Hot weather and climate change – a mountain from a molehill?

clip_image002

Guest essay by Steve Goreham

Originally published in The Washington Times

On Sunday, Death Valley temperatures reached 129oF, a new June record high for the United States, according to the National Weather Service. Temperatures at McCarran International Airport in Las Vegas reached 117oF, tying the previous record set in 1942 and 2005. National Geographic, NBC News, and other media ran stories attributing the Southwest heat wave to human-caused global warming. But history shows that today’s temperatures are nothing extraordinary.

The United States high temperature record was set in 1913, measured in Death Valley on July 10th. Twenty-three of the 50 US state high temperature records date back to the decade of the 1930s. Seventy percent of state high records were set prior to 1970.

The alarm about climate change is all about one degree. According to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), global surface temperatures have increased about 1.3oF (0.7oC) since 1880. Proponents of the theory of man-made warming claim that this is evidence that man-made greenhouse gases are raising global temperatures.

One degree over more than 130 years isn’t very much. In contrast, Chicago temperatures vary from about -5oF to 95oF, about 100 degrees, each year.

When compared to this 100-degree annual swing, the rise in global temperatures since the 1800s is trivial, captured by a thin line on a graph.

clip_image004

Nevertheless, NOAA repeatedly raises concern about global temperatures. The NOAA website proclaims that “May 2013 global temperatures were the third highest on record.” This sounds alarming unless one understands that “on record” refers to the thermometer record, which only dates back to about 1880.

Climate changes over hundreds and thousands of years. Data from ice cores show several periods during the last 10,000 years that were warmer than today, including the Roman Climate Optimum at the height of the Roman Empire and the Medieval Warm Period, when the Vikings settled southwest Greenland. The warm and cool eras since the last ice age were due to natural climate cycles, not greenhouse gas emissions. The “on record” period that NOAA references is only a tiny part of the climatic picture.

clip_image006

Global average temperature is difficult to measure. The data sets of NOAA are an artificial estimate at best. They start with a patchwork collection of thousands of thermometer stations that inadequately cover the globe. Station coverage of the oceans and of the far northern and southern regions is inconsistent and poor. To cover areas without thermometers, averaging estimates are made from surrounding stations to try to fill in the holes.

In addition to coverage problems, gauge measurements often contain large errors. Man-made structures such as buildings and parking lots absorb sunlight, artificially increasing local temperatures. Cars, air conditioners, and other equipment generate heat when operating, creating what is called an Urban Heat Island effect.

The accuracy of the US temperature record is questionable. Meteorologist Anthony Watts, creator of the science website WattsUpWithThat, led a team of volunteers that audited more than 1,000 US temperature gauge stations from 2007 to 2011. Over 70 percent of the sites were found to be located near artificial heating surfaces such as buildings or parking lots, rated as poor or very poor by the site rating system of the National Climatic Data Center, a NOAA organization. These stations were subject to temperature errors as large as 3.6oF (2oC).

Simple problems can throw off gauge readings. Temperature stations are louvered enclosures that are painted white to reflect sunlight and minimize solar heating. As the station weathers and the paint ages, gauge stations read artificially high temperatures. A study published last month found that after only five years of aging, temperature stations will record a temperature error of 2.9oF (1.6oC) too high. This is greater than the one degree rise in the last 130 years that NOAA is alarmed about.

In addition to temperature measurement error, NOAA makes “adjustments” to the raw temperature data. According to a 2008 paper, after raw thermometer data is received, a computer algorithm “homogenizes” the data, adjusting for time-of-observation, station moves, thermometer types, and other factors to arrive at the official temperature data set.

clip_image008

This sounds good until one looks at the adjustment that NOAA has added. For temperature data from 1900 to 1960, very little adjustment is added. But after 1960, NOAA adds an upward adjustment to the thermometer data that rises to 0.5oF (0.3oC) by the year 2000. This gives a whole new meaning to the phrase “man-made global warming.”

Heat waves are real just as climate change is real. But a heat record in Las Vegas or one degree of temperature rise since the Civil War is not evidence that humans should be overly alarmed when other factors have been shown to be contributors of the same or greater magnitude than the posited temperature rise from greenhouse gas emissions.

Steve Goreham is Executive Director of the Climate Science Coalition of America and author of the new book The Mad, Mad, Mad World of Climatism: Mankind and Climate Change Mania.

About these ads

128 thoughts on “Hot weather and climate change – a mountain from a molehill?

  1. Anyone have exact dates when pavement instead of concert was started to be used in cities. Seems my records show that heat absorbing pavement and roofing material cane into use just about the time temperature gauges starting showing increases in city temperatures.

  2. Given a ‘secular’ trend of about 1°C natural rebound since the LIA, there is precious little, or F-all, rise left to be explained by CO2. In fact, the increase in CO2 itself is following the demonstrated 800 yr lag of warming oceans from about 1300 AD, height of the MWP.

    It’s natural variability all the way down, folks.

  3. I don’t mean to bother the mods going into the holiday. But I’m going to have to start calling them Stable Climate Dworders.

  4. Chris @NJSnowFan said:
    July 3, 2013 at 2:31 pm
    “Anyone have exact dates when pavement instead of concert was started to be used in cities.”
    —————————————
    03 December 1979: The Who concert where people were trodden upon as though they were pavement.

  5. Latitude;
    RU joking? Those are systemic measurement errors that must be compensated for by adjusting readings DOWN! You’ve got the sign wrong!!

  6. The alarm about climate change is all about one degree. According to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), global surface temperatures have increased about 1.3oF (0.7oC) since 1880.

    And how much of that increase took place between 1880 to 1940? I maybe wrong here but I vaguely recall that man-made co2 started having a discernible effect after 1950??? Not sure, can’t recall clearly. Ahhhh, here it is, quoted from the chaps at CRU.

    This work played a critical role in the conclusion reached by the 1995 assessment of the IPCC that “the balance of evidence suggests that there has been a discernible human influence on global climate”. Subsequent IPCC reports have strengthened these statements (in 2001: “there is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities” and in 2007: “most of the observed increase in globally averaged temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations”) and led most governments, industries, multi-national companies and the majority of the public to accept that the climate is warming, and humans are part of the cause.

    http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/about-cru/history

    So, what I want to know is how much of the warming since 1880 is was actually caused by man? That 0.7C needs to be sliced into 2 pieces.

    [1850 to 'present' global mean temperature]

  7. while the temperatures at greenland (and north america!) have gone up considerably since the depths of the last ice age, the global average temperature is generally accepted to have only risen between 4-6 degrees Centigrade. Which is why 2 degrees C is considered to be the amount of averaged global temperature rise that will incur catastrophic damage.

  8. Oh, and I should mention UHI, ‘necessary adjustment’s, airport air-conditioning vents, flaking paint on screens revealing darker material, increased research funding, delusions of fame, ill deserved Ig-Nobel prizes. You really do have to ask yourself how much of this hot propaganda is real?

  9. jai mitchell says:

    “… the global average temperature is generally accepted to have only risen between 4-6 degrees Centigrade. Which is why 2 degrees C is considered to be the amount of averaged global temperature rise that will incur catastrophic damage.”

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

    So, the global temperature has already increased by up to 4ºC — with zero global damage or harm — but if it warms another 2º, there will be “catastrophic damage”.

    Ri-i-i-i-i-ght.

  10. Chris @NJSnowFan says: July 3, 2013 at 2:31 pm
    Come to Richmond, VA, to ride on cobblestones, especially common in alleys.
    Actual history:

    https://www.asphaltpavement.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=21&Itemid=41

    “Called at various times asphalt pavement, blacktop, tarmac, macadam, plant mix, asphalt concrete, or bituminous concrete, asphalt pavements have played an important role in changing the landscape and the history of the U.S. since the late 19th century.”

  11. 1913 never happened, it was considered to be an unlucky year so in 1912 an executive EPA order was issued directing the new year to proceed straight to 1914. The climate models have been adjusted to reflect this.

  12. Scientists who are serious about climate science would insist that existing temperature records must be replaced with new measurement regimes that satisfy all the safeguards that are built into the scientific method. After a few decades for design and implementation and a few decades for gathering data, we might actually know something about temperature change. Anything short of that produces nothing but alarmist propaganda and sceptic debunking of alarmist propaganda.

    Would I toss all existing data? Without a doubt. None of it is sufficiently accurate or reliable to support the claims of climate science. To paraphrase Socrates, recognizing one’s ignorance is the beginning of knowledge.

  13. This just in from the BBC…

    Climate extremes are ‘unprecedented’
    “The Earth experienced unprecedented recorded climate extremes during the decade 2001-2010, according to the World Meteorological Organisation…”

    “experienced unprecedented recorded”. That’s an odd turn of phrase.

  14. Anthony writes “In addition to temperature measurement error, NOAA makes “adjustments” to the raw temperature data.”

    I’d love to know whether those TOBS adjustments are made from the reading meta data (ie times associated with the reading really did change) or whether they’re from assumed reading time changes due to policy changes.

    IMO there will always be legitimate reasons why some measurements are taken at different times even by the best meaning people and I’ve no doubt plenty of people read early in the morning before any policy change and similarly plenty of people read in the evening after the policy change.

    So what I’d persdonally like to see is the data underlying those adjustments.

  15. re: My previous comment, I see that Anthony didn’t write it, it was a guest poster, Steve Goreham. Sorry to put words in your mouth Anthony ;-)

  16. jai mitchell says:
    July 3, 2013 at 2:47 pm
    while the temperatures at greenland (and north america!) have gone up considerably since the depths of the last ice age, the global average temperature is generally accepted to have only risen between 4-6 degrees Centigrade. Which is why 2 degrees C is considered to be the amount of averaged global temperature rise that will incur catastrophic damage.
    —————————————–
    What are you afraid of?
    What harm do you expect to come to you?
    What makes you think 2°C increase in temp will be bad?
    cn

  17. Which is why 2 degrees C is considered to be the amount of averaged global temperature rise that will incur catastrophic damage.

