The height of the ionosphere/space transition is controlled in part by the amount of extreme ultraviolet energy emitted by the Sun and a somewhat contracted ionosphere could have been expected because C/NOFS was launched during a minimum in the 11-year cycle of solar activity. However, the size of the actual contraction caught investigators by surprise. (Credit: NASA/Goddard Space Flight Center)
ScienceDaily (Dec. 16, 2008) — Observations made by NASA instruments onboard an Air Force satellite have shown that the boundary between the Earth’s upper atmosphere and space has moved to extraordinarily low altitudes. These observations were made by the Coupled Ion Neutral Dynamics Investigation (CINDI) instrument suite, which was launched aboard the U.S. Air Force’s Communication/Navigation Outage Forecast System (C/NOFS) satellite on April 16, 2008.
The CINDI suite, which was built under the direction Principal Investigator Rod Heelis of the University of Texas at Dallas, includes both ion and neutral sensors and makes measurements of the variations in neutral and ion densities and drifts.
CINDI and C/NOFS were designed to study disturbances in Earth’s ionosphere that can result in a disruption of navigation and communication signals. The ionosphere is a gaseous envelope of electrically charged particles that surrounds our planet and it is important because Radar, radio waves, and global positioning system signals can be disrupted by ionospheric disturbances.
CINDI’s first discovery was, however, that the ionosphere was not where it had been expected to be. During the first months of CINDI operations the transition between the ionosphere and space was found to be at about 260 miles (420 km) altitude during the nighttime, barely rising above 500 miles (800 km) during the day. These altitudes were extraordinarily low compared with the more typical values of 400 miles (640 km) during the nighttime and 600 miles (960 km) during the day.
(h/t to Dan Lee)
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
If the UN/IPCC’s ’emissions scenarios about the future evolution of society’ and how that affects energy use makes it hard to ascribe likelihoods to such things, then how about we stop spending any more taxpayer money on the UN/IPCC, until their models can actually, you know, like, predict something?
In more normal times, it was understood that the market sorted out things like energy use, much more efficiently than any government could.
Can anyone prove to us that the UN/IPCC adds value anywhere near the $Billions that they cost taxpayers? Or must we take it on blind faith — since the UN adamantly refuses to provide any transparency of their massive and opaque bureaucracy, or transparency of the raw data that they rely on for their scary predictions, or transparency of the methodology and algorithms that they publish? It sure looks like they’re trying to sell us a pig in a poke, doesn’t it? They want our $Billions based on: “Trust us.”
Certainly the UN has the clout to insist that Mann and the other Elmer Gantry-type climate scamsters must publicly archive all of their raw data and algorithms [paid for with taxpayer funds], but they don’t. Why not? What are they hiding? This isn’t nuclear warfare secrets we’re talking about, this is the climate.
Better yet, let’s put it to a vote. OK, there’s Joel, and there’s Brendan, and there’s Pete… Anyone else? Spicoli? Anyone?
Well, we listen to the minority report here [unlike most pro-AGW/catastrophe sites, which believe that censorship is justified in order to *ahem* ‘save the planet’].
But we’ll have to go with the mainstream consensus: the UN is thoroughly corrupt, their predictions are consistently wrong, predicated on a repeatedly falsified hypothesis, and catastrophic runaway global warming [the AGW hypothesis] remains completely unproven, and it is based only on always inaccurate computer models.
But if the consensus changes, folks, you’ll read about it here first.
Now, please:click
Joel Shore (17:12:38) :
climate sensitivity based on climate models simulating various empirical climate changes in the past
a theorist – knows little, understands much
an experimenter – knows much, understands little
a modeler – knows everything, understands nothing
a true scientist – know nothing, understands everything
[V. Vasiliunas, AGU Fall 2008]
Joel Shore (17:12:38) :
Anna V: If likelihoods are what you desire, various groups (such as Annan et al.) have done Bayesian likelihoods for the climate sensitivity based on climate models simulating various empirical climate changes in the past.
