I received this presentation of the “Bjerknes Lecture” that Dr. James Hansen gave at the annual meeting of the American Geophysical Union on December 17th. There are the usual things one might expect in the presentation, such as this slide which shows 2008 on the left with the anomalously warm Siberia and the Antarctic peninsula:
Source: James Hansen, GISS
Off topic but relevant, NASA has recently “disappeared”updated this oft cited map showing warming on the Antarctic peninsula and cooling of the interior:
There is also some new information in Hansen’s presentation, including a claim about CO2 sensitivity and coal causing a “runaway greenhouse effect”.
Hansen makes a bold statement that he has empirically derived CO2 sensitivity of our global climate system. I had to chuckle though, about the claim “Paleo yields precise result”. Apparently Jim hasn’t quite got the message yet that Michael Mann’s paleo results are, well, dubious, or that trees are better indicators of precipitation than temperature.
In fact in the later slide text he claims he’s “nailed” it:
He adds some caveats for the 2xCO2 claim:
Notes:
(1)
It is unwise to attempt to treat glacial-interglacial aerosol changes as a specified boundary condition (as per Hansen et al. 1984), because aerosols are inhomogeneously distributed, and their forcing depends strongly on aerosol altitude and aerosol absorbtivity, all poorly known. But why even attempt that? Human-made aerosol changes are a forcing, but aerosol changes in response to climate change are a fast feedback.
(2)
The accuracy of our knowledge of climate sensitivity is set by our best source of information, not by bad sources. Estimates of climate sensitivity based on the last 100 years of climate change are practically worthless, because we do not know the net climate forcing. Also, transient change is much less sensitive than the equilibrium response and the transient response is affected by uncertainty in ocean mixing.
(3)
Although, in general, climate sensitivity is a function of the climate state, the fast feedback sensitivity is just as great going toward warmer climate as it is going toward colder climate. Slow feedbacks (ice sheet changes, greenhouse gas changes) are more sensitive to the climate state.
Hansen is also talking about the “runaway” greenhouse effect, citing that old standby Venus in part of his presentation. He claims that coal and tar sands will be our undoing:
Hansen writes:
In my opinion, if we burn all the coal, there is a good chance that we will initiate the runaway greenhouse effect. If we also burn the tar sands and tar shale (a.k.a. oil shale), I think it is a dead certainty.
That would be the ultimate Faustian bargain. Mephistopheles would carry off shrieking not only the robber barons, but, unfortunately and permanently, all life on the planet.
I have to wonder though, if he really believes what he is saying. Perhaps he’s never seen this graph for CO2 from Bill Illis and the response it gives to IR radiation (and thus temperature) as it increases:
It’s commonly known that CO2’s radiative return response is logarithmic with increasing concentration, so I don’t understand how Hansen thinks that it will be the cause of a runaway effect. The physics dictate that the temperature response curve of the atmosphere will be getting flatter as CO2 increases. Earth has also had much higher concentrations of CO2 in past history, and we didn’t go into runaway then:
Late Carboniferous to Early Permian time (315 mya — 270 mya) is the only time period in the last 600 million years when both atmospheric CO2 and temperatures were as low as they are today (Quaternary Period ).
There’s lots more in this paper to behold in wonderment, and I haven’t the time today to comment on all of it, so I’ll just leave it up to the readers of this forum to bring out the relevant issues for discussion.
I’m sure Steve McIntyre at Climate Audit will have some comments on it, even though his name is not mentioned in the presentation. My name was mentioned several times though. 😉
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
512 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
foinavon
December 26, 2008 7:37 am
Bill Illis
As the final piece of evidence why the global warming models (and foinavon’s formula) are unrealistically high, consider what happens over geologic time when CO2 levels were as high as 3,000 ppm or 7,000 ppm for example.
Hansen’s model and foinavon’s formula produce temperatures that are as much as 12C to 13C higher than current temps which does not appear to have happened in Earth’s climate history.
That was explained already Bill (see [24:12:08 ((08:45:58)]). The radiative forcing is a consequence of both the solar irradiation and the greenhouse gas concentrations. If the greenhouse gas concentrations reach levels previously only realized in the Paleozoic, and the solar constant is some 5% higher now than then, the nett radiative forcing will be much higher now than then. So we expect temperatures to go higher (with very large CO2 concentrations as in the “all coal and tar-shale” we’re discussing here). Of course these are somewhat hypothetical, since we’re very likely not to be so foolish as to engage in a gung-ho oxidation of long-sequestered carbon on such a scale!
Incidentally, of course temperatures were higher than 12-13 oC above current temperatures early in earth’s history… While the warming to date Log or Ln formulas produce warming levels of 6C to 8C which more closely matches the temperature record – whether you use the Scotese chart or the more-up-to-date higher resolution ones from Wikipedia/global warming art
That’s illogical unfortunately. One can’t properly assess the earth’s climate sensitivity from “the warming to date” as seems to have been pointed out to you on a number of occasions! Of course climate models demonstrate that contemporary warming is consistent with a climate sensitivity (incorporating short term feedbacks) near 3 oC. But one can really only assess the climate sensitivity by analysis of periods where the earth’s temperature response has had “time” to come towards equilibrium with forcings. That’s what Hansen has done, along with many other analyses of cliamte sensitivity.
It would be foolish to attempt to understand these issues with analyses that we know to be incorrect while ignoring/pooh-poohing the science! Stephen Schwartz’s misanalysis of heat capacity effects with arbitrarily determined time constants illustrates the mess one can get into.
Joel Shore
December 26, 2008 10:12 am
Frank Lasner says:
I have read this more times, still not realy being able to understand your logic.
…
Still, your logic, your point? The warmer the more radiation, as you know. Please rephrase, I don’t understand.
I don’t know how I can explain it more clearly. What exactly is tripping you up?
Aha, so you thinkIPCC´s idea of a (not mixed!) hot spot is wrong?
No…That is not what I am saying. In fact, I am saying pretty much the opposite. The hot spot comes about because of what I said: You don’t get the structure of the temperature in the atmosphere by figuring out where the greenhouse gases absorb the heat (as you would if the atmosphere did not mix the heat around). The structure is instead determined by other things…In the tropical atmosphere it is determined by convection in air that is saturated at or pretty near ground level…and the implications of this is the hot spot because of the physics of moist (saturated) adiabatic lapse rate theory.
🙂 Now you believe that tere IS a hotspot ?!
