While I was looking into Chris Landsea’s recent activities, I came across a new essay that is a pleasant change of pace from the Climategate Emails.
While it is definitely an opinion piece, and a wonderful example of how to disagree without being disagreeable, it’s also a great resource for our current understanding of hurricane hazards and activity over time. More than that – Landsea has some interesting attempts at adjusting the historical record to account for our increasing ability to spot hurricanes, even those that earn the title for less than a day.
Landsea agrees that the Earth has warmed over the last several decades, that greenhouse gases are to blame in some part, but acknowledges the sensitivity is not known. Excerpts follow, but I strongly recommend reading the full essay and images at http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/Landsea/gw_hurricanes/:
Global Warming is Real
As a preamble, I definitely agree that global warming has occurred (around a degree F [or half degree C] in the last several decades at the earth’s surface).
Also there is substantial evidence – in my view – that mankind has caused a significant portion of this warming through greenhouse gas emissions such as carbon dioxide and methane. I do not know whether the human contribution toward the warming is relatively small (~a quarter) or large (~two-thirds), but do agree that there is quite a bit of evidence that mankind is altering the global climate and will continue to do so in the future.
… Thus there remains a large range of the amount of global warming to be expected in the future due to manmade changes in my view.) What does, then, a 1°F (0.5°C) ocean temperature change today and a potential 4-6°F (2-3°C) warming by the end of the 21st Century mean for hurricanes?
All climate models predict that for every degree of warming at the ocean that the air temperature aloft will warm around twice as much. This is important because if global warming only affected the earth’s surface, then there would be much more energy available for hurricanes to tap into. But, instead, warming the upper atmosphere more than the surface along with some additional moisture near the ocean means that the energy available for hurricanes to access increases by just a slight amount. Moreover, the vertical wind shear is also supposed to increase, making it more difficult (not easier) for hurricanes to form and intensify.
The bottom line is that nearly all of the theoretical and computer modeling work suggest that hurricanes may be slightly stronger (by a few percent) by the end of the 21st Century, even presuming that a large global warming will occur.
The climate models are also coming into agreement that the number of tropical storms and hurricanes will not go up and may perhaps even decrease (by around one-fourth fewer) because of the increased vertical wind shear.
… what does global warming imply for hurricane activity today? The ~1°F (~0.5°C) ocean temperature warming has likely made hurricanes stronger today by about 1%. Thus even for a Saffir-Simpson Hurricane Wind Scale Category 5 hurricane – like Hurricane Katrina over the Gulf of Mexico – the increase in hurricane winds are on the order of 1-2 mph (2-3 kph) today.
What Does the Observed Increase in Hurricane Damages Imply?
This section is hard to excerpt and has been covered well on WUWT. Landsea notes that hurricane damage depends on population density, per capita wealth, and coastal development. He notes that the Great Miami Hurricane of 1926 which cost $100 million in actual 1926 dollars would would normalize to about $165 BILLION today if it hit the same stretch of coast with today’s population and infrastructure.
Has There Been a Doubling in the Number of Tropical Storms and Hurricanes?
This starts with a couple studies that reached similar conclusions. “Overall, there appears to have been a substantial 100-year trend leading to related increases of over 0.78°C [~1.5°F] in SST and over 100% in tropical cyclone and hurricane numbers. It is concluded that the overall trend in SSTs, and tropical cyclone and hurricane numbers is substantially influenced by greenhouse warming.”
How Have the Ways We Measure Tropical Storms and Hurricanes Improved?
After comparing what’s available today to meteorologists to what was available a century ago, Landsea talks about the ongoing effort to reanalyze the hurricane database. While he says “I am fortunate to assist with,” I think he spearheaded the effort after years of working with William Gray on Colorado State University’s efforts to come up with seasonal predictions. The shortcomings with the historical record were a significant nuisance.
He considers the “lost hurricanes” of the Eastern Atlantic where storms can form and never come close to land and also the modern phenomenon he calls “shorties,” those annoying, count-wrecking short-lived tropical storms that modern tools can show meet the criterion for a day or so. From 12 shorties in the first 44 years of the 20th Century to four or so per year in the last decade, much credit must go to “new instruments such as the Advanced Microwave Sounding Unit (AMSU) and scatterometers from low-earth orbiting satellites, new methods for interpreting geostationary satellite imagery such as the Advanced Dvorak Technique, new observation techniques such as the Stepped Frequency Microwave Radiometer aboard the Hurricane Hunter aircraft and more oceanic moored buoys providing continuous measurements, and new diagnostic methods such as the Cyclone Phase Space analysis all have contributed – in my opinion – toward increased numbers of weak, short-lived tropical storms.”