I would like errors to be statistical errors and not estimates of the modelers, whether by a likelihood fit or any other way.
this is from AR
chapter 8
Climate Models and Their Evaluation,8.1.2.2 Metrics of Model Reliability, partway in the second paragraph:
The above studies show promise
that quantitative metrics for the likelihood of model projections
may be developed, but because the development of robust
metrics is still at an early stage, the model evaluations presented
in this chapter are based primarily on experience and physical
reasoning, as has been the norm in the past.
you say:
As I have noted before, if quantum field theory had controversial implications, we would see QFT “skeptics” who would be asking us how we could believe a theory where you have to subtract quantities that are diverging to infinity to get a meaningful result!.
The analogy is misleading. If QFT were giving results contradicting the data, it would have long ago been thrown in the wastebasket. Theoretical calculations using it always give errors, not estimates of theoreticians of what the errors should be There are calculations of the fine structure constant that are parts in a billion correct. The IPCC models are failing in most of their predictions. I will repeat here what I have shown before:
The AGW hypothesis’ only justification comes from the computer models, GCMs, used extensively in the AR report of IPCC.A model/theory falls even if one datum disproves it, and there are at least four:
1) Temperatures do not follow IPCC projections. Here is a plot to remind this:
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/ipccchart.jpg
2) The fingerprint of CO2 in the tropical troposphere as set out in the AR4 report is absent in the data. Here are the links
for models:
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-chapter9.pdf
data:
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/GHGModsvsReality.jpg
3) The oceans are cooling instead of warming and setting off a feedback loop of greenhouse warming: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=88520025
The spin is: global warming missing heat. The truth is, nature does not follow the GCM IPCC models.
4) the specific humidity is not rising as it should in order to create the runaway feedback loop predicated in the models:
http://www.cdc.noaa.gov/cgi-bin/Timeseries/timeseries.pl?ntype=1&var=Specific+Humidity+(up+to+300mb+only)&level=300&lat1=90&lat2=-90&lon1=-180&lon2=180&iseas=1&mon1=0&mon2=11&iarea=0&typeout=2&Submit=Create+Timeseries
The basic premise of the models, that the tiny, (anthropogenic CO2 is a tiny fraction of the CO2 in the atmosphere:
http://www.co2web.info/Icecap_CarbonDioxide.pdf) anthropogenic CO2 is the straw that breaks the camel’s back and starts runaway greenhouse warming is absolutely not supported by the data
In addition there is no driving correlation between the rise in CO2 and global temperatures in this plot: http://icecap.us/images/uploads/Correlation_of_Carbon_Dioxide_with_Temperatures_Negative_Again.pdf
If this were a scientific proposition it would have been thrown out and rethought from the beginning. That is why I think it is just political.
Thus, imo, all this AGW business is a production set up to stampede the masses into supporting policies they would never consider otherwise.
Look up in the sky — its the SUN:
There is only one thing that can effect the height of the Ionosphere, the atmosphere’s of other planets or the temperature of the earth — its the SUN
Sometimes I wonder if we wouldn’t be better off if there was a severe penalty for being a “True Believer” Pseudo-scientist and intentionally writing something claiming AGW when they should know better. Perhaps such a miscreant could be given a useful job — such as helping some unfortunate community in the path of an advancing glacier — by doing some serious hand shoveling {“you load 16 Metric Tons — what’a you get….”)
However, If I was Plato’s enlightened Autocrat — I would further punish the leaders of the useful idiots masquerading as climate scientists — I’d just line up the leaders — starting with Jim Hansen and MBH and have them beaten with an icicle until they admit that they — lied, fabricated and intentionally misled everyone about Anthropogenic Global Warming for some stupid political reason — such as they really like Marx
By the way — despite the fact that traditionally here in the Greater Boston area we have only a 1/4 chance of a White Christmas — its been snowing rather continuously since Friday at noon and tomorrow we will have a mid January-like “daily high” of about -10C
Westy
Sorry, error in my sentence structure — left my intent somewhat ambiguous in my immediate preceding post
I meant to say — “There is only one thing that can effect the height of the Ionosphere, the atmosphere’s of other planets, and the temperature of the earth — its the SUN
i.e. one factor that can collectively effect all of the above
— no CO2, methane or other “Green House Gas” need bother to apply
Still recovering from recently shoveling the beginnings of the next glacial outbreak
Westy
Anna v says:
You might ask how they have aligned the predictions and the data, since this doesn’t agree with plots in the literature (such as that shown in Chapter 1 of the IPCC AR4 or in this paper in Science: http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/sci;316/5825/709 ). Also note that there the model predictions are basically the forced component, i.e., not including “noise” due to El Nina / La Nina and the like, and the data for 2008 only includes the first half of the year (which was considerably colder than the second half). That’s a lot of problems with one graph!