    Well Jai, could you supply some evidence for that claim? You see, it is quoted often by the IPCC and others as some sort of agreed upon limit, but I’ve never seen a study justifying that number. It is a number that gets thrown around a lot, but where’s the actual studies that show that it is true? Can you point to any?

    In fact, do you even know how the 2 degrees is actually measured? I’ll let you in on a little secret. What you THINK 2 degrees means and what the IPCC actually means are two different things. The IPCC estimates that direct effects of CO2 doubling result in about +3.7 w/m2 which in turn results in about +1 degree. But where does this 1 degree happen?

    Temperature and w/m2 vary according to the equation:

    P=5.67*10^-8*T^4

    With P in w/m2 and T in degrees K. So, average temperature of earth is 15 C or 288 K. Plug 288K into the formula and you will get 390.1 w/m2. Add 3.7 w/m2 and you will get a temperature increase of 0.68 degrees. So where does 1 degree come from?

    I know the answer, but I’d like to see if you can figure it out on your own. Perhaps you’ll learn something in the process, though I doubt you’ll even try.

  18. don’t ask me how this got on ABC Australia, tho it is ABC Rural!

    3 July: ABC Rural: Rising carbon dioxide is greening deserts
    Rising levels of carbon dioxide have increased vegetation growth in the world’s deserts by as much as 11 per cent over the last 30 years.
    CSIRO, in collaboration with the Australian National University, used satellite records from arid areas of Australia, North America, Africa and the Middle East to assess changes in foliage growth.
    Dr Randall Donohue says carbon dioxide increases the water efficiency of arid-zone plants.
    “From 1982 to 2010, carbon dioxide levels have increase 14 per cent,” he said.
    “It’s been understood for a while that plants do a lot better under elevated carbon dioxide levels.
    “Carbon dioxide is an essential ingredient for plant growth, the more they have, generally the better they do.
    “That means plants in dry places can end up being more water efficient, and can grow a little bit more for a given bit of rainfall…
    “It will also have implications for carbon farming and carbon accounting, but a lot more research is needed to understand what these implications are.”

    http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-07-03/carbon-dioxide-increase-vegetation/4796990

  19. fixing the market:

    3 July: Deutsche Welle: European Parliament votes to revamp emissions trading
    Delegates in Strasbourg voted by 344 to 311 to back the delay, with carbon allowance prices having dropped to below 5 euros ($6.5).
    The system, introduced in 2005, was designed so that power companies and large industrial concerns could trade carbon permits…
    The decision was also praised by the World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF), who nevertheless added that more could be done. “The European Parliament has done the minimum to rescue the Emissions Trading System from redundancy,” Sam van den Plas, climate change policy officer for the World Wildlife Fund, said. “Member states should back further measures to eliminate these toxic tonnes permanently from the EU’s carbon market.”
    However the Federation of German Industry (BDI) said that parliament’s decision “sent the wrong signal.”
    “Instead of strengthening the European growth motor of industry, the approach of the EU is unsettling and irritating industry across Europe,” the BDI said.

    http://www.dw.de/european-parliament-votes-to-revamp-emissions-trading/a-16928165

  20. 3 July: Bloomberg: Alex Morales: UN Charts ‘Unprecedented’ Global Warming Since 2000
    The planet has warmed faster since the turn of the century than ever recorded, almost doubling the pace of sea-level increase and causing a 20-fold jump in heat-related deaths, the United Nations said.
    The decade through 2010 was the warmest for both hemispheres and for land and sea, the UN’s World Meteorological Organization said today in an e-mailed report examining climate trends for the beginning of the millennium. Almost 94 percent of countries logged their warmest 10 years on record, it said.
    “The decadal rate of increase between 1991-2000 and 2001-2010 was unprecedented,” WMO Secretary-General Michel Jarraud said in a statement. “Rising concentrations of heat-trapping greenhouse gases are changing our climate, with far-reaching implications for our environment and our oceans.” …
    Deaths from heatwaves surged to 136,000 in the 10-year period from fewer than 6,000 the previous decade, mainly a result of extreme temperatures in Europe in 2003 and in Russia in 2010, according to the WMO. A total of 511 disasters related to tropical cyclones killed 170,000 people and caused $380 billion of economic damage. Deaths from storms and floods fell…
    The average global temperature for 2001-2010 was 14.47 degrees Celsius, according to the report. That’s 0.21 degree warmer than 1991-2000 and 0.79 degree warmer than 1881-1890. …
    Sea levels rose at 3 millimeters (0.12 inch) a year, almost double the 20th-century rate of 1.6 millimeters a year…

    http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-07-03/un-charts-unprecedented-global-warming-since-2000.html

    4 July: Bloomberg Slideshow: Tom Randall: Leaked! Proceedings of the Flat Earth Society
    Click ahead to view items from the Flat Earth 2013 agenda, areas where public opinion and behavior pay little deference to the findings of pesky evidence-based science.
    Note: this slideshow has no intentional relationship to organizations of real humans that may refer to themselves as the Flat Earth Society.

    http://www.bloomberg.com/slideshow/2013-07-03/flat-earth-society-s-2013-agenda.html

  21. dbstealey,

    If the difference from four degrees average means ice a mile thick over new york to now, then, yes, another 2C average warming from today is a very big deal!

    Chuck,

    At 2 degrees I expect that the arctic will begin to experience spring ice flow cover loss and an ice free condition around mid June. This will produce an additional average arctic warming of 4-6C, and possibly a peak of 8C higher than normal. This will cause a catastrophic melt of permafrost and the release of stored carbon.

    at the same time, the weakening of the jet stream will cause significant changes in the weather patterns, leading to prolonged droughts in the west and southwest and monsoonal floods and atmospheric rivers similar to the Great tennessee flood of 2010.

    The most significant effect will be in the loss of Lake powell and the colorado river in the west, the loss of maize and soybean crops and the increase in global food prices. in addition, by 2070 sea level rise will reduce the rice production in low-level valleys in south east asia, leading to extreme food shortages.

  22. jai mitchell says:
    July 3, 2013 at 2:47 pm

    while the temperatures at greenland (and north america!) have gone up considerably since the depths of the last ice age, the global average temperature is generally accepted to have only risen between 4-6 degrees Centigrade. Which is why 2 degrees C is considered to be the amount of averaged global temperature rise that will incur catastrophic damage.
    —————————-

    The Holocene has already been globally two degrees C warmer than now without any harmful effects, indeed humanity flourished. For centuries if not millennia during the Holocene Climatic Optimum, the world was at least that much warmer than now, much more so at high latitudes (up to nine degrees C in winter) & perhaps only one degree C warmer in the tropics.

    This was still not as warm as during the prior Eemian interglacial, but still nice & comfy.

    So during the past 11,400 years, it has been two degrees or more colder than now & two degrees warmer. IMO the estimate of only four degrees C warmer globally now than at the Last Glacial Maximum 18-20 kya is too low, but the higher guess of six degrees for the HCO might be about right.

    Setting aside issues of how a global temperature might be measured when it’s two dozen degrees or more colder over northern North America, Europe & Asia under vast ice sheets.

  23. jai mitchell says:
    July 3, 2013 at 2:47 pm

    while the temperatures at greenland (and north america!) have gone up considerably since the depths of the last ice age, the global average temperature is generally accepted to have only risen between 4-6 degrees Centigrade. Which is why 2 degrees C is considered to be the amount of averaged global temperature rise that will incur catastrophic damage.

    Please provide two pieces of peer reviewed evidence for the

    “2 degrees C is considered to be the amount of averaged global temperature rise that will incur catastrophic damage”

    PS, some people say that this 2C figure was pulled right out of someone’s arse. What do you say?

    …..—–Original Message—–
    From: Phil Jones [mailto:p.jones@uea.ac.uk]
    Sent: Thursday, September 06, 2007 6:40 PM
    To: ckremer@epp.eu
    Subject: Re: EPP Document on Climate Change…….

    “The 2 deg C limit is talked about by a lot within Europe. It is never defined though what it means. Is it 2 deg C for the globe or for Europe? Also when is/was the base against which the 2 deg C is calculated from? I know you don’t know the answer, but I don’t either! I think it is plucked out of thin air. I think it is too high as well. If it is 2 deg C globally, this could be more in Europe – especially the northern part. A better limit might be maintaining some summer Arctic sea ice!…..”

    http://junkscience.com/2011/11/23/climategate-2-0-jones-says-2o-limit-plucked-out-of-thin-air/

  24. The blind leading the deaf leading the insensible
    The impertinent leading the arrogant leading the egomaniacal
    I never cease to be amazed at the effrontery of the people who persist in demitting this sort of flatulence. White is not black, red is not blue no matter how many times they say it is.

  25. jai mitchell says: blah, blah, blah.
    Please back up your scientific claims from the mountains of peer reviewed evidence. Don’t be shy now.

  26. Chuck Nolan says:
    July 3, 2013 at 3:44 pm

    “Catastrophe” might look like the Eemian, when Scandinavia was an island. But even then, the Greenland & West Antarctic ice sheets only melted a little around the edges & the East Antarctic ice sheet scarcely changed at all. London might swing even more with some hippos in the Thames.

    However, the Holocene is in its waning centuries or millennia & nothing humans can do will raise global temperatures to Eemian levels.

  27. davidmhoffer,

    not sure where you get your equation, but it is wrong.