I’ve always believed there is a hotspot. It is a robust prediction of the models based on a very basic piece of physics. It is seen to occur for fluctuations on the yearly timescales. The only data that I know of for which there has been difficulty observing it (depending on what analysis of the data you believe) is for the trends over the multidecadal time period, over which there are known issues with the data.
So, my prediction is that once all the “dust has settled” in regards to the observational data, the hotspot will be there. (Although, I have pointed out that if it is not there, it does not really have any direct implications for what the cause of the warming that we have been seeing is; It would of course have implications for how well we understand [and have codified in the climate models] some basic atmospheric processes in the tropics.)
To be honest: My impression is that you realy believe in the AGW, and try to argue in east and west, im sorry 🙂
I get the impression that you are understanding very little of what I am saying and are misinterpreting what I say as a result.
Not really Hank. “Signal” just means “indicator” or “pattern”. It’s a fairly common designation. e.g.:
Palmer MD et al. (2007) Isolating the signal of ocean global warming. Geophys. Res. Lett. 34, L23610
For those interested in a very thorough deconstruction of the AGW scam by an internationally esteemed scientist, see Dr. Pierre Latour’s “Author’s Reply” [second letter down]: click
foinavon
I understand what an advection signal is. My question is, what’s the quality of the signal. Probably it amounts to something like this: In the last 40 years there is some probability that there was not cooling but warming; provided temperature fluctuations of longer or shorter time frames have not muddied this signal. In other words it would be as worthwhile as a single tally mark which has been erased and repenciled til you can barely make out what state it’s in.
Joseph
December 26, 2008 4:25 pm
Re: Mike Bryant (21:16:53)
Does this suggest that a more complete greenhouse, with much more water vapor might actually make the deserts cooler during the day and warmer at night? Might the poles warm and open up areas for habitation? Might the increase of water vapor in the atmosphere lessen the sea level rise? Might any lands lost to sea level rise be replaced by more temperate regions being created? I know this is extremely speculative on my part. But nothing whatsoever is more speculative than catastrophic global warming.
Mike, I’m not sure if I understand your question, but if you are referring to an increase in the average global humidity increasing the overall greenhouse effect (since water vapor is currently the most significant GHG) and raising average global temperatures, then I think some of those things could happen, as they did during the Medieval Warm Period, whatever the cause.
Yes, more land could be rendered habitable. That’s what happened in Iceland during the MWP. There are property records there for farms that existed during the MWP that today are covered by glaciers. There is no farming at all in Iceland today. And Greenland was called that because it was green during the MWP. Trees grew there even, the roots of which can be found in the permafrost today. Yes, I think the increase in habitable land could offset any coastlines that are drowned should the ocean level rise. The net change for individual countries is a different matter.
I don’t think the polar areas would become habitable, though. I don’t think water vapor is a strong enough GHG to accomplish that, among other reasons.
I think the deserts would stay as they are. They are dry because of little to no precipitation and I don’t think an increase in the average global humidity would change that.
In general, warmer is better for humanity overall. Humans have suffered the worst during the coldest periods.
Mike Bryant
December 26, 2008 4:51 pm
“The claim seems to be that heat forms a signal in the oceans analogous to sound or electromagnetic energy.”
Hmmmmm, that IS a pretty good way to hide I guess. But I think I figured out where the heat is really hiding. On Jennifer Marohasey’s blog Janama asked this:
“So why is the supposed CO2 induced warming only occuring in the NH and in the most unpopulated areas of it? i.e. Russia, Alaska and Canada.”
Now that is a really good question. I propose that the published temperatures in these sparsely populated areas are actually being UNDERestimated by such a large margin that when the data is corrected we will need a really scary new color to paint all these unpopulated areas with. No one anywhere will be able to argue that Global Warming is a big hoax!
I mean, think about it… if you wanted to really hide good isn’t an unpopulated area the best possible place to do it? http://www.physorg.com/newman/gfx/news/hires/30yrbig.jpg
Chris V.
December 26, 2008 7:49 pm
Manfred (15:42:52) :
Thanks for the link (re new research on ozone breakdown via CFCs).
That lead me to this: http://www.ncas.ac.uk/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=147&Itemid=9
That’s the full article (partially quoted in your link).
It’s a little bit different than you described it!
Basically, some new lab results conflict with older lab results about the chemical mechanism for CFC breakdown. That means that ozone-depletion models (which are based on the older lab results) will probably have to be revised.
It was not “the first experiment to measure the CFCs impact on the ozone layer”, as you stated.
It does not put into doubt the current consensus that CFCs are responsible for ozone depletion; it does mean that the exact chemical pathway is still only partially understood.
Mike Bryant
December 26, 2008 9:33 pm
Joseph,
I wonder if the atmosphere is capable of holding enough water vapor to bring practically the entire earth to one temperate climate. Also how much would it take?
Frank. Lansner
December 27, 2008 3:35 am
@joel Shore, as I said, I did not understand your logic of your core point to begin with, you write:
“Since the air is colder as you go higher in the atmosphere and the intensity of radiation goes as the fourth power of the temperature, this means that the earth is now radiating less energy…”
The air is always colder further up in the atmosphere, so according to your sentence, earth should always radiate less energy. Im sure you don’t think like this, so you leave the reader to guess what your point might be.
MAYBE you accept that temperatures in higher atmospheric layers have been cooling for years? And is now colder then decades ago? And it is this now relative cold air in upper layers that drives the warming? This however is not in compliance with your believe that there is indeed a hotspot up there ?!
But IF my guess above is correct, then you believe that a colder thin outer atmosphere should be able to hold back the energy radiated from earth (by allowing less radiation from earth?). As you say yourself, the radiation changes from very cold thin air is extreeeemely small compared to radiation from much warmer ground level.
Then your phrase: “This means it will warm up until such point that the upper atmosphere has warmed enough that the earth is now radiating as much as it receives”
This suggest that my guess before was maybe correct.
Tell me then: The cooling of the upper layers, that you think drives global warming (?)
– When did it begin? When did it end?
As it is the cooling of upper layers you believe drives global warming (?), now that you say that the upper layers are warming, the pace of global warming is taking of then?
And further as I quoted earlier you write that the atmophere “mixes up” (as explanation for no hotspot) And later you write that you expect a hotspot. Im sorry, but its very very difficult to have good dialog when you have no CLEAR writing to deal with.
Heres you explain NO HOTSPOTS, I believe:
“the atmosphere mixes heat well enough that the structure of the warming is not determined by where the greenhouse gases happen to absorb additional energy.”
So why did IPCC expect a hotspot?? And why do you??