Landsea offers graphs starting with unadjusted numbers (seven storms per year on average in the late 1800s to twelve now) to numbers after shorties are removed, and then including an estimate of storms that would have been missed in the past. The trend flattens out with new values nine to eight.
The remaining data still shows a variation in storm activity that Landsea, like Bill Gray before him, ascribes to the 60 year cycle of the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO). We entered a warm AMO phase in 1995 which coincided with the current period of high storm activity.
How May Hurricane Activity Change in the Future?
Landsea concludes the changes we can expect with significant warming are not major (the largest being a ~25% decrease in numbers of storms, offset by a ~3% increase in intensity – damagewise, I suspect that might be a wash).
He concludes with:
Knowing, however, when the cold phase of the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation will occur – and a distinct drop in major hurricane numbers – is unknown, but likely within the next decade or two. Is global warming a concern? Yes. We’re conducting an uncontrolled experiment where we really don’t completely know what the consequences will be. I’ve been particularly shocked about the drastic changes going on in the Arctic, with the huge ice cover loss in the summertime that may very well be related to manmade global warming. The biggest immediate worry I have is with the huge population increases of vulnerable coastal communities both in Florida, elsewhere in the U.S., and to our neighbors in the Caribbean. Such jumps in coastal residents are causing massive damage increases and, unfortunately, large losses of life such as the 10,000 deaths in Honduras and Nicaragua from 1998’s Hurricane Mitch and the 1200 people that drowned from Katrina in Mississippi and Louisiana. The confluence of more people and infrastructure with the current busy period for Atlantic hurricanes has me quite concerned today. But – in my opinion – the overall impact of global warming on hurricanes is currently negligible and likely to remain quite tiny even a century from now.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Richard111 says:
December 2, 2011 at 10:52 pm
“Greenhouse” gases help to reduce incoming sunlight energy and are thus overall COOLING AGENTS for the Earth’s surface.
Much more than that. They’ve missed out the Water Cycle altogether, (why we have all these silly radiation/backradiation arguments and no convection heat transfer). The Earth with our atmosphere of mainly nitrogen and oxygen, but without water, would be 67°C, not the 15°C it is.
There is a convoluted sleight of hand going on here produced from the AGW science fiction department. All they have done is keep repeating that “greenhouse gases warm the Earth” and when pushed say without them the Earth would be -18°C – but, that is the figure given for the Earth without any atmosphere at all, in other words the ‘warming’ from that is actually including oxygen and nitrogen as greenhouse gases.
And as George E. Smith pointed out here: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/11/28/senior-ncar-scientist-admits-quantifying-climate-sensitivity-from-real-world-data-cannot-even-be-done-using-present-day-data/#comment-813072 they actually then attribute the whole of the 33°C rise from -18 to +15 °C – to carbon dioxide.
This is convoluted because they have done several strange things within the telling of their story. It’s not easy to disentangle. It certainly requires someone with better skills than I have to put this into simple descriptions to separate out the science fiction deliberately manufactured confusion and real world physics, and the varieties of explanations given to perpetuate the meme that ‘greenhouse gases warm the Earth’.
Some still do this even while including water vapour as a greenhouse gas, like Ira here: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/11/13/slipping-some-past-the-goalie-at-rc/#comment-802016
What Ira has done is claim the -18%deg;C is the temp of the Earth with nitrogen and oxygen, but that is the figure without them.
Even here, where we do get the temps including the Water Cycle, he has to bring in the bloody meme again, that ‘greenhouse gases keep the Earth heat close to the Earth’, regardless that he is describing an atmosphere of nitrogen and oxygen without water vapour!
It’s that meme we have to get rid of, the rest, I think, will then fall into place. Greenhouse gases do not warm the Earth, they cool it, as you’ve said.
Without the main greenhouse gas water vapour the Earth would be 52%deg;C hotter!
What possible difference does a piddling amount of CO2 make against that immense power of water vapour?
Of course it doesn’t, and it’s obvious it doesn’t when the actual real world role of water vapour is included. That’s why they have to exclude it, to exaggerate the role of carbon dioxide, and push the idiotic backradiation..