    “If Earth were a blackbody without climate feedbacks the equilibrium response to 4 W/m2 forcing would be about 1.2°C (Hansen et al., 1981, 1984; Lacis et al., 2010), implying that the net effect of all fast feedbacks is to amplify the equilibrium climate response by a factor 2.5. GISS climate models suggest that water vapor and sea ice feedbacks together amplify the sensitivity from 1.2°C to 2-2.5°C. The further amplification to 3°C is the net effect of all other processes, with the most important ones probably being aerosols, clouds, and their interactions. ”

    http://theoilconundrum.blogspot.com/2013/03/climate-sensitivity-and-33c-discrepancy.html

    oh, check this out!

    http://theoilconundrum.blogspot.com/2013/03/climate-sensitivity-and-33c-discrepancy.html

  28. Re the 2-degree C discussion: In his recent textbook on economics, Richard Tol (an IPCC economist) reviews 14 studies attempting to calculate economic impacts from global temperature increase.

    https://sites.google.com/site/climateconomics/

    The overall message from those studies is that there will be a net global benefit for temperature increase up to 2 C, becoming a net cost only for temperatures > 2 C.

  29. Thanks, Lance Wallace.

    OK, so if CS be one K for the first doubling in CO2 from ~400 to ~800 ppmv & less than one K for the second doubling to ~1600 ppmv, then I’d say that humans will never get to enjoy that two degree C bounty.

  30. We are the experiment, yet can’t quite get a grip on the changing conditions.
    They must be changing ?
    How much ?

    Which leaves the big question, why?
    Consensus leaves a lotta room for error, and scientists.
    Don’t know if it pays, but the data has never been more abundant.
    Time to put it to “good” use. Instead of chasing a phantom, that admittedly will need to be put to rest, first.

  31. Meanwhile yesterday in Canada’s North West Territories (Iqaluit) – a fortnight after midsummer!

  32. Sam – gotta love the NWT – can’t rely on summer showing up in summer!

    Meanwhile, in Calgary yesterday we reached 35C, as recorded in several parts of the city including my 3 thermometers. The airport only got to 32C, which demonstrates that they are in a different climate zone (official records for the city only come from someplace just outside the city – typical for government work I guess).

    Today we barely made 21C, with clouds and a cool breeze. Typical.

    Unfortunately, I managed to get what is possibly the worst sunburn I’ve ever had. My 8-year old insisted on swimming all afternoon and into the evening, and although she’s a bit burned I’m the one who is supposed to know better. It’s rare we get days that warm!

    You’d think the warm day would be welcomed by those cleaning up the floods, but no. I’ve already got a few facebook links to how this is all “climate change”. Sigh.

  33. jai mitchell says:
    July 3, 2013 at 4:36 pm
    davidmhoffer,

    not sure where you get your equation, but it is wrong.

    There are a whole bunch of physicists waiting to award you the Nobel Prize In Physics if you can provide to the world the scientific proof that the Stefan–Boltzmann law is invalid, because David M Hoffer quoted it exactly. It has been seen to work many times, but as Einstein said it only takes one experimental fact to prove it wrong.

  34. Owen in GA says:
    Your comment is awaiting moderation.
    July 3, 2013 at 5:19 pm

    I wonder what I said to be placed in the penalty box?

  35. Las Vegas. Near 2 million more 100°F people exhaling CO2 and H2O and driving a million 400° autos running air condition and evaporating billions of gallons of water from myriad sources while converting the landscape from flat and light to rough and dark and only a degree difference? Human contribution has got to be zero/noise based on the evidence.

  36. Here in the UK it looks like were are in for the best spell of hot sunny weather for July since July of 2006 come the weekend. Thanks to the jet stream pushing way to the north and so letting a blocking high to settle right over the UK. lts looking like its going to be hang around for at least a week. So after such a poor run run of summers we have had, it will be most welcome.

  37. @jai

    2 more degrees? One word; Otzi. We’ve been there and done that and no one got hurt… well, ‘ceptin’ Otzi, and that had more to do with a whack to the skull than CO2. You may now proceed to unbunch your panties.

    Move along please. Nothing to see this century.

  38. Jai said blah, blah, blah

    This morning when I got up it was 6 degrees C. Now it is 20 degrees C. Hate to tell you but I see no ill effects from a 14 degree rise.

    Your 2 degrees is nonsense.

  39. not sure where you get your equation, but it is wrong.

    As Owen in GA has already pointed out, the equation is correct:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stefan%E2%80%93Boltzmann_law

    You demonstrate once again that you can quote what other people say, but you don’t actually understand the science behind the quote. I suggest you learn to use the equation, then plug 4 w/m2 into it instead of 3.7 w/m2 at 15 C and see what you get. Then I suggest you read the literature so you can discover for yourself that Hansen’s calculation of 4 w/m2 is slightly high and that the accepted value of the IPCC and the climate science community is, and has been for a long time, 3.7 w/m2 per doubling of CO2, not 4. I suggest also that you read what I said again and this time note that I was talking about the DIRECT effects of CO2 doubling. That said, if you want to include feedbacks, beyond the fact that the IPCC has repeatedly downgraded the consensus estimate of feedbacks, and looks set to do so again in AR5 to the lowest value in some decades, the point I was making still stands. Whatever value you wish to quote, Stefan-Boltzmann Law requires that the average temperature change be about 2/3 on average at earth surface of the number quoted by the IPCC because that number is calculated at the effective black body temperature of earth which is 33 degrees cooler than the average earth surface temperature.

    When you are done digesting all that, I suggest you read IPCC AR4 WG1 where they say plain and simple that their calculations for radiative forcing can NOT, repeat NOT be used to extrapolate surface temperatures in the first place. So your 2 degree limit is not only an arbitrary claim, but even the IPCC admits that their calculations don’t provide for measurable numbers on the ground. If you’re going to argue the science, do the rest of us the courtesy of finding out what the published science you purport to represent actually says:

    http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch2s2-2.html

  40. Topol: “If I were a rich man, daidle deedle deedle deedle daidle deedle deedle DUM!….”

    Okay, Jai, you take it from here…

    Jai: [singing happily] “If ….. [clear throat] … the difference from four degrees average means ice a mile thick over new york to now [Jersey?]… .”

    “If Earth were a blackbodeeeeeeeee… .”

    There. “Keep your eyes on the Arctic people.” [from another thread another day]

    LOL. DON’T BAN JAI — he is way too much fun.

    Here he is! (explains why he didn’t recognize the Boltzmann equation):

  41. Jai-you have been OWNED by davidmhoffer. Suggest you finish freshman year before you try to take on someone with an IQ that, on the available evidence, is at least double that of yours.

  42. Thanks John R T for the link on asphalt.

    Yea I did mean to say concrete and not concert. Mobile phone typo..

    I see in 1934 there was s boom I asphalt.

    But in last 30 years was the real boom from concrete runways to asphalt.

    Thanks

  43. More for J Mitchell

    According to the United Nations IPCC AR4 WG1 report, the Level of Scientific Understanding in 11 of 16 categories affecting radiative forcing is either “Low” or “Very Low”. See for yourself:

    http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch2s2-9-1.html

    So J, perhaps after you read the wikipedia article showing I got the SB Law equation bang on, you might want to consult some physics texts or perhaps even some physicists to see if I applied it correctly. After you discover the awful truth, which is that you’re lucky you didn’t place a wager on the matter, you can puzzle out for me how the measured temperature changes of the last century can be attributed to CO2 with any certainty when the effects, positive or negative, of 11 of 16 factors are listed by the IPCC themselves, the very representatives of the consensus science you claim to understand and represent, are not understood?

    While you are puzzling over how they can be so certain when they admit uncertainty in the majority of the factors,, you could perhaps consider this quote:

    “One must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy. One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore.”
    ~ Ottmar Edenhofer, Co-Chair, UN/IPCC WG-3

    Of course J, we get it. You’re some sort of consultant on climate change. We understand how hard it is to admit you don’t understand the science, or that you might be wrong about the science, when you are one of the people the wealth is being redistributed to.

  44. Jimbo says:
    July 3, 2013 at 2:45 pm

    “The alarm about climate change is all about one degree. According to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), global surface temperatures have increased about 1.3oF (0.7oC) since 1880.”

    And how much of that increase took place between 1880 to 1940? I maybe wrong here but I vaguely recall that man-made co2 started having a discernible effect after 1950??? Not sure, can’t recall clearly. Ahhhh, here it is, quoted from the chaps at CRU….

    ========================================================================
    I don’t know about the whole globe of Greenland or Death Valley but for my little spot on the globe I copy/pasted the record highs and lows from the NWS in 2007, in 2009, in 2012 and in 2013.
    Despite the changes made to past records (No, I don’t mean new ones set. I mean old ones “adjusted”.), for all of those list most of the record highs were set before 1951 and most of the record lows were set 1951 and after. (The records go back about 135 years.)

  45. jai mitchell says:
    July 3, 2013 at 2:47 pm
    2 degrees C is considered to be the amount of averaged global temperature rise that will incur catastrophic damage.
    =================
    average temps went up 10 C where I live in only 6 months. people are flocking to the beaches to celebrate the catastrophe.

    Based on painstaking analysis, leading Climate $cientist$ project regional temperatures to increase 100 C over the next 5 years (10*5*12/6=100).

    This figure is correct because it has been confirmed by billion dollar climate models which have been shown to reliably predict the past if someone tells then the answer. This shows great promise that with a few billion more invested, the models will be able to predict the future with almost the same accuracy as a dart board.

  46. *SIGH*
    Typo
    “I don’t know about the whole globe of Greenland or…” should be “I don’t know about the whole globe or Greenland or…”
    (Although if something is melting there warmers do talk about it as if it was the whole globe.8-)

  47. @pat, in re the Bloomberg BS –
    The CBS Evening News tonight also repeated the sane old mantra about how climate change is going to destroy everything – specifically now the Great Lakes. Puh-LEEZ!!! Evaporation from the lakes after one of the coldest winters in decades?!? How about late melting of snow cover, with resultant draining of the lakes because snowmelt comes into them late and they don’t get their refill at the usual time?!? DUH.
    Somebody needs to tap these yoyos on the shoulder and tell them that even Briffa and the IPCC, those paragons of alarmism, ain’t buying their own hogslop anymore.
    @Janice Moore –
    If you’d like a musical antidote to some of the fluff these people, try listening to Mussorgsky’s Night on Bald Mountain or Dukas’s The Sorcerer’s Apprentice. Much sorcery and ghosts flying around here, methinks.

