify Dr Viner’s prediction, by what year did he say this will be in effect?have we reached that yet? If not, why are you calling him wrong on this now. As for your comment about allowing stuff on WUWT, I didn’t realise you were a moderator. And if the policy of this site is to allow only scientific material, then you are failing miserably as most comments here are personal attacks and have nothing to do with science.

  79. Lower up says: January 4, 2013 at 3:35 pm

    I should mention that Hobart (capital of Tasmania an island on the south of Australia, experienced its hottest day on record yesterday. 41 degrees C (or 106 degrees F, for those stuck on the old imperial metrics) which is extremely unusual as Tasmania is usually a very cool place.
    ===================================
    Tasmania is too close Australia, the land of suspect temperature data. Everybody has heard about how things are in Australia, poor Australians.

  80. Lower up says:

    “…it would appear the CAGW adherents are right…”

    No, they are clearly wrong. But take the A out of CAGW, and I could probably agree with you.

  81. Lower up:

    Your post at January 4, 2013 at 4:18 pm says in total

    On the subject of predicting, I find those people who love to mock someone when they get a prediction wrong are people who never have to make a prediction themselves. There has never been a rule that states every prediction has to be correct, it has to be the best guess at the time it is made with the available data at hand. But still this mocking serves a purpose here in that it gives people who never have to be held to account for their prediction a sense of community of like minded people.

    That is so wrong it is risible!

    Scientists – all scientists – make predictions on the basis of their understanding then adjust their understanding if a prediction is observed to have been wrong.

    Pseudoscientists – all pseudoscientists – make predictions then adjust their claim of what they predicted if a prediction is observed to have been wrong.

    Scientists mock pseudoscientists for their pseudoscience.

    Viner predicted that snow in the UK would disappear “within a few years”. His prediction was wrong. Has he said his assertions of AGW need amendment? No, he keeps quiet while apologists – including you – say the prediction was not about absence of UK snow but was about “extreme weather”.

    You and he warrant all the ridicule possible.

    Richard

  82. Lower up says:
    January 4, 2013 at 4:26 pm
    OtherAndy, it would appear the CAGW adherents are right then. For every extreme cold event you can mention I can match with an extreme warm event. So there are more extreme climatic events.
    >>>>>>>>>>>

    Well the most recent report on weather extremes from the IPCC says the opposite. Maybe you should go argue with them and let us know how it comes out?

  83. Mpainter, that is an outlandish claim. Please back it up with evidence. As for your sympathy, I am sure it is appreciated by the people who have had their houses destroyed and the family members who have lost loved ones in the bushfires in Tasmania yesterday.

  84. Richard, interesting point and I agree with your dichotomy between scientists and pseudoscientists. Presuming that you are on the side of real scientists, what evidence would change you mind that AGW is a real phenomena? After all many scientists disputed the theory originally now the vast majority of scientists accept it.

  85. David, I am also surprised that you should use the IPPC report as a reference. Most of the time the IPPC reports are ridiculed on this blog.

  86. Lower up, you back your outlandish and frankly disgusting claims and show what Tasmanian summer temperatures or fire had to do with CAGW or CO2. And show scientific evidence. Your personal opinions don’t count as evidence.

    There’s nothing more lower in life than a being who attempts to use a natural disaster to promulgate a lie.

  87. Lower up says:
    January 4, 2013 at 4:57 pm
    David which report would a that be the latest released report or the draft that was leaked?
    >>>>>>>>>>>

    Neither. They just released a report on extreme weather. (technically that would make it the most recent, but I presumed you meant AR4 by “latest”)

  88. Lower up says:
    January 4, 2013 at 4:59 pm
    David, I am also surprised that you should use the IPPC report as a reference. Most of the time the IPPC reports are ridiculed on this blog.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    I resemble that remark. I’m pretty much IPCC Ridicule Central. If you’d read some of my articles you’d know that I don’t ridicule them for their science, I ridicule them for promoting conclusions that the science they present doesn’t support. Here, start with this one:

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/12/30/ar5-chapter-11-hiding-the-decline-part-ii/

  89. Lower up:

    Having lost your attempt at defending Viner, at January 4, 2013 at 4:56 pm you ask me

    Richard, interesting point and I agree with your dichotomy between scientists and pseudoscientists. Presuming that you are on the side of real scientists, what evidence would change you mind that AGW is a real phenomena? After all many scientists disputed the theory originally now the vast majority of scientists accept it.

    Either you cannot read or you make a spurious implication by stating my support of science needs to be presumed.

    The “vast majority of scientists” do NOT accept AGW. Indeed, when given the opportunity they state their disagreement with it in their tens of thousands[ e.g. the Origon Petition.

    I would accept ANY evidence for AGW, but there is no such evidence; none, zillch, nada.
    Decades of research costing tens of billions of $ have failed to find any.

    But much evidence which refutes discernible AGW has been obtained; e.g.
    missing ‘hot spot’
    Trenberth’s ‘missing heat’
    missing ‘committed warming’
    lack of accelerated sea level rise
    lack of accelerated warming from the LIA
    lack of any global warming for the last 16 years despite continued increase to atmospheric CO2 concentration
    etc.

    Now, I have answered your question so please reciprocate by answering this question.
    How much more evidence do you need before you reject the AGW-scare?

    Please note that I will refuse to answer any more of your posts until you answer my question.

    Richard

  90. Lazy T says:

    “You guys keep banging on about the Viner quote. But you always somehow fail to mention another quote from the same article.

    ‘Heavy snow will return occasionally’, says Dr Viner…”

    So Viner has all the bases covered. Got it. Now, will you please go find someone credible to quote?

    •••

    Lower up says:

    “…what evidence would change you mind that AGW is a real phenomena?”

    Wrong question.

    The correct question is: Is AGW a significant forcing, or is it a minuscule, 3rd order non-event that can be completely disregarded for all practical purposes?

    Based on all the available empirical evidence supporting AGW [ie: None], the answer is that AGW can be completely disregarded. It simply does not matter.

  91. Lower up says: January 4, 2013 at 4:51 pm

    Mpainter, that is an outlandish claim. Please back it up with evidence. As for your sympathy, I am sure it is appreciated by the people who have had their houses destroyed and the family members who have lost loved ones in the bushfires in Tasmania yesterday.
    ===============================
    It is common knowlege. You said so yourself: “Tasmania an island on the south of Australia”

    I directed my sympathies on account of the political situation in Australia, where polls show that 82% of Australians hate the present government but Gilliard refuses to resign and hangs in there like a bloody global-warming tick.

  92. various commentors pointed out Viners statement applied to the U.K. only.

    Oldjim says:
    January 4, 2013 at 7:30 am
    To be fair (for once) he was referring to the UK

    Vince Causey says:
    January 4, 2013 at 10:57 am
    I’m sure Dr Viner was speaking about the UK.

    Lower up says:
    January 4, 2013 at 2:42 pm
    I think to be fair to Dr Viner, he didn’t say there would never be a record created for snow falls somewhere on the planet. He said that snow would eventually be a rare thing.

    Matthew Scott says:
    January 4, 2013 at 2:51 pm
    The main article is very unfair. It is perfectly clear from the original article that Dr Viner was talking about snowfall in the UK only,

    For me the key words are these 4 “children will not know”
    Assuming Viner was ONLY referring to the UK is to also assume only Eskimo children know of polar bears or only African children know of elephants.
    For the children of the UK not to know what snow is, snow would have to be very rare globally. It’s not and never will be.
    Viner didn’t express himself too well. This wasn’t because he lacked the education to do so. It was because being the obnoxious rent seeking alarmist that he is, he wished to drive home an alarming point.

  93. @Gail

    Thanks for the linked document. It reports that in principle there can be liquid brine in capillary form, but 12,000 ppm? Why would it accumulate like that? That’s crazy.

    On p. 10/58 it mentions CO2 disappearing into the water if it melts ‘and re-freezes’ but this is proposing that the concentration in the air bubbles that supply the CO2 are at something like 600 ppm.

    The math on this does not look too good for trying to sell the argument that ice contains a lot of CO2, and that melting ice does not pick up CO2 from the atmosphere. For a start, ice contains virtually no CO2. Second, if it were generally true that ice accumulates CO2 when compressed (for example) or from melting and refreezing, it would be hissing out when decompressed and someone would have noticed and commented on how much better it would be to take samples from the ice rather than the miserable little air pockets.

    It is important that the article notes that a portion of the CO2 was absorbed ‘by meltwater’ (not ice). That is exactly my point. Melting ice, not ice, absorbs CO2 and it can only do that because the ice has no CO2 in it!

    I notice that the ice analyses rexamined made no attempt to locate any CO2 in the ice cores, only in the air bubbles trapped in them, with the comment that they measured values should have been higher than they appeared to be because some of it (part of 400 ppm?) had escaped into the ‘partially melted and refrozen’ ice. Well, if it was, it was expelled from the ice on refreezing and (I suppose) into the air. Apparently the author felt it did not go back into the air bubbles on the basis that ‘there is liquid water within the ice’ which is unbelievable at that temperature. Brine? What is the freezing point of brine? This story line doesn’t hold water.

    The claims in the early part of the paper try to sell the idea that there is liquid brine with high CO2 in it locked in the ice and that CO2 came from air bubbles that were samples of a pre-industrial atmospheric CO2 level far higher than today. Good luck with that series of …. well, whatever it is.

    I am not sure if you have any lab facilities but I do so I will try see what happens to the CO2 level when it is trapped in a small container with melting ice. But all it will prove is that ice contains no CO2 and that meltwater absorbs it, rapidly, which we already know. Before expanding on the topic I bothered to consult a professor of chemical engineering to confirm the basic mechanisms at play. As the conventional explanation for the CO2 rise in winter is impossible, I have been looking for a realistic alternative and I think this is it.

  94. Crispin in Waterloo:

    At January 4, 2013 at 5:45 pm you say to Gail

    On p. 10/58 it mentions CO2 disappearing into the water if it melts ‘and re-freezes’ but this is proposing that the concentration in the air bubbles that supply the CO2 are at something like 600 ppm.

    The math on this does not look too good for trying to sell the argument that ice contains a lot of CO2, and that melting ice does not pick up CO2 from the atmosphere. For a start, ice contains virtually no CO2. Second, if it were generally true that ice accumulates CO2 when compressed (for example) or from melting and refreezing, it would be hissing out when decompressed and someone would have noticed and commented on how much better it would be to take samples from the ice rather than the miserable little air pockets.

    With respect, that shows a misunderstanding of the problem.

    There is liquid water on the surface of solid ice – and solid ice crystals – at all temperatures down to -40deg.C. This was first discovered by Michael Faraday but it is only in recent decades that it has been discovered why. And this liquid phase on ice surface is why ice is slippery.

    Gases dissolve preferentially in water and, therefore, will dissolve in the surface of fern during the decades that the ice is solidifying. Also, the air entrained in the fern expands and contracts with varying atmospheric pressure so is pumped in-and-out of fern surface. How this alters the composition of the gas

  95. “a very rare and exciting event”.
    “Children just aren’t going to know what snow is,”

    Wish he had put a date/time and qualifier (what is rare) on that statement.
    My children have had NO problems knowing what snow is,and neither have my grandchildren,nor do I expect my great-grand kiddies will either.
    There are only 5 certainties on this hunk of rock……you will die,taxes will go up,we will keep reproducing,the Sun will rise in the East tomorrow,and climate will change. And there is not a darn thing any of us can do to change this.

  96. Sorry, my post to Crispin in Waterloo went too soon. This is a completed post. Richard.

    Crispin in Waterloo:

    At January 4, 2013 at 5:45 pm you say to Gail

    On p. 10/58 it mentions CO2 disappearing into the water if it melts ‘and re-freezes’ but this is proposing that the concentration in the air bubbles that supply the CO2 are at something like 600 ppm.

    The math on this does not look too good for trying to sell the argument that ice contains a lot of CO2, and that melting ice does not pick up CO2 from the atmosphere. For a start, ice contains virtually no CO2. Second, if it were generally true that ice accumulates CO2 when compressed (for example) or from melting and refreezing, it would be hissing out when decompressed and someone would have noticed and commented on how much better it would be to take samples from the ice rather than the miserable little air pockets.

    With respect, that shows a misunderstanding of the problem.

    There is liquid water on the surface of solid ice – and solid ice crystals – at all temperatures down to -40deg.C. This was first discovered by Michael Faraday but it is only in recent decades that it has been discovered why. And this liquid phase on ice surface is why ice is slippery.

    Gases dissolve preferentially in water and, therefore, will dissolve in the surface of fern during the decades that the ice is solidifying. Also, the air entrained in the fern expands and contracts with varying atmospheric pressure so is pumped in-and-out of fern surface. How this alters the composition of the gas is debateable but it must alter the composition of the gas that becomes trapped in the ice.

    Also, clathrates form and are released when the ice core is obtained. This release cracks the ice so the clathrates are extracted in the drilling fluid.

    Jawarowski estimated that these – and other – processes lower the CO2 concentration in the entrained air obtained from the ice cores, and this is why ice core data is ~15% lower than stomata data of atmospheric CO2 concentration from the same times.

    Richard

  97. @Gail

    Further considering the text and conclusions, at no time does the author claim ice contains CO2. A theoretical case is made that 10-20 nanometer quasi-water layers exist on the surface of ice crystals which it said to constitute a ‘capillary liquid network’ of ‘infinite’ size. The text contains dozens of statements which show that ice does not contain CO2 with the weight of evidence claimed to be that the ‘water’ between ice crystals is contaminated by S and dust. There is no evidence that such a capillary liquid network exists nor any evidence that it is high in CO2 nor that the volume of this ‘quasi-water’ is significant.

    Conclusion: water ice contains no CO2 and when it melts, it absorbs it immediately.

  98. Painter

    Tasmania is too close Australia, the land of suspect temperature data. Everybody has heard about how things are in Australia, poor Australians.

    Well, that’s a new one to add to the list of climate forcings: suspect data.

    BTW, talking of suspect data, Tasmania is part of Australia in the same way Hawaii is part of USA.

    BTW, you are not quite right to call us ‘poor’ Australians. That gave me a laugh, actually. You might try looking at a mirror.

    Our average wage is higher than that of the US. Hardly anyone has negative equity in their houses. Our national debt is way lower than the US national debt as a proportion of GDP. Our unemployment rate is way lower than that of the US. Our inflation rate is right where the Reserve Bank wants it. Our dollar is above parity with the US dollar. In terms of percentage growth, our economy continues to grow at, or near, the top of the OECD table. While the US economy tanked during the GFC, our economy kept right on growing. We have the highest possible national AAA rating from all the international ratings agencies. And we are managing all that with an economy-wide carbon price.

    We are welcoming to visitors so come on over and join us for a bracing beer. Compared to the US, we have extremely low rates of gun deaths. It is mostly safe to go out in most places most of the time. The icing on the cake is that when it gets to forty+ we have thousands of kilometres of unspoiled coastline where you can go swimming or fishing.

  99. Painter

    I directed my sympathies on account of the political situation in Australia, where polls show that 82% of Australians hate the present government but Gilliard refuses to resign and hangs in there like a bloody global-warming tick.

    Goodness now that 82% is what I really would call suspect data. You are making stuff up and it shows.

    There are just short of half a dozen regularly published polls by reputable public polling organisations in Australia. Their results are made publicly available. Not one of the reputable polls over the last six months would support your figure of 82%. BTW, the latest polling results show that Climate-Science-is Crap-Abbott is less popular than Gillard.

    They also show that his Coalition is more popular than the Government and is likely to form the next government some time this year.