Including the Water Cycle, all pure rain is carbonic acid, because carbon dioxide and water vapour spontaneously combine in the atmosphere to form this. Carbon dioxide therefore rises with heat and with water vapour combines and cools and comes down in the rain with it, and in fog and dew and so on.
This is a dynamic system, not the static one dimensional fictional world of ‘radiated energy whether thermal or not creating heat’.
Greenhouse gases cool the Earth. That is the only meme worth repeating to cut through this fictional science.
An inconvenient fact from logic: a false theory may have true consequences but a true theory cannot have false consequences.
Bomber_the_Cat says:
December 3, 2011 at 3:04 am
And there you have a quandry. At what atmospheric concentration of CO2 in ppm is it absorbing 100%? Was it doing so at 300 ppm? (That’s a heck of a lot of CO2 when you consider the thickness of the atmosphere.) I believe it was absorbing 100%. So the question is: Can you get greater than 100% absorption? No, that’s obviously impossible. So if 300 ppm CO2 absorbs 100% of outgoing radiation, what difference will increasing the atmospheric level of CO2 to 400 ppm make?
None.
Richard111 says:
December 3, 2011 at 5:31 am
Great article, Richard, and the reason none of “The Team” are recognized physicists, astronomers, and astrophysicists–or else they wouldn’t continue to perpetrate this CAGW boondogle.
Sorry, there should be a close italics after: And as George E. Smith pointed out here: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/11/28/senior-ncar-scientist-admits-quantifying-climate-sensitivity-from-real-world-data-cannot-even-be-done-using-present-day-data/#comment-813072 they actually then attribute the whole of the 33°C rise from -18 to +15 °C – to carbon dioxide.
Again and again we find a 60-year cycle in the climate system.
To know more about this cycle and its likely astronomical origin see my recent papers
N. Scafetta, “Empirical evidence for a celestial origin of the climate oscillations and its implications”. Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics 72, 951–970 (2010), doi:10.1016/j.jastp.2010.04.015
http://www.fel.duke.edu/~scafetta/pdf/scafetta-JSTP2.pdf
N. Scafetta, “A shared frequency set between the historical mid-latitude aurora records and the global surface temperature” Journal of Atmospheric
and Solar-Terrestrial Physics, DOI: 10.1016/j.jastp.2011.10.013.
http://www.fel.duke.edu/~scafetta/pdf/Scafetta-auroras.pdf
C. Loehle and N. Scafetta, “Climate Change Attribution Using Empirical Decomposition of Climatic Data,” The Open Atmospheric Science Journal, 5, 74-86 (2011).
http://www.benthamscience.com/open/toascj/articles/V005/74TOASCJ.htm
A. Mazzarella and N. Scafetta, “Evidences for a quasi 60-year North Atlantic Oscillation since 1700 and its meaning for global climate change,” Theor. Appl. Climatol., DOI 10.1007/s00704-011-0499-4 (2011).
http://www.fel.duke.edu/~scafetta/pdf/Mazzarella-%20Scafetta-60-yr.pdf
You may also be intereted in these two recent comments I wrote on Roger Pielke Sr. Web-site:
http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2011/11/22/response-from-nicala-scafetta-on-his-new-paper-on-astronomical-oscillations-and-climate-oscillations/
http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2011/12/01/brief-response-to-dr-gerhard-kramms-by-nicola-scaffeta/
“Greenhouse gases cool the Earth. That is the only meme worth repeating to cut through this fictional science.”
In fact I think they stimulate the cooling effect of a faster/larger water cycle to mostly or completely offset the warming effect of GHGs.
At its most simple, GHGs retain energy in the system a fraction longer but the system response via the water cycle is to speed up the energy loss by just about the same amount for a zero net effect.
I went into this in some detail here:
http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=4245 from October 2009
RockyRoad says:
December 3, 2011 at 6:14 am
If 300 ppm absorbs 100% of the outgoing radiation, wouldn’t a concentration of 400 ppm provide for additional absorption (buffering?) capacity? What about 500 ppm?
IT IS NOT CO2: In the name of CO2, many are making Millions of $$$S. The Climate War will be won by those who have Oceans & Seas Analysis.
I was furtunate to work in a place from 1981 to 1997 as a Heavy Duty Desalination Operator & got some study meterials from Glaxco University’s Desalination Engineering. From 1995 onwards, International Desalination Association ( IDA ) World Congresses on Water & Environmental Protection published my papers. Abu Dhabi Water & Electricity Department did not like my writings & instructed to withdrawal of PAPER at 1997 IDA, Madrid, SPAIN World Congress.As I objected, I was finished from the job. Due to uncertainties I did not work in that feiled since then & continued my studies, Research & Developments with the supports of my UAE friends.