You’ve been hoodwinked if you believe that the “hotspot” in the tropical troposphere is a fingerprint of CO2. It has nothing to do with CO2. It is expected on basic physical principles regardless of the mechanism causing the warming (see here for a picture of what happens in a climate model if you increase the solar forcing instead of the greenhouse gas forcing: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/12/tropical-troposphere-trends/ ) and is simply due to the fact that the temperature in the tropics is expected to closely follow the moist adiabat. And, the data that you show has severe known problems…and, in fact, various analyses and re-analyses of that data yield a whole plethora of results, some of which agree and some which disagree with the expectation of moist adiabatic lapse rate theory.
The real signature of greenhouse gas warming, as opposed to many other mechanisms like solar, is that solar has the stratosphere warming too whereas greenhouse gas forcing has the stratosphere cooling (which is in fact what it has been doing).
There is admittedly some mystery surrounding the ocean measurements…but some variability is expected and there have also been some measurement issues. (A group that initially reported cooling with the new ARGO floats had to retract their paper after they found an error.)
I am always amused how people are willing to take and plot some data that they don’t even understand…and understand the potential problems with and then believe it over peer-reviewed science that concludes precisely the opposite. I recommend you read Brian Soden’s work on this: http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/sci;310/5749/841 (this paper notes the severe problems with the radiosonde measurements that I believe you are plotting in your link above) and also http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/sci;296/5568/727 (And, lest you think Soden is biased because he is reaching a conclusion you don’t like, I will point out that Soden is skeptical about the link between global warming and stronger hurricanes: http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/summary/sci;322/5902/687 ) There is also some recent work by Dessler: Dessler, A. E., Z. Zhang, and P. Yang (2008), Water-vapor climate feedback inferred from climate fluctuations, 2003–2008, Geophys. Res. Lett., 35 ( http://www.agu.org/journals/scripts/highlight.php?pid=2008GL035333 ).
The fact that all four of your statements (or at least 3 out of the 4) have severe problems to the point of being essentially wrong is a good reason why your opinion on the science differs so dramatically from the opinions of the IPCC, the NAS, the AAAS, the U.S. Climate Change Science Program, etc.
You might ask how they have aligned the predictions and the data, since this doesn’t agree with plots in the literature (such as that shown in Chapter 1 of the IPCC AR4 or in this paper in Science: http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/sci;316/5825/709 ). Also note that there the model predictions are basically the forced component, i.e., not including “noise” due to El Nina / La Nina and the like, and the data for 2008 only includes the first half of the year (which was considerably colder than the second half). That’s a lot of problems with one graph!
There are many similar graphs, and they all show the discrepancy. Look at my last link:
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/Correlation_of_Carbon_Dioxide_with_Temperatures_Negative_Again.pdf
You can handwave, but data do not go away.
You’ve been hoodwinked if you believe that the “hotspot” in the tropical troposphere is a fingerprint of CO2. It has nothing to do with CO2
If so, it is the IPCC report that is doing the hoodwinking. Actually in the first internet version, the CO2 only plot had the words “fingerprint” or maybe “signature” on it. It is after the Douglass et al report that they retroactively disappeared it, but did not dare disappear the plots quoted. It seems you do not read links. People can keep changing the goal posts, but that is not science. The world is asked to commit energy hara kiri based on the IPCC reports, not the later glossing over and hand waving.
The link for humidity is NOA data , and it is not working well at the moment ( even if one copies the non highlighted parts), only one plot but it shows the diminishing specific humidity. Here are plots of relative humidity also falling: http://icecap.us/images/uploads/GlobalRelativeHumidity300_700mb.jpg. The paper you refer to is not freely available.
I do not think you have replied to the four points in any clear way.
anna v says:
As a fellow physicist, I really do wish that you would be more discerning rather than just post silly propaganda from a site that has no serious scientific credentials. What you linked to here is even worse than what you linked to before! The first plot tries to look for a correlation between the U.S. temperatures and CO2 ignoring the facts that :
(1) Over the period that they look, everyone would agree that there were other major players besides CO2.
