Open Thread Weekend

I’m offline this weekend with travel and other projects.

Discuss anything with limits of the WUWT site policy. This will remain a “top post” for the weekend. Some auto-scheduled stories will appear below this one. Don’t forget to observe Earth Hour Human Achievement Hour 8:30 PM local time in your time zone.

Advertisements

  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of

Here’s a great carbon sequestration scheme being touted by the ABC (Australian Broadcasting Corporation):
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-03-30/scientists-urge-rethink-on-power-station-sales/3924406
(It’s a video, and I don’t have a transcript, but there are presentations at http://www.dutptyltd.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/DUT-CCSS-AIE-17-10-2011.pdf and http://www.dutptyltd.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/UNSW-CCSS-AIE-17-10-2011.pdf)
Called “Carbon Capture and Solar Sequestration” (CCSS), it involves turning the CO2 emitted by coal-fired power stations into methanol, and bingo! you have stopped all that nasty CO2 being released into the atmosphere, and you have a clean fuel for your transport system.
Sounds too good to be true?
Let’s have a look at it in a,little more detail:
Solar energy is used to split water into hydrogen and oxygen. The hydrogen is then combined with power-station CO2 to form methanol. So the full set of chemical equations is as follows:
2CO2 + 6H2O
=> (split the water) 2CO2 + 6H2 + 3O2
=> (make methanol) 2CH3OH + 2H2O + 3O2
=> (use the methanol as fuel) 2CO2 + 6H2O
So you end up with exactly what you started with. In particular, there cannot have been any net gain in energy and the exact same amount of CO2 still goes into the atmosphere.
What you have actually done is to use solar-generated electricity in a roundabout way to power your transport, instead of using it as electricity. Fair enough if you’re that desperate for transport fuel (they claim that it deals with the Peak Oil problem), but it’s a con if it’s being touted as either an energy source or as carbon sequestration.
The total amount of solar panels needed to process all of Australia’s coal-fired power-station CO2 emissions – as touted – is, um, rather large. At least they admit that the investment required would be “huge”. But hey, it may have a place in a few hundred years’ time, when we have run out of fossil fuels ….. oh dear! then there won’t be any CO2 from power stations to feed into the process.

Brian H

Gaian Goofs Genuflecting Gratuitously. Gah!

globalwarmingmaybe

‘Real Climate’ blog censored this short comment:
Here I compare two climate extremes each about 50 year long:
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/CET1690-1960.htm
Can’t think why.

WordPress has a mind of its own
Globalwarmingmaybe = vukcevic

DirkH

All hail the Pachamama. (guardianfilms, Nov 2011)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=zdvIQWFI6PY

Dr Mo
MangoChutney

@vukcevic
your comment is in the hilariously named “borehole”
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/the-bore-hole/comment-page-16/#comment-232079

Myrrh

http://www.infowars.com/climate-change-skepticism-a-sickness-that-must-be-treated-says-professor/
Global warming alarmist equates climate denial with racism
Paul Joseph Watson
Infowars.com
Friday, March 30, 2012
“Comparing skepticism of man-made global warming to racist beliefs, an Oregon-based professor of sociology and environmental studies has labeled doubts about anthropogenic climate change a “sickness” for which individuals need to be “treated”.
Professor Kari Norgaard, who is currently appearing at the ‘Planet Under Pressure’ conference in London, has presented a paper in which she argues that “cultural resistance” to accepting the premise that humans are responsible for climate change “must be recognized and treated” as an aberrant sociological behavior.”
====================
http://www.infowars.com/un-backed-scientists-call-for-mega-city-population-lockup/
Jurriaan Maessen
Infowars.com
March 29, 2012
“In a recent statement put out by “Planet Under Pressure” several scientists call for denser cities in order to mitigate worldwide population growth. When in doubt that UN’s Agenda 21 is not the Mein Kampf of our day, one should consider yet another in-your-face confession from yet another certified biocratic control freak
According to an MSNBC article one of the scientists while speaking about human populations worldwide, stated:
“We certainly don’t want them strolling about the entire countryside. We want them to save land for nature by living closely [together].”
Insisting the world’s population be locked up within the confounds of mega-cities, the elite realizes that if the herd is to be properly controlled walls are needed- thick walls, and by constructing these walls, making the masses go this or that way will be made easier.. ”
=================
http://www.planetunderpressure2012.net/pdf/pr_27_03_12_options_opportunities.pdf
The conference ran from 26th-29th March 2012
“PRESS RELEASE
Embargo: 09:15 GMT / 10:15 British Summer Time, Tuesday March 27, 2012”
The actual conference was from the 26th.