Peter
December 27, 2008 3:42 am
From Chris’ link:
He said that he found it extremely hard to believe that an unknown mechanism could account for the bulk of observed ozone losses.
The ozone holes were only discovered little more than two decades ago. Because the ozone layer can only be measured by satellites, historical data simply doesn’t exist. How then do they know that the holes haven’t always existed? How do they know that they aren’t a cyclical phenomenon?
But they have their mechanism, their mechanism just has to explain things, and they aren’t looking for any other mechanism.
A bit like AGW, isn’t it?
foinavon
December 27, 2008 5:10 am
Frank Lansner
re your comments:
@joel Shore, as I said, I did not understand your logic of your core point to begin with, you write:
“Since the air is colder as you go higher in the atmosphere and the intensity of radiation goes as the fourth power of the temperature, this means that the earth is now radiating less energy…”
The air is always colder further up in the atmosphere, so according to your sentence, earth should always radiate less energy. Im sure you don’t think like this, so you leave the reader to guess what your point might be.
Frank, It’s not the logic of joels points that you don’t understand. It’s the principles you don’t understand. And you seem to be misrepresenting joel’s rather clear exposition and then complaining about your own misrepresentation.
joel’s “core point” as you put it, has an important preceding sentence and an important following sentence that you left out. Here’s what joel said:
“…the effect of increasing CO2, as we’ve discussed above, is to increase the effective level from which most of the radiation is escaping back into space. Since the air is colder as you go higher in the atmosphere and the intensity of radiation goes as the fourth power of the temperature, this means that the earth is now radiating less energy…and less than it is receiving from the sun. This means it will warm up until such point that ithe upper atmosphere has warmed enough that the earth is now radiating as much as it receives.”
so it’s you that is “leaving the reader to guess what” joel’s “point might be”. Happily we only have to go back and read what joel actually said to understand his point rather well. Here it is again in my words:
1. Increased atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations result in increased absorption in the atmosphere of longwave IR emitted from the earths surface. At any particular level in the troposphere, less IR will be emitted to space.
2. However the LWIR must eventually be dissipated to space. On average it will do so from a higher, and colder altitude where the radiation of energy is less efficient (inverse fourth power dependence on temperature).
3. Therefore there is a radiative imbalance. Less energy is being emitted than is being received by the sun.
4. The Earth and it’s atmosphere therefore tends towards a new thermal equilibrium. All of the layers warm up (including the surface), such that the temperature of the upper regions of the atmosphere where radiation is lost to space is sufficiently warm for radiative equilibrium to be restored.
and you might want to consider how this admonishment….:
Im sorry, but its very very difficult to have good dialog when you have no CLEAR writing to deal with.
…looks in the light of this sort of gibberish:
Frank Lansner:
”
Peter
About three months ago there was some work by a researcher working in America claiming the Ozone hole would be the largest ever in 2008 because of cosmic rays.
That set me wondering about the subject along the lines of your post, that how do we know that the ozone hole hasn’t always existed and may actually be historically low at present?
I contacted both the Max Planck institute and Cambridge University-world leaders in this field and got a reply from one. My question and their reply follows-names deleted for confidentiality
My question;
” Firstly, how do we know that the ozone hole hasn’t always been there and it isn’t actually historically rather small compared to the past? In this respect I would mention I am an (amateur) historian and (amateur) climatologist, and there seems to be an analogy with satellite records of the arctic ice which enables commentators to proclaim 2007 as recording the lowest ice extent since records began. They omit that records only began in 1979- and also omit the numerous well documented records of the melting of the arctic ice through the ages which puts the current episode into historical perspective.
Within that context I discovered the following item on ozone depletion dating from 2007;
“As the world marks 20 years since the introduction of the Montreal Protocol to protect the ozone layer, Nature has learned of experimental data that threaten to shatter established theories of ozone chemistry. If the data are right, scientists will have to rethink their understanding of how ozone holes are formed and how that relates to climate change.
Markus Rex, an atmosphere scientist at the Alfred Wegener Institute of Polar and Marine Research in Potsdam, Germany, did a double-take when he saw new data for the break-down rate of a crucial molecule, dichlorine peroxide (Cl2O2). The rate of photolysis (light-activated splitting) of this molecule reported by chemists at NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, California1, was extremely low in the wavelengths available in the stratosphere – almost an order of magnitude lower than the currently accepted rate.
“This must have far-reaching consequences,” Rex says. “If the measurements are correct we can basically no longer say we understand how ozone holes come into being.” What effect the results have on projections of the speed or extent of ozone depletion remains unclear.
Other groups have yet to confirm the new photolysis rate, but the conundrum is already causing much debate and uncertainty in the ozone research community. “Our understanding of chloride chemistry has really been blown apart,” says John Crowley, an ozone researcher at the Max Planck Institute of Chemistry in Mainz, Germany.
“Until recently everything looked like it fitted nicely,” agrees Neil Harris, an atmosphere scientist who heads the European Ozone Research Coordinating Unit at the University of Cambridge, UK. “Now suddenly it’s like a plank has been pulled out of a bridge.”
‘Checking further back I then find that the scientist concerned in this latest finding, Qing-Bin Lu, had also- whilst at a different University- researched this new ozone hole theory as far back as 2001. I am assuming that the scientist is highly competent or he would not have been given the facilities to research the theory for at least seven years.
The ozone hole, though smaller than 2006, is still very substantial with possibly several more weeks before maximum dependent on the temperature in the stratosphere being conducive. Qing-Bin Lu had forecast this year would be the greatest depletion ever, so whether or not being very close to the record would be considered a success or a failure I can’t comment
Consequently I am asking if your own research has confirmed or denied the theory, or whether you remain undecided on the subject?’
Reply as follows;
“Thank you for your email. Here are some replies to the points you raise.
1 Measurements of ozone over Antarctica started in 1956 from ground stations and show that levels were roughly constant until around 1980. The satellite record started in 1970 and has been continuous since 1979. The two records are entirely consistent with each other and with other measurements such as the vertical distribution of ozone measured by ozonesondes and upper air temperature and wind measurements. The length of geophysical records is an important consideration in their interpretation, and it is always important to see how consistent our understanding (theoretical and related measurements) of the current situation is with the long-term behaviour. In the case of the Antarctic ozone hole, there is additional overwhelming evidence that the combination of atmospheric dynamics and the atmospheric chemistry related to CFCs causes the annual decline in ozone each year. Basically we can see that the annual decline is cause by chlorine chemistry and we know that stratospheric chlorine comes principally from CFC which were not present, say, a hundred years ago. The evidence is very well documented in a number of places and I will not repeat it here. The question as to whether conditions in the past could have led to an ozone hole by a completely different mechanism is an interesting one, but it does not affect our confidence in the fact that CFCs are responsible for the current ozone hole.