  48. See the excellent article by Larry Bell on the CFACT website, with admissions in various quarters that the so-called consensus is crumbling. Noted is the NYT’s admission that warming has stopped for 15 years. Larry Bell also reports on the findings by Russian scientists that the subn’s behavior is indicative of a long-term sharp cooling trend.
    The article asks at the end, “does [Obama] care to know?” I wouldn’t bet on that, when it could unhinge his entire attack on the economy and on the Constitution if he were to do so, Der Fuehrer is bound and determine to bring down the country he hates, apropos Jeremiah Wright’s “God damn America,” by any means he can muster.

  49. Chad Wozniak says:
    July 3, 2013 at 8:58 pm

    I think we can assume a US president wants to be remembered as having done some good. Each of us likely has a personal definition of what “good” is and whether it is for all or a segment of the population. The current president seems to have latched on to “wealth redistribution” and has accepted various ideas he hopes will accomplish that. In the case of CO2 – facts be dammed. There will be a lot of resistance. His other problem is there are hundreds of folks with different agendas and they are able to use the president’s inexperience to their advantage. His now Sec. of State did just that with the health plan. It has been called “the Kerry Kickback”:

    http://freebeacon.com/the-kerry-kickback/

    There are 100 senators and 435 representatives and each has the potential to “improve” legislation moving through from the White House to the final product. Nancy Pelosi famously claimed the health reform bill should be passed so we could find out what was in it. See Kerry Kickback above as an example. This week the “Employer Mandate” has been postponed until after the mid-term elections. So, with just 3 ½ years until he is “the ex-potus” he is hoping for a legacy with a save-the-climate initiative. He hopes to climb atop a mountain from this molehill. Recall that hope is not a plan.

  50. davidmhoffer says:

    July 3, 2013 at 8:11 pm

    Haha, ok yeah the steffan boltzmann law I remember using that about 20 years ago. . .the fact is that your application of it is dead wrong. The proof of that is you got the wrong value for the amount of temperature increase that 3.7 Watts per meter squared yields, almost by a factor of two.

    I don’t know where you got the idea I was a consultant on climate change. I am an engineer. anywhoo, your basic math is wrong, not sure if you didn’t realize that the earth has a greenhouse effect when you did your blackbody calc, (when you assumed 288K is the blackbody temp) but the fact is that the earth is warmer than its blackbody temp based on average solar radiation. additional warming is given due to greenhouse effect, radioactive decay and tidal forces.

    The thing is, if you have a point, well, why don’t you make it.

  51. jm;
    I am an engineer. anywhoo, your basic math is wrong, not sure if you didn’t realize that the earth has a greenhouse effect when you did your blackbody calc, (when you assumed 288K is the blackbody temp) but the fact is that the earth is warmer than its blackbody temp based on average solar radiation.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>

    I explained which numbers came from the effective black body temperature of earth, and which from the average surface temperature. Go run the numbers again, you’ll find that not only am I bang on, my numbers agree with the IPCC. The point you continue to miss is that the IPCC calculations are based on 253K, NOT on 288K, which is why the numbers are misleadingly high, and cannot be used to estimate changes in surface temperature, and I provided you the specific link to their published position which states exactly that.

    I really doubt you are an engineer, this is pretty basic stuff for an engineer.

  52. davidmhoffer,

    I always find it amusing that small minded folk will parrot misinformation without bothering to check it for accuracy, simply because it fits their schema.

    The quote you said,
    “One must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy. One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore.”
    ~ Ottmar Edenhofer, Co-Chair, UN/IPCC WG-3

    is found in this interview

    http://www.nzz.ch/aktuell/startseite/klimapolitik-verteilt-das-weltvermoegen-neu-1.8373227

    In the article he is clearly talking about the methods of development and how modern industrialized countries used coal to get there, and that now developing countries cannot do that if we want to stay below 2 degrees C warming. Therefore, the reality of climate policy is not the simple deforestation/ozone hole policy, it is economic policy, development policy.

    He believes that this will happen through some kind of international carbon credit programme.

    Well, that DOESN’T mean that the ENTIRE theory of climate change (developed over 100 years ago) and the PHYSICAL SCIENCE of climate change (the work of hundreds of thousands of people with literally hundreds of millions of hours of effort amongst them) is some kind of CRAZY GLOBAL GOVERNMENT/RIGHT-WING/CONSPIRACY THEORY. . .

    That is just the level of crazy going on around here. . .

  53. J;

    253K + 3.7w/m2 => +1.0 degrees
    288K + 3.7w/m2 => +0.68 degrees

    Feel free to show the math that proves my numbers are wrong. Go ahead, show me.

  54. david,

    when you said,

    The point you continue to miss is that the IPCC calculations are based on 253K, NOT on 288K

    That is exactly my point! The IPCC temperature is based on the ACTUAL measured incoming radiation and the fact that only half of the earth is warmed at any given time. The rest of the temperature is due to the non-blackbody reality of the earth-system. . .like I said before, if you put the earth, with no atmosphere, in the middle of an energy vacuum it would register 3K due to decay heat. Then, if you look at the real earth being warmed by the sun you realize that the earth is much warmer than the blackbody radiation coming into it.

    That is because we know what the albedo of the earth is and what the incoming solar energy is.

    we DON’T use the surface temperature to calculate the incoming energy like YOU try to do.

    for examply. . .why don’t you do the same exercise with. . .say. . .Venus.

    I will get you started. . .the average surface temperature of Venus is 733K

    http://www.universetoday.com/14306/temperature-of-venus/

    so, tell me, einstein. . .what is the incoming solar energy of venus. . .oh and don’t forget venus has an albedo of .75

    http://www.universetoday.com/36833/albedo-of-venus/

    so whatever amount of energy you get with your quacky steffan boltzmann law calc you have to multiply it by 4X to get the actual absorbed energy.

  55. by the way and as an aside, this is the night when the entire western states have their own kind of fireworks. . .a huge complex of lightening storms are springing up from california north to utah and south to new mexico and arizona. Lots of fires tonight. :(

  56. we DON’T use the surface temperature to calculate the incoming energy like YOU try to do.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    I’m not trying to do anything. I’m explaining the definitions and calculations that the IPCC used in both AR3 and AR4. But if you are saying that what they did is wrong, then I have little choice but to agree with you.

  57. @ Chad — thanks.

    Here’s some comic relief for everyone — AND it is an allegory [guess who plays Apprentice Mickey and who plays the Genius Sorcerer? LOL -- at least Jai's gibberish (and HOW!) elicits superb instruction for the rest of us from David Hoffer (and others)]

    “The Sorcerer’s Apprentice” by Paul Abraham Dukas

    …………… David Hoffer has gone upstairs to rest …….. aaand here comes JAI Mickey! #[:)]

  58. so whatever amount of energy you get with your quacky steffan boltzmann law calc you have to multiply it by 4X to get the actual absorbed energy.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    Oh my. You’re in so far over your head that you don’t know you are drowning.

  59. average insolation at earth orbit ~ 1342 w/m2
    accounting for day/night divide by 2 average is 671
    accounting for curvature of earth divide by 2 is 335.5
    acounting for albedo, multiple by 0.7 is 234.9 w/m2

    Gives an effective black body temperature of 253.7 degrees K

    How much does doubling of CO2 change the effective black body temperature of earth?

    It changs the insolation by 0. It changes day/night by 0. It changes the curvature of the earth by 0. It changes the albedo by zero. So doubling of CO2 changes the effective black body temperature of earth by 0.

    The average surface temperature of earth is 288K. The IPCC claim is that at that CO2 doubling increases energy flux by 3.7 w’m2 and that this increases temps by 1.0 degree. But they can’t be talking about the effective black body temperature of earth because that doesn’t change when CO2 doubles. So they must be talking about surface temperatures. But then they admit, I gave you the link, that changes in RF cannot be directly related to changes in SF. Since the number they quote, 3.7 w/m2 is only capable of raising temps from 288 to 288.6, we can conclude that they are referencing the effective black body temperature of earth despite admitting that this has nothing to do with surface temperatures. It just lets them quote a larger number on the flimsiest of excuses.

  60. Normally I support contrarian views to enable debate and prevent WUWT becming an echo chamber. However, Jai Mitchell is wasting everyone’s time with his refusal to accept that he has made a bad mistake.

    So Jai Mitchell – if you are so confident that you understand basic physics (and that davidmhoffer and the IPCC do not) will you please publicise this thread to all your customers or employer?

    Such an achievement will assuredly take up your time in more worthy endeavours as people rush to you for your assistance.
    Unless, of course, Messrs Stefan and Boltzmann are right. In which case you may have other calls on your time.

  61. Jai Mitchell: The good news for us is that when people search for your name Jai, they will see your ludicrous statements here on the most visited science website in existence. They will then see your statements being debunked. They will see you for what you are.

    So thank you Anthony, for allowing Jai to expose his ignorant rants where he’s free to let everyone know just how misinformed and unwilling he is to to apply science to his statements. He repeats political propaganda and fails at every single response to make a valid point.

  62. Last decade the warmest

    JOHN HEILPRIN

    Last updated 12:58 04/07/2013

    Share

    Global warming accelerated since the 1970s and broke more countries’ temperature records than ever before in the first decade of the new millennium, UN climate experts have said.

    A new analysis from the World Meteorological Organisation said Wednesday (NZT Thursday) average land and ocean surface temperatures from 2001 to 2010 rose above the previous decade, and were almost a half-degree Celsius above the 1961-1990 global average.

    The decade ending in 2010 was an unprecedented era of climate extremes, the agency said, evidenced by heat waves in Europe and Russia, droughts in the Amazon Basin, Australia and East Africa, and huge storms like Tropical Cyclone Nargis and Hurricane Katrina.