Rick Bradford

It seems to me that the focus has switched away from the science and much more towards the social engineering aspects of the climate debate.
I don’t see as many papers discussing CO2 levels as I do on exactly which way the link between ‘global warming’ and extreme weather should be marketed to the masses.
The very unscientific but very public Fakegate affair may have strengthened this impression in my mind.

pat

the CAGW party is over, read all:
31 March: Bloomberg: Ewa Krukowska: Carbon ‘Like Titanic’ Sinking on EU Permit Glut
The plunge in European Union carbon permits is putting prices on course for their longest-ever decline and shows no sign of ending as member states wrangle over curbing a glut in the market.
EU allowances for December fell 5.2 percent this year, extending a streak of quarterly losses stretching back to March 2011. Prices may drop a further 50 percent and lawmakers will probably fail to cut supply in the world’s largest emissions market through a so-called set-aside process, according to UBS AG…
“Unless EU governments come up with a surprise decision to strongly support the set-aside or ambitious mid-term emission- reduction targets, I don’t see prices moving up much over the coming months,” Tuomas Rautanen, head of regulatory affairs and consulting at First Climate in Zurich, said by e-mail…
Prices will probably fall to about 3 euros before lawmakers are able to tighten the bloc’s emissions targets, a process that may take “years,” Per Lekander, UBS’s Paris-based global head of utilities research, said in a phone interview yesterday.
“It’s not that I’m skeptical on the set-aside, it’s just not going to happen,” he said. “It’s going to get blocked.” Utilities including RWE AG (RWE), based in Essen, Germany, will probably buy allowances in high volume should prices drop near 3 euros, the analyst said…
“It’s a big challenge to re-design the ETS and make it a system that would reward both energy efficiency and pure emission reductions, but you can’t avoid it,” he said today by phone. “It’s like being on the Titanic and seeing the iceberg in front of you; either you make a U-turn or crash.” …
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-03-30/carbon-like-titanic-sinking-on-eu-permit-glut.html

bair polaire

Back radiation
I have to admit, that I’m still not sure if I really understand how the warming through back radiation from atmospheric CO2 really works. Can someone direct me to a website where they explain this (and don’t come up with cars parked in the sun)?
1. I understand back radiation from the sky does not warm the earth, it just reduces the heat loss: the earth cools slower especially at night.
2. I understand gases absorb and emit at the same wavelengths. The sun is much brighter than the earth at all wavelength even infrared. And the sun has always more than half of the atmospheric CO2 in view. Why then is CO2 not considered to shield the earth more from the suns heat than warming the earth (actually just slowing heat loss) through a little back radiation from a dim source?
3. Most back radiation from the sky is probably due to clouds and water vapor. How sure are we that we can measure the back radiation from increase in CO2?
4. Is there a good everyday life example of reduced heat loss through back radiation?
Thank you very much for your replies!

DirkH

Mike Jonas says:
March 31, 2012 at 12:37 am
“Here’s a great carbon sequestration scheme being touted by the ABC (Australian Broadcasting Corporation):
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-03-30/scientists-urge-rethink-on-power-station-sales/3924406

Very shallow pie-in-the-sky presentation with no numbers.
Last thing I heard is that Carbon Capture technologies consume half of the energy you produce in the coal power plant, so you’d have to burn twice as much coal for one net unit of energy.
Next, they want to run it as a state-run industrial-research conglomerate. So I think I can safely say, it will NEVER make a profit. They’ll make sure.
That being said, one could of course imagine such an electrolysis and storage process to be useful, e.g. for excess wind and solar energy (makes you wonder why you built those wind and solar generators in the first place, but hey, if you are left with them say due to political mistakes in the past, or because they’ve come down in price enough to be irresistible, or you just have absolutely no better use for a piece of land, and not even environmentalists run around on it, you could just as well use it for power generation), so if you happen to have such energy, why not electrolyse water, but that would then be a RATIONAL decision – what the Oz boffins propose in the video is a state run economic disaster.