2. The new laboratory measurement of Cl2O2 by Pope et al has received a great deal of scientific attention internationally over the last year. As discussed by Pope et al., the analysis of the raw laboratory measurements is tricky and has uncertainties associated with it. Four independent laboratory groups are making new measurements of the process with different techniques and I anticipate that the results will be known in the next few months. In the meantime, careful analysis of existing laboratory and field measurements shows that either we are missing an important constituent which behaves like Cl2O2 or the new measurement is in error. Only time will tell which is right.
3. To the best of my knowledge, Qing-Bin Lu was not involved in any way in the Pope et al. study. He/she was certainly not involved as an author and is not mentioned in the acknowledgements. My views on the atmospheric relevance of Qing-Bin Lu’s work (completely different to the Pope et al work) are best described in my comment on his/her Phys Rev Lett paper in 2001 published subsequently in that journal. I have seen nothing in subsequent publications by Dr Lu to change my view that the atmospheric significance of the processes under consideration is small at most. I agree fully with R. Muller’s comment on Dr Lu’s most recent paper.”
Peter, this is a complex subject and it appears the hole is caused by extremely low temperatures in the Stratosphere (ironically) and as such is thought to be only possible at the Antarctic- although no one has proof of this because records are so recent.
As it turns out the ozone hole in 2008 was the second largest on record. Prior to three months ago I would have been 100% certain man was the cause because thats what everyone says-having looked into it and seen there is some debate I would now say I am only 80% certain. I haven’t seen any follow up from Dr Lu on the 2008 event.
TonyB
Frank. Lansner
December 27, 2008 8:45 am
@foinavon
You seem to interpret Joel understand than me. I understand
“However, this all has essentially nothing to do with the prediction of the “hotspot” in the tropical atmosphere. Although greenhouse gases play an important role in the overall radiation budget, the atmosphere mixes heat well enough that the structure of the warming is not determined by where the greenhouse gases happen to absorb additional energy.”
As he writes that the greenhouse gasses are mixed, I get the impression that he means this would not lead to a specific “hot spot”.
But later he does write that he believes in a hot spot.
For you maybe this is all clear, I hope you have the same tolerance for all views.
Joels writing originally was response to my words:
“So to me, we have a CO2-hypothesis on the following ground: 1) It is proven not to work at ground level. 2) Results from real world shows that no warming is seen at high altitudes. 3) IF there had been a measurable effect at high altitudes, any warming transferal to ground level should happen by “heat radiation” emitted by thin -59 degrees cold air. “
You write:
“1. Increased atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations result in increased absorption in the atmosphere of longwave IR emitted from the earths surface. At any particular level in the troposphere, less IR will be emitted to space.”
But… we do agree, that the effect of adding CO2 at ground level, ground pressure, is very very tiny?? If you think that there is an effect of adding CO2 in the atmosphere at ground level, the lower kilometers, could you provide this with documentation?
Angstrom now proven wrong also at ground level?? Realy?
If you cannot support this information we are left a fact, that the CO2-adding effect must reside in the upper layers of the atmosphere only. Just as predicted by IPCC with their “hotspot”.
And this DOES leave my initial point 3) totally unanswered. Im waiting the answer.
My point 2) : For a long time no one could argue that measurements said that the upper atmosphere had indeed only cooled. Then came i believe a version 1,4 of raobcore (if i remember correct) suddenly adjusted so that this dataset unlike UAH and more now shows a mixed story of what happened with temperatures in the upper atmosphere.
So if we only look at data – the newest versions – the picture is mixed.
The difference between you and me then is, that I believe more the not-adjusted data than the adjusted data.
Your whole point is totaly dependent on the adjusted data.
Does it never occur to you that whenever data sets are corrected strongly its always in favour of AGW. You must know that statistically this is not possible. Its not possible to throw a dice allways with the same result. Its just not possible. Does it ever make you hesitate for one second that the data you praise has this severe problem?
Jeff Alberts
December 27, 2008 9:53 am
It does not put into doubt the current consensus that CFCs are responsible for ozone depletion; it does mean that the exact chemical pathway is still only partially understood.
Or how CFCs only affect the poles where they would have the LEASTconcentration.
foinavon
December 27, 2008 4:01 pm
Frank Lansner,
Yes, the basic mechanisms of the greenhouse effect are quite well understood.
i’m not sure what you mean about the troposphere and its temperature measurements. The UAH analysis has had to be corrected repeatedly over the years, but that’s unfortunately just an indication of a long series of errors by it’s practitioners. The fact that they messed up doesn’t mean that the troposphere hasn’t warmed…
Frank. Lansner
December 27, 2008 6:07 pm
@Foinavon
Heres a link: http://discover.itsc.uah.edu/amsutemps/execute.csh?amsutemps
Now check it out for 400 mb (7,5km) 250 mb (11 km), 150 mb(14km), 90 mb (17km) etc.
You will see that temperatures has a falling tendensy indeed. And yes i have seen several of UAH´s adjustments. But compared to typical pro-agw adjustments, they seem to me small and most of all random in their direction.
So i believe that you and Joel should be more nuanced if you are claiming that temperatures at high levels are rising at high altitude. If you claim that the IPCC-hotspot is a reality. Because that version is not on thick ice.
Manfred
December 28, 2008 1:15 pm
Chris V wrote:
It does not put into doubt the current consensus that CFCs are responsible
for ozone depletion; it does mean that the exact chemical pathway is still only
partially understood.
We have to wait and see what will come next.
Your quote implies that there is a mechanism and it is simply not yet fully understood.
A mechanism however has to be fully understood, otherwise it is no valid thesis that can be tested. I don’t know how far developped other mechanism are such as the cosmic ray mechanism but if a cosmic ray mechanism exists, it would currently be the only existing mechanism.
Satellite and previous measurement may show a correlation between CFC and ozone depletion, but correlation may also be random. I think it is even unclear how long the ozone hole has to continue to exist, until the the CFC mechanism is proven or disproven.
Graeme Rodaughan
December 28, 2008 1:35 pm
The conversation on this thread (bar a few examples) assumes that James Hansen is presenting science.
I think that the assumption is wrong – and will remain wrong – until James Hansen is forthcoming with openly and transparently publishing the following.
(1) Raw Temperature Data.