    Data from 139 nations show that droughts like those in Australia, East Africa and the Amazon Basin affected the most people worldwide.

    But it was the hugely destructive and deadly floods such as those in Pakistan, Australia, Africa, India and Eastern Europe that were the most frequent extreme weather events.

    Experts said a decade was about the minimum length of time to study when it came to spotting climate change.

    From 1971 to 2010, global temperatures rose by an average rate of 0.17 degrees Celsius per decade. But going back to 1880, the average increase was .062 per cent degrees Celsius per decade.

    The pace also picked up in recent decades. Average temperatures were 0.21 degrees Celsius warmer this past decade than from 1991 to 2000, which were in turn 0.14 degrees Celsius warmer than from 1981 to 1990.

    Natural cycles between atmosphere and oceans make some years cooler than others, but during the past decade there was no major event associated with El Nino, the phenomenon characterised by unusually warm temperatures in the equatorial Pacific Ocean.

    Much of the decade was affected by the cooling La Nina, which came from unusually cool temperatures there, or neutral conditions.

    Given those circumstances, WMO Secretary-General Michel Jarraud said the data didn’t support the notion among some in the scientific community of a slowdown, or lull, in the pace of planetary warming in recent years.

    “The last decade was the warmest, by a significant margin,” he said.

    “If anything we should not talk about the plateau, we should talk about the acceleration.”

    Jarraud said the data showed warming accelerated between 1971 and 2010, with the past two decades increasing at rates never seen before amid rising concentrations of industrial gases that trap heat in the atmosphere like a greenhouse.

    By the end of 2010, the report showed, atmospheric concentrations of some of the chief warming gases from fossil fuel burning and other human actions were far higher than at the start of the industrial era in 1750.

    Ad Feedback

    Carbon dioxide concentrations measured in the air around the world rose 39 per cent since then; methane rose 158 per cent; and nitrous oxide was up 20 per cent.

    – AP

  63. The temperature record doesn’t extend back to 1880 in a meaningful way for simple lack of relevant area coverage, so any claims of “on record” are by default bogus. You can make such a claim for individual stations, if they haven’t changed (and which have not?) but not on a global or continental scale and most often not even a regional one. So in the end “highest/lowest temperature on record in the continental US” or some such is just meaningless noise unless you qualify it with the level of coverage and measurement quality. But that of course doesn’t catch any headlines, because it is too much science.

  64. [Snip.]

    [Snip.]

    [Snip.]

    [Snip.]

    [Snip.]

    [Snip.]

    Pity all those deaths didn’t include some of you retards, but that would have been too much like karma, one day though you won’t be able to deny any longer. Then, the new generation whose future you squandered will come looking for you, they will want to make the guilty ones who not only did nothing despite all the evidence, but who delayed vital action because it cost too much and would have impinged your selfish, greedy lifestyles. They won’t be pleasant about it. Cult ringleaders will get no mercy…

    [Language above left only to show why this poster has made his last comment. ~mod.]

  65. Wow – don’t usually get to actually LAUGH OUT LOUD, but… yeah… go ahead with that “quacky steffi graff tennis law” there, DMHoffer – but I still think the 2nd most obtuse poster on WUWT will continue to miss, well, everything!

    jai – you really truly have no idea how stupid you sound. Really. Otherwise I’m pretty sure you’d have stopped posting already.

  66. The problem with the theory of Karma is that, if true, there is no possibility of redemption if you make mistakes.So negative thoughts send negative Karma back onto the perpetrator.A sort of closed circuit.
    I hope Peter the Printer is mindful of this.

  67. Extreme high temperatures have always occurred in the past, but they were flukes, caused by fortuitous combinations of local and temporary circumstances. We are now experiencing an increasing number of such “flukes” — so much so that it is reasonable to suspect that something other than combinations of local and temporary circumstances are at work. The increasing levels of atmospheric CO2 very plausibly account for this increasing number. Explanations such as “cycles of nature” or “rebounds from the LIA”, because they are hardly more than phrases, explain very little.

  68. No Jesse, it does not appear we are experiencing more “flukes”. What we are being fed is propaganda from media sources that highlights all the recent “flukes” and ignores the reality that even our rather poor temperature record is extremely short. We do have some data like the various US state record highs. Almost half of those were set in the 1930s. And, it appears the reason is one of those “cycles of nature” that actually explain quite a bit.

    One thing we do know is the planet is in a cooling mode at the current time.

    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1996.9/to/plot/rss/from:1996.9/trend/plot/rss/from:2005/trend

    So, based entirely on data, we see that recent high temperatures are easily explained by natural cycles that also created warm temperatures in the early 20th century. And, just as the planet cooled after reaching that peak, it now appears we are once again cooling after reaching a peak.

  69. Peter the Printer says:
    July 4, 2013 at 2:53 am
    Pity all those deaths didn’t include some of you retards, but that would have been too much like karma, one day though you won’t be able to deny any longer. Then, the new generation whose future you squandered will come looking for you, they will want to make the guilty ones who not only did nothing despite all the evidence …

    Right back at you. Are you ready to stand up and defend all the deaths caused by policies created explicitly to respond to global warming hysteria?

    http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=ethanol%20millions%20of%20deaths&source=web&cd=2&ved=0CDMQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Flarouchepac.com%2Ffiles%2F20130625-ethanol-kills-millions_1.pdf&ei=GobVUdWRFITFyAHx6oDIBQ&usg=AFQjCNFQw_N7B5NQPNOQ5UH1FqW6i50SNg&bvm=bv.48705608,d.aWc

  70. Richard M, Nine of the ten hottest years on record — a record that goes back almost a century and half — have occurred in the 21st century; the tenth of the top ten being 1998. It is very unlikely that this is the result of the natural random variation in global temperatures. Those who doubt that man made emissions of CO2 are behind this trend have yet to present a different explanation that is plausible and backed up by scientific evidence. They have yet to explain how our practice of adding millions of tons of CO2 to the atmosphere every year can not be causing the Earth’s average surface temperature to rise.

  71. Jesse Fell, They could have made the same argument back in the 1920’s and 1930’s when CO2 was much lower and increasing more slowly (in real terms not %). Proves nothing. If the planet is warming from a prior cold time and you are in the middle of a waming time, the last few years will ALWAYS be warmer than the previous and the warmest in 100 years.

    Then if you cool the past and increase the present and always find ways to interpret your data in a way that promotes warming, the trend is exaggerated and some times that were flat can look like they were warming. Let’s wait about ten more years and see if the climate models actually improve or if what we see now is just a short term blip.

    • Bill W, I’d be in favor of adopting the wait and see approach that you recommend (often the wisest choice) except for two things. The first is that atmospheric CO2 and the Earth’s average global temperature have, since the 1970s, both been rising more rapidly than before — not always at the same rate, but both rising, and this is closely in accord with what the much maligned climate models predicted. The second is the immensity of what is at stake. We are running an uncontrolled experiment with the only planet that we have to live on. Already we have seen signs that this experiment can have lethal results. The European heat wave of 2003 killed tens of thousands of people not only because of anomalously high temperatures, but because the nights remained warm, giving the sick and elderly no respite from heat stress — and warmer nights are one of the things that the climate models predicted. The average annual total power of tropical storms has increased by roughly 50% since the 1970s (Kerry Emmanuel, MIT). This year’s heat wave in the south western part of the country promises to be out of bounds by many scales of measurement. It is true that isolated phenomena are best dismissed as flukes. But the flukes are coming faster and more frequently. My definition of conservatism is to err on the side of caution when something precious is at stake. It don’t see us erring on the side of caution so far; we aren’t listening to the scientists — we are listening to Bobby McFerrin!

  72. jesse fell says:
    July 4, 2013 at 7:41 am
    Richard M, Nine of the ten hottest years on record — a record that goes back almost a century and half — have occurred in the 21st century; the tenth of the top ten being 1998. It is very unlikely that this is the result of the natural random variation in global temperatures. Those who doubt that man made emissions of CO2 are behind this trend have yet to present a different explanation that is plausible and backed up by scientific evidence. They have yet to explain how our practice of adding millions of tons of CO2 to the atmosphere every year can not be causing the Earth’s average surface temperature to rise.
    +++++++++++

    Seriously Jesse: specifically your statement “They have yet to explain how our practice of adding millions of tons of CO2 to the atmosphere every year can not be causing the Earth’s average surface temperature to rise.”

    You are easily manipulated. You’d certainly be one of the people who’d accuse others of being witches, and to hang them to prove their innocence. No – It’s up to YOU to prove that CO2 has caused temperatures to changes, and how much if any. You have not been able to, and if you actually spent the time trying to find truth, you’d know that there is no evidence that CO2 is driving climate. Your people are always looking to kill a witch to kill to quell their own self loathing and they become wealth by taking other people’s money.

    Follow the money… Your people take other people’s money (read that as tax money), they should be scrutinized (Think Al Gore, Obama). On the other hand, the people who are producing goods by selling something others want, are being attacked by your ilk.

    Your people are in fact causing death, hunger, and pain right now to today’s people with this nonsense. So I can understand why you are among the self loathing.