DR_UK

This poem by commenter Sleepalot (on Bishop Hill) is really worth a look:
http://www.bishop-hill.net/blog/2012/3/31/scaring-the-proles.html

Hexe Froschbein
DirkH

Rick Bradford says:
March 31, 2012 at 1:45 am
“It seems to me that the focus has switched away from the science and much more towards the social engineering aspects of the climate debate.
I don’t see as many papers discussing CO2 levels as I do on exactly which way the link between ‘global warming’ and extreme weather should be marketed to the masses.”
That’s an afterglow of the rush to the CAGW trough. More funding was made available than could be consumed by climate scientists, so millions of ethicists, sociologists, biologists and polsci’s rushed to partake in the feeding frenzy, and they’re still all busy dutifully churning out their BS papers.
Give’em all IgNobels so they feel recognized.

Stacey

‘GLobal Warming is Over Hansen proving right all along”
Arctic sea ice rebounds to closely match the average extent for the satellite record began in 1979. Antarctic sea ice extent continues to increase. Penguins, Polar Bears and Harp Seals Safe.
Despite record increases in CO2 emissions the rebound is spectacular. Professor Mansen said ‘This is exactly the sort of climate change I have been predicting for many years and it is worse than we expected” Sorry I have to leave now visiting time is over! Oops I mean you have to leave”

Came across an article today which shocked me:
Climate-change scepticism must be ‘treated’, says enviro-sociologist
“Scepticism regarding the need for immediate and massive action against carbon emissions is a sickness of societies and individuals which needs to be “treated”, according to an Oregon-based professor of “sociology and environmental studies”. Professor Kari Norgaard compares the struggle against climate scepticism to that against racism and slavery in the US South..”
PR: http://uonews.uoregon.edu/archive/news-release/2012/3/simultaneous-action-needed-break-cultural-inertia-climate-change-respons
I couldn’t find the paper “Climate change and cultural inertia” or any video of the panel.. if anyone knows where it is please post links!
thanks/BillT

Physical analysis shows CO2 is a coolant for the atmosphere
There is a fallacy dominating the way of our thinking in current climate research that radiative gases such as carbon dioxide and water vapour are regarded greenhouse gases that trap heat and warm up the atmosphere. Physics analysis of carbon dioxide, oxygen and nitrogen molecules, however, tells a different story: carbon dioxide is cooler than, gains heat by molecular collision from, and dissipates heat by radiation for nitrogen and oxygen. Indeed, CO2 is a coolant of the atmosphere, and it is nitrogen and oxygen gases that award the Earth a warm liveable near surface atmosphere.
The physical principle behind the analysis lies in the Kirchhoff’s law of 19th century radiation physics, which can be restated in plain English as: an object that absorbs emits and an object that emits absorbs. Absorption and emission are two inseparable equivalent identities of the same physical essence. Carbon dioxide absorbs infrared therefore it emits as well thermal radiation. Nitrogen and oxygen do not absorb, therefore do not emit. CO2 approaches 0 K because of its emission if there is no radiation source; absorption of the thermal radiation from the earth ground surface rises CO2 temperature from -273.15°C to -78°C only. CO2 gains heat by colliding with warmer nitrogen and oxygen to rise its temperature further, which can be measured by spectroscopy.
We will have a better understanding of the physical principle if one notices that a computer case is often designed black. This is because a black surface emits more heat out so the computer will be cooler. On the other hand, an industrial boiler is usually painted silver to reduce thermal emission to reserve heat.
With this alternative interpretation, we have a better explanation of the temperature-altitude profile of the atmosphere; in particular, a better explanation of the existence of the thermosphere where the molecular temperature of residual oxygen gas is well above 100°C ¾ CO2 gas is sorted out in the thermosphere due to its heavier molecular weight.
http://www.jinancaoblog.blogspot.com.au/2011/11/physical-analysis-shows-co2-is-coolant.html