(2) A clear description of the instruments used to gather the raw temperature data, their characteristics, calibrations, and current maintenance activities and maintenance schedules.
(3) All computer programs and data handling algorithms used on the raw data.
(4) A Design Description for the computer programs and data handling algorithms detailing the motivations for the programs and algorithms.
(5) A Design Description for the temperature data archiving, and storage process.
(6) A description and schedule for an independent audit process on the above elements to ensure that they continue to operate as described in the design descriptions.
(7) All of the above kept up to date with the release of each new temperature results by GISS.
Until I can be assured that the data is not being mishandled. How can I trust it.
Also the open and transparent publishing of both data and results are prime characteristics of science. And there absence is indicative that James Hansen is not performing science.
I am happy to be proven wrong – the challenge to the AGW Camp is there.
To the AGW Camp – Please provide working links to the above, or provide a cogent argument that “open and transparent publishing of both data and results are NOT prime characteristics of science”.
Obviously, science that is of military or commercial interest would not be affected by the openness and transparency characteristic.
But we are talking about publically funded science that is meant to be generating a public good.
Graeme Rodaughan
December 28, 2008 1:37 pm
Correction…
“open and transparent publishing of both data and results”
Should read ““open and transparent publishing of both data and Methods“
maksimovich
December 28, 2008 2:22 pm
TonyB
My question;
” Firstly, how do we know that the ozone hole hasn’t always been there
This is a question I also asked and Yes it has.
So obviously we must also have other mechanisms present.
“Lets ask the question what if it has been always there,as evidenced by the biosphere in responding to spring ozone losses!” http://outsidethecube.blogspot.com/2007/09/trouble-with-lichen-this-is-not-age-of.html
Frank. Lansner
December 28, 2008 3:30 pm
@Graeme Rodaughan (13:35:15) :
You are correct. Your list below (perhaps with a little adjustment) should be a demand repeated again again again again again again and again.
It would be so nice if a such “demand” could be posted as a seperate new subject here at WUWT. It should be in a way so that everyone could link to the article when they refuse to use GISS data.
A “puplic demand to glasnost in GISS temperature data”. The list of what should be made puplic right away to restore trust in GISS:
(1) Raw Temperature Data.
(2) A clear description of the instruments used to gather the raw temperature data, their characteristics, calibrations, and current maintenance activities and maintenance schedules.
(3) All computer programs and data handling algorithms used on the raw data.
(4) A Design Description for the computer programs and data handling algorithms detailing the motivations for the programs and algorithms.
(5) A Design Description for the temperature data archiving, and storage process.
(6) A description and schedule for an independent audit process on the above elements to ensure that they continue to operate as described in the design descriptions.
(7) All of the above kept up to date with the release of each new temperature results by GISS.
I hope to see this demand more and more places 🙂 I certainly think this would not be want the GISS would like…. for a good reason. I think it would be the night mare for GISS.
Bill Illis
That was explained already Bill (see [24:12:08 ((08:45:58)]). The radiative forcing is a consequence of both the solar irradiation and the greenhouse gas concentrations. If the greenhouse gas concentrations reach levels previously only realized in the Paleozoic, and the solar constant is some 5% higher now than then, the nett radiative forcing will be much higher now than then. So we expect temperatures to go higher (with very large CO2 concentrations as in the “all coal and tar-shale” we’re discussing here). Of course these are somewhat hypothetical, since we’re very likely not to be so foolish as to engage in a gung-ho oxidation of long-sequestered carbon on such a scale!
Incidentally, of course temperatures were higher than 12-13 oC above current temperatures early in earth’s history…
While the warming to date Log or Ln formulas produce warming levels of 6C to 8C which more closely matches the temperature record – whether you use the Scotese chart or the more-up-to-date higher resolution ones from Wikipedia/global warming art
That’s illogical unfortunately. One can’t properly assess the earth’s climate sensitivity from “the warming to date” as seems to have been pointed out to you on a number of occasions! Of course climate models demonstrate that contemporary warming is consistent with a climate sensitivity (incorporating short term feedbacks) near 3 oC. But one can really only assess the climate sensitivity by analysis of periods where the earth’s temperature response has had “time” to come towards equilibrium with forcings. That’s what Hansen has done, along with many other analyses of cliamte sensitivity.
It would be foolish to attempt to understand these issues with analyses that we know to be incorrect while ignoring/pooh-poohing the science! Stephen Schwartz’s misanalysis of heat capacity effects with arbitrarily determined time constants illustrates the mess one can get into.
Frank Lasner says:
I don’t know how I can explain it more clearly. What exactly is tripping you up?
No…That is not what I am saying. In fact, I am saying pretty much the opposite. The hot spot comes about because of what I said: You don’t get the structure of the temperature in the atmosphere by figuring out where the greenhouse gases absorb the heat (as you would if the atmosphere did not mix the heat around). The structure is instead determined by other things…In the tropical atmosphere it is determined by convection in air that is saturated at or pretty near ground level…and the implications of this is the hot spot because of the physics of moist (saturated) adiabatic lapse rate theory.
I’ve always believed there is a hotspot. It is a robust prediction of the models based on a very basic piece of physics. It is seen to occur for fluctuations on the yearly timescales. The only data that I know of for which there has been difficulty observing it (depending on what analysis of the data you believe) is for the trends over the multidecadal time period, over which there are known issues with the data.
So, my prediction is that once all the “dust has settled” in regards to the observational data, the hotspot will be there. (Although, I have pointed out that if it is not there, it does not really have any direct implications for what the cause of the warming that we have been seeing is; It would of course have implications for how well we understand [and have codified in the climate models] some basic atmospheric processes in the tropics.)
I get the impression that you are understanding very little of what I am saying and are misinterpreting what I say as a result.
For a great example of global warming auguring see:
T. P. Barnett et al. (2005) Penetration of Human-Induced Warming into the World’s Oceans Science 309, 284 – 287.
http://pangea.stanford.edu/research/Oceans/GES205/Barnett_Science_Penetration%20of%20human%20warming%20into%20ocean.pdf
The claim seems to be that heat forms a signal in the oceans analogous to sound or electromagnetic energy.
Not really Hank. “Signal” just means “indicator” or “pattern”. It’s a fairly common designation. e.g.:
Palmer MD et al. (2007) Isolating the signal of ocean global warming. Geophys. Res. Lett. 34, L23610
For those interested in a very thorough deconstruction of the AGW scam by an internationally esteemed scientist, see Dr. Pierre Latour’s “Author’s Reply” [second letter down]: click
Chris V. (16:34:51) :
I can’t find anything about this. Link?