    • Mario, If I have been “manipulated” by anyone, it’s been by Joseph Fourier, John Tyndall, Svante Arrhenius, G.S. Callendar, Charles Keeling, and a host of contemporary scientists who maintain that the level of atmospheric CO2 is a significant determinant of the Earth’s average surface temperature. The important papers by these scientists are collected in the anthology “The Warming Papers”, ed. Archer and Pierrehumbert. It is the conclusion of these scientists — an almost universally shared conclusion, from all that I gather — that if there were no CO2 or other greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, the average surface temperature of the Earth would be much lower — by most calculations, around zero degrees fahrenheit. If you know of a study which refutes this particular conclusion, please cite it in your reply.
      Otherwise, we have to explain why adding additional CO2 will cause no further change in the Earth’s temperature. I have not seen a credible explanation of why this should be so — again, if you know of a study that addresses this question, please cite it.
      davidmhoffer, Could you please tell me why you find that Ryan Maue’s estimate of the annual strength of tropical storms is more convincing to you than Kerry Emmanuel’s? Please cite a study that compares the work of these two men and shows who makes the most sense of the available data. In the meanwhile, I have been reading “Projected Atlantic Hurricane Surge Threat from Rising Temperatures”, by Grinsted, Moore, and Jevreja, in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America (approved for publication by Kerry Emmanuel, February 11. 2013). The thesis of this study is that rising temperatures do contribute to the intensity of tropical storms (which are fueled, fundamentally, by heat) — particularly extreme events such as Hurricanes Katrina and Sandy.

  73. Jesse Fell;
    The average annual total power of tropical storms has increased by roughly 50% since the 1970s (Kerry Emmanuel, MIT)
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    Well Jesse, the truth is that ACE has been falling for the last 20 years:

    During this time, CO2 has risen dramatically. But put that aside for the moment and consider that the physics itself predicts that a warmer world will be a more tranquil world because temperatures become more uniform and what drives storm strength is temperature differential. If you’re going to rely on what the models say, sorry to burst your bubble, but the draft IPCC AR5 report predicts that this trend of declining ACE will continue to at least 2100, admitting that their earlier position on the matter was wrong.

    The rest of your points are similarly out of context and unsupported by the facts.

  74. Well, once again. The article pimps for more delay in limiting emissions (the goal of Stink Tanks such as this one) Delay = $600 billion/year for each year and at least 150,000 deaths (a very low estimate from the World Health Organization).

    For the so-called skeptics (skeptical of mainstream science, slavish when is comes to their own cherry picking claims), here is a bet you can’t turn down. Pick a month, any month, say next September. In a stable climate the average Sept. temperatures have a 50:50 chance of being warmer than the average Sept. of the entire 2oth Ce. And a 50:50 chance of being cooler.

    Here’s what I’m a gonna do! I will put up my $10,000 against your $5,000 and bet you that the next global average in Sept. will be warmer than 20th Ce averages. That’s two to one!. If if were just a “coin toss”, natural fluctuations, and all that crap, it would be a great bet. Any takers?

    Well, don’t bother. The last 340 or so consecutive months have been warmer than those months have been in the last century, on average. That beat odds of one divided by the number of stars in the universe. Don’t want to take your money…. but, if you insist….

  75. jfreed27 says:

    “Here’s what I’m a gonna do! I will put up my $10,000 against your $5,000 and bet you that the next global average in Sept. will be warmer than 20th Ce averages.”

    I see what you did there.

  76. jesse fell;
    davidmhoffer, Could you please tell me why you find that Ryan Maue’s estimate of the annual strength of tropical storms is more convincing to you than Kerry Emmanuel’s? Please cite a study that compares the work of these two men and shows who makes the most sense of the available data.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    I did. I cited draft AR5 which accepts Maue and extends the trend to 2100 as their prediction.

    • davidmhoffer, Got it — thanks. It’s in the IPCC’s Fifth Assessment Report, which is still in the draft stage and will be finalized next year. The only article on the AR5 web site that cites Maue is “Changes in Climate Extremes and Their Impacts on the Natural Environment” by Seneviratne, Nicholls, et al. Here, Maue is cited as saying that globally, tropical storm activity is in a quiescent phase, after having reached a high point in 2005. In the same article, Emmanuel is cited as saying that in parts of the world’s oceans where sea surface temperatures (SSTs) have been rising most rapidly, the annual dissipation of energy by these storms has been increasing significantly. This is seen principally in the tropical Atlantic, where both SSTs and the total annual dissipation of energy by tropical storms have been rising. So, there is an apparent correlation between SSTs and the total energy dissipated by tropical storms — observing confirming what theory led us to expect. Heat is, fundamentally, the fuel of tropical storms. Emmanuel’s work on SSTs and tropical storms has, by the way, been corroborated by the research of Peter Webster at Georgia Tech.

  77. jesse fell;
    Heat is, fundamentally, the fuel of tropical storms.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>

    No, it is not. Temperature differential is the fuel of tropical storms.
    You can site the specifics of whose work is mentioned in what way in AR5, but bottom line is that they predict decreasing tropical storm activity from now until 2100.

    • davidmhoffer, Could you point to me where the draft AR5 predicts decreasing storm activity from now until 2100? I was not able to find anything like that in the articles on the web site. Your formulation, that temperature differential is the fuel of storms, rather than my formulation, heat, is more precise. Still, heat is energy, and where the SST is rising most rapidly, the total energy dissipated by tropical storms annually, is also rising. BTW, it is a pleasure to be arguing with someone on this site who relies on the IPCC as his authority. That’s progress!

  78. The great scientist Alexander Von Humboldt laid out what the lineaments of scientific genius ,not in an explicit way,but hinting at its tendencies when looking at the terrestrial and celestial arena.bY definition a scientific genius cannot manufacture a conclusion and collate information to support that conclusion but rather expand the field of view thereby raising the standard for everyone else.

    “This assemblage of imperfect dogmas bequeathed by one age to another— this physical philosophy, which is composed of popular prejudices,—is not only injurious because it perpetuates error with the obstinacy engendered by the evidence of ill observed facts, but also because it hinders the mind from attaining to higher views of nature. Instead of seeking to discover the mean or medium point, around which oscillate, in apparent independence of forces, all the phenomena of the external world, this system delights in multiplying exceptions to the law, and seeks, amid phenomena and in organic forms, for something beyond the marvel of a regular succession, and an internal and progressive development. Ever inclined to believe that the order of nature is disturbed, it refuses to recognise in the present any analogy with the past, and guided by its own varying hypotheses, seeks at hazard, either in the interior of the globe or in the regions of space, for the cause of these pretended perturbations. It is the special object of the present work to combat those errors which derive their source from a vicious empiricism and from imperfect inductions.” Von Homboldt ,Cosmos

    He could be referring to climate but he is not,he refers to a vicious strain of empiricism that nobody wants to know about because it is so dominant in this era.

  79. @ David M. Hoffer

    “Oh my. You’re in so far over your head that you don’t know you are drowning.”
    [David M. Hoffer at 10:58PM 7/3/13]

    DID YOU SEE WHAT I POSTED AT 10:58PM 7/3/13?!

    Pretty cool, huh? #[:)]

    God is on our side!

    HAPPY FOURTH OF JULY, EVERYBODY!!

  80. jfreed27 says:

    “Here’s what I’m a gonna do! I will put up my $10,000 against your $5,000 and bet you that the next global average in Sept. will be warmer than 20th Ce averages.”

    ========================================================================
    I don’t know about the globe but for my little spot on it in 2012 at least 52 to 71 daily record Highs and Lows that were on the 2007 list were changed. Not new ones set but old ones changed. (“Adjusted”, if you prefer)
    Tell you what, I’ll bet you the same amounts on who won the Super Bowl last year but I reserve the right “adjust” the scores.

  81. jesse fell;
    Could you point to me where the draft AR5 predicts decreasing storm activity from now until 2100?
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    Certainly. AR5, Chapter 11, Executive Summary:

    Two recent reports, the SREX (IPCC, 2012; particularly Seneviratne et al., 2012) assessment and a WMO Expert Team report on tropical cyclones and climate change (Knutson et al., 2010) indicate the response of global tropical cyclone frequency to projected radiative forcing changes is likely to be either no change or a decrease of up to a third by the end of the 21st century.

  82. David Hoffer,

    How about telling Mr. Lazy to GO LOOK IT UP YOURSELF.

    Someone who twists your words (“… relies on the IPCC as his authority…”) so dishonestly (stupidly?) doesn’t deserve a response from a fine mind like yours.

    Janice

  83. Mr. Hoffer, you are far more gracious than I will EVER be with a slimer like Jesse.

  84. jesse fell;
    Still, heat is energy, and where the SST is rising most rapidly, the total energy dissipated by tropical storms annually, is also rising.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    Wrong. Where SST is rising more rapidly than adjacent areas is where energy must be dissipated. If there is no differential, there is no storm, no matter how much temps go up. Since the foundation of CO2 GHG theory is that colder temps warm more than warmer temps, temperature differentials must drop. Night/day variation becomes less, summer/winter variation becomes less, polar/equatorial variation becomes less. Less variation = less storm activity, the reality of which the IPCC is finaly acknowledging.

    Take two fully charged car batteries and hoot them up in parallel. Nothing happens, despite them being fully charged. Hook them up in series though, and you’ll be ducking for cover from the shower of sparks when the connection is completed and the cables will most likely weld themselves solid and will get hot enough to start a fire. It doesn’t matter how much energy is in the batteries, unless they are hooked up +ve to -ve, there is no differential and no movement of energy as a result.

    The relative equations in this regard for storm activity are SB Law and the Ideal Gas Law. Learn how they work and you will soon see that a warmer world is a more tranquil world from the perspective of storm activity.

    • davidmhoffer, Still, the tropical Atlantic IS getting warmer, and Katrina and Wilma did not seem like harbingers of tranquility. As for your adjacent areas theory, the high intensity tropical storms that we have been seeing in the tropical Atlantic have occurred within that region, not at the boundaries. I don’t think your battery analogy is useful, because the two systems compared have too little in common.

  85. Jesse Fell;
    I don’t think your battery analogy is useful, because the two systems compared have too little in common.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>

    You may as well have announced to the world that you don’t understand SB Law and the Ideal Gas Law then. Confronted with the physics, confronted with the data, confronted with the IPCC AR5, SREX and WMO climb down on the issue, you now trot out Katrina and Wilma to support your position? Which is it? Do you want to quote the consensus science, argue with it, or just make up your own?

    Come back when you can justify your position based on the science. Anecdotal reference to two storms is not science.