DirkH

bair polaire says:
March 31, 2012 at 1:51 am
“Back radiation
I have to admit, that I’m still not sure if I really understand how the warming through back radiation from atmospheric CO2 really works. Can someone direct me to a website where they explain this (and don’t come up with cars parked in the sun)?”
Roy Spencer, The Box, measuring back radiation
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2010/08/help-back-radiation-has-invaded-my-backyard/
Tom Vonk
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/08/05/co2-heats-the-atmosphere-a-counter-view/
HTH

MangoChutney says: March 31, 2012 at 1:24 am
@vukcevic your comment is in the hilariously named “borehole”
Hi Mango
Common sense and sense of humour are not tolerated under any circumstances.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/CHshow.htm
I see you fared only a bit better
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2012/02/global-temperatures-volcanic-eruptions-and-trees-that-didnt-bark/comment-page-1/#comment-227133

Paul Maynard

Planet Under Pressure Conference/Drought in Southern England/ IPCC SRex
The PUP conference has been running all week in London, yet seems to have attracted very limited coverage in the MSM with none of the usual emotional headlines. Obviously, the 4 day gabfest was a bit dull but even so, this must be a sign. Also Southern England facing a hosepipe ban from next week but no mention of CC even in BBC reporting where the focus is more on the competence of the government and the problems with leeks. Naturally, we have the solution in the Easter holiday where torrential rain must be a are thing.
Lastly, SRex seems to have sunk without trace. No hysterical headlines.
Regards Paul

DirkH

Jinan Cao says:
March 31, 2012 at 3:25 am
“Carbon dioxide absorbs infrared therefore it emits as well thermal radiation. Nitrogen and oxygen do not absorb, therefore do not emit.”
Gases only emit on distinct wavelengths, the same on which they absorb – so they can’t emit random frequencies or a blackbody spectrum. They can only rid themselves off energy via radiative means if they have enough energy to emit a photon on one of their absorption/emission spectral lines.

Kelvin Vaughan

globalwarmingmaybe says:
March 31, 2012 at 12:46 am
‘Real Climate’ blog censored this short comment:
Here I compare two climate extremes each about 50 year long:
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/CET1690-1960.htm
Can’t think why.
Do you have a graph of the CET minimum temperature anomaly.

DirkH;
Don’t you realise that CO2 will emit thermal radiation as long as its temperature is not 0 K?

Bloke down the pub

Verity’s got an interesting post on cloud formation here http://diggingintheclay.wordpress.com/2012/03/31/life-in-the-clouds/

Kelvin Vaughan

bair polaire says:
March 31, 2012 at 1:51 am
Back radiation
Have you seen any proof that the planet is cooling slower at night, because all the CET data I have looked at seems to show that there is no comparable rise in night temperatures?
The minimum seems to vary between 40% and 50% of the maximum with 2010 having the greatest cooling of 40.2%.

Lars P.

bair polaire says:
March 31, 2012 at 1:51 am
“Back radiation
I have to admit, that I’m still not sure if I really understand how the warming through back radiation from atmospheric CO2 really works. ”
bair, to my understanding the main problem that creates the misunderstanding is to take “back radiation” out of context of heat transfer through radiation and trying to compute something based on it. It makes no sense. Back radiation exists in the heat exchange through radiation between the 2 bodies and not separate of it.
A change in a way how one body radiates may change the way how the heat transfer happens, but the heat transfer needs to be recalculated based on the overall heat transfer equation and not based on one factor from within it.
Whereas proper calculation of heat transfer is more difficult a “forcing” approximation can give the modellers a fast and easy answer to tune models and may give right results for small variations but it leads to aberrations for longer time scale, large variations which is what we see.
From what I understand climate models use a parameter to give a certain increase of Watts from radiation between atmosphere and ground for a certain increase of CO2. It is clear that such climate models will automatically forecast warming for increased CO2. If one adds a positive reaction of the system – it is clear what the next forecast will be.
It is interesting to see that models are not corrected based on effective satellite and terrestrial measurements of outgoing/incoming radiation – I never saw such – possibly due to insufficient data and precise measurements.
If you check the measurements of TSI – incoming solar radiation – you will better understand the discussion about calculation errors and variability:
http://www.acrim.com/TSI%20Monitoring.htm
Btw I am not a climate scientist… I am just a person who tries to understand the problems based on the laws of physics, so if somebody has a better knowledge or understanding please correct me would be happy to learn.
I could find very useful information at Daly’s site, I very much liked his scientific approach. See also some additional sites:
http://www.john-daly.com/artifact.htm
http://www.friendsofscience.org/index.php?id=483
http://theinconvenientskeptic.com/2010/12/heat-transfer-and-the-earths-surface/