  100. This is exactly what the models predict…and that goes for whatever this is.

    “So Sayeth the Shepherd! …So Sayeth the Flock!”

  101. Climate Ace,

    I very much like Austrailia and Australians, and I don’t begrudge you tooting your horn. But looking at this interactive map, I don’t see much economic difference between the U.S. and Oz. We both have our above and below average cities [put the cursor over the dots].

  102. @ richardscourtney
    “The “vast majority of scientists” do NOT accept AGW. Indeed, when given the opportunity they state their disagreement with it in their tens of thousands[ e.g. the Origon Petition.”

    Do you seriously believe that the scientists on this planet who do not accept AGW outnumber those who do? If so, you are deluding yourself. That is simply not true. And if we ask those who work in the field it (even if you ignore the often quoted 97%) you would be in la la land if you thought more doubted the concept than accepted it. It is a fact that a total of 34 national science academies have made formal declarations since 2001 confirming anthropogenic global warming and urging the nations of the world to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases.

    I am going to make the bold statement here that those who are serious about finding answers as to why temps are rising all acknowledge CO2 has a part to play. The only real debate is how much and will it cause catastrophic trouble in the future? It would be virtually impossible to find a scientist in the field who would say CO2 is completely innocent.

  103. Well, my children will have little experience of snow, but that’s because we now live in the tropics. It is just getting too damned cold anywhere else for me.

    Another thing they will not experience is a pool that is far to cold to swim in most of the year.

  104. Ed,

    The OISM Petition did not exactly say that AGW does not exist. It said that the rise in GHG’s, mainly CO2, is harmless, and beneficial to the biosphere.

    And yes, the number of scientists who hold that position far outnumber the relatively small clique of self-serving rent seekers who are pushing their catastrophic AGW narrative.

    AGW is a minuscule, third order forcing that is too small to measure. It simply does not matter.

  105. With a name like “Climate Ace” from Australia and automatically no one believes you.
    You see how it is.

  106. D Boehm

    Climate Ace,

    I very much like Austrailia and Australians, and I don’t begrudge you tooting your horn. But looking at this interactive map, I don’t see much economic difference between the U.S. and Oz. We both have our above and below average cities [put the cursor over the dots].

    Sure, the economy of individual cities go up and down in both countries because economies are dynamic.

    My statements were at the national economic level and at that level Australia is well ahead of the US on most economic parameters. It is actually causing us some problems because the Aussie dollar is being bought as a safety hedge in these times of global uncertainty. As noted above, Australia has done this with an economy -wide carbon pricing mechanism.

  107. A week before christmas Environment Canada predicted most (whatever that is) Canadians would not see a white christmas. I would bet the % of canada not white at christmas was below 1% . See those computer models have it down pat. Of course we are sure about the climate in 2100 AD [sarc]

  108. I’d like to see a trend line in the second graph, the “all months” graph. Going by eyeball it looks like the trend is downward but, as the saying goes, appearances my be deceiving.

  109. Richard, sorry for the late reply, but you have some important questions that need to be answered.

    Let me start off by listing the organisations representing scientist that accept AGW: The national academies of science of Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, the Caribbean, the People’s Republic of China, France, Germany, India, Indonesia, Ireland, Italy, Malaysia, New Zealand, Sweden, the UK, Japan, Russia, U.S. Mexico, South Africa, The Network of African Science Academies, the Polish Academy sciences, American Astronomical Society, American Chemical Society, American Geophysical Union, American Institute of Physics, American Meteorological Society, American Physical Society, American Quaternary Association, Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society, Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences, Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society, European Academy of Sciences and Arts, European Geosciences Union, European Science Foundation, Geological Society of America, Geological Society of Australia, Geological Society of London-Stratigraphy Commission, InterAcademy Council, International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics, International Union for Quaternary Research, National Association of Geoscience Teachers, National Research Council (US), Royal Meteorological Society, and World Meteorological Organization.

    I am surprised that you should use the 30,000 names on the Oregon petition to refute this. Many of the people on that list are not practicing scientists (and I am not referring to Dr Gerry Fawell, Professor Homer Simpson or Dr Red Wine, but the other real signatories). The method that was used to get the petition was misleading and organised by a fellow who heavily supported the tobacco industry claiming smoking didn’t cause cancer. Once on, the signatories can not take their name off if they change their minds.

    You have answered my question (sort of) and I will pay you the courtesy in return.

    I will not accepted AGW if one of the following facts are shown to be incorrect:

    That carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas.
    That the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is increasing.
    That the increase in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere increases the greenhouse effect.
    That humans are largely responsible for the increase in the amount of carbon dioxide in the air (ie the chemicals in the petrol in my tank at the start of week does not land up I the atmosphere.

  110. Venter says:
    January 4, 2013 at 5:04 pm
    Lower up, you back your outlandish and frankly disgusting claims and show what Tasmanian summer temperatures or fire had to do with CAGW or CO2. And show scientific evidence. Your personal opinions don’t count as evidence.

    There’s nothing more lower in life than a being who attempts to use a natural disaster to promulgate a lie.

    Venter, I was stating a fact about the record temperature reached in Hobart. That is all. Please don’t make up stuff and then call me low life because of your fabrication.

  111. “Climate Ace says:

    January 4, 2013 at 7:00 pm”

    An economy wide “carbon” price, and what is that doing to our economy? Please explain how Snowy Hydro and Hydro Tasmania are in the list of top 250 “polluters”! Sounds like you are an ALP/Green troll.

  112. “Lower up says:

    January 4, 2013 at 11:40 pm

    I will not accepted AGW if one of the following facts are shown to be incorrect:

    That carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas.
    That the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is increasing.
    That the increase in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere increases the greenhouse effect.
    That humans are largely responsible for the increase in the amount of carbon dioxide in the air (ie the chemicals in the petrol in my tank at the start of week does not land up I the atmosphere.”

    But you *WILL* accept AGW if the orgs you cite (BoM in Aus and NIWA in NZ? NIWA already been proven to have “hacked” climate data, which was vetted by the Aussie BoM. And you cite these as credible?) say so, even though there are many variables little or not at all known nor understood?

  113. @lower up

    The CAGW theory was, from the start, used for political purposes.
    The climate gate emails and statements by several ‘climate activists’ has confirmed this.
    After several years, most of the scientists have moved on and it is now a political issue only.
    The ‘conference’ in Doha confirmed the latter. This conference was all about Not at any stage was this conference about science

    Political activists, politicians, a small group of bullying ‘political scientists’ and opportunists want us to believe that AGW is real. However, there is no empirical evidence.
    The CAGW Theory is based on computer modeling. Data is fed into a computer and software predicts a likely outcome. If predictions made by the computer models do not reflect what is actually happening you would question the software. Instead, they are revising the input to fit the model, hide data, destroy data and change data so the model will show what they want it to show. Climatology has now become the victim of politics. Those who don’t toe the official line are smeared, called deniers, skeptics and flat-earthers. They won’t get lucrative research grants and their scientific integrity is questioned by ‘activists, with the aid of the MSM.

    To see what happens when science becomes politicised Google Lysenkoism.

    You (with your list) appeal to authority.
    This is a fallacy.
    You (with your list) appeal to consensus.
    This is also a fallacy.

    Science is not about authority or consensus. To see what happens when science is hijacked by consensus Google “Plate Tectonics”.

    Science is about proposing a theory with supporting evidence while others try to disprove it.

    Hydrocarbon use is uncorrelated with temperature. Temperature rose for a century before significant hydrocarbon use. Temperature rose between 1910 and 1940, while hydrocarbon use was almost unchanged. Temperature then fell between 1940 and 1972, while hydrocarbon use rose by 330%. Also, the 150 to 200-year slopes of the sea level and glacier trends were unchanged by the very large increase in hydrocarbon use after 1940. Again, none of these trends has accelerated during the period between 1940 and 2007, while hydrocarbon use increased 6-fold.
    And, although CO2 levels have increased steadily during the last 15-16 years, the global temperature has not.
    The theory does not work.

  114. Patrick and Other Andy,

    Please do not confuse my very short list of things to refute with your conspiracy theories and other claims.

    All you have to do to change my mind, is to explain why one of those four statements are incorrect.

    The point is I really wish you could prove those statements are incorrect as I am happy with the way the planet is now and don’t want it to change.

  115. Jimbo says:
    January 4, 2013 at 7:05 am
    “I have to ask what caused those peak years? I’m no weatherman, just asking.”

    Presumably such was related to the relative coldness in temperatures then. The relative cold can be seen in the temperature data of the time like in the old Newsweek article at http://tinyurl.com/cff4qm5 and the old National Geographic article at http://tinyurl.com/cxo4d3l (and, albeit for the arctic as opposed to the northern hemisphere average in the preceding, http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/ArcticIce/Images/arctic_temp_trends_rt.gif ).

    Later, historical temperature records were revised until the inconvenient downturn visible in the prior links was about all deleted. You won’t see such in any of the plots on the WUWT reference page, for instance (rather modern-day revisionist propaganda). But actually the global cooling scare did not happen for no reason.

    As for the cause of the temperature downturn, solar cycle 20 of the period was exceptionally weak, with the solar-driven interplanetary magnetic field not deflecting cloud-seeding galactic cosmic rays as much as the cycles before and afterwards (as in http://s10.postimage.org/l9gokvp09/composite.jpg *), while also such was the cold-encouraging part of a multi-decadal ocean cycle.

    * (which also fits with other observations like those seen in http://s13.postimage.org/ka0rmuwgn/gcrclouds.gif , http://www.space.dtu.dk/upload/institutter/space/forskning/05_afdelinger/sun-climate/full_text_publications/svensmark_2007cosmoclimatology.pdf , http://desmond.imageshack.us/Himg707/scaled.php?server=707&filename=kirkby1.jpg&res=landing , and http://www.seas.harvard.edu/climate/eli/Courses/EPS134/Sources/03-Cosmic-rays/more/Kirkby_cosmic_rays_and_climate_2007.pdf )

    The next decade or two and beyond, in the coming future, will probably see substantial cooling, based on how solar activity looks headed. This snow record in modern-day observations will probably not be a record for long.

  116. “Lower up says:

    January 5, 2013 at 12:15 am”

    Are you talking about the record temp just ahead of the fire front, or at the airport?

  117. Lower up,

    It is easy to show that your presumption is incorrect:

    If you believe that human emissions are to blame, you are clearly deluded. There is much we do not know about CO2 sources and sinks. Your assertion that human activity is the entire cause of rising CO2 is risible.

    Of course, none of this will convince you, because your mind is made up and closed air tight. Such is the false reality of the climate alarmist crowd.

  118. Lower up:

    It is a new dawn and a new day so I have returned.

    At January 4, 2013 at 4:56 pm you asked me

    what evidence would change you mind that AGW is a real phenomena?

    At January 4, 2013 at 5:21 pm I replied saying

    I would accept ANY evidence for AGW, but there is no such evidence; none, zillch, nada.
    Decades of research costing tens of billions of $ have failed to find any.

    And at January 4, 2013 at 11:40 pm you replied to that answer by saying to me

    You have answered my question (sort of)

    “Sort of”!?
    Pray tell, what more clear and all-embracing answer could I have given than “ANY”?
    I think you need to question your motivations because it seems you are not capable of accepting undeniable truths which do not fit your belief.

    Having answered your question I reciprocated by listing some of the evidence that refutes there is any discernible AGW and I asked you

    How much more evidence do you need before you reject the AGW-scare?

    You claim to have answered my question but you have not: instead, you demonstrate that your belief in AGW is not related to evidence but is pure superstition.
    You say

    I will not accepted AGW if one of the following facts are shown to be incorrect:

    I address each of your “facts” in turn.

    Your fact 1.

    That carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas.

    Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, but so what?

    Your fact 2.

    That the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is increasing.

    The atmospheric CO2 concentration is increasing, but so what? This is good for the biosphere.

    Your fact 3.

    That the increase in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere increases the greenhouse effect.

    At present levels of atmospheric CO2 concentration any increase to atmospheric CO2 concentration will have trivial increase to the greenhouse effect: the effect on global temperature is so small as to be indiscernible.
    Clearly, you are not aware that each additional unit of CO2 added to the air has less effect than its predecessor. This reducing effect is logarithmic. Think of it this way.

    Light enters a room through a window. A layer of paint over the window pane reduces the light entering the room. A second layer of paint also reduces the light entering the room but the reduction is less than for the first layer. A third layer has even less effect.

    IR from the Earth’s surface is entering space via the atmosphere. CO2 is a greenhouse gas (GHGs) and in the atmosphere it absorbs IR in two narrow wave bands (at 25 micron and 4 micron) with almost all that absorbtion being in the 15 micron band. There is much CO2 in the atmosphere so adding more CO2 has negligible effect on the atmosphere.

    Additional atmospheric CO2 has as trivial an effect as adding a seventh layer of paint on the window: see

    http://c3headlines.typepad.com/.a/6a010536b58035970c0115707ce438970b-pi

    and

    Your fact 4.

    That humans are largely responsible for the increase in the amount of carbon dioxide in the air (ie the chemicals in the petrol in my tank at the start of week does not land up I the atmosphere.

    I don’t know what has caused the recent increase to atmospheric CO2 concentration, but I want to know. And anybody who thinks they know is mistaken because available data permits either an anthropogenic or any of several natural causes to be attributed.
    (ref. Rorsch A, Courtney RS & Thoenes D, ‘The Interaction of Climate Change and the Carbon Dioxide Cycle’ E&E v16no2 (2005) ).
    Hint: you may want to notice the second author in the reference.

    Anyway, nature emits 34 molecules of CO2 into the air for each molecule of CO2 emitted by human activities. And CO2 is essential for life on Earth. It is a very strange assertion that a tiny increase will convert the ‘stuff of life’ into the ‘destroyer of worlds’ especially when life flourished on Earth when atmospheric CO2 was much higher than now. Perhaps you would consider how that strange assertion can be justified?

    In summation:
    1.
    I listed some of the evidence which refutes the existence of discernible AGW and I asked you,
    “How much more evidence do you need before you reject the AGW-scare?”
    2.
    You have not mentioned any potential evidence that would cause you to reject the scare.
    3.
    You have stated ‘facts’ which are not pertinent to the existence of discernible AGW but which you say need to be refuted for you to recant your belief in discernible AGW.
    4.
    Your “facts” are clearly the foundation of your superstitious belief in discernible AGW which has no supporting evidence and which is denied by much empirical evidence.

    You then try to claim that a list of organisations which endorse the AGW-scare somehow indicates the majority of scientists accept AGW. NO! It does not.

    Firstly, the number of scientists who accept or reject is a political – not a scientific – point. As Einstein famously said when told that 100 scientists had rejected his “Jewish science”,
    “It would only require one of them to provide one piece of evidence if I were wrong.”

    Secondly, that organisations endorse AGW is the logical fallacy of ‘Appeal to Authority’. It says nothing about the truth of a matter. Indeed, the great benefit of the Enlightenment was the replacement of statements from Authority with acceptance of empirical evidence.

    Thirdly, the organisations represent the ‘interests’ of their members. Governments support AGW so provide funding for AGW research. Few Executive Committees of organisations will make statements which amount to, “Stop funding our members”.

    Fourthly, the organisations’ statements are not an indication of what the members of the organisations think. No polls of the members have been taken and when given the opportunity tens of thousands of them have rejected AGW; e.g the Oregon Petition.

    And you have been misled about the Oregon Petition. Signatories had to print a response from their computer, personally sign it, then post it by snail-mail at their own expense. Each signatory was then checked individually before being added to the list. Also, those 30,000+ signatories consisted solely of Americans and, therefore, are ‘the tip of the iceberg’.