I had submitted a 45 pages paper to 2009 Dubrovenik Conference& did not published it as I did not presented ” Mushrooming of Desalination Systems in the M.E. & Environmental Desasters Around the World”. During September 2009, with a two page letters through e-mails challenged Environmental, Climate & Global Warming Scientists, but non of them replied.
Now I am publishing a book in USA ” Environmental Rapes & H.R. Abuses Lead to Climate Change Control” ( Full color- 500 pages). IT WILL SOLVE GLOBAL WARMING.
He lost me the first three paragraphs in…. no confidence in the rest (not that I have any confidence in any of the science around global warming of any form).
Richard111 says:
December 3, 2011 at 5:31 am
On dear, you can lead a horse to water but you can’t make it drink.
You refer to an article by Mr. Postma, which doesn’t say anything at all about absorption at 2.7 or 4.2 micron. so I suppose you couldn’t understand it or didn’t bother to read it yourself (Good Move).
Unfortunately, probably in common with other physicists, I find Mr. Postma’s meanderings impossible to follow too. If ever I learn anything from the likes of Mr. Postma you will be the first to know (don’t bother to leave your contact details – it won’t be necessary).
RockyRoad says:
December 3, 2011 at 6:14 am
CO2 absorbs radiation in a specific region, nominally in the wavelength band between 14 and 16 micron,
Does it absorb all radiation in this region? Well, it absorbs most of it. Would increasing the amount of CO2 cause it to absorb more? Yes, but the effect of CO2 is logarithmic, that is one of diminishing returns. Let me try to explain it like this….
Imagine painting a window in order to block out the light. The first coat of paint will block out most of the light, but still some will get through. So you add a second coat of paint. This blocks out most of the remaining light. But you can still tell if it is light or dark outside.
The first coat of paint had a big effect. The 2nd coat had some effect but each successive coat has less and less and less effect. This is the same with CO2 blocking infrared. Most of the warming you are going to get from CO2 in the atmosphere we already get. Adding more now will have only a marginal effect (all other things being equal).
The existing greenhouse gases keep the world about 33 deg.C warmer than it would otherwise be, and thus make our world habitable.
There are formulae to calculate how much extra heating would be produced by increasing CO2 concentrations. For a doubling of CO2 this would be about one degree (this is called ‘climate sensitivity’). Note that this is not in itself catastrophic, probably beneficial, but it does assume that nothing else changes, i.e . there is no positive feedback.
The trouble is gentleman, that there are some opinions which challenge the established science of the past century, the science which has made our modern world what it is. Some of this obviously appeals to the scientifically illiterate, no doubt its target. But I believe that regurgitating this nonsense only does damage to the sceptic argument.Don’t lend yourself to this.
@JoeB
Wow!! That pretty much sums it up for me.
“”Babsy says:
December 3, 2011 at 6:46 am
RockyRoad says:
December 3, 2011 at 6:14 am
If 300 ppm absorbs 100% of the outgoing radiation, wouldn’t a concentration of 400 ppm provide for additional absorption (buffering?) capacity? What about 500 ppm?””
Where do people get the idea that CO2 absorbs ALL upwelling radiation? IT DOESN’T!
If the surface is radiating at 400 watts per square metre the CO2 in the atmosphere above can only absorb some 2% of that energy in the 15 micron band. The total range of the upwelling radiation covers from about 3 to 50 microns and above.
Most of that radiation absorbed in the 15 micron band warms the atmosphere. Half of whats left might re-radiate and reach the surface but the intensity is so low it will have no effect.
Increasing the amount of CO2 does not change the amount of energy absorbed. The line broadening warmists talk about can only be seen in laboratory experiments where CO2 is heated to over 1,000C, a most unlikely temperature on the Earth’s surface.
Have a look at this link for more detailed discussion:
http://www.globalwarmingskeptics.info/forums/thread-249-post-10462.html#pid10462
Increasing the amount of CO2 does not change the amount of energy absorbed.
Excuse me? Oh, I get it! There are only so many photons for the CO2 molecules to absorb at a given wavelength. Silly me!
