I’m a little burned out after nearly two weeks of covering Climategate 2.0, plus my children are demanding that I put up Christmas lights on the house. So, I’m taking the rest of the day off though may do an update late tonight when I do my regular late night forecast updates for radio stations.
In the meantime…
Talk quietly amongst yourselves about anything that we normally cover here. Don’t make me come back here.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Re the HOC video above, here’s the Part 2 link:
Brian H says:
December 5, 2011 at 2:55 pm
Robert Clemenzi;
Actually, that 5,000 ppm is an Earth-equivalent pressure comparison. The ppm re Mars’ own atmosphere is very close to 1,000,000 since virtually the entire atmosphere is CO2.
Good catch. Based on a nasa Mars factsheet
953,200 ppm * 6.36 mb/1014 mb = 5,979 ppm on Earth
However, I am still not sure how this disproves back radiation.
..However putting up some Christmas lights will surely be harder than dealing with FOIA posts…
Need to have joints in good condition 🙂
And we have only one Gleissberg Cycle to move around..
Delingpole responds to Mann.
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100121659/climategate-2-0-junk-science-101-with-michael-mann/
Open Thread Weekend, 60-second gedanken.
@ur momisugly Dirk H – “Hayhoe has her own consultancy. She produces GHG computer fantasies if paid.”
All models point to Hayhoe charging a fee of 30 pieces of silver.
Dirk H:
You cite: “Experiment by Dr. Roy Spencer:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2010/08/help-back-radiation-has-invaded-my-backyard/
Sorry, fella but I don’t doubt “downradiation,” so your ref. is neither “here or there.” The FACT is that there is NO empirical evidence that the down-radiation has any effect on temperatures. Sorry. All the empirical evidence shows that the quantity of greenhouse gases is not linked to temperature. Compare Pheonix and Atlanta (same latitude and elevation), for example (Atlanta has 3X the amount of GHGs, but is cooler in summer).
More important, maybe, is that the OCO levels keep going up every year, but the temperatures keep going down for the last 10-15 years.
So, WTF, Dirk?
Dirk: here is the database for your comparison: http://rredc.nrel.gov/solar/old_data/nsrdb/1961-1990/redbook/sum2/state.html
jae says:
I don’t doubt “downradiation,” … The FACT is that there is NO empirical evidence that the down-radiation has any effect on temperatures.
If you plot lapse rates over a period of time, you can see the effect. It is pretty obvious. (I suggest looking at Antarctica.) Proving that doubling CO2 does something, well that is another issue.
The temperature at the tropics is typically around 30degC and well below what it’s equilibrium temp should be giving the level of incoming radiation. In desert areas it can get to 50C and the hottest temperature is in the location of least GHGs. Based on this can I assume that GHGs actually cool the atmosphere? I’ve worked in many deserts where there wasn’t much difference between clear sky day time and night time temperatures. Given that the level of GHGs is very low both day and night how does this happen?
martin mason says:
December 6, 2011 at 1:52 am
The temperature at the tropics is typically around 30degC and well below what it’s equilibrium temp should be giving the level of incoming radiation. In desert areas it can get to 50C and the hottest temperature is in the location of least GHGs. Based on this can I assume that GHGs actually cool the atmosphere? I’ve worked in many deserts where there wasn’t much difference between clear sky day time and night time temperatures. Given that the level of GHGs is very low both day and night how does this happen?
Storage heating. The sand absorbs heat by day and slowly disipates it through the night.
Why does the NSIDC use a 1979-2000 baseline average for Arctic Sea ice. I thought 30 years made climate? The have the data now, don’t they? I read something recently about states updating their climate norms with the most recent three decades? Why doesn’t the NSIDC do the same?
MrC
I’d like to reach Mr. Watts with the message that his editorial policy results in the exclusive publication of articles that overlook what is, in fact, the major shortcoming of IPCC climatology. This is that the IPCC’s argument for AGM is berift of the ideas of: 1) a statistical event and 2) an observed statistical event. The argument presented by IPCC Working Group I in its 2007 report references no observed statistical events with the the consequence that this argument is non-falsifiable, thus lying outside science. I’d be happy to provide details.