    Fifthly, the Executives of science organisations have been usurped by activists. Richard Lindzen details this – and names names – in a fascinating and shocking paper that can be read at

    http://www.lavoisier.com.au/articles/climate-policy/science-and-policy/LindzenClimatescience2008.pdf

    Lower up, you really need to learn about the AGW-scare because it seems you have been duped by propagandists.

    Richard

  119. Lower up says: January 5, 2013 at 12:15 am
    ====================
    You should know that Australian climate “science” is a foul abominal stench in the nostrils of decent people. That is just a plain fact. It has to do with your reputation. It has to do with sks. It has to do with types like you. Ask Jo Nova. Ask anybody.

  120. “Lower up says:

    January 5, 2013 at 2:21 am”

    There isnothing to disprove with the statements you made that I responded to however, it is your durty to prove the bush fires in Aus are a result of climate change driven by emissions of C02 from human activity. It’s clear, by citing BoM and NIWA as “credible” sources in agreement with AGW (Still a theory BTW), you are a little confused about CO2.

  121. D Boehm, what is the source of that graph? Although I doubt its accuarcy, it does confirm one of my points and that is that humans are contributing to the increase in CO2 in the atmosphere.

  122. Patrick, I am not sure where that measurement was made, but I suspect it would be where they normally take there readings and not to the area where the fires are.

  123. “Lower up says:

    January 5, 2013 at 4:23 am”

    Be the first to stop! Stop using your car, laptop, lights, heating, stoves etc etc, if you think you are contributing to a “problem”. Be the first, set the example, lead by example. If not, stop trolling.

    “Lower up says:

    January 5, 2013 at 4:26 am”

    You admit you don’t really know what you are being told, you just “believe” what you are being told? KEWL! Your PoV on AGW makes a lot of sense now. How many fires were started by lightning (The major “cause” of fires in Aus)? How may were started by arsonists (The major cause of fires that draw media attention)? Your PoV on bushfires, in this fire ecology, seems pretty uninformed IMO. Not before today did the MSM n Aus point out that BEFORE these SA/VIC/TAS fires, 30 fires were already burning in NSW, just almost all are remote.

    Were the Victorian bushfires of 2009 a result of AGW?

  124. If it wasn’t for a recent paper stating that the level of water vapor has remained the same for the last 50 years, I’d say that we should expect to hear how this increase in snow coverage supports the contention that increased CO2 has at last produced the foretold increased levels in water vapor.

  125. mpainter says:
    January 5, 2013 at 4:18 am
    Lower up says: January 5, 2013 at 12:15 am
    ====================
    You should know that Australian climate “science” is a foul abominal stench in the nostrils of decent people. That is just a plain fact. It has to do with your reputation. It has to do with sks. It has to do with types like you. Ask Jo Nova. Ask anybody.

    the last sentence makes a good point, I will ask anybody.

    If there is anybody out there that can explain mpainters statement, could you please do so, it makes no sense to me.

  126. Lower up says:

    “what is the source of that graph? Although I doubt its accuarcy, it does confirm one of my points and that is that humans are contributing to the increase in CO2 in the atmosphere.”

    The source of the graph is right in the URL. Are you that computer illiterate? And you can ‘doubt’ whatever you want to, but the graph clearly shows that human additions to GHG’s are minuscule. Even the UN/IPCC admits the same thing:

    Finally, there is zero empirical, testable evidence showing any harm to the planet as a result of increased CO2 — and plenty of empirical evidence showing its benefits. Thus, CO2 is ‘harmless'; more is better, and there is no downside at either current or projected concentrations. CO2 is, after all, only a very tiny trace gas. If it doubled, it would still be only a very tiny trace gas.

    You are a victim of anti-“carbon” propaganda. You can use reason to get out of the propaganda trap — or you can continue to be an alarmist lemming, believing everything you’re being told by self-serving rent seekers pushing their alarmist agenda. It’s up to you.

  127. Patrick, I don’t have a ‘durty’ to do anything. You on the other hand should not make something up and then sling off at them based up on your falsification.

    What are you talking about regarding laptops etc…… I cannot see why you giving that advice.

    And finally please point out where I ‘admit you don’t really know what you are being told’. I find it a little tedious reading things that are made up and then being castigated for the fabrication (actually I am noticing this appears to be your standard operating procedure, please stick to the real facts not stuff you make up).

  128. Lower up:

    Are you a paid troll?
    I ask because of your post addressed to D Böehm at January 5, 2013 at 4:17 am.

    Shortly before your post to D Böehm, at January 5, 2013 at 4:17 am, I gave a reply to you which included

    I don’t know what has caused the recent increase to atmospheric CO2 concentration, but I want to know. And anybody who thinks they know is mistaken because available data permits either an anthropogenic or any of several natural causes to be attributed.
    (ref. Rorsch A, Courtney RS & Thoenes D, ‘The Interaction of Climate Change and the Carbon Dioxide Cycle’ E&E v16no2 (2005) ).
    Hint: you may want to notice the second author in the reference.

    You did not question that, dispute it, or ask for explanation.
    Instead, in response to D Böehm presenting

    you say of his graph

    it does confirm one of my points and that is that humans are contributing to the increase in CO2 in the atmosphere.

    NO! It does NOT “confirm” that!
    And you would have known why it doesn’t “confirm that” if you had not ignored the answer I took the trouble to give you.

    There are many people employed to mislead about AGW on blogs. And it is clear that you ignore anything which refutes your superstitious belief in AGW and you deliberately misrepresent anything presented to you. So, I ask
    Are you a paid troll?
    If so, who is paying you?

    Richard

  129. Allen Cic says:
    January 4, 2013 at 6:53 am
    “Wasn’t it Yogi Berra who said something along the lines of, “Predicting the future ain’t what it used to be.”
    The Yogi Berra “quotes”, which may or may not be accurate, are

    “It is difficult to make predictions, especially about the future”, and

    :”The future ain’t what it used to be. ”

    Both of which are applicable in this case

  130. Lower up says: January 5, 2013 at 4:58 am

    If there is anybody out there that can explain mpainters statement, could you please do so, it makes no sense to me.
    ===========================
    Go see Jo Nova. You will understand.

  131. “Lower up says:

    January 5, 2013 at 5:08 am

    Patrick, I don’t have a ‘durty’ to do anything. You on the other hand should not make something up and then sling off at them based up on your falsification.”

    What did I “make up”? Certainly wasn’t “climate temperature data. And we now know ou are just a simple troll, no argument but to pick up on spelling!

    “What are you talking about regarding laptops etc…… I cannot see why you giving that advice.”

    All consumer devices, laptops, PC etc etc, use resources in their manufature. They also consume power. Both emit CO2. If CO2 is such a problem, and as you have intimated, CAUSED the lastest Aussie bushfires, then stop consuming. Be the solution, not the “problem”.

    “And finally please point out where I ‘admit you don’t really know what you are being told’. I find it a little tedious reading things that are made up and then being castigated for the fabrication (actually I am noticing this appears to be your standard operating procedure, please stick to the real facts not stuff you make up).”

    Here you go;

    “Lower up says:

    January 5, 2013 at 4:26 am

    Patrick, I am not sure where that measurement was made, but I suspect it would be where they normally take there readings and not to the area where the fires are.”

    Suspect, not sure or don’t know? Unless I am not reading your Enghlish, your statement suggests you don’t know.

    And to the spelling troll “…normally take THERE readings…”, yo do mean THEIR don’t you!

    Thanks for confirming you are a troll.

  132. Actually I don’t care how many national science organizations go with the CAGW meme. The more the merrier. It will just add to the fun when they all have to start recanting and finding exit strategies. Man, is that going to painful for them and entertaining for me! I am particularly looking forward to said process involving the local head climate imbecile here at the University of Cape Town (forgot his name. Just too unbearable to try and remember it.) I just have to puke whenever he is quoted in the local press. Absolutely clueless he is. I am rubbing my hands in anticipation.. (Ok, it’s probably still years away. Damn.)

  133. BTW: Lower up? A new troll? Never noticed him before. Best treatment is probably to ignore him. Judging from the normal trolling stuff coming from him it is not as if engaging him will make any difference to anything. But I guess we have many very polite posters here… (sigh)

  134. Neo says:January 5, 2013 at 4:57 am

    If it wasn’t for a recent paper stating that the level of water vapor has remained the same for the last 50 years, I’d say that we should expect to hear how this increase in snow coverage supports the contention that increased CO2 has at last produced the foretold increased levels in water vapor.
    But water vapor has gone down.

    One contention I have seen is that CO2 displaces water vapor. Since WV has more of a greenhouse effect than CO2, at some point more CO2 causes cooling. Maybe that is why temperatures drop when CO2 levels are at their highest in the ice core records.

  135. It is correct to call CO2 a greenhouse gas. After all, greenhouse operators routinely add CO2 because plants do much better at concentrations of 1000 ppm.

  136. I’d like to contact “Crispin in Waterloo”. Kindly reply to imcqueen(at)nbnet.nb.ca

    IanM

  137. @GabrielHBay

    You give it one, two tries.
    You quickly find out if they are interested in the science of CAGW or are fixed on the politics and have made up their mind.
    In this case it was 30 minutes of my life I won’t get back.
    Won’t reply to his fallacies, straw man and circular reasoning anymore.
    Somebody who still believes that a useful trace gas amounting to 0.00005% (Anthropogenic CO2) of the Earth’s atmosphere is the ruling driver of climate, even after shown evidence that there is no correlation between global temperatures and the amount of CO2, is beyond help.

    I guess the CAGW ‘scientists’ and political activists did a good job brainwashing the sheeple

    “We need to get some broad based support, to capture the public’s imagination…
    So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements and make little mention of any doubts… Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest.”
    – Prof. Stephen Schneider,
    Stanford Professor of Climatology, lead author of many IPCC reports

    “The data doesn’t matter. We’re not basing our recommendations on the data. We’re basing them on the climate models.”
    – Prof. Chris Folland,
    Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research

    “The models are convenient fictions that provide something very useful.”
    – Dr David Frame,
    climate modeler, Oxford University

    “The only way to get our society to truly change is to frighten people with the possibility of a catastrophe.”
    – emeritus professor Daniel Botkin

  138. Other_Andy says: January 5, 2013 at 10:28 am
    =================================
    Here you lay bare the whole of AGW theory.

  139. Richard, no I am not a paid troll. Why do you ask. On that particular point you said that humans contribute one out of every 35 molecules of CO2 to the atmosphere. This is consistent when I see the vast open cut coal mines, where once the carbon used to be in the ground, is now released into the atmosphere.

    The graph presented by D Boehm also showed humans contributing to atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations.

    • “lower up” says:

      “Richard, no I am not a paid troll.”

      I call BS on that, because you certainly act like one. So far you have used several screen names and several email addresses at WUWT, all fake.

      Lower Up
      Pleeeeease
      Thought4TheDay
      Overthetop
      Harddoneby
      SuperiorIntellect
      LetsBeReasonable
      myfirstattemptatblogs

      These all trace to the same person in Glen Iris, Victoria, Australia

      This person has been warned in the past at WUWT about this sockpuppetry being a violation of WUWT published policy, yet persists.

      Therefore, this person is now permanently banned from WUWT. Should there be a recurrence, two things will happen.

      1. A full publishing of the person’s name and address here (as stated in our policy page as an option).

      2. A complaint (with documentation) to the Telstra Internet service used, indicating a potential violation of the Telstra terms of service, resulting in a possible suspension by Telstra.

      This person is now permanently banned from WUWT for repeated and systemic violation of the site policy. Be as upset as you wish. – Anthony Watts

  140. Patrick, go look back at my statement and your accusation that I said the record temperature experienced in Hobart was due to climate change. You made that up.

    Then you continue to use this lie as a basis for all sorts of illogical extensions, which fails the logic test (I caused the Hobart bush fires because I use a laptop).

    Then you accuse me of an admission that I don’t believe what I am told. I made no such ad,is soon, but you base this accusation on the fact that I couldn’t tell you where the BOM make their temperature readings. This is not an admission of not believing what I am told. I believe that they had a record temperature.

  141. @ richardscourtney
    I find it somewhat funny you are calling lower up a troll on this site. From what I have read here I think the very creator of this site (Anthony W)would say everything LU has said would be far more accurate than the stuff you have been delivering here. AW is on record saying he accepts there has been warming as a result of the human produced CO2 increase, he just doesn’t believe it will is as much as the alarmists do and will cause the trouble often stated in the media I.e i don’t think he would disagree with any of the the statements LU has made.
    “That carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas.
    That the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is increasing.
    That the increase in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere increases the greenhouse effect.
    That humans are largely responsible for the increase in the amount of carbon dioxide in the air”

    You on the other hand seem reluctant to accept some of these which would make you the odd one out here. Perhaps you have a new definition of the word troll.

  142. GabrialHBay, I am not a troll and you appeal to everyone to ignore me, is, I suspect dime to the fact that I am challenging your beliefs about AGW and do not want other people exposed to my ideas. Still the (four) facts remain that underpin the AGW. If you can’t show me they are incorrect, then the AGW is a real phenomena.

  143. OtherAndy. I notice that you are trying the minimise the effect the low concentration on CO2 has on the greenhouse effect. I cannot understand this argument. Small quantities of things can have massive effects. For example, a very small amount of virus (less than the 0.0000005% you quoted) can kill an organism. A very small amount of nuclear material can flatten a city, a small amount of cyanide can kill many people etc.

    The problem with your argument is a small amount of CO2 does have a greenhouse effect, and when there is more of it, the effect is increased. The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is increasing all the time, so it is reasonable to state the greenhouse effect is increasing all the time.

  144. Look guys and girls, I know I would be nice to open the minds of the trolls we get here but really it is a total waste of time, energy and CO². Just ignore the nincumpoops.

  145. Lower up:

    At January 5, 2013 at 12:26 pm you ask me

    Richard, no I am not a paid troll. Why do you ask.

    I answered that question in the post where I asked if you are a paid troll at January 5, 2013 at 5:16 am.

    Your response convinces me that you are a paid troll.
    Unless, of course, you have an alternative explanation for your behaviour.

    Richard

  146. Lower up says:

    “Still the (four) facts remain that underpin the AGW.”

    Not really. And climate alarmists always neglect the next logical step: acknowledging that there are no empirical, testable measurements of AGW. Thus, AGW is a conjecture. It is not a hypothesis, nor a theory because it cannot make testable, accurate predictions. It is only a conjecture.

    Now, AGW may in fact exist. But it’s importance is far overstated by the alarmist crowd. If it had a measurable effect, we could measure it. But any putative effect of AGW is too small to measure.

    Further, at least one of your “facts” is wrong:

    …the increase in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere increases the greenhouse effect.

    That was true for the first few dozen ppm, but it is no longer true. That is why AGW is not measurable: adding more CO2 at current levels has no measurable effect. The IR window has been painted over too many times.

    Because your premise is wrong, your conclusion will necessarily be wrong. The Scientific Method only requires that one premise be falsified, for the entire conjecture to be falsified. If you understand basic radiative physics, and agree with the Scientific Method, you must reassess your AGW beliefs.

    You also assert that “humans are largely responsible for the increase in the amount of carbon dioxide in the air.”

    Maybe. But there are arguments on both sides of that issue. You refused to accept this chart, but you provided no credible argument falsifying it. Note also that it stops a decade ago, and that there has been much more CO2 added to the atmosphere since then — without any global warming.