(2) The U.S. is only something like 2% of the total surface area of the earth.
As for the second graph, it is just a pathetic attempt to ignore basic facts such as:
(1) Climate variability makes it such that a strong correlation between CO2 and temperature is not expected over such a short period. In fact, one could produce the same graph but have, substituted in for the actual temperatures, the output from climate models driven with increasing CO2…because they too show such variations.
(2) That graph uses a great deception by plotting CO2 and temperature on the same graph but with the scales such that for temperature to follow the same trend as CO2 (i.e., have the same slope on that graph), the transient climate response to a doubling of CO2 would have to be about 9 C. As it is the IPCC’s best estimate is that the equilibrium climate sensitivity, which is greater than transient climate response, is about 2 to 4.5 C. I believe the transient climate response is expected to be roughly 2 C, give or take…So, basically, if they wanted a realistic comparison to the IPCC predictions, they should have made the scales such that the CO2 line has about 4 to 5 times lower slope than it does. But, of course, if they did that, it would become obvious that the temperature fluctuations are so large compared to the shallow upward slope expected that things are dominated by noise.
Perhaps they changed the word fingerprint or signature because someone pointed out to them that this could be misinterpreted by people to mean that the “hot spot” itself is a signature of CO2 specifically, rather than the signature being a warming of the troposphere and a cooling of the stratosphere…which is at least more unique to the mechanism of greenhouse gases causing the warming (i.e., if an increase in solar insolation causes warming, the stratosphere warms too).
Look, this isn’t difficult stuff to understand: The hot spot in the tropical troposphere is expected to be there independent of the mechanism causing the warming. It is simply due to the fact that for saturated air, the adiabatic lapse rate (the rate at which a parcel of air cools as it goes up in the atmosphere) is lower when the air initially warmer than cooler because warm air holds more water vapor than cool air and thus more water must condense out as the air cools. Since condensation releases heat energy, this means that the initially-warmer parcel of air cools more slowly as it rises. This is simple basic physics.
Science magazine is freely available in libraries across the country. What you (or icecap) has done is taken data with lots of severe known problems (as explained in the Soden reference that I gave you) and just plotted it up assuming that these problems don’t exist. You can’t reference a real peer-reviewed journal for those results because they would be unlikely to pass muster in such a venue.
You are basically grasping at straws and this explains why you and many of your fellow skeptics are living in your own world where the facts are completely different than the facts that the scientific community accepts.
Joel Shore
Of course there must be a similar mechanism for all extra heatings ( I hate the forcing business, which tries to mask three dimensional physics into two dimensions). The crux is what the models used as parameters and feedback loops etc.
The red in the hot spot appears only for the CO2 labeled plot in the IPCC report, and that is a fact. The data do not show the enhancement which is given in the IPCC report for the sum total of effects.
As for the temperature and CO2 plots, I would make them myself from scratch if I were up to all these new tools of excel work sheets and stuff.
I am sorry, but you still are not “explaining away” the discrepancies between the IPCC model claims in the formal report, and data since then.
All the rest is “epea pteroenta” flying words.
Come on
“Joel Shore (17:42:54) :
You are basically grasping at straws and this explains why you and many of your fellow skeptics are living in your own world where the facts are completely different than the facts that the scientific community accepts.”
earlier you said
“As a fellow physicist, I really do wish that you would be more discerning rather than just post silly propaganda from a site that has no serious scientific credentials…..
As for the second graph, it is just a pathetic attempt to ignore basic facts such as:
(1) Climate variability makes it such that a strong correlation between CO2 and temperature is not expected over such a short period….”