That is true if you measure at the SURFACE. If you measure from a satellite outside the atmosphere I believe you get a different story. The reason there is no such overlap at the surface is that the atmosphere blocks those wavelengths from the sun. The sun DOES radiate in those wavelengths it’s just that the atmosphere blocks radiation in either direction, from the sun or from the surface. So CO2 doesn’t care from which direction the radiation comes, it just blocks it. So it is as effective at blocking the radiation from the sun as it is in blocking it from the Earth. CO2 (and H20) absorption of IR isn’t directional.
But (and please say so if I am incorrect) it is my understanding that the atmosphere is already opaque at the CO2 bands of absorption anyway so adding some more isn’t likely to change that opacity.
You can’t measure at the surface and tell what “incoming solar radiation” looks like. You have to measure that from outside the atmosphere.
I do not know whether the human contribution toward the warming is relatively small (~a quarter) or large (~two-thirds),
I can help Chris out with some simple logic here.
If the natural variation has canceled out warming from co2 in the C21st
Then the positive phase of that natural variation must have been responsible for half the late C20th warming, disregarding other factors.
Therefore, since at least half the co2 increase is natural anyway, the human contribution can’t be more than a quarter, or about 0.1C.
I’m not commenting on this paper – I haven’t read it.
I’m commenting on Chris Landsea.
I did some independent work on the subject of hurricane frequency and severity a few years ago.
In the course of my work, whcih included considerable background reading, I concluded that papers by Chris Landsea were logical, well-researched and worthwhile.
Lansea also showed great courage by resigning from IPCC4. Here is his letter of resignation:
http://www.climatechangefacts.info/ClimateChangeDocuments/LandseaResignationLetterFromIPCC.htm
I no longer read anything by Trenberth et al.
crosspatch says:
December 3, 2011 at 9:18 am
“If you measure from a satellite outside the atmosphere I believe you get a different story”
The graph I showed before was a theoretical plot of the blackbody radiation from the Sun,
http://scienceofdoom.files.wordpress.com/2009/11/blackbody_curve-sun-earth.jpg You can see that there no ‘absorption’ gaps in it.
If you compare that with actual measurements outside the atmosphere, it is a close approximation .see following graph for measured values.
http://scienceofdoom.files.wordpress.com/2010/05/solar-radiation-incropera-2007.png
This graph shows (dotted line) the theoretical radiation from a blackbody at 5800K ( the effective temperature of the Sun surface). The solid line (marked extraterrestrial) closely following the blackbody curve is the actual measured insolation at the top of the atmosphere (TOA) as measured by satellites. A very good fit, so I think you will agree that measuring outside the atmosphere gives more or less the same story. The solid line inside this is the insolation measured at the Earth’s surface, showing depressions due to absorption by various atmospheric gases.
In either case, note that the incoming solar radiation falls to almost zero at 3 micron, so there is no significant overlap with outgoing long wave radiation from the Earth, which peaks at around 10 microns.. Although the curve seems to hit zero at 3 microns, it is actually continues to decrease to infinity (i.e it’s asymptotic) so Richard111 is technically correct when he says “The sun radiates all frequencies”.
——————
“But (and please say so if I am incorrect) it is my understanding that the atmosphere is already opaque at the CO2 bands of absorption anyway so adding some more isn’t likely to change that opacity. ”
Yep,,,you probably missed my answer above at 7:38.
If you want a fuller answer, I would recommend …..
http://scienceofdoom.com/2010/06/01/the-sun-and-max-planck-agree/
Moderator, please replace my previous post with this one, which has been spell-checked.
Apologies and thanks.
I’m not commenting on this paper – I haven’t read it.
I’m commenting on Chris Landsea.
I did some independent work on the subject of hurricane frequency and severity a few years ago.
In the course of my work, which included considerable background reading, I concluded that papers by Chris Landsea were logical, well-researched and worthwhile.
Landsea also showed great courage by resigning from IPCC4. Here is his letter of resignation:
http://www.climatechangefacts.info/ClimateChangeDocuments/LandseaResignationLetterFromIPCC.htm
I no longer read anything by Trenberth et al.
Bomber_the_Cat says:
December 3, 2011 at 7:38 am
“The trouble is gentleman, that there are some opinions which challenge the established science of the past century, the science which has made our modern world what it is. Some of this obviously appeals to the scientifically illiterate, no doubt its target. But I believe that regurgitating this nonsense only does damage to the sceptic argument.Don’t lend yourself to this.”