    If you are emotionally invested in your catastrophic AGW belief, there is nothing any of us can do to change your mind. But if you have an open, logical mind, then you can accept the scientific evidence, and lack thereof. Keep in mind that AGW is only a conjecture, that it has no empirical, testable evidence supporting it, and that even if it exists, it is such a minor, third order forcing that it can be completely disregarded. It really doesn’t matter at all — except to the rent seeking alarmist crowd that is cashing in on the AGW scare.

  147. Lower Up;
    For example, a very small amount of virus (less than the 0.0000005% you quoted) can kill an organism. A very small amount of nuclear material can flatten a city, a small amount of cyanide can kill many people etc.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    Yes, yes, yes, and one man produces enough sperm to impregnate all the women on the planet and in theory there is enough water in a single bucket to drown everyone on earth. There’s another thread running in which some moron posted a video of a pig suffocating to death in a gas chamber filled with 100% CO2. None of these arguments have diddly squat to do with a discussion of radiative physics.

    As for your four facts, they can all be true and insignificant at the same time. I’ve spent countless hours on this blog explaining that the GHE in fact does exist, and so has richardscourtney. The fact that it exists and that CO2 is increasing does not however lead to the conclusions you draw. The real questions that must be asked are what are the order of magnitude of the direct effects, plus the order and magnitude of the feedback effects. The data increasingly shows that the total of these is very low. If it were high, we would have seen substantive temperature changes that are clear and distinct from natural variability (but we haven’t).

    You further seem to think that there is some one to one relationship between CO2 concentration and GHE, or that there is some amplifying effect. The opposite it true. The direct GHE of CO2 is logarithmic, look it up in any radiative physics text or refer to the IPCC reports themselves. That being the case, going from 400 ppm (where we are now) to 520 will have far less effect on temperature than going from 280 (pre-industrial background level) to 400 despite both being a change of 120 ppm. In addition, the number of w/m2 required to maintain a temperature increase is exponential. w/m2 vary directly with T in degrees K raised to the 4th power. So, what warming we will see is minimal at day time highs in the tropics and maximum at night time lows at high latitudes in winter.

    These factors all combine to ensure that CO2 increases and their impact on temperature become increasingly irrelevant as CO2 concentrations grow. You can be a fear monger making irrelevant claims about virus percentages, or you can learn the relevant physics and draw some logical conclusions from them.

  148. Friends:

    The troll posting as ‘Lower up’ says – in total – at January 5, 2013 at 12:37 pm

    GabrialHBay, I am not a troll and you appeal to everyone to ignore me, is, I suspect dime to the fact that I am challenging your beliefs about AGW and do not want other people exposed to my ideas. Still the (four) facts remain that underpin the AGW. If you can’t show me they are incorrect, then the AGW is a real phenomena.

    The troll asserts that he/she/it is not a paid troll, and the response to GabrialHBay is consistent with ‘Lower up’ being a bot.

    In addition to the fact that (at January 5, 2013 at 4:17 am) I clearly explained to the troll that those points do NOT mean “AGW is a real phenomena” (I assume he/she/it means ‘phenomenon’) except in an abstract sense because those points do NOT mean AGW could be sufficiently large as to be discernible. And the troll has not addressed any of the points I put to him/her/it.

    Clearly, the troll has made a deliberate lie in the quoted response to GabrialHBay.

    And the troll’s points completely ignore feedbacks. The net feedbacks are probably negative. Even if his points were sufficient to give AGW a discernible magnitude then it does not follow that “AGW is a real phenomena” unless it were shown that net feedbacks are both large and positive.

    Richard

  149. Lower up says:
    January 4, 2013 at 4:51 pm
    “Mpainter, that is an outlandish claim. Please back it up with evidence. As for your sympathy, I am sure it is appreciated by the people who have had their houses destroyed and the family members who have lost loved ones in the bushfires in Tasmania yesterday.”
    Yes, the current Tasmanian fires are another unprecedented AGW induced catastrophe.
    “No deaths or serious injuries have been confirmed, despite conditions comparable to 1967 when 2000 homes and 62 lives were lost.”

    http://www.smh.com.au/national/insurers-declare-catastrophe-on-tasmanian-fires-20130105-2c9v7.html

    Lower up says:
    “The point is I really wish you could prove those statements are incorrect as I am happy with the way the planet is now and don’t want it to change.”

    Then you need to move to another planet as the climate on this planet is always changing and you don’t need to be a climate scientist to understand this, just go read some history books and prepare to be shocked.
    Lower up says:
    January 5, 2013 at 12:45 pm
    “The problem with your argument is a small amount of CO2 does have a greenhouse effect, and when there is more of it, the effect is increased. The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is increasing all the time, so it is reasonable to state the greenhouse effect is increasing all the time.”

    You need to go back and read the post by Richard S Courtney.

    richardscourtney says:
    January 5, 2013 at 4:17 am

  150. @richardscourtney says:

    >>The math on this does not look too good for trying to sell the argument that ice contains a lot of CO2, and that melting ice does not pick up CO2 from the atmosphere…

    >With respect, that shows a misunderstanding of the problem.

    >There is liquid water on the surface of solid ice – and solid ice crystals – at all temperatures down to -40deg.C. This was first discovered by Michael Faraday but it is only in recent decades that it has been discovered why. And this liquid phase on ice surface is why ice is slippery.

    I have agreed that this is the case, that such a liquid layer exists. The paper states it is 10-20 nanometres thick. I can’t dispute the numbers, I do not know. Let’s take then as true. Ice crystals are very large. 10-20 nanometres is nothing.

    >Gases dissolve preferentially in water and, therefore…

    Therefore we should look at the total volume of the liquid phase of the matrix and calculate whether or not the absorption of CO2 will occur when ice melts, which is what I am talking about, and the numbers relevant to the idea.

    >Also, the air entrained in the fern expands and contracts with varying atmospheric pressure so is pumped in-and-out of fern surface. How this alters the composition of the gas is debateable but it must alter the composition of the gas that becomes trapped in the ice.

    The effect, even on the tiny air bubbles, is minor compared with the huge amoutn of CO2 that is incorporated into water when the ice melts. If the ice was trapping 420 ppm (m) like the water from which it froze, then the argument that ice is an important sink for CO2 falls away. But this is not the case. Ice contains almost no CO2, and if there is CO2 in the surface layer of crystals, then it is insignificant relative to the absorbing capacity of the mass of the crystal ice.

    >Also, clathrates form and are released when the ice core is obtained. This release cracks the ice so the clathrates are extracted in the drilling fluid.

    Agreed. All true. Put some numbers on the amount of CO2 invovled and it shows that hte effect on the air (which is what the article is about) is significant at 15%. However it is not significant relative to the amount of CO2 that the same ice will absorb when melted. Thanks for helping me clarify that in my own mind. The mass of CO2 in a kg of ice, inclusive of surface water, clathrates (if they exist) and the air pockets is a very small % of the mass of CO2 that the same kg will absorb when that ice melts. that is my point.

    The mass of water that freezes in the biosphere each NH winter is very large. The loss of CO2 from that water is significant – enough not only to overcome the uptake by a cooling ocean surface, but enough to shift the whole atmosphere by 6 ppm in 5 months. The claim that this increase is from NH fossil fuel combustion is unsupportable as it is more than 4 times the annual average rise in atmospheric CO2 (presently 1.4 ppm/year).

    >Jawarowski estimated that these – and other – processes lower the CO2 concentration in the entrained air obtained from the ice cores, and this is why ice core data is ~15% lower than stomata data of atmospheric CO2 concentration from the same times.

    And he is no doubt correct. It is however not relevant to the case I am making that melting glaciers and ice sheets will absorb very large amounts of CO2 – by my calculation, more than is emitted by the human population. I base that statement on the AGW alarmist narrative that ‘all the ice is going to melt because of human CO2 emissions from burning fossil fuels, land use changes and the burning of accumulated biomass’. It we burned every known fuel resource on the planet and ‘in consequence’ melted all the ice, that melting ice would absorb more than the total emissions and the atmospheric level would in fact drop below its present level. That is how large the numbers are. 20 nanometres of water containing a little CO2 is not going to offset this. We would have to hope that the oceans would warm considerably to give out enough CO2 to keep the plants alive. That may explain why for a billion years the CO2 level never got above 0.7%.

  151. Lower up says:
    January 4, 2013 at 4:51 pm

    Mpainter, that is an outlandish claim. Please back it up with evidence. As for your sympathy, I am sure it is appreciated by the people who have had their houses destroyed and the family members who have lost loved ones in the bushfires in Tasmania yesterday.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    And what have been the changes in government policy concerning wildfire and cut back of brush around houses???

    Both in the USA and in Australia the wildfires and especially the destruction of houses is because of changes in policies forced by Activist Fanatics. Too bad someone can not do a class action suit against the whole lot!

    “We’ve lost two people in my family because you dickheads won’t cut trees down…”

  152. @richardscourtney
    I was making the point you seem to think the increase in CO2 plays no part in the recent warming. In fact you said…
    “At present levels of atmospheric CO2 concentration any increase to atmospheric CO2 concentration will have trivial increase to the greenhouse effect: the effect on global temperature is so small as to be indiscernible.”

    And you also seem to think man contributes little to the recent increases in CO2…
    “I don’t know what has caused the recent increase to atmospheric CO2 concentration, but I want to know. And anybody who thinks they know is mistaken because available data permits either an anthropogenic or any of several natural causes to be attributed.”

    Lastly you seem to think there is no evidence at all for AGW. I wont bother quoting coz you have said it a few times and don’t think you will deny it.

    So there you have it. My point is your thinking is further from the thinking of the creator of this site than that of lower up, which makes you the one who is different. How does it feel?

  153. GabrielHBay says:
    January 5, 2013 at 7:08 am

    BTW: Lower up? A new troll? Never noticed him before. Best treatment is probably to ignore him. Judging from the normal trolling stuff coming from him it is not as if engaging him will make any difference to anything. But I guess we have many very polite posters here… (sigh)
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    Engaging a troll is not for the benefit of the troll but for the audience of Fence Sitters that he is trying to entice over to the ‘Dark Side of the Force’

  154. Crispin in Waterloo:

    I am responding to your post at January 5, 2013 at 1:35 pm.

    We are getting somewhat off-topic but – I think – not excessively in comparison to effects of the troll infestation on this thread.

    Firstly, I did misunderstand the conversation between you and Gail, and I apologise to each of you for that. When the subject of CO2 and water in ice comes up it is usually with respect to Jawarowski’s much-maligned but exceptionally good work. He was a personal friend with whom I collaborated for decades prior to his death so I tend to jump to his defence. Sorry.

    Your point about the sequestration and emission of CO2 by seasonality of ice is interesting. I have given it little thought but – given my work on the carbon cycle – it interests me. Quantifying the effect may be difficult because seasonal ice volume is very difficult to determine with determined accuracy and precision. Area is indicated by satellite observations but not volume.

    Please let me know if I can help with your investigation, and I look forward to your saying what you can or cannot eventually conclude about the issue.

    Richard

  155. Ed says:

    “I was making the point you seem to think the increase in CO2 plays no part in the recent warming.”

    Ed, THERE IS NO RECENT WARMING!!

    Sorry to shout, but that central point apparently hasn’t registered despite the evidence being posted here every day.

    You also say, “you seem to think there is no evidence at all for AGW.”

    Let’s stick with the proper language: There is no testable, measurable, empirical evidence for AGW. If AGW exists, which is quite possible, it is only a minuscule, third-order forcing that can be completely disregarded. AGW is simply too small to matter.

    As for catastrophic AGW [CAGW], let’s not be ridiculous. There is no such thing, at least according to the real world — where the Null Hypothesis has never been falsified. Nothing unprecedented is occurring. What we observe now has happened before, and to a much greater degree. CAGW is a totally bogus scare, without a shred of scientific evidence to support it.

  156. Gail Combs:

    re your post at January 5, 2013 at 2:11 pm. Thankyou.

    Yes, as is usual with your posts, your point is important.

    As you say
    “Engaging a troll is not for the benefit of the troll but for the audience”

    It needs constant repetition for the information of new audience and I often forget that.

    And please note my apology to you and Crispin in Waterloo in my post addressed to him at January 5, 2013 at 2:21 pm.

    Richard

  157. If not a bot, Lower up is extremely immature and probably a juvenile. It’s kind of embarassing to even read his/her comments.

  158. Lower up says:
    January 5, 2013 at 12:26 pm

    Richard, no I am not a paid troll. Why do you ask. On that particular point you said that humans contribute one out of every 35 molecules of CO2 to the atmosphere. This is consistent when I see the vast open cut coal mines, where once the carbon used to be in the ground, is now released into the atmosphere.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    You missed the other half of the carbon cycle.
    ………………….Photosynthesis…………..die…………sink……………compressed
    Atmos. CO2 =============> plants ===>bogs =====> peat =========> coal

    I suggest you read the explanation by retired EPA Environmental Scientist, F. H. Haynie. http://www.kidswincom.net/climate.pdf (A set of very nicely done slides)

    Humans are doing nature a much needed service.
    Carbon starvation in glacial trees recovered from the La Brea tar pits, southern California
    Ward JK, Harris JM, Cerling TE, Wiedenhoeft A, Lott MJ, Dearing MD, Coltrain JB, Ehleringer JR.
    Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, University of Kansas….

  159. Ed:

    I am replying to your post addressed to me at January 5, 2013 at 1:59 pm.

    I objected to your original post at January 5, 2013 at 12:32 pm which asserted to me

    the statements LU has made.
    “That carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas.
    That the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is increasing.
    That the increase in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere increases the greenhouse effect.
    That humans are largely responsible for the increase in the amount of carbon dioxide in the air”

    You on the other hand seem reluctant to accept some of these which would make you the odd one out here. Perhaps you have a new definition of the word troll.

    That is a gross misrepresentation because I addressed each of those points in my post at January 5, 2013 at 4:17 am which was addressed to that troll.
    I explained why each and every one of his/her/its points is not relevant. And the only ONE (n.b. not “some”) of his/her/its points I am reluctant to accept is the unjustified – and unjustifiable – certainty that “That humans are largely responsible for the increase in the amount of carbon dioxide in the air”. I cited a peer-reviewed paper of which I am a co-author which explains why it is not possible to know if the cause of the recent rise is entirely natural, or is entirely anthropogenic, or is some combination of the two.

    You misrepresented me then and you have again misrepresented me in the post I am replying. And don’t think I am unused to trolls ‘hunting in packs’ so I will be discouraged by your support of the other troll.

    I await your apology.

    Richard

  160. Lower up says:
    January 5, 2013 at 12:37 pm

    Still the (four) facts remain that underpin the AGW. If you can’t show me they are incorrect, then the AGW is a real phenomena.

    The following is from Richard S. Lindzen

    http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/02148/RSL-HouseOfCommons_2148505a.pdf

    “It is not about whether CO2 is increasing: it clearly is. It is not about whether the increase in CO2, by itself, will lead to some warming: it should. The debate is simply over the matter of how much warming the increase in CO2 can lead to, and the connection of such warming to the innumerable claimed catastrophes. The evidence is that the increase in CO2 will lead to very little warming, and that the connection of this minimal warming (or even significant warming) to the purported catastrophes is also minimal.”

  161. Lower up says:
    January 5, 2013 at 12:45 pm

    OtherAndy. I notice that you are trying the minimise the effect the low concentration on CO2 has on the greenhouse effect. I cannot understand this argument. ….
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    Lets start with a couple of graphs
    Incoming and outgoing radiation Think of the top number (10^9) as a billion dollars and the lowest (10^-1) as pennies. Earthshine is low energy and very strung out compared to sunshine.