    • I didn’t know that Katrina and Wilma were anecdotes. If they were, then I suppose that Sandy was a bed time story.
      No, I don’t think it’s fruitful to compare systems that are as dissimilar as chemically stored electricity and climatic systems that produce storms. Any similarities between them would be too general and abstract to make it possible to predict the behavior of one from the behavior of the other. Sorry.
      Kerry Emmanuel, Peter Webster, and other scientists do not agree with you about heat and storms; but, since consensus science is in support of your position, we must conclude that these men do not exist.
      Anyway, it’s the Fourth of July. Let’s break for potato salad. Happy Holiday!

  86. Sorry.
    Kerry Emmanuel, Peter Webster, and other scientists do not agree with you about heat and storms;
    >>>>>>>>>>>

    So you are saying that the IPCC AR5, the IPCC SREX and the WMO are all wrong and that they don’t represent the consensus science?

    Stop making a fool of yourself.

  87. jesse fell;
    No, I don’t think it’s fruitful to compare systems that are as dissimilar as chemically stored electricity and climatic systems that produce storms.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    That you don’t understand the physics is obvious. That you refuse to learn it is sad.

  88. davdmhoffer, The behavior of the weather and the stock market are both hard to predict, both are driven to some extent by self-reinforcing mechanisms, and so on — it would be possible to mention other similarities at that level of abstraction. But a decision by Ben Bernanke is not going to affect the weather.

    The factors that go into the making of any storm are various in the extreme and most are peculiar to the climate system. My car battery is vastly simpler — its performance depends on the state of the chemicals that it contains and a few relatively simple principles of chemistry and physics — while the factors that produce storms are of a different composition and obey many laws that are not applicable to the chemistry and physics of batteries. The laws of thermodynamics do not in general have much to do with whether my car is going to start when I turn the ignition.
    But how did we get on this particular tangent? I started it, for which you have my apologies.

  89. jesse fell;
    My car battery is vastly simpler
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    Of course it is. You missed the point entirely. Are you going to try and learn something if I try and explain it to you?

    All weather events are driven by energy flowing from high concentration to low concentration. A high pressure zone next to a low pressure zone results in wind, air moving from high pressure to low pressure. Pressure is a way of storing energy, the wind blowing from high to low pressure is moving the energy from an area of high concentration to one of low concentration. Hot air adjacent to cold air rises, it is displaced by the heavier cold air adjacent to it. There MUST be a differential, pressure in the first example, temperature in the second, or the wind doesn’t blow. Just as in a car battery, energy flows if you give it a path. Hook two car batteries up in parallel though, and even with a path, no energy flows, because there is no differential. Get it now?

    Stefan-Boltzmann Law is that P=5.67*10^-8*T^4 where P is in w/m2 and T is in degrees K. Note that the relationship is NOT linear. So, if we assume per the IPCC consensus estimate that doubling of CO2 results in an average of 3.7 w/m2, we can plug that into SB Law and calculate that night time lows will increase in temperature MORE than day time highs. So, the differential between night and day temps decreases, and hence the weather processes that the day/night cycle drives also decrease. The same for seasons with winters warming more than summers, and narrowing that differential as well which reduces the major drivers of weather in spring and fall when the systems are re-balancing. The same is true of the massive amount of energy that is moved from the tropics to the poles 24×7. Since the poles warm more than the tropics, the differential between them is reduced, and hence all the processes driven by them are less intense, even though the amount of energy in the system is greater..

    So yes, it is more complicated than a car battery because there are hundreds of processes all occurring all the time and they affect each other. But break them down into their component parts and what you will find is that the vast majority of them are reduced in intensity because even though there is more energy in the system, the differentials are lower.

    That’s not to say that hurricanes won’t happen in a warmer world. Just that there will be fewer of them and that they will be less intense. That’s what the physics has said all along as I and many others have been pointing out for years. That’s what the actual ACE data says has been happening, and citing single events like Sandy is meaningless in the larger picture which shows that on average, there are fewer and less intense hurricanes. That’s what the IPCC and the WMO are now saying as well because the evidence is overwhelming.

    Hope you learned something from this, and that you re-evaluate your belief system because it doesn’t have a shred of data or science to justify it, even the most rampant warmist scientists in the world are admitting that now.

  90. Davidmhoffer

    you said,

    davidmhoffer says:

    July 3, 2013 at 11:20 pm

    average insolation at earth orbit ~ 1342 w/m2
    accounting for day/night divide by 2 average is 671
    accounting for curvature of earth divide by 2 is 335.5
    acounting for albedo, multiple by 0.7 is 234.9 w/m2

    Gives an effective black body temperature of 253.7 degrees K

    ————–
    david, you are way way way out of your league here:

    your simple, divide by 2 figures are incorrect.

    The corret equation is found here:

    http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20090408183916AASBK1D

    I found the values you need to use by looking in one of my textbooks.

    solar constant = 1,368 Watts per squared meter
    Stefan-Boltzmann constant = 5.67*10^-8 Watts per squared meter Kelvin to the fourth
    average global albedo = 0.3

    Let’s plug in the numbers.

    T = ((1,368 W/m² / (4 * 5.67*10^-8 W/m²K^4)) * (1 – 0.3))^(1/4)

    ≈ 255°K
    Since you refused to do it, let ME do it for you

    VENUS

    average insolation at venus 2,578W/m^2
    Albedo is .75

    Therefore:
    T = ((2,578 W/m² / (4 * 5.67*10^-8 W/m²K^4)) * (1 – 0.75))^(1/4)
    =230 C
    But Venus is 460C

    so why is venus so much warmer than its blackbody???

    the same reason earth is slightly warmer than its blackbody!

    the greenhouse effect!

  91. And finally,

    you show that the calculation of blackbody radiation shows the temperature that the IPCC uses and then decide that the 3.7 W/m^2 still only raises temperature by .6 even though you show that your calculation is incorrect there.

  92. Great, everybody, let’s all play ‘scientist” and next time you are really, really sick, I’ll play “doctor”!.

  93. Re: Assertions about storm frequency…this just in ” March 2013,

    How many extreme storm surges like that from Hurricane Katrina, which hit the U.S. coast in 2005, will there be as a result of global warming? New research from the Niels Bohr Institute show that there will be a tenfold increase in frequency if the climate becomes two degrees Celcius warmer. The results are published in the scientific journal, Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, PNAS.”

    http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/03/19/1741861/five-katrinas-a-decade-warming-projected-to-boost-extreme-storm-surges-ten-fold/

    O, and BTW: we are on track for 4 deg C increase within a a decades time frame. Shall we dither a bit more? Take issue with this or that issue? It is like discussing brands of tourniquets in front of a man with a severed jugular.

  94. j mitchell;
    your simple, divide by 2 figures are incorrect.
    The corret equation is found here:

    http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20090408183916AASBK1D

    I found the values you need to use by looking in one of my textbooks.
    solar constant = 1,368 Watts per squared meter
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    LOL. That is the exact same equation! Dividing by 2 twice is exactly the same as dividing by 4 which is what the equation you linked to does. P varying with T^4 is exactly the same as T varying with P ^1/4. The formula you linked to is IDENTICAL to the math I provided. The only difference is that the solar constant I used is slightly different. Use yours if you want, the effect of adding 3.7 w/m2 will be nearly the same.

    What you’ve demonstrated is that you are so inept that when looking at two identical equations with their terms arranged differently, your math skills are insufficient to understand that they are in fact the same. You should be completely embarrassed at how over your head you’ve just demonstrated yourself to be.

  95. jai mitchell,

    davidhoffer is right. You need to get up to speed.

    So does jfreed27, who baselessly opines:

    “O, and BTW: we are on track for 4 deg C increase within a a decades time frame. Shall we dither a bit more?”

    O & BTW: since the planet has stopped warming for at least 16 years now, where did you pull that ridiculous prediction out of? How can we be “on track” for something that is clearly not happening at all? Care to make a small wager on your “4ºC within a decade” belief?

    [Oh. 'thinkprogress'. Nevermind.]

  96. dbstealey says:
    July 5, 2013 at 8:22 pm
    jai mitchell,
    davidhoffer is right. You need to get up to speed.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    Perhaps I was too harsh on him? Perhaps he need not be embarrassed, but whatever education system graduated him from grade school should be? That math isn’t even calculus, it is just plain algebra. Not even difficult algebra. Don’t they teach algebra in high school anymore?

  97. Davidmhoffer

    The difference is that you tried to infer the measured incoming radiation by using average temperature, neglecting the greenhouse effect of the earth’s temperature and tried to use this to determine what the doubling of CO2 would bring to temperature increases from a strictly blackbody analysis. You used 288K when the right equation produces 255K. You then applied the difference in warming as a ratio to the higher number as an attempt to “proove” that the IPCC was somehow incorrect and you had figured it all out. That was the whole point of your post. Which, apparently, you now agree is completely wrong. That the correct analysis using the correct equation produces 1.2K of warming for blackbody increase of 4 Watts/meter^2.

    not the .6K that you previously made up in your own conspiracy-theory laden mind.

    Then DBStealy tried to show that there is a reasonable theory that disproves the entirety of interplanatary study, including millions of dollars of satellite missions and direct observations of Venus, somehow disproving the overwhelming scientific evidence and producing a quack theory that says there is no greenhouse warming on venus.

    when the reality is quite different (as is most things on this site).

    http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/1520-0469(1972)029%3C1531%3AIRHACI%3E2.0.CO%3B2

    “We especially consider the region between 90 and 130 km, where the equilibrium temperature is largely controlled through infrared absorption and emission by vibrational-rotational bands of CO2. . .The time scale for radiative damping in the cooling-to-space approximation varies from 30 earth days at 65 km to 1/20 of an earth day at 120 km.. .. .The calculated thickness between the 100-mb level and the level of the ionospheric peak differs by less than 1 km from that observed during the Mariner 5 radio occultation experiment”

    ————–

    You know, I don’t mind people making stuff up. if it wasn’t so outrageously foolish, like saying that tornados can’t destroy a house if you leave the doors and windows open, cause I read it on Watts up with that, so we don’t need to go down into the storm cellar.