A great BBC documentary on the largest scientific debate of all time:
http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/earth-the-climate-wars/

Kelvin Vaughan says: March 31, 2012 at 3:47 am
Do you have a graph of the CET minimum temperature anomaly.
Yes , but the CET Max-Min are available only from 1878
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/CETmax-min.htm

Bomber_the_Cat

bair polaire says: March 31, 2012 at 1:51 am asks :
1. I understand back radiation from the sky does not warm the earth, it just reduces the heat loss: the earth cools slower especially at night.
It is best not to get too tied up in semantics. Does wearing a fur coat make you warmer? The heat source that warms the |Earth is the Sun. If that goes out no amount of greenhouse gas will keep it warm. However, the presence of greenhouse gases make the surface of the planet about 33K higher than it would otherwise be.
2. I understand gases absorb and emit at the same wavelengths. The sun is much brighter than the earth at all wavelength even infrared. And the sun has always more than half of the atmospheric CO2 in view. Why then is CO2 not considered to shield the earth more from the suns heat than warming the earth (actually just slowing heat loss) through a little back radiation from a dim source?
You understand wrong. Less than one billionth of the Sun’s power reaches the Earth and by that time the amount of long wave infrared (longer than a wavelength of 4 micron) is negligible compared to the radiation that the Earth emits itself. The Sun’s radiation reaches the surface through an ‘atmospheric window’ and very little of it is blocked by CO2. Compare graph of solar radiation at top of atmosphere to that reaching the surface. Some is taken out be ozone in the upper atmosphere, some by water vapour but very little by CO2 (because the CO2 absorption bands do not coincide with the solar spectrum).
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4c/Solar_Spectrum.png
3. Most back radiation from the sky is probably due to clouds and water vapor. How sure are we that we can measure the back radiation from increase in CO2?
Measurements of back radiation are made by a network of monitoring stations around the globe. When these measurements are made at cold locations on a clear day, which means no water vapour is present because of the arctic conditions, we can see that back radiation is predominantly from the CO2 absorption band around 15 microns.
http://scienceofdoom.files.wordpress.com/2010/04/longwave-downward-radiation-surface-evans.png
4. Is there a good everyday life example of reduced heat loss through back radiation?
Yes, it’s all around you.
The best unbiased website for those who really wish to learn is undoubtedly ‘Science of Doom’. http://scienceofdoom.com/2010/07/17/the-amazing-case-of-back-radiation/
This is a balanced site that tries to avoid complicated mathematics and seeks to address popular misconceptions. The question is – do you really want to learn or would you prefer not to believe?
You see, I think that sceptics should be better informed rather than looking foolish by arguing against that which can be easily proven, as some here choose to do. So, good luck to you.

Open Thread days are good days for everyone to review the top and right navigation bars. Even us longterm denizens can benefit from a refresher.
My favorite link is a bit selfish (but I do use it!). I think the overall favorite is the Sea Ice Reference page.
What’s yours?

Kelvin Vaughan

Paul Maynard says:
March 31, 2012 at 3:44 am
Planet Under Pressure Conference/Drought in Southern England/ IPCC SRex
The PUP conference has been running all week in London, yet seems to have attracted very limited coverage in the MSM with none of the usual emotional headlines. Obviously, the 4 day gabfest was a bit dull but even so, this must be a sign. Also Southern England facing a hosepipe ban from next week but no mention of CC even in BBC reporting where the focus is more on the competence of the government and the problems with leeks.
Whats the problem with leeks? are they withering?