“…experimental data threaten to shatter established theories of ozone chemistry…”
http://www.achgut.com/dadgdx/index.php/dadgd/article/riesen_loch_im_ozonloch_konsensus/
foinavon
I understand what an advection signal is. My question is, what’s the quality of the signal. Probably it amounts to something like this: In the last 40 years there is some probability that there was not cooling but warming; provided temperature fluctuations of longer or shorter time frames have not muddied this signal. In other words it would be as worthwhile as a single tally mark which has been erased and repenciled til you can barely make out what state it’s in.
Re: Mike Bryant (21:16:53)
Does this suggest that a more complete greenhouse, with much more water vapor might actually make the deserts cooler during the day and warmer at night? Might the poles warm and open up areas for habitation? Might the increase of water vapor in the atmosphere lessen the sea level rise? Might any lands lost to sea level rise be replaced by more temperate regions being created? I know this is extremely speculative on my part. But nothing whatsoever is more speculative than catastrophic global warming.
Mike, I’m not sure if I understand your question, but if you are referring to an increase in the average global humidity increasing the overall greenhouse effect (since water vapor is currently the most significant GHG) and raising average global temperatures, then I think some of those things could happen, as they did during the Medieval Warm Period, whatever the cause.
Yes, more land could be rendered habitable. That’s what happened in Iceland during the MWP. There are property records there for farms that existed during the MWP that today are covered by glaciers. There is no farming at all in Iceland today. And Greenland was called that because it was green during the MWP. Trees grew there even, the roots of which can be found in the permafrost today. Yes, I think the increase in habitable land could offset any coastlines that are drowned should the ocean level rise. The net change for individual countries is a different matter.
I don’t think the polar areas would become habitable, though. I don’t think water vapor is a strong enough GHG to accomplish that, among other reasons.
I think the deserts would stay as they are. They are dry because of little to no precipitation and I don’t think an increase in the average global humidity would change that.
In general, warmer is better for humanity overall. Humans have suffered the worst during the coldest periods.
“The claim seems to be that heat forms a signal in the oceans analogous to sound or electromagnetic energy.”
Hmmmmm, that IS a pretty good way to hide I guess. But I think I figured out where the heat is really hiding. On Jennifer Marohasey’s blog Janama asked this:
“So why is the supposed CO2 induced warming only occuring in the NH and in the most unpopulated areas of it? i.e. Russia, Alaska and Canada.”
Now that is a really good question. I propose that the published temperatures in these sparsely populated areas are actually being UNDERestimated by such a large margin that when the data is corrected we will need a really scary new color to paint all these unpopulated areas with. No one anywhere will be able to argue that Global Warming is a big hoax!
I mean, think about it… if you wanted to really hide good isn’t an unpopulated area the best possible place to do it?
http://www.physorg.com/newman/gfx/news/hires/30yrbig.jpg
Manfred (15:42:52) :
Thanks for the link (re new research on ozone breakdown via CFCs).
That lead me to this:
http://www.ncas.ac.uk/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=147&Itemid=9
That’s the full article (partially quoted in your link).
It’s a little bit different than you described it!
Basically, some new lab results conflict with older lab results about the chemical mechanism for CFC breakdown. That means that ozone-depletion models (which are based on the older lab results) will probably have to be revised.
It was not “the first experiment to measure the CFCs impact on the ozone layer”, as you stated.
It does not put into doubt the current consensus that CFCs are responsible for ozone depletion; it does mean that the exact chemical pathway is still only partially understood.
Joseph,
I wonder if the atmosphere is capable of holding enough water vapor to bring practically the entire earth to one temperate climate. Also how much would it take?
@joel Shore, as I said, I did not understand your logic of your core point to begin with, you write:
“Since the air is colder as you go higher in the atmosphere and the intensity of radiation goes as the fourth power of the temperature, this means that the earth is now radiating less energy…”
The air is always colder further up in the atmosphere, so according to your sentence, earth should always radiate less energy. Im sure you don’t think like this, so you leave the reader to guess what your point might be.
MAYBE you accept that temperatures in higher atmospheric layers have been cooling for years? And is now colder then decades ago? And it is this now relative cold air in upper layers that drives the warming? This however is not in compliance with your believe that there is indeed a hotspot up there ?!
But IF my guess above is correct, then you believe that a colder thin outer atmosphere should be able to hold back the energy radiated from earth (by allowing less radiation from earth?). As you say yourself, the radiation changes from very cold thin air is extreeeemely small compared to radiation from much warmer ground level.
Then your phrase: “This means it will warm up until such point that the upper atmosphere has warmed enough that the earth is now radiating as much as it receives”
This suggest that my guess before was maybe correct.
Tell me then: The cooling of the upper layers, that you think drives global warming (?)
– When did it begin? When did it end?
As it is the cooling of upper layers you believe drives global warming (?), now that you say that the upper layers are warming, the pace of global warming is taking of then?
And further as I quoted earlier you write that the atmophere “mixes up” (as explanation for no hotspot) And later you write that you expect a hotspot. Im sorry, but its very very difficult to have good dialog when you have no CLEAR writing to deal with.
Heres you explain NO HOTSPOTS, I believe:
“the atmosphere mixes heat well enough that the structure of the warming is not determined by where the greenhouse gases happen to absorb additional energy.”
So why did IPCC expect a hotspot?? And why do you??
From Chris’ link:
The ozone holes were only discovered little more than two decades ago. Because the ozone layer can only be measured by satellites, historical data simply doesn’t exist. How then do they know that the holes haven’t always existed? How do they know that they aren’t a cyclical phenomenon?
But they have their mechanism, their mechanism just has to explain things, and they aren’t looking for any other mechanism.
A bit like AGW, isn’t it?
Frank Lansner
re your comments:
Frank, It’s not the logic of joels points that you don’t understand. It’s the principles you don’t understand. And you seem to be misrepresenting joel’s rather clear exposition and then complaining about your own misrepresentation.
joel’s “core point” as you put it, has an important preceding sentence and an important following sentence that you left out. Here’s what joel said:
so it’s you that is “leaving the reader to guess what” joel’s “point might be”. Happily we only have to go back and read what joel actually said to understand his point rather well. Here it is again in my words:
1. Increased atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations result in increased absorption in the atmosphere of longwave IR emitted from the earths surface. At any particular level in the troposphere, less IR will be emitted to space.
2. However the LWIR must eventually be dissipated to space. On average it will do so from a higher, and colder altitude where the radiation of energy is less efficient (inverse fourth power dependence on temperature).