One thing that I learned as an experimental physicist was that if a fancy model needed even more fancy disclaimers, etc — then the model was not worth the paper, tape, magnetic disk surface, etc that it was encoded upon
The first thing that you must do with a complex system — is understand what you are measuring and how to get a handle on the data at the “back of the envelope” level — only then can you consuider trying to make a fancy model
The fundamental problem with computer models of a strongly coupled complex system of many variables is that unless you know the physics in great detail to include in the model -=- then the model produces results that are classic GIGO (Garbage IN Garbage OUT)
This is the result of the so-called Lorentz Effect — that for a certain level of complexity and hence non-linearity — a small error in initial conditions or strength of coupling (e.g the positive or negative or both feedback effects of clouds) translates into ultimate unpredictability
A good example of this is the weather itself — no weather forecast (except for the magic incantations of the Old Farmers Almanac) can give any “actionable intelligence” as to the temperature to be expected in Boston 2 weeks from today (12/23/08) — if you wish to — you can personally review the temperature data for Boston on or about January 1 — you will find that there is extreme variability on all time scales from minutes to decades — forecasts made more than 36 hours prior are as unreliable now as they were when Lorentz first noted his effect in the 1960’s
Of course in addition to the temporal variability of the weather — we also have to precisely specify where we are making our measurements. Only a few km separates the official weather observation station at Logan International Airport (sea level surrounded by water) and my location inland in Lexington (<100 m elevation). Yet this few km and slight change in elevation can mean the difference between a rain storm and a dozen cm of snow or often more than 5 degrees C (warmer or colder depending not only on the season but the direction of the local wind).
But you say — climate averages out a lot of the above complexity issues and we don’t credibly try to predict the climate of any specific point 100 years into the future — just some sort of average. The problem with that argument is that since your model is self admittedly full of averages over things poorly understood — such as the strength of the effects on radiative forcing due to clouds (ref IPCC reports) – -we just don’t know whether the output has any validity at all.
The only way to test the partial validity is to see if the model (with all parameters set to the best of our knowledge) can track the past record of the measurements (averaged in some agreed upon manner) — and surprise — there is not one GCM that can without fiddling about (e.g we use a different parameter to explain what happened in the 1980’s than we chose to use for the 2060 to 2100) time interval
This is just plain and simple intellectual dishonesty and outside of a politically polluted field such as climatology wouldn’t be tolerated
Back to the Back of the Envelope argument– If CO2 is such a strong determinant of global temperature (what-ever that really means — subject to future discussion) — then we should see something happen in the temperature data that correlates with the measured CO2 over the past 1/2 Century –(can’t really trust absolute CO2 levels from earlier – subject to another discussion). Among other things the CO2 data shows a non constant rate of increase as well as a superimposed sawtooth oscillation with a period of about 6 months. This oscillation is typically explained in terms of the fact that the vegetation in the northern hemisphere is dominated by temperate forests and grasslands while in the southern hemisphere it is dominated by plankton and tropical rain forests – and hence vegetation (and hence carbon sequestration) should have a correlation with the northern hemisphere seasons – subject to another discussion
Anyway — We don’t see even a hidden signature of the 6 moth oscillation in the “Global Surface Temperature record” nor in the MSU data from the satellites, nor in the radiosonde data – instead what we tend to see in the spectral analysis is an approximate 11 year periodicity – that seems to fit sunspot cycles
So how can you credibly say that “the science is settled”? — when we are constantly discovering things about or environment such as incomplete plasma sheaths, low ionosphere heights, magnetic field anomalies, unexpected strength of the solar wind, etc.
Westy
anna v (22:52:54) :
All the rest is “epea pteroenta” flying words.
Beautifully put. We owe so much to Greek… I can read some small bit of it, just enough to make me feel inadequate. In England my mother was required to learn latin and Greek. I always felt cheated by the U.S. system, so she taught me a little… We owe so much to mothers too… Maybe I’ll dig out that ‘teach yourself Greek’ book I never finished…
Anna, you might want to take a look at the end of the ‘resources’ tab above. I’ve posted a collection of things that seem to point to a sun / ozone / weather cycles connection. It might be an alternative or enhancement to the cosmic ray portion of solar impact. Still leaves open why the sun varies.
anna v:
I am afraid that you misunderstood the contour plot in the IPCC report. The point in Fig. 9.1 of the IPCC AR4 report is that the contours were designed to be the same for all of the plots, which made it useful for the purposes it was designed for (preserving the relative magnitudes of the different contributions to the total temperature change) but does not allow you to discern very clearly what the behavior with spatial behavior of the temperature is for the less-important forcings. The spatial behavior of the GHG forcing is just going to look more dramatic to you because it is better resolved by the contour interval.