Stephen Skinner

Recent BBC article “Climate change tree test begins”
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-17534587
“European forestry scientists have begun a multi-national field trial to identify trees that will thrive as predicted climate change develops.”
“In Wales, a cleared area of the Crychan Forest about the size of five football pitches is being planted in a carefully mapped grid system. The saplings going into the ground have been imported from the Mediterranean, Eastern Europe, California and beyond.”
I was puzzled as to what will be understood by this experiment as if it will unearth something unknown.
For a small amount of money the researchers could visit most of the 55 botanical gardens in the UK and see how non native trees have been getting on, such a Kew Gardens in London, or teh sub tropical Inverewe Gardens in NW Scotland, started in 1862. Thanks to the Victorians the UK has an enormous range of non native trees and plants. The trouble is it would mean conversing with Botanists and what would they know about climate?
Here is a list of UK botanic gardens (not including other gardens such as Sissinghurst, Scion Park, Stourhead etc.)
Abbey Gardens, Tresco
Abbotsbury Subtropical Gardens
Batsford Arboretum
Bedgebury National Pinetum
Bicton Gardens
Birmingham Botanical Gardens
Bodenham Arboretum
Borde Hill Garden, Haywards Heath
Bristol University Botanic Gardens, Bristol
Calderstones/Harthill estate, Liverpool
Cambridge University Botanic Garden, Cambridge
Chelsea Physic Garden, Chelsea
Derby Arboretum
Eden Project
Exbury Gardens, Exbury
Firs Botanical Grounds Fallowfield
Fletcher Moss Botanical Garden Didsbury
Harcourt Arboretum, Nuneham Courtenay
Harris Garden, University of Reading, Reading
Jodrell Bank Arboretum
Lost Gardens of Heligan
Moor Bank Garden, Newcastle University
Museum Gardens, York
Ness Botanic Gardens
Paignton Botanical Gardens
Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew
Royal Horticultural Society Gardens, Wisley
Sheffield Botanical Gardens, Sheffield
Southport Botanic Gardens
Thenford House Arboretum, Thenford
Thorp Perrow Arboretum, Bedale
Tortworth Court Arboretum
University of Durham Botanic Garden
University of Leicester Botanic Garden, Oadby
University of Oxford Botanic Garden, Oxford
Ventnor Botanic Garden, Ventnor
Wakehurst Place (outstation of Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew)
Wavertree Botanic Park and Gardens, Liverpool
Westonbirt Arboretum, Tetbury
Winkworth Arboretum
Winterbourne Botanic Garden, University of Birmingham
Crarae Gardens, Inveraray
Cruickshank Botanic Garden, Aberdeen
Dawyck Botanic Garden
Dundee Botanic Garden
Glasgow Botanic Gardens
Logan Botanic Garden
Royal Botanic Garden Edinburgh. The main site is in Edinburgh at Inverleith, with three “Regional Gardens”:
St Andrews Botanic Garden
Younger Botanic Garden Benmore
Aberystwyth University Botanic Garden – Penglais
Belfast Botanic Gardens, Belfast
National Botanic Garden of Wales
Treborth Botanic Garden – Bangor University