3. Therefore there is a radiative imbalance. Less energy is being emitted than is being received by the sun.
4. The Earth and it’s atmosphere therefore tends towards a new thermal equilibrium. All of the layers warm up (including the surface), such that the temperature of the upper regions of the atmosphere where radiation is lost to space is sufficiently warm for radiative equilibrium to be restored.
and you might want to consider how this admonishment….:
…looks in the light of this sort of gibberish:
Frank Lansner:
”
Peter
About three months ago there was some work by a researcher working in America claiming the Ozone hole would be the largest ever in 2008 because of cosmic rays.
That set me wondering about the subject along the lines of your post, that how do we know that the ozone hole hasn’t always existed and may actually be historically low at present?
I contacted both the Max Planck institute and Cambridge University-world leaders in this field and got a reply from one. My question and their reply follows-names deleted for confidentiality
My question;
” Firstly, how do we know that the ozone hole hasn’t always been there and it isn’t actually historically rather small compared to the past? In this respect I would mention I am an (amateur) historian and (amateur) climatologist, and there seems to be an analogy with satellite records of the arctic ice which enables commentators to proclaim 2007 as recording the lowest ice extent since records began. They omit that records only began in 1979- and also omit the numerous well documented records of the melting of the arctic ice through the ages which puts the current episode into historical perspective.
Within that context I discovered the following item on ozone depletion dating from 2007;
“As the world marks 20 years since the introduction of the Montreal Protocol to protect the ozone layer, Nature has learned of experimental data that threaten to shatter established theories of ozone chemistry. If the data are right, scientists will have to rethink their understanding of how ozone holes are formed and how that relates to climate change.
Markus Rex, an atmosphere scientist at the Alfred Wegener Institute of Polar and Marine Research in Potsdam, Germany, did a double-take when he saw new data for the break-down rate of a crucial molecule, dichlorine peroxide (Cl2O2). The rate of photolysis (light-activated splitting) of this molecule reported by chemists at NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, California1, was extremely low in the wavelengths available in the stratosphere – almost an order of magnitude lower than the currently accepted rate.
“This must have far-reaching consequences,” Rex says. “If the measurements are correct we can basically no longer say we understand how ozone holes come into being.” What effect the results have on projections of the speed or extent of ozone depletion remains unclear.
Other groups have yet to confirm the new photolysis rate, but the conundrum is already causing much debate and uncertainty in the ozone research community. “Our understanding of chloride chemistry has really been blown apart,” says John Crowley, an ozone researcher at the Max Planck Institute of Chemistry in Mainz, Germany.
“Until recently everything looked like it fitted nicely,” agrees Neil Harris, an atmosphere scientist who heads the European Ozone Research Coordinating Unit at the University of Cambridge, UK. “Now suddenly it’s like a plank has been pulled out of a bridge.”
‘Checking further back I then find that the scientist concerned in this latest finding, Qing-Bin Lu, had also- whilst at a different University- researched this new ozone hole theory as far back as 2001. I am assuming that the scientist is highly competent or he would not have been given the facilities to research the theory for at least seven years.
The ozone hole, though smaller than 2006, is still very substantial with possibly several more weeks before maximum dependent on the temperature in the stratosphere being conducive. Qing-Bin Lu had forecast this year would be the greatest depletion ever, so whether or not being very close to the record would be considered a success or a failure I can’t comment
Consequently I am asking if your own research has confirmed or denied the theory, or whether you remain undecided on the subject?’
Reply as follows;
“Thank you for your email. Here are some replies to the points you raise.
1 Measurements of ozone over Antarctica started in 1956 from ground stations and show that levels were roughly constant until around 1980. The satellite record started in 1970 and has been continuous since 1979. The two records are entirely consistent with each other and with other measurements such as the vertical distribution of ozone measured by ozonesondes and upper air temperature and wind measurements. The length of geophysical records is an important consideration in their interpretation, and it is always important to see how consistent our understanding (theoretical and related measurements) of the current situation is with the long-term behaviour. In the case of the Antarctic ozone hole, there is additional overwhelming evidence that the combination of atmospheric dynamics and the atmospheric chemistry related to CFCs causes the annual decline in ozone each year. Basically we can see that the annual decline is cause by chlorine chemistry and we know that stratospheric chlorine comes principally from CFC which were not present, say, a hundred years ago. The evidence is very well documented in a number of places and I will not repeat it here. The question as to whether conditions in the past could have led to an ozone hole by a completely different mechanism is an interesting one, but it does not affect our confidence in the fact that CFCs are responsible for the current ozone hole.
2. The new laboratory measurement of Cl2O2 by Pope et al has received a great deal of scientific attention internationally over the last year. As discussed by Pope et al., the analysis of the raw laboratory measurements is tricky and has uncertainties associated with it. Four independent laboratory groups are making new measurements of the process with different techniques and I anticipate that the results will be known in the next few months. In the meantime, careful analysis of existing laboratory and field measurements shows that either we are missing an important constituent which behaves like Cl2O2 or the new measurement is in error. Only time will tell which is right.
3. To the best of my knowledge, Qing-Bin Lu was not involved in any way in the Pope et al. study. He/she was certainly not involved as an author and is not mentioned in the acknowledgements. My views on the atmospheric relevance of Qing-Bin Lu’s work (completely different to the Pope et al work) are best described in my comment on his/her Phys Rev Lett paper in 2001 published subsequently in that journal. I have seen nothing in subsequent publications by Dr Lu to change my view that the atmospheric significance of the processes under consideration is small at most. I agree fully with R. Muller’s comment on Dr Lu’s most recent paper.”
Peter, this is a complex subject and it appears the hole is caused by extremely low temperatures in the Stratosphere (ironically) and as such is thought to be only possible at the Antarctic- although no one has proof of this because records are so recent.
As it turns out the ozone hole in 2008 was the second largest on record. Prior to three months ago I would have been 100% certain man was the cause because thats what everyone says-having looked into it and seen there is some debate I would now say I am only 80% certain. I haven’t seen any follow up from Dr Lu on the 2008 event.
TonyB
@foinavon
You seem to interpret Joel understand than me. I understand
“However, this all has essentially nothing to do with the prediction of the “hotspot” in the tropical atmosphere. Although greenhouse gases play an important role in the overall radiation budget, the atmosphere mixes heat well enough that the structure of the warming is not determined by where the greenhouse gases happen to absorb additional energy.”
As he writes that the greenhouse gasses are mixed, I get the impression that he means this would not lead to a specific “hot spot”.