    Solar Energy, Top of Atmos, Surface & 10meters below ocean

    Absorption Spectra of Atmospheric Gases

    In AR5 this table is on page 8-39: radiative forcing table
    Now this is a very interesting graph. Compare it to the graph above. Water is 4% in the atmosphere and absorbs at a lot more wavelengths but it gets a tiny slice of the forcing compared to CO2. The reason for this is the ASSUMPTION that CO2 will produce warming and the relative humidity will increase so the effect of water is rolled into that of CO2 . Water is ASSUMED to increase the effect of CO2 by a factor of 3.

    However you were already show relative humidity has not increased.
    NOAA Relative Humidity So that factor of three falls apart when compared to real life data.

    The reason is 70% of the earth is covered by water and the energy from the wavelength that CO2 bounces back have no real effect on the ocean.

    Ocean: Radiation absorbed at various depths Read the information at the bottom: “Back radiation in the far infrared from the Greenhouse Effect ocurrs at wavelengths centred around 10 micrometres, well off the scale of this chart and can not penetrate penetrate the ocean beyond the surface ‘skin'”

    Now go back to the top graph and look at the amount of energy from a thin slice of the earthshine half of the graph. That is the amount of energy you are talking about impinging on the surface skin of the ocean. This chart may help energy for various wavelengths

    A change in cloud cover that bounces back sunlight will have more of an effect on the ocean than CO2 infrared.

    NOAA

    NASA Solar Variation

    NASA Article (for above graph)

  162. richardscourtney says:
    January 5, 2013 at 2:27 pm

    Richard, No problem.

    I knew that Jaworowski’s work showed there was water coating ice crystals and I wanted that ‘Out There’ I have no idea if that is true of ice at normal atmospheric pressures and was hoping someone would pick up the ball, so thanks.

    You were very lucky to have worked with such a great man as Jaworowski, may history treat him with the respect and honor he deserves.

    On another note this Biology information has a very interesting bit of information: http://proteomics.ysu.edu/courses/BIOL3745/UnitII/chapter9.ppt

    on page 31 it says
    delta 13C:
    C3 plants = 28%
    C4 plants = 14%
    Air = 8%

    So it looks as if you can change the C12/C13 ratio by changing the amount of grass vs trees. corn and sugarcane are also C4 as are most grasses. Trees are C3.

  163. @richardscourtney
    how have I misrepresented you by directly quoting you? How can that be?
    OK let me put it in my own words…..Correct me if I am wrong here (Im sure you will)
    1. You think it is difficult to prove if humans are responsible for the increase in CO2.
    2. You say the warming from increased CO2 is so small it is not worth considering or measurable.
    3. You seem to think there is no evidence at all that AGW is real or provable.

    I say if you do hold these views you are the extremist (one with extreme views) here and that few of the people who run this site, if any would agree with you.

  164. Ed says:
    January 5, 2013 at 2:53 pm

    D Böehm
    By recent warming, I mean in the last 100 years.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    If you are going to go back 100 yrs (The warming coming out of the Little Ice Age) then go with this graph or better yet with this graph

  165. I see that the level of vitriol has increased over the last few posts. This is completely unfair, I have stated that I would like the idea that AGW to be refuted, just like every other right thinking human being, I really do. I am confident The posters here would like the same thing. The trouble is I have described the mechanism whereby humans contribute to global warming.

    DB the four points are not conjecture. They are facts. So much so that one point that you attempt to refute, you do the opposite and provide evidence that supports it (more CO2 in the atmosphere increases the greenhouse effect). Even at the very extreme of the graph, at 500 ppm there is still an increase in greenhouse effect. As we are in the 400 ppm concentration there is still in for an increase in greenhouse effect.

    So once more we have agreement and their no need for me to reassess the process that underpins AGW.

    Further down that same post you provide an unsourced graph that shows humans are contributing to the CO2 in the atmosphere. So once again you have failed to show one of the four facts is incorrect, but actually supplied evidence is correct. Again no need to reassess the process that under pins AGW.

    Davidmhoffer, you have also failed to show the four facts are incorrect. So no need to respond.

    Richard, I am also not a bot either (you are into conspiracies). What you have done is come to a different conclusion about the four facts that we both agree with. For that you call me names. If you change your mind on the four facts, let me know.

    Tobyglyn, Richard has already agreed that all four facts are correct. What is your point? Your orher point about the climate is always changing is valid, but I fear it is changing too fast and in a direction I don’t like.

    Gail if you cannot provide a reason why the four facts are incorrect, please do ignore me. You have nothing to contribute.

    Ed you claim in capital letter there has been no recent warming. My question to you is, how far do you have to go to get a statistically significant answer to question is the earth heating up? Once you establish that, tell me what the answer is.

    Ron, nothing else to contribute but mere speculation as to my age. When you have evidence that disproves the four facts let me know.

    Gail, I fail to see your point regarding photosynthesis. Which of the four facts is that supposed to disprove?

    Well there has been a lot of discussion here regarding the facts underpinning the phenomena of AGW, unfortunately NO ONE has produced a piece of evidence to show the facts are incorrect. I realise this is frustrating for a lot of posters, but rather than channel the frustration into vitriol, use that energy to disprove the facts. I am not doing this to troll, I would like a realistic response that would put my mind at ease.

  166. @richardscourtney says:
    >I am responding to your post at January 5, 2013 at 1:35 pm.

    Yeah obviously got crossposts going. Understood – I am up to date.

    >Firstly, I did misunderstand the conversation between you and Gail, and I apologise to each of you for that.

    I was not confused – not to worry. I have actually read that long paper before perhaps two years ago and found it very interesting. He has thought about it quite deeply. There is also a guy in E Europe who has looks at the methods of determining the ice-bound air pocket gas ratios. It one and the same guy? As a person who measures gas ratios professionally it seems to me the methods have really large error bands, all systematic errors considered.

    >He was a personal friend with whom I collaborated for decades prior to his death so I tend to jump to his defence.

    His work is defensible!

    >Your point about the sequestration and emission of CO2 by seasonality of ice is interesting. I have given it little thought but – given my work on the carbon cycle – it interests me. Quantifying the effect may be difficult because seasonal ice volume is very difficult to determine with determined accuracy and precision. Area is indicated by satellite observations but not volume.

    Well this should turn into a decent presentation for public discussion right here on WUWT. It is speculative to begin with – but I put some numbers togther and it looks like it is very important. Ian McQueen (above) has been in correspondence with me today about it and we are all interested. He rapidly found out ‘who I was’ – I am not hiding here, just not attracting more attention than necessary. I think the three of us have enough understanding to put together an article with realistic numbers. I will outline one possible implication if I am correct:

    Suppose CO2 varies a lot because of ice melting or freezing has a strong influence on the local temperature. In NH summer when the Earth is farthest from the Sun, it still gets warm even though the CO2 drops quite measurably. In winter, the CO2 goes way up and the winter weather should be moderated, right? Detectably? Well, I don’t think so, but it is a putative effect. Perhaps one day it will be discernable – who knows.

    If there were a tropospheric hot spot (my other interest) the change in CO2 should show a change in the temperature of that spot. Unfortunately it is not there so there is no way to detect the ‘greenhouse effect’ precisely in the tropics using this annual variation. Perhaps there is an atmospheric opacity method a-la-Dr M, not sure.

    As you know there is an annual variation in sea ice at opposite ends of the Earth. CO2 concentration also varies quite a bit. I was surprised when I first found out what the ‘normal range’ is. Well, is that variation created by the formation or melting of sea ice and land snow and freezing muskeg and ‘impermafrost’? I think there is as much or more ice in the Tiaga than there is in the Arctic Ocean. In Mongolia the freeze goes down 9 feet over perhaps 1 million sq km. Sibeia is much larger. Water pipes have to be 10 feet down not to freeze. At 24 ft there is permafrost. If the permafrost is melting, that fresh water is absorbing a heck of a lot of CO2. As Ian points out, ice has no gases in it at all, the 10-20 nanometres disregarded as irrelevant.

    >Please let me know if I can help with your investigation, and I look forward to your saying what you can or cannot eventually conclude about the issue.

    I think we should start a crowd-sourced article on the subject. If water/ice CO2 variation is large, and missing from the models estimating CO2 and also melting ice, it is a serious contribution to the understanding of future CO2, deglaciation and estimates of warming. All we need is a separate thread and moderation to keep out the irrelevant stuff as per above. What do you say Richard, Ian and Anthony? Who else can contribute? I have a couple of friends with relevant skills. [I am talking about you, Prof PL.] Obviously it will lead to a journal article.

  167. Ed says:
    January 5, 2013 at 3:50 pm
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    Ed,
    When you’ve dug a hole for yourself, there’s very little benefit to pulling the dirt in over your head. You’d be better of to apologize.

  168. Ed:

    Your offensive trolling is becoming tiresome. Frankly, you paid trolls are beneath contempt.

    The latest of your outrageous and egregious posts is at January 5, 2013 at 3:50 pm and again misrepresents me.

    I have clearly and unambiguously stated my understandings of the issues. And I do not accept that you are incapable of reading. So, I think you are being deliberately egregious when you say what you assert it “seems I think”. Those assertions are purely your misrepresentations.

    Others can see the truth of these matters so there is no need for me to repeat them yet again. I merely again point to my post at January 5, 2013 at 4:17 am which states my views.

    In addition to again misrepresenting me,
    your latest piece of flaming accuses me of being an “extremist”. If by that you mean I adhere rigidly to the scientific method and I adamantly refuse to accept pseudoscience then, yes, I am an “extremist”.

    I still await your apology.
    And I trust that others will understand my refusal to answer any more of your posts until I get it: otherwise you will gain your pay simply by iterating your misrepresentations of me.

    Richard

  169. Ed says:

    “By recent warming, I mean in the last 100 years.”

    OK then. I suspect you are moving the goal posts, but no matter. You do understand now that global warming has stopped over the most recent decade. Clearly, CO2 does not have the claimed global warming effect.

    And once again you are mis-quoting what was written. As a matter of fact, there is no empirical, testable, falsifiable scientific evidence measuring AGW. If AGW cannot be measured, it is only a conjecture. As Prof Richard Lindzen writes, CO2 “should” cause some warming. That is based on radiative physics, but since there are no empirical measurements of AGW, it is entirely possible that it’s minuscule forcing could be offset by various second- and first-order forcings.

    Finally, as I have written many, many times: AGW probably exists. However, there is no evidence per the scientific method that measures the extent of AGW. Since it is too small to be measured, AGW can and should be disregarded. It is making a mountain out of a molehill by all the wild eyed arm-waving over a tiny, third-order, inconsequential forcing. To the extent that it exists, AGW simply does not matter. It only matters because the AGW scare generates $Billions in cash grants every year.

    You label that point of view as “extremist”. Plenty of people labeled Albert Einstein with similar pejoratives. They turned out to be ignorant, because science does not care about pejoratives; only facts and measurable, verifiable observations matter — and those scientific facts and observations support the hypothesis that AGW is too insignificant to matter.

  170. This is richard courtney saying this nonsense? What idiocy.. What rise in CO2 ? When? We have 10 times less than we had last ice age. All anyone with a brain will say is that temps have gone up 5 degrees since LIA. That’s it. The sun is the key factor not human fleas!!
    Human contribution miniscule. No warming in 16 years. I think that about does it.

  171. Lower up:

    In your long post at January 5, 2013 at 4:16 pm you say to me

    Richard, I am also not a bot either (you are into conspiracies). What you have done is come to a different conclusion about the four facts that we both agree with. For that you call me names. If you change your mind on the four facts, let me know.

    I am NOT into conspiracy theories. Bots exist and are deployed against WUWT. And I was not alone in reading your posts as being suggestive of the products of a bot; e.g. the post by Ron Richey at January 5, 2013 at 2:34 pm says

    If not a bot, Lower up is extremely immature and probably a juvenile. It’s kind of embarassing to even read his/her comments.

    My ‘name calling’ as you put it was rather tame compared to that – I think – reasonable assessment by Ron Richey.

    Indeed, my post at January 5, 2013 at 4:17 am explained to you why your “four facts” provide no cause for concern. The available evidence – some of which I gave you – clearly demonstrates how and why your “four facts” provide no cause for concern but you have ignored that and have repeatedly mumbled on as though your “four facts” had importance.

    When the evidence changes then I change my view. When given the evidence you ignore it.

    However, you are better than Ed. When he is given the evidence he misrepresents it and tries to ‘shoot the messenger’.

    Ho, hum. As Gail rightly says, one has to deal with trolls (sigh).

    Richard

  172. DavidG:

    re your post at January 5, 2013 at 4:51 pm says

    This is richard courtney saying this nonsense? What idiocy..

    Please be explicit. What have I said which you think is “nonsense” and “idiocy”?

    Richard

  173. Lower up says:
    January 5, 2013 at 4:16 pm

    …..Gail, I fail to see your point regarding photosynthesis. Which of the four facts is that supposed to disprove?
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    HUH? Are you up to speed at all? CO2 cycles from the air through various sinks. Photosynthesis is one of the major sinks.

    ….This analysis is strong evidence that anthropogenic emissions of carbon dioxide have not measurably contributed to accumulation in the atmosphere. The half life of any carbon dioxide in the atmosphere as a gas is short, a matter of days rather than years. It is readily adsorbed by an abundance of condensed moisture in clouds, fog, and dew. It readily reacts with basic materials such as limestone, slate, marble, concrete, and galvanized steel. It is returned to the atmosphere as a gas when moisture droplets evaporate. Much of it will go through many of these cycles before it returns to the ocean or reacts with some material on land. Of course plants consume carbon dioxide…

    ….The increasing fraction of C13 depleted carbon dioxide has been given as evidence of
    the accumulation of the by-product of burned fossil fuel. The previous slide demonstrates
    that the depletion index from which the fraction is calculated is very closely related to the
    difference between source and sink SSTs. This is a natural process that affects equally the
    non-depleted fraction accumulation. The depleted fraction accounts for less than a third of
    the total accumulation….
    http://www.kidswincom.net/climate.pdf“>Future of Global Climate Change

    So the C13/C12 ratio change is used to indict fossil fuel as the cause of the ASSUMED accumulation of CO2 in the atmosphere. The differences in up take of C13 by C3 plants and C4 plants and the major changes in the earth’s biosphere, as well as the above information places large question marks around the C13/C12 ratio being conclusive proof.

    Other information on the ASSUMPTION that CO2 has accumulated in the air.
    THE ACQUITTAL OF CARBON DIOXIDE by Jeffrey A. Glassman, PhD

    ON WHY CO2 IS KNOWN
    NOT TO HAVE ACCUMULATED IN THE ATMOSPHERE &
    WHAT IS HAPPENING WITH CO2 IN THE MODERN ERA
    by Jeffrey A. Glassman, PhD

    Atmospheric CO2 and global warming: a critical review – 2nd revised edition
    by Jaworowski, Z., Segalstad, T.V. & Hisdal, V. (1992) published in Norsk Polarinstitutt [Norwegian Polar Institute] Meddelelser [Letters], Vol. 119, 76 pp.

    Dr. Zbigniew Jaworowski: The ice-core man

    Historic variations in CO2 measurements

  174. @richardscourtney
    For goodness sake man… which of the statements do you not agree with? Is that too hard to answer or do you not want to put it onto simple words so people can make their own mind up about you. Here they are again….