John West

Welcome to the WUWT Sports channel! For the debut game we have “The Cause” vs. “The Skeptics”:
First inning: Gavin Schmidt is up to bat for “The Cause”.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/12/a-barrier-to-understanding/
Norman Page steps to the mound and blisters one in:
“what year would you reconsider the CO2 – Warming paradigm if the CRU Global annual mean temperature is cooler than 2005 – 2009…?”
Schmidt swings:
“You need a greater than a decade non-trend that is significantly different from projections. [0.2 – 0.3 deg/decade]”
And it’s a miss! A decade +1 of essentially no trend (slight cooling):
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/wti/from:2001/plot/wti/from:2001/trend
Strike 1.
http://www.realclimate.org/?comments_popup=2019Note
Page steps down to give John Henriksen a chance; He gives it all he’s got with this pitch:
“what would FALSIFY [linking CO2 to ‘warming’]?”
Schmidt swings again:
”that the stratosphere is not cooling as expected (this is a cleaner test than the surface temperatures because there are less extraneous factors)”
And it’s a miss! The stratosphere hasn’t been cooling in over a decade:
http://www.acd.ucar.edu/Research/Highlight/stratosphere.shtml
http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/cmb/temp-and-precip/upper-air/uahncdc.ls
http://www.arl.noaa.gov/documents/JournalPDFs/RandelEtal.JGR2009.pdf
Strike 2.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/09/how-much-will-sea-level-rise/comment-page-4/#comments
Richard Wakefield steps up and pitches:
”How many more years of no acceleration [in SLR] will it take to abandon AGW theory?”
Gavin swings:
“AGW is based on the radiative impact of CO2 and other atmospheric constituents – none of those things depend on sea level rise.”
Hit……..Foul Ball. Misdirection doesn’t answer the question. SLR is one of the claimed major impacts of AGW and often presented as evidence for GW. If sea level rise remains constant or drops I find it hard to believe that wouldn’t damage the AGW case among both laymen and impartial scientists considering how many times temperature increase has been connected to sea level rise and the “it’s accelerating” touted as proof it’s anthropogenic. Later in the same thread: “Do you have peer reviewed papers that shows that the cause of B (sea level rise) is because of AGW?” — Wakefield; ”Response: Yes. Domingues et al (2008). – gavin”. So, if SLR is caused by AGW and SLR stops where does that leave AGW? A cause without its signature effect? LOL.
http://www.realclimate.org/?comments_popup=6013
Now, Steve Shaw takes the mound, digs in, and throws a curve ball:
”To clarify what I am wrestling with, whether CO2 warms the planet isn’t the issue. The issue is whether we have enough information yet to say authoritatively that the next 40 years will be more like 1980-2000 than like 2000-2010, in the amount of increase. This is fundamental to determining appropriate public policy. ….. I just need some specific aspects pinned down.”
Schmidt doesn’t swing:
It’s in there, right through the strike zone into the catchers mitt: Obviously, this question is absolutely germane to the “debate”, if we can’t answer “yes”, and explain why in a Willis type elevator speech, then, what the heck is all the hullabaloo about? But instead of commenting with what should be an “easy” answer, this question is relegated to The Bore Hole (#383).
Strike 3; You’re OUT!
Next up at bat its “The Mann” himself and “The Skeptics” are in disagreement over whether they really need to send a picture up to the mound. But we’ve run out of time ….. signing off.

JohnH

I made my first comment on R/C in response to their piece about dishonesty in data reporting. It seemed innocuous enough, but apparently anything other than a chorus of assent gets censored.
>>>>•A good idea is to show a streched plot with longer time axis.
Sorry, but that one’s just laughable. You think that the deniers have stretched the horizontal axis, but the standard presentation of global temperature data routinely expands the vertical axis by a factor of about 100.
I understand why it’s done, and scientists are able to discern the difference between temperature and anomaly, but when you put graphs out for the public that show a massive spike in global temperature, do you think most of them realize that it’s a change of less than 0.5%? Wouldn’t it be more honest to occasionally show an actual temperature graph alongside the presentation of the anomalies?<<<<
I'm a heretic for suggesting that an accurate graph be included in non-science publications that would show the true scale of the temperature anomaly?

Robert of Ottawa

bair polaire asks @ March 31, 2012 at 1:51 am
How sure are we that we can measure the back radiation from increase in CO2?
I would suggest, in a very dry area, such as the North or South pole in winter, when there is no incident solar radiation, you point a radiometer in the 15um wavelength band at the zenith.
Has anyone done this?

Ric Werme says:
March 31, 2012 at 5:12 am
Open Thread days are good days for everyone to review the top and right navigation bars. Even us longterm denizens can benefit from a refresher.
My favorite link is a bit selfish (but I do use it!). I think the overall favorite is the Sea Ice Reference page.
What’s yours?

I really like the new “Transendental rants and far out theories” section. A couple of good site links there. I’m thinking of adding a “lukewarm junkscience” section on the Talkshop. 😉

MangoChutney

@vukcevic March 31, 2012 at 3:43 am

Hi Mango
Common sense and sense of humour are not tolerated under any circumstances.
I see you fared only a bit better

I thought that was a pretty reasonable question, but got a “No, because I’m a genius climate scientologist” type answer from Mann

MangoChutney says: March 31, 2012 at 1:24 am
@vukcevic
your comment is in the hilariously named “borehole”

Thanks for the info, I just looked in there and found lots of my ‘lost’ comments with many of other sensible and to the climate science important contributions. It is good that Gavin & Co. keep that section alive, soon they will need to re-educate themselves and most of other commentators, particularly two regulars Hank Roberts & John P. Reisman (OSS Foundation) continuously yapping from sidelines, I compared them to Statler and Waldorf , the muppit characters .