    This is very serious business and your kooky pet theories and conspiracy theories equate you with the flat earth society.

  98. For example,
    the valueof 4 in the denominator isn’t because of a “2 times for being a sphere” and “2 times for day and night” it comes from the equation of the surface area of a sphere (4pi^2). . .again, you are just making stuff up.

    for a clear definition of the terms and derivations go here, if you can read it and understand it, which I doubt. . .

    http://www.mathaware.org/mam/09/essays/Radiative_balance.pdf

    For a no‐feedback case where we perturb CO2 and leave other variables constant (Held and Soden 2000),
    15
    This becomes,
    16
    Where comes from the slope of Stefan‐Boltzmann. A doubling of CO2 with no feedbacks raises the Earth’s temperature by about 1 °C. This equation can be further extended with feedbacksas the temperature and OLR change with water vapor, clouds, etc.

  99. jai mitchell says:

    With “no-feedback”?? That is called a fudge factor, and as we see it is backed up by mitchell’s confirmation bias.

    And as a matter of fact, water vapor has been declining, directly contrary to the alarmist predictions. Also, OLR has been acting contrary to alarmist predictions, too. [Charts provided upon request.]

    I further note that jai mitchell ignores the fact that despite the steady rise in CO2, global temperatures have not responded as predicted by the climate alarmist cult.

    And jfreed27 says:

    “How many extreme storm surges like that from Hurricane Katrina, which hit the U.S. coast in 2005, will there be as a result of global warming? New research from the Niels Bohr Institute show that there will be a tenfold increase…&blah, blah, etc.”

    Katrina hit at exactly the right place to ensure maximum damage. But as meteorologist Dr Ryan Maue shows, hurricane activity has been declining over the past 3+ decades.

    jfreed27 and jai mitchell suffer from the same ‘say anything’ cherry-picking mentality, where confirmation bias rules their belief system. But the fact is that global warming has stopped, and not just recently. Looking at the big picture, we see that exactly none of the alarmist predictions have come to pass. They have all been wrong. That is why they lack credibility: the planet has never done what climate alarmists consistently predicted would happen.

  100. Perhaps Jai Mitchell can become the first recipient of the new Peter H. Gleick “Genius” Award for distinction as a useful idiot.

    He’s been used to mop the floor so many times already and he still can’t (won’t) learn anything.

  101. j mitchell;
    You used 288K when the right equation produces 255K.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    You just really don’t get it, do you? The effective black body temperature of earth is, using your solar constant, 255K. The surface temperature of earth is 288K, 33 degrees higher due to the greenhouse effect. The greenhouse effect changes the effective blackbody temperature of earth by zero. Doubling CO2 increases the blackbody temperature of earth by zero. It adds 3.7 w/m2 to earth SURFACE which is 288K and which gives an increase in SURFACE temperatures of about 0.68 degrees, NOT 1.0! You triumphantly rubbed my nose in what you say the correct equation should be, I invite you to use THAT equation and do the calculation yourself using your own equation. At 288K average surface temperature, what will an additional 3.7 w/m2 cause as an increase in temperature at the surface? Show your work.

  102. One more try to edumacate a troglodyte:

    IF you add 3.7 w/m2 to the average insolation of earth, the average effective black body temperature of earth would rise by 1 degree.

    IF you add 3.7 w/m2 to the average greenhouse effect on earth, the SURFACE temperature of earth would rise by 0.68 degrees.

    CO2 does NOT raise the effective black body temperature of earth, but it DOES raise the surface temperature of earth.

    The IPCC calculation is correct. It just has nothing to do with the the surface temperature of the earth. And they tell you that in their own documentation:

    Surface forcing has quite different properties than RF (radiative forcing) and should not be used to compare forcing agents (see Section 2.8.1).

    http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch2s2-2.html

  103. jai:

    This is very serious business and your kooky pet theories and conspiracy theories equate you with the flat earth society.

    Wow… just… wow.

    I mean, wow.

    You don’t even understand the math of “your side”, the anti-science Bad-Science alarmist side. Even their most incorrect grant seekers wouldn’t make the ridiculous and completely incorrect and irrelevant claims you’ve made on this thread alone.

    And yet, you’re still name calling your intellectual superiors.

    Apparently this is the kind of entertainment only some people appreciate. I would say more but I was taught not to make fun of the mentally handicapped.

  104. CodeTech;
    You don’t even understand the math of “your side”
    >>>>>>>>>>

    That’s probably the most frustrating thing about the debate. In order to have a meaningful discussion with the average warmist, you first have to explain THEIR side of the argument to THEM.

  105. jesse fell says:
    July 4, 2013 at 10:38 am:
    ” If I have been “manipulated” by anyone, it’s been by Joseph Fourier, John Tyndall, Svante Arrhenius, G.S. Callendar, Charles Keeling, ”

    You admit you have aligned yourself with people on one side of a debate, and then choose to defend their “opinions”. It is NOT possible to engage you, any more than I could go to a Raiders game and try to convince them to love the Patriots.

    You’re are not worth listening to, or hearing from because you are a self described ideologue with no ability to seek truth.

  106. jm;
    for a clear definition of the terms and derivations go here, if you can read it and understand it, which I doubt. . .

    http://www.mathaware.org/mam/09/essays/Radiative_balance.pdf

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

    LOL. Oh I understand it. I’ve read it several times. If YOU understood it you would recognize that I’ve been trying to explain the exact same concepts you. You’ve clearly demonstrated the your limited algebra skills, you managed to post an equation which you claimed trumped mine and turned out to be the exact same equation. If you cannot recognize that simple mathematical truth, there’s no point explaining to you that this document says pretty much the same thing and that the problem lies with what you think it says rather than what it actually says.

    Go away and study the physics. When you can correctly apply SB Law and the Ideal Gas Law properly outside of the climate debate, you can try that paper again and perhaps come back and bring some value to the discussion.

  107. davidhoffer,

    you most certainly do not understand the physics involved in calculating the warming associated with increasing the radiative forcing due to green house gasses!

    Your calculations are sophomoric at best and outright deceptions at worst. Just another example of the incredible volumes of disinformation going on here (like Watts saying that if there was no sun then we would have no atmospheric pressure since temperature would go to near zero, using the ideal gas law as ‘proof’. when the reality is that atmospheric pressure would stay the same but the volume of air would go to near zero.)

    you say things like “divide by 2 because of night and day”

    and then when I show you the ACTUAL equation you say, “I knew that, I’ve been trying to tell you!”

    and then you make up another lie saying that the difference in tropospheric radiative forcing temperature is going to be about 1C but your simplistic blackbody calc shows that it is really only going to be .63C

    THEN you say that the IPCC even says that we shouldn’t infer tropospheric radiative forcing when calculating surface temepratures, as though they are agreeing with you. (when they are obviously not–since they state that a doubling of CO2 without feedbacks would yeild approximately 1C of warming not your calculated .63C.

    In the end your armchair calculations are completely bogus, just like your conspiracy theories.

    The actual calculation can be found here:

    http://www.met.tamu.edu/class/atmo629/Summer_2007/Week%204/Water%20Vapor%20Feedback.pdf

    see page 13

    the value of this is determined by the work published in a REAL PEER REVIEWED SCIENTIFIC JOURNAL

    http://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/bibliography/related_files/annrev00.pdf

    see page 447.

    I quote,

    “The increase in opacity due to a doubling of CO2 causes Ze to rise by 150
    meters. This results in a reduction in the effective temperature of the emission
    across the tropopause by (6.5K/km) = (150 m) = 1 K, which converts to 4W/m2
    using the Stefan-Boltzmann law.”

    on the same page it states:

    “The surface temperature is then simply surface temperaure = Emission (at mid tropopause) temperature + (lapse rate * change in emission height) , From this simple perspective, it is the changes in Ze, as well as in the absorbed solar flux and possibly in lapse rate, that we need to predict when we perturb the climate. As infrared absorbers increase in concentration, Ze increases, and Ts increases proportionally if lapse rate remains unchanged.”

    ————————-

    so,

    I guess you are right in a way. . .your calculation produced .63 of surface warming, and that was different from the values that are understood to be produced by the increase in CO2. Because you used a fake, made up, inappropriate, boarderline dunderkaph, simplistic ratio calculation using blackbody radiation of a sphere (even though you apparently don’t understand the terms).

    you completely failed to use albedo in your demonstrative calculation and the actual reality of your calculation, the one you were trying to disprove was so completely different than the one you were showing that it can now only be assumed that you either know more than you are letting on and intentionally putting out fake arguments for (meanness? profit??) or really are just completely wrong and absolutely certain that you are right.

  108. Jai. Regardless of how clever you think you are, and the rightness of your concensus science of AGW. The world refuses to warm and the increasing CO2 does not seem to be warming the world. Oddly and in spite of your beliefs the world is cooling, that must be very painful to a person with your ingrained belief system.

    Perhaps it is time to think outside the square and ponder the roles of other imponderables that may include the sun, the cycles, and epicycles, for we are but babes in the woods about our knowledge of the earth. Open your mind to all possibilities, you have a very narrow focus on stuff that is truely irrelevant.

  109. Anyone can cherry-pick the WFT database and produce an erroneous chart. But it directly conflicts with reality. Who should we believe? The planet? Or jai mitchell, eco-alarmist? Because they cannot both be right.

    The fact is that as CO2 continues to rise, global temperatures continue to fall.

    Really, even the NY Times, The Economist, and Phil Jones all agree that global warming has stopped. But jai mitchell is so far out in left field he cannot understand the concept.

    Global warming has stopped, and not just recently. Deal with reality, or folks will conclude that you’re a complete wacko.

Comments are closed.