    1. You think it is difficult to prove if humans are responsible for the increase in CO2.
    2. You say the warming from increased CO2 is so small it is not worth considering or measurable.
    3. You seem to think there is no evidence at all that AGW is real or provable.
    If I have it wropng, say so and why then we can put this to bed

  175. Lower Up;
    Davidmhoffer, you have also failed to show the four facts are incorrect. So no need to respond.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    LOL. Can’t mount a cogent response, so you claim no need to respond. That’s all you got? Four facts that even if they were 100% accurate would still not support your conclusion. Never mind that you made a total fool of yourself with your virus analogy. Then you complain that comments are becoming vitriolic when all people have done is point out the gaping holes in your argument.

    You know what I wish? I wish once, just once, someone like you would respond to me with some fact I hadn’t considered, some issue I over looked, some reasoning that would give me pause. But it doesn’t happen. Gimme a troll to discuss science with who is actually capable of holding up their end of the conversation, I look forward to it. But alas, all that gets served up these days is the odd pretentious fool who can’t put together a logical argument backed up by actual data and so resorts to assertions, whining, and excuses to avoid the discussion.

    Grab a physics text or two, ask some questions, even jump in and argue a point or two. But all you are doing so far is confirming what we suspected when you first showed up. You don’t know that you are talking about and aren’t interested in learning anything.

  176. Lower up says: January 5, 2013 at 4:16 pm
    I have stated that I would like the idea that AGW to be refuted, just like every other right thinking human being, I really do.
    =================================
    Would you focus your furry little brain here for a minute.
    You are confused. You have it backwards, you see. It’s up to you to prove your AGW theory.
    It is not up to us to prove your theory for you or disprove it, you see.
    That is the way it works in science, you see.
    You do not seem to understand that elementary point about science.

  177. Crispin in Waterloo & Richard S. Courtney, I look forward to the discussion, and yes it is time for the trolls to go back under their bridge.link

  178. Ed says:
    January 5, 2013 at 5:40 pm (replying to)

    @richardscourtney

    For goodness sake man… which of the statements do you not agree with? Is that too hard to answer or do you not want to put it onto simple words so people can make their own mind up about you. Here they are again….

    1. You think it is difficult to prove if humans are responsible for the increase in CO2.
    2. You say the warming from increased CO2 is so small it is not worth considering or measurable.
    3. You seem to think there is no evidence at all that AGW is real or provable.
    If I have it wrong, say so and why then we can put this to bed

    I’m not real sure what you want here with this summary – which you have written as if it were a challenge against RichardSC’s statements, rather than a good, short summary of their truth, their value.

    All you have written is, after all, very much correct.

  179. Richard, so not only do you agree that the four facts are correct, but your conclusions are the same as mine. That is that the mechanism for AGW is valid and is occurring I thought you of all people be able to provide a proof that it does not exist.

    D Boehm says ‘Finally, as I have written many, many times: AGW probably exists’. Then goes on to say there is no scientific method to determine the extent of AGW. This is an interesting statement because prior to this you were confident it had negligible effect. It is quiet possible according to DB that the effects of AGW are extending further than anybody could have imagined. Perhaps it explains why the out of the 12 hottest years 11 have occurred in the last 11 years.

    Richard do you find something self contradictory in your statement: My ‘name calling’ as you put it was rather tame compared to that – I think – reasonable assessment by Ron Richey.

    Gail, you are contradicting the evidence that both Richard and DBoehm have provided that humans are contributing CO2 into the atmosphere. You have also failed to explain why the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere is increasing. I am aware of the carbon cycle where carbon is cycled between living things and the air. However it is a cycle, so if plants are soaking up carbon from the air, there is a corresponding release of carbon through respiration. Unless you can point to a pile of dead plants and animals locking carbon out of the cycle your point lacks validity. On the other hand I can readily point to holes in the ground where carbon was locked out of the cycle in the form of coal, and this has now been released through combustion back into the atmosphere.

  180. mpainters, I have provided four facts that provide a mechanism for AGW. Some of posters have agreed that all four facts are valid. If you have a reason to believe that they are incorrect, please share it with us.

    David you have doubts that the four facts are 100% accurate. What percentage are they inaccurate by? And more importantly why are they inaccurate? What are the gaping holes in the mechanism that you claim are there. You obviously are sitting on something, so let’s have it.

  181. Lower up says:
    January 5, 2013 at 4:16 pm

    how far do you have to go to get a statistically significant answer to question is the earth heating up?

    That depends on the data set.

    For RSS the warming is NOT significant for 23 years.
    For RSS: +0.130 +/-0.136 C/decade at the two sigma level from 1990
    For UAH, the warming is NOT significant for 19 years.
    For UAH: 0.143 +/- 0.173 C/decade at the two sigma level from 1994
    For Hacrut3, the warming is NOT significant for 19 years.
    For Hadcrut3: 0.098 +/- 0.113 C/decade at the two sigma level from 1994
    For Hacrut4, the warming is NOT significant for 18 years.
    For Hadcrut4: 0.098 +/- 0.111 C/decade at the two sigma level from 1995
    For GISS, the warming is NOT significant for 17 years.
    For GISS: 0.113 +/- 0.122 C/decade at the two sigma level from 1996

  182. Lower Up;
    David you have doubts that the four facts are 100% accurate. What percentage are they inaccurate by? And more importantly why are they inaccurate? What are the gaping holes in the mechanism that you claim are there. You obviously are sitting on something, so let’s have it.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    No, I said even if those four facts are 100% accurate, they don’t support the conclusion you draw. I don’t need to prove them wrong when they don’t support your assertion in the first place. The gaping hole in the mechanism is that you haven’t provided either a mechanism or data that correlates to fit your conclusion. Let me help you out:

    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/from:1958/to:2012/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1920/to:2012/scale:20/offset:350/mean:3

    There’s global temperature anomalies since 1920 (beginning of the industrial age) versus CO2 concentrations as measured at Manua Loa since they first began in 1958. Note that I have multiplied the temperature anomalies by a factor of 20 just to make them visible as anything but a straight line. If you could point me to the correlation between the two, I’d be most appreciative.

    I notice that you once again sidestepped the issues I brought up earlier, and in trying to deflect instead, once again, challenge me to prove your facts wrong. For the purposes of this discussion, at this point in time, I am accepting your facts as stated, and challenging you to demonstrate with the data available that there is a measurable and, more importantly, alarming in any way, relationship between CO2 and the earth’s temperature.

  183. Ed:

    I am probably making a mistake here by replying to your post at January 5, 2013 at 5:40 pm. I do it in the hope that you will desist and crawl back under your bridge because you are disrupting the thread.

    Your post says in total

    @richardscourtney
    For goodness sake man… which of the statements do you not agree with? Is that too hard to answer or do you not want to put it onto simple words so people can make their own mind up about you. Here they are again….

    1. You think it is difficult to prove if humans are responsible for the increase in CO2.
    2. You say the warming from increased CO2 is so small it is not worth considering or measurable.
    3. You seem to think there is no evidence at all that AGW is real or provable.
    If I have it wropng, say so and why then we can put this to bed

    I “put it to bed” with my first reply to you. I know that, you know that, and everybody can see that, but you have persisted with your nonsense.

    So there can be no reason for you to continue your failure to apologise for misrepresenting me, I state the following which I have already repeatedly stated.

    A1.
    I know as certain fact that it is not possible using all the available data to determine if the recent increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration has a natural cause, or an anthropogenic cause, or some combination of natural and anthropogenic causes. Indeed, I have published on this in the peer reviewed literature.

    A2.
    I (and e.g. the IPCC) know the warming from increased atmospheric CO2 is too small for it to be discernible because warming from natural causes is much larger. And I am certain the warming from increased atmospheric CO2 cannot become sufficiently large for it to become discernible in future: in this thread I have stated some – but not all – of the reasons why this is so. Warming which is too small for it to be detected cannot be a problem: observation of its effects would be its detection..

    A3.
    I (and e.g. the IPCC) know there is no empirical evidence of any kind that AGW is discernible or will become discernible.

    In addition, I know of much empirical evidence – and in this thread at January 4, 2013 at 5:21 pm I have listed some – which shows that discernible AGW has NOT happened to date.

    Please note the word “discernible” in my points because you have repeatedly misrepresented me by omitting it.

    Now, you no longer have any possible excuse for pestering me, so APOLOGISE for your misrepresentations of my statements or clear off.

    Richard

  184. Lower up,

    You claim that you four so-called “facts” are proven. Not so, as I showed you upthread. Let’s deconstruct one of them:

    The increase in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere increases the greenhouse effect.

    As I explained to you, the CO2 “greenhouse effect” was almost completely used up in the first few dozen ppmv:

    CO2 levels could double from here with no measurable effect. And that, my friend, destroys your belief that AGW is a problem.

    I strongly suspect that you are not reading other comments, or the links provided. Gail Combs put a lot of effort into trying to help educate you, but I’ll bet you never read her comments or links. Apparently you are neither reading nor understanding the many helpful comments, which together falsify your belief system, since you continue to make assertions that have been thoroughly deconstructed in this thread.

    Werner Brozek quotes Prof. Richard Lindzen, an internationally esteemed climatologist who heads MIT’s atmospheric sciences department. Dr Lindzen has hundreds of peer reviewed papers published, and he has probably forgotten more about the climate than most of us will ever learn. Dr Lindzen writes:

    The evidence is that the increase in CO2 will lead to very little warming, and that the connection of this minimal warming (or even significant warming) to the purported catastrophes is also minimal. [my emphasis]

    Prof Lindzen puts the AGW scare in perspective: AGW doesn’t matter. You have simply been the victim of the “carbon” scare. It is a complete false alarm. If you would take the time to read the comments and links above, the scales might fall from you eyes, and you might see the light: you, like plenty of others, were duped.

  185. Lower up:

    At January 5, 2013 at 6:12 pm you egregiously say to me

    Richard, so not only do you agree that the four facts are correct, but your conclusions are the same as mine. That is that the mechanism for AGW is valid and is occurring I thought you of all people be able to provide a proof that it does not exist.

    That depends on what you mean by “exist”. Also, I don’t provide “proof”: mathematicians provide “proof” and scientists provide conclusions. And I resent your implication that I am a ‘Dragon Slayer’ because I oppose their pseudoscience.

    Of course, human activities have some effect on global temperature for several reasons. For example, cities are warmer than the land around them, so cities cause some warming. But the temperature rise from cities is too small to be detected when averaged over the entire surface of the planet, although this global warming from cities can be estimated by measuring the warming of all cities and their areas.

    Similarly, the global warming from man’s GHG emissions would be too small to be detected. Indeed, because climate sensitivity is less than 1 deg.C for a doubling of CO2 equivalent, it is physically impossible for the man-made global warming to be large enough to be detected. 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).

    I hold this view because I am an empiricist so I accept whatever is indicated by data obtained from observation of the real world.

    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

    These completely independent studies each provides an indication of climate sensitivity of ~0.4 deg.C for a doubling of atmospheric CO2 concentration.

    Climate sensitivity is less than 1.0 deg.C for a doubling of atmospheric CO2 concentration and, therefore, any effect on global temperature of increase to atmospheric CO2 concentration only has an abstract existence; it does not have a discernible existence that has observable effects.

    Richard

  186. Lower Up;

    The IPCC estimates are that doubling of CO2 will result in an increase of 3.7 w/m2 at earth surface which will in turn raise temperatures of earth surface by 1 degree. They calculate average earth surface temperature as 15 degrees C or 288 K. The law of physics applicable in this case is Stefan-Boltzmann Law which defines the equilibrium temperature of an ideal black body with a given energy input. Now earth isn’t an ideal black body, but it is pretty close. So here’s the formula:

    P(w/m2) = 5.67 x 10^-6 x T^4 with T in degrees K. So, let’s plug the IPCC estimates into that formula.

    P = 5.68 x 10^-8 x 288^4
    P= 390.1 w/m2

    Good enough, let’s add 3.7 w/m2 to that, and calculate the new average temperature of the earth due to the direct effects of CO2 doubling. 390.1 + 3.7 = 393.8

    393.8 = 5.67 x 10^-8 x T^4
    T = 288.68

    Huh? What happened to 1 degree? Shouldn’t it be 289? Where did 1/3 of 1 degree go?

    And you see Lower Up, I know the answer to that question. When you can demonstrate that you do as well, we can have a meaningful conversation. If you would like to understand, and ask politely for help in doing so, I and many others will be glad to oblige.

    Ball’s in your court buddy. Got game?

  187. richardscourtney;
    And I resent your implication that I am a ‘Dragon Slayer’ because I oppose their pseudoscience.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>

    Richard, I don’t think he even knows who the Dragon Slayers are.

  188. richadscourtney
    Thank you for your reply. I appreciate you making the effort answer my questions.

    I think it would be a bit schoolteacherish of you to really expect an apology don’t you? My point is that your views (as read above) are far from mainstream and I can think of no prominent skeptics (Monckton, Watts, Christy, Spencer to name a few) who would side with you in these statements. They (your comments) are those of an extreme skeptic and while it is good to challenge I think the time has long past where people can deny man is having an impact on our climate. I am with the likes of Monckton and Watts who say yes it’s happening, but it is not the big deal being put out there by the media and we certainly don’t need to blow all our hard earned dollars putting a band aid on the problem.

    In short I think you do our side no favors refusing to acknowledge the good science that is done by the other side.

  189. Lower up says: January 5, 2013 at 6:24 pm

    mpainters, I have provided four facts that provide a mechanism for AGW. Some of posters have agreed that all four facts are valid. If you have a reason to believe that they are incorrect, please share it with us.
    ======================================
    You have provided a theory without support and then you challenge us to disprove your theory. You are a pseudo-scientist of the adolescent variety and it shows, believe me, it shows.

  190. Ed;
    I am with the likes of Monckton and Watts who say yes it’s happening, but it is not the big deal being put out there by the media
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    Ed, seriously. Read what Richard wrote again. I’m not certain if you misunderstand Courntney, or Watts, Spencer, etc.

  191. Just for the record, the “Dragon Slayers” are those who battle against the horrible destruction threatened by CO2 increases. I.e., the Warmists. The book referencing them is IN OPPOSITION to the myth and the rationale for flailing away at non-existent “Sky Dragons”.. Capice?

  192. Slightly OT but the equatorial Pacific surface 150m water temperatures currently (BOM) suggest a nice La Nina is brewing. Do Viner et al will have to wait a little longer for their snow-free future.

  193. David, thank you for your comment: ‘I am accepting your facts as stated’. So we agree that we have a viable mechanism for AGW. Your challenge will take a little thought, but if all the pieces are in place for the mechanism to occur, then it will occur.

    DBoehm, I have had another look at the graph and I see that most of the greenhouse effect has occurred when CO2 concentrations were low as you have stated. One thing I note is that earth would be a lot colder had we had no CO2 in the atmosphere. The second thing I notice that the CO2 concentration has increase between pre-industrial and 2010 by 100 ppm. In that time the Earth’s temperature has increased by about 1.5 degrees. If the concentration of CO2 increases by 100 ppm again to 480 ppm (which it is expected to do in 30-40 years time) we can expect a little less than a 1.5 degrees increase again. As you have rightly pointed out the greenhouse effect is very much diminished as the concentration of CO2 passess 180 ppm. This means at the tail end of the graph the relationship is almost linear. Have I read this graph correctly?

    David, you have provided some interesting maths, very impressive. The only query I have is that you changed the power of ten from -8 to -6 in one of the lines and I cannot see why.

    Apart from that I don’t understand your point, do you accept the IPCC calculations and estimates?

    As for the mystery to missing third degree, I must admit I don’t know, but then again I am not right across the math or the significance of what you are trying to show.