Thus, for example, if you look at the solar forcing, all one can say from that plot is that the model predicts a surface warming in the tropics of 0 to 0.2 C and a warming of 0.2 to 0.4 in the upper troposphere. Although this doesn’t look like a dramatic “hot spot” on this plot because of the lack of contours, it is in fact compatible with any magnification factor between 1 and infinity (and in particular, with the magnification of 2-3 that is seen for the case of forcing by greenhouse gases). At RealClimate, Gavin posted a result where he turned up the solar forcing so that one could see what the structure would look like if we assumed that the solar forcing had a value large enough to explain all (or most) of the surface warming, rather than the actual estimated 20th century forcing that explains very little of it, and lo and behold, there is the “hot spot” in the tropical troposphere: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/12/tropical-troposphere-trends/ This is expected since, as I noted, the tropical atmosphere is basically expected to have its temperature distribution slave to the moist adiabat due to the fact that there is a lot of convection and the air is already saturated with water vapor at or near the surface.
WestHighlander says:
I would be curious to know what level you reached in terms of physics research because your experience is much different than mine. Mine is that science is rarely as cut-and-dried as people like to think it is. With any model, one can dream up millions of reasons why it is wrong…and, frankly, even to this day I never fail to be a little bit surprised when a piece of experimental data confirms my modeling. There are always so many things that can be wrong with it…and so many ways in which nature introduces complications. And yet, I think we scientists have done pretty well at modeling and understanding it nonetheless!
Yes…The point is more precisely that predicting the response of the climate to an external forcing is a boundary value problem and is very different from an initial value problem. What you didn’t note regarding that sensitivity to initial conditions is that while runs of climate models with perturbed boundary conditions rapidly diverge in the sense of having different jiggles up and down, they all show similar behavior in response to a significant forcing over a long enough period of time.
Actually, Hansen made predictions with an early crude model back in the late 1980s and his predictions have turned out so well that there is a whole industry of distorting the record on that. However, you are also incorrect that this is the only way to test the models. There are a variety of ways to test them…both the entire model…and the pieces of the model and, moreover, there are a variety of empirical ways to get estimates for the equilibrium climate sensitivity…which is really the main thing that the models are trying to predict (well, one could I suppose argue that they are also trying to predict the transient climate response).
Anyway — We don’t see even a hidden signature of the 6 moth oscillation in the “Global Surface Temperature record” nor in the MSU data from the satellites, nor in the radiosonde data – instead what we tend to see in the spectral analysis is an approximate 11 year periodicity – that seems to fit sunspot cycles
This is a bogus test. If a climate model were forced with this small oscillation in CO2 levels and produced a detectable response then I would agree that one should then expect to see it in nature. However, do you have any such evidence that the climate models would do so? I doubt it extremely for a variety of reasons (the main one being the shortness of this oscillation period relative to various relaxation times in the system). You can’t just invent tests and say that you expect to see this if the theory is true without subjecting your own hypothesis to the test…And, the best way to test whether this is what one would expect from the theory is to run the models that encode our current theoretical understanding.
Oh, I have no doubt that the science is not settled in the sense that I imagine we are still in for some surprises. Unfortunately, I think that these surprises are just as likely if not more likely to be unpleasant ones than pleasant ones (such as that the significant change we are making to the composition of GHGs in the atmosphere is not going to have any major effects). And, just because we don’t know everything does not mean we know nothing. Science deals with uncertainty all the time…Nothing is ever certain in science. However, the only time when we let this paralyze us into complete inaction is when we allow politics to triumph over science.
Joel Shore (16:38:28) :
It is called spinning. There is one color bar at the bottom of the six figures. The red spot comes from what now is label GHG ( used to have clearly been CO2, it keeps changing it I see).
This is Lucia’s link for convenience, it can be found in chapter9 of the AR report in http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-chapter9.pdf fig 9.2.
What is amazing is that once more the labelling of the figures has changed. In Lucia’s snapshot fig. 2 was GHG, in mine it was CO2 and now there is nothing next to the figb. Only the caption clarifies it is GHG.
And I had read the first versions where there was much less spin in the presentations. They were very confident that that is the way the real world worked.
sorry, Lucia’s link http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=4687#comment-316299