But later he does write that he believes in a hot spot.
For you maybe this is all clear, I hope you have the same tolerance for all views.
Joels writing originally was response to my words:
“So to me, we have a CO2-hypothesis on the following ground:
1) It is proven not to work at ground level.
2) Results from real world shows that no warming is seen at high altitudes.
3) IF there had been a measurable effect at high altitudes, any warming transferal to ground level should happen by “heat radiation” emitted by thin -59 degrees cold air. “
You write:
“1. Increased atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations result in increased absorption in the atmosphere of longwave IR emitted from the earths surface. At any particular level in the troposphere, less IR will be emitted to space.”
But… we do agree, that the effect of adding CO2 at ground level, ground pressure, is very very tiny?? If you think that there is an effect of adding CO2 in the atmosphere at ground level, the lower kilometers, could you provide this with documentation?
Angstrom now proven wrong also at ground level?? Realy?
If you cannot support this information we are left a fact, that the CO2-adding effect must reside in the upper layers of the atmosphere only. Just as predicted by IPCC with their “hotspot”.
And this DOES leave my initial point 3) totally unanswered. Im waiting the answer.
My point 2) : For a long time no one could argue that measurements said that the upper atmosphere had indeed only cooled. Then came i believe a version 1,4 of raobcore (if i remember correct) suddenly adjusted so that this dataset unlike UAH and more now shows a mixed story of what happened with temperatures in the upper atmosphere.
So if we only look at data – the newest versions – the picture is mixed.
The difference between you and me then is, that I believe more the not-adjusted data than the adjusted data.
Your whole point is totaly dependent on the adjusted data.
Does it never occur to you that whenever data sets are corrected strongly its always in favour of AGW. You must know that statistically this is not possible. Its not possible to throw a dice allways with the same result. Its just not possible. Does it ever make you hesitate for one second that the data you praise has this severe problem?
Or how CFCs only affect the poles where they would have the LEASTconcentration.
Frank Lansner,
Yes, the basic mechanisms of the greenhouse effect are quite well understood.
i’m not sure what you mean about the troposphere and its temperature measurements. The UAH analysis has had to be corrected repeatedly over the years, but that’s unfortunately just an indication of a long series of errors by it’s practitioners. The fact that they messed up doesn’t mean that the troposphere hasn’t warmed…
@Foinavon
Heres a link:
http://discover.itsc.uah.edu/amsutemps/execute.csh?amsutemps
Now check it out for 400 mb (7,5km) 250 mb (11 km), 150 mb(14km), 90 mb (17km) etc.
You will see that temperatures has a falling tendensy indeed. And yes i have seen several of UAH´s adjustments. But compared to typical pro-agw adjustments, they seem to me small and most of all random in their direction.
So i believe that you and Joel should be more nuanced if you are claiming that temperatures at high levels are rising at high altitude. If you claim that the IPCC-hotspot is a reality. Because that version is not on thick ice.
Chris V wrote:
It does not put into doubt the current consensus that CFCs are responsible
for ozone depletion; it does mean that the exact chemical pathway is still only
partially understood.
We have to wait and see what will come next.
Your quote implies that there is a mechanism and it is simply not yet fully understood.
A mechanism however has to be fully understood, otherwise it is no valid thesis that can be tested. I don’t know how far developped other mechanism are such as the cosmic ray mechanism but if a cosmic ray mechanism exists, it would currently be the only existing mechanism.
Satellite and previous measurement may show a correlation between CFC and ozone depletion, but correlation may also be random. I think it is even unclear how long the ozone hole has to continue to exist, until the the CFC mechanism is proven or disproven.
The conversation on this thread (bar a few examples) assumes that James Hansen is presenting science.
I think that the assumption is wrong – and will remain wrong – until James Hansen is forthcoming with openly and transparently publishing the following.
(1) Raw Temperature Data.
(2) A clear description of the instruments used to gather the raw temperature data, their characteristics, calibrations, and current maintenance activities and maintenance schedules.
(3) All computer programs and data handling algorithms used on the raw data.
(4) A Design Description for the computer programs and data handling algorithms detailing the motivations for the programs and algorithms.
(5) A Design Description for the temperature data archiving, and storage process.
(6) A description and schedule for an independent audit process on the above elements to ensure that they continue to operate as described in the design descriptions.
(7) All of the above kept up to date with the release of each new temperature results by GISS.
Until I can be assured that the data is not being mishandled. How can I trust it.
Also the open and transparent publishing of both data and results are prime characteristics of science. And there absence is indicative that James Hansen is not performing science.
I am happy to be proven wrong – the challenge to the AGW Camp is there.
To the AGW Camp – Please provide working links to the above, or provide a cogent argument that “open and transparent publishing of both data and results are NOT prime characteristics of science”.
Obviously, science that is of military or commercial interest would not be affected by the openness and transparency characteristic.
But we are talking about publically funded science that is meant to be generating a public good.
Correction…
“open and transparent publishing of both data and results”
Should read ““open and transparent publishing of both data and Methods“
TonyB
My question;
” Firstly, how do we know that the ozone hole hasn’t always been there
This is a question I also asked and Yes it has.
So obviously we must also have other mechanisms present.
“Lets ask the question what if it has been always there,as evidenced by the biosphere in responding to spring ozone losses!”
http://outsidethecube.blogspot.com/2007/09/trouble-with-lichen-this-is-not-age-of.html
@Graeme Rodaughan (13:35:15) :
You are correct. Your list below (perhaps with a little adjustment) should be a demand repeated again again again again again again and again.
It would be so nice if a such “demand” could be posted as a seperate new subject here at WUWT. It should be in a way so that everyone could link to the article when they refuse to use GISS data.
A “puplic demand to glasnost in GISS temperature data”.
The list of what should be made puplic right away to restore trust in GISS:
(1) Raw Temperature Data.
(2) A clear description of the instruments used to gather the raw temperature data, their characteristics, calibrations, and current maintenance activities and maintenance schedules.
(3) All computer programs and data handling algorithms used on the raw data.
(4) A Design Description for the computer programs and data handling algorithms detailing the motivations for the programs and algorithms.
(5) A Design Description for the temperature data archiving, and storage process.
(6) A description and schedule for an independent audit process on the above elements to ensure that they continue to operate as described in the design descriptions.
(7) All of the above kept up to date with the release of each new temperature results by GISS.
I hope to see this demand more and more places 🙂 I certainly think this would not be want the GISS would like…. for a good reason. I think it would be the night mare for GISS.
Thanks Frank.
Cheers G