    Mpainters, I have presented four facts that are not in dispute between myself, Richard, David and DBoehm. So I will have to assume your summary of me applies to them as well and I quote your attempt at belittling your fellow posters:’You are a pseudo-scientist of the adolescent variety and it shows, believe me, it shows’. Rather than name calling please provide why the four facts are in error. If not, I will assume you also accept them too.

  194. Lower up says:

    “I have presented four facts that are not in dispute between myself, Richard, David and DBoehm.”

    Wrong once again. I deconstructed one of your “facts” in two separate comments, yet you continue to state that I am in agreement with you. I am not. I disputed that belief of yours. And AGW does not matter; it is completely inconsequential. I also disputed one of your four “facts” in detail, and with citations. It appears that I am correct when I say that you do not read comments. Either that, or you have no reading comprehension.

    It’s too late now to deconstruct the mistakes in your post above. There are several. But your biggest mistake by far is blithely carrying on with your uneducated beliefs, while never reading [or maybe just not being able to understand] what others are saying.

  195. Lower Up;
    David, you have provided some interesting maths, very impressive. The only query I have is that you changed the power of ten from -8 to -6 in one of the lines and I cannot see why.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    REPLY: Typo on my part. The formula is P=5.67*10^-8*T^4
    the calculations were done correctly however, I double checked.

    Lower Up
    Apart from that I don’t understand your point, do you accept the IPCC calculations and estimates?
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    REPLY: I accept that the direct effects of of CO2 doubling will be an approximate increase in downward energy flux (that otherwise would not have existed) that will be 3.7 w/m2 larger than the upward energy flux (that otherwise would not have existed) as per the IPCC definition of same.

    Lower Up;
    As for the mystery to missing third degree, I must admit I don’t know, but then again I am not right across the math or the significance of what you are trying to show.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    REPLY: If you don’t know why the calculation comes out to 0.32 degrees less than what the IPCC claims it should be (slightly over 1.0 degrees) then do you still believe that the IPCC number is correct and if so, why?

  196. DBoehm, what part of ‘Finally, as I have written many, many times: AGW probably exists’ did I misunderstand?

  197. DBoehm you have failed to deconstruct any of the facts, but rather provided evidence that supports those facts. The two pieces of evidence you provided are that humans are contributing to CO2 to the atmosphere and that this increase will cause an increase in the earth’s temperature. You only provided a qualifier that the effect is minor, but as I am pointing out it is an effect just the same. Sorry if you find this inconvenient.

  198. I have read through all posts from davidmhoffer, richardscourtney and D Böehm etc in response to “Lower Up”, guys you are wasting your time. If he/she is from Australia then this person classically demonstrates the sort of uninformed mindless twaddle people spout here everyday in the AGW debate (We certainly DON’T have any debate in Aus regrding CO2 and AGW – Nanny state knows best, so shut up and pay your carbon price). They have been severely branwashed by the various “authorities” and refuse to look at actual science. Australia was the lucky country once, now look at it.

  199. Ed:

    I am replying to your nasty little post at January 5, 2013 at 7:55 pm. In this reply I shall quote every word in your post and rebut each of its statements in turn.

    It says to me

    I think it would be a bit schoolteacherish of you to really expect an apology don’t you?

    NO! I don’t!
    Any decent person would have already apologised. However, no decent person would have behaved as you have.

    And you assert

    My point is that your views (as read above) are far from mainstream and I can think of no prominent skeptics (Monckton, Watts, Christy, Spencer to name a few) who would side with you in these statements.

    That is a lie!
    The most prominent “skeptic” is Lindzen and his agreement has been repeatedly reported in this thread.
    Viscount Monckton of Brenchley certainly does agree my view; see

    http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=2938

    etc.
    Stop trying to justify your disgraceful behaviour by making false claims that others would support you.

    Then you say

    They (your comments) are those of an extreme skeptic and while it is good to challenge

    The truth is what it is. I state the truth and you have failed to find any flaw in my statements.

    I am a realist and you are a liar who has repeatedly attempted to misrepresent me in this thread. The next point in your thread does it again, saying

    I think the time has long past where people can deny man is having an impact on our climate.

    I “deny” nothing: I merely report empirical findings.

    Humans changed local environment when they first cleared a forest to plant a field. You again misrepresent me by implying I have said otherwise. For example, in this thread at January 5, 2013 at 6:57 pm where I wrote

    Of course, human activities have some effect on global temperature for several reasons. For example, cities are warmer than the land around them, so cities cause some warming. But the temperature rise from cities is too small to be detected when averaged over the entire surface of the planet, although this global warming from cities can be estimated by measuring the warming of all cities and their areas.

    And I am truly disgusted by your blatantly false statement saying

    I am with the likes of Monckton and Watts who say yes it’s happening, but it is not the big deal being put out there by the media and we certainly don’t need to blow all our hard earned dollars putting a band aid on the problem.

    You are clearly a ‘concern troll’ who has tried to disrupt this thread and you misrepresent the science which refutes AGW.

    Your concluding statement is a demonstration of pure ‘concern trolling’. It says

    In short I think you do our side no favors refusing to acknowledge the good science that is done by the other side.

    What “good science that is done by the other side”? You cite none.

    Almost all of the AGW-scare is based on very, very bad science; see

    http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmselect/cmsctech/memo/climatedata/uc0102.htm

    Apologise then clear off.

    Richard

  200. Patrick says: January 6, 2013 at 1:18 am
    ============================
    I put this upthread but it bears repeating: poor Australians

  201. Patrick:

    Your entire post at January 6, 2013 at 1:18 am says

    I have read through all posts from davidmhoffer, richardscourtney and D Böehm etc in response to “Lower Up”, guys you are wasting your time. If he/she is from Australia then this person classically demonstrates the sort of uninformed mindless twaddle people spout here everyday in the AGW debate (We certainly DON’T have any debate in Aus regrding CO2 and AGW – Nanny state knows best, so shut up and pay your carbon price). They have been severely branwashed by the various “authorities” and refuse to look at actual science. Australia was the lucky country once, now look at it.

    With respect, I think you are misreading the situation.

    Firstly, we are debunking the “mindless twaddle” from ‘Lower up’ so that twaddle does not mislead people who are reading this thread as a method to obtain information.

    Secondly, and importantly, I don’t think ‘Lower up’ is the “brainwashed” idiot he/she/it pretends to be. His/her/its behaviour is typical of a paid troll or a bot. For example, ‘Lower up’ says at January 5, 2013 at 6:12 pm

    Gail, you are contradicting the evidence that both Richard and DBoehm have provided that humans are contributing CO2 into the atmosphere.

    But I have provided no such “evidence”.
    On the contrary, I have repeatedly – including in two posts specifically addressed to ‘Lower up’ – stated that it is not possible to know if humans are – or are not – “contributing CO2 into the atmosphere”. This is because “emitting” and “contributing” do not have the same meaning in a complex system.

    We know that humans emit CO2 to the air (e.g. with each breath) but it is not possible to know what – if any – contribution that makes to the CO2 in the air. ‘Lower up’ has not requested any explanation of that but, instead, asserts I provided “evidence” that “humans are contributing CO2 into the atmosphere”.

    Simply, ‘Lower up’ displays ‘word play’ of the kind produced by bots. Hence, it is most likely that ‘Lower up’ is a bot and not merely a simpleton.

    Richard

  202. “richardscourtney says:

    January 6, 2013 at 3:46 am”

    I agree that it is word play, disagree “Lower Up” is a bot, paid troll however, yes. I see these types posting all the time here in Aus. You see them pop up when there is “extreme weather”, especially in Aus, “Lower Up” appeared just after the recent fires in Aus, along with “Climate Ace”. Bots not, trolls yes!

  203. Lower up says:
    January 5, 2013 at 11:22 pm
    DBoehm you have failed to deconstruct any of the facts, but rather provided evidence that supports those facts.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    As put to you by any number of people previously, in any number of ways, how do your four facts support the conclusion that anything significant is happening as an outcome of those four facts?

  204. Patrick says:

    “…in response to ‘Lower Up’, guys you are wasting your time. …he/she … classically demonstrates the sort of uninformed mindless twaddle people spout here everyday in the AGW debate…”

    True. ‘Lower up’ will not admit it, but if AGW even exists, it is de minimis It does not matter. It is too small to measure, therefore it remains only a conjecture. That fact deconstructs Lower up’s belief system. That is the difference between rational science and Lower up’s anti-science beliefs.

    Regarding Mr Shehan’s descent into ad hominem name-calling, he is trying to cover up the fact that there has been no acceleration of global warming — the crux of his alarmist beliefs, as demonstrated by his John Cook cartoon of rapidly accelerating global temperature — something that even the UN/IPCC admits is not happening.

    I have posted numerous links showing conclusively that there is no acceleration in the natural global warming trend, and in fact, that global warming has stopped. Shehan’s lame response is that I am “blowing smoke”. He needs to go tell the HadCRUT folks that their charts are wrong. He needs to tell U of Huntsville climate scientists that their satellite data is wrong, and his mendacious John Cook cartoon is right. He needs to tell Prof Richard Lindzen that Lindzen is wrong. And he needs to explain why the very long term trend charts I posted are “cherry-picking”. Simply asserting that nonsense shows Shehan’s desperation.

    But Shehan cannot do any of that, because he would be laughed at by folks who know more than he does — doubled and squared. Shehan really hates the fact that I am simply showing what others have found: that there is no acceleration of natural global warming. That debunks Shehan’s ‘acceleration’ nonsense. He doesn’t like it, but he is too chicken to go straight to the sources and argue with them. He would only get laughed at.

  205. Patrick says: January 6, 2013 at 4:22 am
    “Lower Up” appeared just after the recent fires in Aus, along with “Climate Ace”. Bots not, trolls yes!
    =============================

    These clowns got hot to trot over what they perceived as an opportunity to propagandize, and so they come to WUWT to make converts, the idiots. The left side of the bell curve imagines to instruct the right side.

  206. D Böehm :

    At January 6, 2013 at 5:44 am you say

    ‘Lower up’ will not admit it, but if AGW even exists, it is de minimis It does not matter. It is too small to measure, therefore it remains only a conjecture. That fact deconstructs Lower up’s belief system. That is the difference between rational science and Lower up’s anti-science beliefs.

    Yes. You, I and David M Hoffer have repeatedly said that.

    I provide an analogy in case there are any who fail to understand the matter.

    A stone thrown into the ocean displaces some water and, therefore, raises sea level. Children throw stones into the sea every day, so children are raising sea level. But the effect of those stones on sea level is too small to be discernible. The effect of the stones is trivially small because it is insignificant against the natural variations in sea level (caused by surface waves, tides, seismic variations, ocean spreading, etc.). Hence, for all practical purposes children throwing stones into the sea can be said to not raise sea level although theoretically it does. Indeed, no sane person would stop children throwing stones into the ocean for fear of the resulting sea level change.

    But ‘Lower up’ says (first at January 4, 2013 at 11:40 pm) that he will not accept there is no AGW unless it is shown that his “four facts” are incorrect; viz.

    That carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas.
    That the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is increasing.
    That the increase in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere increases the greenhouse effect.
    That humans are largely responsible for the increase in the amount of carbon dioxide in the air (ie the chemicals in the petrol in my tank at the start of week does not land up I the atmosphere.
    Do you dispute that

    Thereafter, he pretends that we accept AGW is a real and present effect because we don’t dispute his so-called facts but point out that any such AGW is trivially small and indiscernible against natural variations.

    His pretence is daft.
    It has equal merit to his being asked if he disputes that children throwing stones in the sea causes sea level rise, and when he replies it is trivially small and indiscernible against natural variations, his being told he admits child-induced sea level rise is a real and present effect.

    Richard

  207. The use of the word “anomalies” gives many people the false impression that something is wrong with the weather or climate.

    Wiktionary’s first three definitions for the word “anomaly” are:
    (1) A deviation from a rule or from what is regarded as normal;
    (2) Something or someone that is strange or unusual; and,
    (3) (sciences) Any event or measurement that is out of the ordinary regardless of whether it is exceptional or not.

  208. Lower up says: @ January 5, 2013 at 6:12 pm

    ….Gail, you are contradicting the evidence that both Richard and DBoehm have provided that humans are contributing CO2 into the atmosphere. You have also failed to explain why the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere is increasing. I am aware of the carbon cycle where carbon is cycled between living things and the air. However it is a cycle, so if plants are soaking up carbon from the air, there is a corresponding release of carbon through respiration. Unless you can point to a pile of dead plants and animals locking carbon out of the cycle your point lacks validity. On the other hand I can readily point to holes in the ground where carbon was locked out of the cycle in the form of coal, and this has now been released through combustion back into the atmosphere…..
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    Gail, you are contradicting the evidence that both Richard and DBoehm have provided that humans are contributing CO2 into the atmosphere…..
    ……
    Most everything is contributing to the CO2 in the atmosphere, plants; animals, microbes, the oceans, volcanoes and other geologic processes. I ‘know’ Richard via WUWT well enough to know his views and mine are very closely aligned. D Böehm is new here and I have not read much on his views on CO2, just on temperature. However I doubt if he is stupid enough to ignore the long and short term cycles in the climate and the real carbon cycle when they are pointed out.

    Your problems is you have absolutely no idea of what you are talking about or what the actual points of disagreement between skeptics and warmists are. This makes your attempts at debate confusing and often times out right hilarious.

    For example the carbon cycle:

    You say:

    I am aware of the carbon cycle where carbon is cycled between living things and the air. However it is a cycle, so if plants are soaking up carbon from the air, there is a corresponding release of carbon through respiration. Unless you can point to a pile of dead plants and animals locking carbon out of the cycle your point lacks validity. [Oh I can. gc] On the other hand I can readily point to holes in the ground where carbon was locked out of the cycle in the form of coal, and this has now been released through combustion back into the atmosphere….

    That is the kiddie view of the carbon cycle. It leave out the major players, the hydrosphere, and the lithosphere, only showing a simplified version of the biosphere in order to confuse.

    For example “holes in the ground where carbon was locked out of the cycle in the form of coal” is completely incorrect because short term natural oil seeps and burning coal seams returned this carbon to the atmosphere without the help of man (The bacteria gobbling up the gulf oil spill is a case in point) Long term ALL sequestered carbon is returned to the atmosphere via geological processes. Or are you ignorant of Plate Tectonics too?
    …..
    BTW Where in hell do you think COAL comes from anyway?

    Plant and animal remains get deposited in lake beds that become swamps as they are filled with sediment. There are four stages in coal formation: peat, lignite, bituminous and anthracite.
    …..
    You also completely left out THE biggest short term player, the ocean.
    First lets go to the EPA environmental scientist and see what he says:

    SLIDE 22

    The vapor pressure of carbon dioxide is a function of the thermodynamics of sea water containing carbonate ions, dissolved carbonates, their solids, as well as dissolved carbon dioxide. Decaying organic matter is another source of carbon dioxide in sea water. [Thats where that ‘pile of dead bodies’ are that aren’t in swamps. gc] There is a lot more of it in the oceans than there is on land. The sea becomes a source when SST rises and a sink when it falls. The rate of emission or absorption depends on the rate and direction of temperature change. That rate is constantly changing with space and time….

    Then lets go to a geologist who taught geology and geophysics at the University of Oslo, Norway, and at Pennsylvania State.

    … if the water temperature increases, the water cannot keep as much CO2 in solution, resulting in CO2 degassing from the water to the atmosphere. According to Takahashi (1961) heating of sea water by 1 degree C will increase the partial pressure of atmospheric CO2 by 12.5 ppmv during upwelling of deep water. For example 12 degrees C warming of the Benguela Current should increase the atmospheric CO2 concentration by 150 ppmv.