Appeal to authority; trust us, we are scientists. We wouldn’t lie to you, never ever.
The trouble is, Bomber_the_Cat, we HAVE been lied to and can prove it.
“”Bomber_the_Cat says:
December 3, 2011 at 7:38 am
Richard111 says:
December 3, 2011 at 5:31 am
On dear, you can lead a horse to water but you can’t make it drink.
You refer to an article by Mr. Postma, which doesn’t say anything at all about absorption at 2.7 or 4.2 micron. so I suppose you couldn’t understand it or didn’t bother to read it yourself (Good Move).””
Quite right. He does not mention 2.7 or 4.2 micron. It was reading the chapter “The Realistic Terrestrial System Model” on page 34 that made me realise radiation from the sun reaching the top of the atmosphere providing a solar flux of 1370W/m^2 at 394K or +121C must also contain ALL BANDS of radiation at the same proportion which originated from the sun at some 5778K of blackbody radiation. Thus CO2 in the atmosphere MUST be absorbing at 2.7 and 4.2 and 15 microns and consequently shielding shielding the earth below from most of the energy in those bands. I say again, carbon dioxide in the atmosphere provides MORE cooling than warming.
We all know the surface radiates upwards at about +15C. CO2 is most effective when the sun is shining.
This is entirely my thinking. Mr Postma enlightened my thinking. I have a printed copy of his paper at my side as I type. I use it as a reference. It has some excellent basic physics on the atmosphere.
May I suggest you think before you cast aspersions.
Juraj V. says: December 3, 2011 at 2:59 am
Term “global warming” is a nonsense by itself. Most of the warming occurred in NH, almost nothing in tropics and South Pole is even slightly cooling in the last decades. Sure, if we mix all regions together, then warming in NH prevails and overrides neutral tropics and cooling South, but it does not mean that the warming is global. It is not.
Yes, this is an important point that few are aware of.
Give me data.
Ask and you shall receive:
RSS Northern Polar Temperature Lower Troposphere (TLT) Brightness Temperature Anomaly;
ftp://ftp.ssmi.com/msu/graphics/tlt/plots/rss_ts_channel_tlt_northern%20polar_land_and_sea_v03_3.png
shows a .339 K/C per decade increase, whereas the The RSS Southern Polar Temperature Lower Troposphere (TLT) Brightness Temperature Anomaly;
ftp://ftp.ssmi.com/msu/graphics/tlt/plots/rss_ts_channel_tlt_southern%20polar_land_and_sea_v03_3.png
shows a .006 K/C per decade decrease. I am not aware of a compelling explanation for this significant divergence in temperature trends between the poles.
“”Bomber_the_Cat says:
December 3, 2011 at 10:35 am
http://scienceofdoom.files.wordpress.com/2009/11/blackbody_curve-sun-earth.jpg “”
Please note the graph indicated above is scaled DOWN by a factor of 10^-6 for the sun graph.
Assume the vertical scale is in centimetres, multiply by 1,000,000 and you get 83,000,000 centimetres, that is 83 kilometres. A rather large sheet of paper is needed to show both graphs on the same scale. So the level of radiation at 3 micron is most certainly NOT approaching zero.
Re: my post about the sun graph above: since when, for any blackbody temperature increase, does the longwave energy level REDUCE?
Radiation at 10 microns from a 5,000K source has to exceed the 10 micron radiation from a 300K source.
Some people here really need to review their understanding of basic physics.
My Landsea,
Please do us the courtesy of responding to the questions that have been put to you regarding your article. Perhaps you find it too embarrassing trying to back up your alarmist statements ?
We all know there is no evidence whatsoever for man caused global warming, don’t we ?
[REPLY: While I sent a note to Dr. Landsea Friday PM to thank him for the essay and let him know I would be writing this, I was away today and didn’t follow up to say it was done. I don’t know if he has enough free time to spend it here.]
crosspatch says:
December 2, 2011 at 10:00 pm
Does anyone else think it odd that nature caused the warming of the MWP, nature caused the cooling into the LIA, but humans caused the warming out of the LIA?
///////////////////////////////////////
Nature caused the warming out of the LIA,
It has been warming since before the 1800s and manmade CO2 emissions were not responsible for that warming. This largely seems to be side stepped by ‘the Team’ on the basis that their models cannot explain the warming that occurred post 1940s without using CO2 even though the rate of warming as from 1940 onwards is no greater than the warming between 1910 to 1945!!!