    Volk & Liu (1988) modelled the CO2 flux between atmosphere and oceans, and concluded that approximately 70% of the flux was governed by this “thermal solubility pump”, while approximately 30% was governed by the organic nutrient “biological pump”. Faure (1990) estimated that ca. 4000 GT (Gigatonnes = billion metric tonnes) of CO2 is transferred by degassing of the ocean via the atmosphere to the continental biosphere from the end of a glaciation to an interglacial stage.

    From a geochemical consideration of sedimentary rocks deposited throughout the Earth’s history, and the chemical composition of the ocean and atmosphere, Holland (1984) showed that degassing from the Earth’s interior has given us chloride in the ocean; and nitrogen, CO2, and noble gases in the atmosphere. Mineral equilibria have established concentrations of major cations and H+ in the ocean, and the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere, through different chemical buffer reactions. Biological reactions have given us sulphate in the ocean and oxygen in the atmosphere.

    In addition to this biogeochemical balance, there is also an important geochemical balance. CO2 in the atmosphere is in equilibrium with carbonic acid dissolved in the ocean, which in term is close to CaCO3 saturation and in equilibrium with carbonate shells of organisms and lime (calcium carbonate; limestone) in the ocean through the following reactions (where s indicates the solid state, aq is the aqueous state, and g is the gaseous state):

    Partial reactions:

    CO2 (g) CO2 (aq)

    CO2 (aq) + H2O H2CO3 (aq)

    H2CO3 (aq) H+ (aq) + HCO3- (aq)

    HCO3- (aq) H+ (aq) + CO32- (aq)

    CO32- (aq) + Ca2+ (aq) CaCO3 (s)

    ____________________________________

    Net reaction:

    CO2 (g) + H2O + Ca2+ (aq) CaCO3 (s) + 2 H+ (aq)

    In addition there are a number of different aqueous metal complexes of lesser concentrations….

    Stable carbon isotopes (13C/12C) show that CO2 in the atmosphere is in chemical equilibrium with ocean bicarbonate and lithospheric carbonate (Ohmoto, 1986). The chemical equilibrium constants for the chemical reactions above provide us with a partition coefficient for CO2 between the atmosphere and the ocean of approximately 1 : 50 (approx. 0.02) at the global mean temperature (Revelle & Suess, 1957; Skirrow, 1975). This means that for an atmospheric doubling of CO2, there will have to be supplied 50 times more CO2 to the ocean to obtain chemical equilibrium. This total of 51 times the present amount of atmospheric CO2 carbon is more than the known reserves of fossil carbon.….

    http://www.co2web.info/esef4.htm

    Edmund Burke’s made the comment “Those who don’t know history are destined to repeat it.”

    It applies to the climate too. Those who ignore what geology tells us are continually surprised. Those who have at least a smattering of geology are not. I paid attention in my geo classes and made sure I built my house well above the flood plain. My new neighbor’s did not heed my warning and built on the flood plain, actually they put in an entire subdivision. The next hurricane like Hurricane Fran will see them all flooded out.

    What does geology tell us about the recent temperature? graph and graph An explanation.

  209. A while back, on one blog or other, the term “prat” was defined and discussed. Does not “lower up” fit that mold? (or, mould, if you prefer.)

  210. phlogiston says:
    January 5, 2013 at 9:35 pm

    Slightly OT but the equatorial Pacific surface 150m water temperatures currently (BOM) suggest a nice La Nina is brewing. Do Viner et al will have to wait a little longer for their snow-free future.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    Yeah, the ‘rise’ in Global SST stalled and has been flat since about 1998. It will be interesting to see if multiple La Ninas dump heat the way Bob T. showed Le Nino’s caused a gain in SST heat.

    ♬ The times they are a changing ♬

  211. mpainter says: @ January 6, 2013 at 5:48 am

    …. The left side of the bell curve imagines to instruct the right side.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    So true, now I have to clean the tea off my screen again LOL.

  212. Friends:

    I write to provide clarity for all.

    I will strongly rebut any further attempts by trolls to induce disagreement on this thread between Gail Combs and myself.

    Gail Combs wrote in her post at January 6, 2013 at 6:49 am

    I ‘know’ Richard via WUWT well enough to know his views and mine are very closely aligned.

    In the context in which she wrote she is completely correct.

    Gail’s posts on WUWT clearly display similar views to my own concerning climate and the AGW-scare. And I support all she has written in this thread concerning the carbon cycle.

    I admire her informative and cogent posts on WUWT which are always supported by pertinent links, quotations and references.

    However, to avoid trolls jumping in with misleading irrelevance, I add that I suspect her political philosophy is very different from my socialist principles.

    I have never met Gail Combs but her posts on WUWT cause me to admire the lady.

    Richard

  213. David Wozney says:
    January 6, 2013 at 6:48 am

    The use of the word “anomalies” gives many people the false impression that something is wrong with the weather or climate….
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    Excellent point. This is especially true when they choose a point in time (the 1970’s) that had cold weather as the base line.

    A non-thermometer look at 20th century climate
    Zoom on bottom graph From that it is obvious the true “anomalies” are actually the 1970’s and to some extent the 1910’s.

  214. richarscourtney,

    You know very well that fishermen work very hard to pull enough fish out of the sea to compensate for the rocks being thrown in by children.

    However, the fact of the matter is that there is a finite supply of rocks on the planet. Already children are having to walk sometimes two or even three steps inland to find rocks to throw. The easy rocks right at the water’s edge have already been depleted. That’s why beaches only have sand left on them.

    We can also attribute the recent decline in sea level acceleration to this very same problem. Even though there has been an increase in the number of children, the extra distance they must travel to find good rocks to throw is the dominant factor.

    World governments have attempted to compensate by imposing fishing limits so that less fish are taken out, but this has been very hard on the fishermen who made their living this way for generations. Ultimately they will have to find new lines of work as allowing them to continue at present rates would obviously empty the oceans completely at some point in the future.

    The sad fact is that tomorrow’s children will simply grow up not knowing what the meaning of “skipping stones” is.

  215. @richardscourtney
    I find it sad you feel it acceptable and needed to lower yourself to personal abuse on this thread. Clearly you are a person who feels the need to play the man not the ball so I will now no longer attempt to help you understand you have a defenseless narrow view of our climate and the forces that drive it. Good luck, I think you will find the walls closing in on you rather quickly.

  216. and now the comment disappeared entirely?

    davidmhoffer says:
    Your comment is awaiting moderation.
    January 6, 2013 at 10:36 am
    I have no idea how “lower” got appended to my name.

  217. Ed;
    I will now no longer attempt to help you understand you have a defenseless narrow view of our climate and the forces that drive it.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>

    Is this some kind of new troll tactic that we’ve not seen before? Try and discredit one skeptic by claiming that they don’t agree with other skeptics? My reading of the skeptics cited by “Ed” is that they think the GHE of CO2 is real, but the net effect is too small to have serious consequences. My reading of richardscourtney in this and other threads is that the GHE of CO2 is real, but the net effect is too small to have serious consequences. So what, exactly, is “Ed” going on about?

    This must be lunatic week. Though Ed pales in comparison to the complete idiot who posted a video of a pig being suffocated to death by CO2 in a gas chamber as proof that we need to limit emissions. Just when you think the debate can’t possibly get any weirder….

  218. Ed:

    I am copying all of your ridiculous post at January 6, 2013 at 10:33 am so others can again get the laugh.

    @richardscourtney
    I find it sad you feel it acceptable and needed to lower yourself to personal abuse on this thread. Clearly you are a person who feels the need to play the man not the ball so I will now no longer attempt to help you understand you have a defenseless narrow view of our climate and the forces that drive it. Good luck, I think you will find the walls closing in on you rather quickly.

    YOU used personal abuse (against me) and nothing else. I did not.
    YOU “played the man” (i.e. me) “not the ball”. I did not.

    I obviously know more about climate than you are willing to learn. Hence, I am at a loss to understand where you gained the daft idea that you can help me to “understand” anything about “climate and the forces that drive it”.

    I don’t think any walls are likely to ‘close in’ on me. But if you continue to make posts of the kind I have copied here then the walls enclosing you are likely to be padded.

    I don’t know who has payed you to be a sock puppet but they should demand their money back.

    Richard

  219. davidmhoffer:

    Thankyou for both your posts at January 6, 2013 at 10:01 am and January 6, 2013 at 11:17 am.

    I especially enjoyed the parody about stones. Excellent! Thankyou.

    Richard

  220. davidmhoffer says: January 6, 2013 at 11:17 am

    who posted a video of a pig being suffocated to death by CO2 in a gas chamber
    <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    Yes, that was Martin van Etten and I won’t forget that guy- ever. I don’t recommend the video.

  221. Gail, I realise where coal comes from, the point is that the carbon has been effectively been out of the carbon cycle for some time. Humans are liberating the carbon back into the carbon cycle at a rate far greater than it was laid down and therefore increasing the the amount for CO2 in the atmosphere. I am sure given time, the amount of CO2 will come down through natural chemical reactions, but that is not happening at the rate that humans are putting it into the atmosphere.

    This will be my last post (much to the relief of many a poster I am sure). I would like to thank a lot of people here who have engaged me here, particularly Richard, DBoehm, David and Gail. Even those like Mpainters although provided nothing of substance, at least paid me the courtesy of reading my posts (at least I think you did).

    But let me conclude by saying what I have taken out of these exchanges. The mechanism for AGW is in place, some people agree with this, others don’t or won’t admit it. For some of those that admit it, feel it should not be a concern because for some reason it will not operate (I would find that difficult to accept), while others say it will operate, but the effect will be trivial. To be honest, I don’t know as I haven’t looked into that. What I find of concern is that if a climate has been relatively stable for 13 thousand years and suddenly something changes relatively quickly, I would expect there to be consequences. So when the major greenhouse gas concentration in the atmosphere increases by 30 something percent (most of which has occurred in my lifetime), I think we should expect to see something to happen to the greenhouse effect. Although CO2 is a small percentage of the atmosphere, we can ignore the th other 99 something percent because they have no greenhouse effect.

    We haven’t really discussed the changes we could expect from these changes in CO2 concentration (the GW part of AGW) but I wanted to explore the mechanism underpinning AGW first. If we are to expect to see the globe warm up due to increased CO2 concentrations is this happening? There are indications that it is. Eleven of the hottest 12 years have occurred in the last 12 years with 1998 included in that list (being 14 years ago). To say it hasn’t warmed in those last 11 years can only be an attempt to confuse the issue, they remain the hottest years. Similarly, the statement that there has been no statistical warming in that time is a statement created to mislead and designed to somehow indicate that the temperature change has plateaued. People should work out how long would be statistically significant and see what the outcome is then.

    I don’t know if Australia is particularly effected by these high temperatures, but there are enough people who feel there is a need to something. Australia has introduced a price on carbon last June and many householders have put solar panels on their houses. In the great scheme of things this has had a minuscule effect especially when you consider the huge amount of coal we export to be burnt elsewhere.

    Must sign off now and water the garden, we are expecting another sweltering day and without their daily watering, the garden will shrivel up (we have received record low rainfall for the last three months).

  222. Lower up:

    In your post at January 6, 2013 at 12:45 pm you say

    So when the major greenhouse gas concentration in the atmosphere increases by 30 something percent (most of which has occurred in my lifetime), I think we should expect to see something to happen to the greenhouse effect.

    NO! Water vapour has NOT increased in the atmosphere by “30 something percent” or any other amount recently.

    In fact it has reduced slightly.

    Richard

  223. Lower Up;
    To be honest, I don’t know as I haven’t looked into that.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    Ah, I see. Confronted with the actual science that addresses the issue pointed out to you by several of us, rather than consider the facts and evidence presented, you choose to instead ignore it, and then use the excuse that you haven’t looked into it as an excuse to avoid the discussion.

    Ball is still in your court from the physics discussion upthread. I bet myself a beer that you’d fumble the ball and then refuse to play. Thanks for the beer.

  224. “Lower up says:

    January 6, 2013 at 12:45 pm”

    July 1st 2012 in fact. I don’t see many households with solar installed at all, not where I live anyway. And as I rent, in a unit block, I cannt install solar anyway (Not that I would in any case). Seems to me you are on the receiving end of the “carbon” price and FIT for solar installations. Never mind, it is clear you have been drawn, hook, line and skiner, into the AGW and carbon price scam. You don’t seem to understand that for solar to work with maximum efficiency you need to match the generating side of the system (6, 12 or 24V DC) with the consumption side of the system (6, 12 or 24V DC) DC – AC inverters WASTE a lot of the energy generated. And lets not talk about storage at this stage.

  225. Lower Up;
    I wanted to explore the mechanism underpinning AGW first.
    >>>>>>>>>>>

    You did? Then why did you ignore or reject every single attempt on this thread to discuss that precise topic?

  226. Lower up says: January 6, 2013 at 12:45 pm

    Even those like Mpainters although provided nothing of substance, at least paid me the courtesy of reading my posts (at least I think you did).
    <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    There is no cure for people like you . You come here to chant your AGW mantra, thinking that will pass for science. Then, as you are exposed to some actual science you become bewildered, so you return to your global-warming guru for strenthening..

  227. richardscourtney says:
    January 6, 2013 at 7:44 am

    Friends:

    I write to provide clarity for all.

    I will strongly rebut any further attempts by trolls to induce disagreement on this thread between Gail Combs and myself….

    However, to avoid trolls jumping in with misleading irrelevance, I add that I suspect her political philosophy is very different from my socialist principles.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    Thanks Richard,
    And you are correct. I consider myself a capitalist but one who supports SMALL business since it is the least wasteful, the least likely to cause major problems to the public and in politics and the most likely to be innovative and responsive to the market. I have no problem with some socialism since I consider care for those in need the sign of a civilized person. However I want my government as small and as close to home as possible for the same reason I want small corporations. More innovative, more responsive, least wasteful. It is when government or business becomes too big that the sociopaths can rise to the top and do a lot of damage without any check by the man on the street.

    (I drive some people nuts because I side with the socialists on some issues and the capitalists on others)

  228. Board up all windows, switch off all TV’s and radios and internet and do not let the kids out of the house lest they happen to see that white stuff. Thus the prophecy that children shall not know what snow is shall come to pass.

  229. Europe is up for another big freeze according to Big Joe Bastardi. Is SC24 alreaady effecting the climaate?

  230. Obviously what’s falling from the sky these days isn’t actually snow, but simply water that has been solidified by below freezing point temperatures. It is completely in line with our models that water that is cooled below freezing is frozen and precipitates as ice crystals, and in no way contradicts our earlier statement, since snow is merely a concept held by the layman public and reinforced with millions of dollars by the koch/oil industry.

  231. @scooba

    And every one of those below-zero ice crystals has ‘spewed’ its CO2 into the open air polluting the environment! Why the mere act of turning on your refrigerator creates additional CO2 when condensation turns to frost and accumulates on that butterball turkey. Ma-a-an you’ve got a lot to answer for.

    Every time some do-gooder sequesters CO2 and the temperature of the Earth plummets and all that additional ice spews out the CO2 that was contained in the water from which it was formed, they have to start all over again! This is just a never-ending merry-go-round of funding! In fact this puts more FUN in FUNding.

    Imagine if the climate sensitivity was exactly balanced by the ice-melt sensitivity, which for some measure of ice cover it will be. You could create CO2 and absorb it in exact balance. That would put a twist in the modellers’ knickers!

Comments are closed.