Kelvin Vaughan

vukcevic says:
March 31, 2012 at 5:07 am
Kelvin Vaughan says: March 31, 2012 at 3:47 am
Do you have a graph of the CET minimum temperature anomaly.
Yes , but the CET Max-Min are available only from 1878
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/CETmax-min.htm
Thanks, thats what I thought it would look like.

DirkH

Jinan Cao says:
March 31, 2012 at 4:11 am
“DirkH;
Don’t you realise that CO2 will emit thermal radiation as long as its temperature is not 0 K?”
Gases don’t emit a continuous blackbody spectrum. Energy received via collisions with neighbouring gas molecules eventually leads to dethermalization and emission of a photon on the absorption/emission frequency lines of that particular kind of gas, not on arbitrary frequencies. That is what I know – if it is wrong, give me a source link.

No, CO2 does not emit a continuous spectrum as a black body does. The absorption bands for CO2 are the 2.7, 4.3 and 15um, with the 15 um one dominantly stronger than the other two. CO2 keeps emission of radiation via the same 2.7, 4.3 and 15um bands as long as its temperature is not 0 K. Employing the Planck’s distribution equation, one can determine how much it emits at any temperature T.

MangoChutney

@vukcevic March 31, 2012 at 6:30 am
LMAO
At least RC keeps the comments, better than SkS, who just delete comments they don’t like
What concerns me most is a comment by “Albatross” who stated he followed my comments at the BBC and WUWT and called SkS his “work”. This is the kind of undertone I experienced in the conversation with Albatross
http://www.skepticalscience.com/tropospheric-hot-spot.htm#67834
notice #6 in response to me jokingly asking if they knew where I live (post deleted) – the response from Albatross begins Mango @6,
I gave up trying to engage SkS in conversation

DirkH says:
March 31, 2012 at 6:38 am
Gases don’t emit a continuous blackbody spectrum. Energy received via collisions with neighbouring gas molecules eventually leads to dethermalization and emission of a photon on the absorption/emission frequency lines of that particular kind of gas, not on arbitrary frequencies. That is what I know – if it is wrong, give me a source link.

Dirk, what do you make of this comment from Ferd?
ferd berple says:
January 9, 2012 at 1:23 am
Willis Eschenbach says:
January 9, 2012 at 12:55 am
ferd, the N2 is the most unlike the others because the line strength is many, many orders of magnitude weaker than that of the others.
Perhaps you misread the reference? From what I see, N2 line strength is 10-28, CO2 is 10-23, which is 5 orders of magnitude. However, N2 has 10 times wider spectrum (600 cm-1 versus 50 cm-1). In addition, there are 4 orders of magnitude more N2 in the atmosphere than CO2. So, on this basis it is hard to see that N2 absorbs/radiates significantly less than CO2.
In contrast to CO2, H2O line strength is 10-19 which if 4 orders of magnitude stronger than CO2. As well it has a much, much wider spectrum than CO2. The absorption strength and spectra of water so overwhelms CO2 as to make it CO2 a joke when you consider the amount of H2O in the atmosphere as compared to CO2.

bair polaire

DirkH says:
March 31, 2012 at 3:41 am
Roy Spencer, The Box, measuring back radiation
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2010/08/help-back-radiation-has-invaded-my-backyard/
Roy Spencer observes that his isolated aluminum plate got warmer just before sunrise and assumes the reason was middle level clouds coming over. His plate warmed from 73 F to 76F and he believes the clouds were just 50F. If this is right, than I was mistaken: A colder body can heat a warmer body – not just slow down the heat loss.
This effect should have been scientifically proven a long time ago. Did I miss something?

Brian H

pat;
Yeah, there’s no saving ETS schemes. They are flawed and rotten at the root. Let’s start with the presumption that “allowances” are the governments’ property to allocate or sell …
All will suffer the fate of CCX. Only crooks like Gore will walk away with cash in hand.

Brian H

@John West;
Clever and pertinent! But you got right to the last para–and erred, as so often happens:
“Next up at bat its “The Mann” himself and “The Skeptics” are in disagreement over whether they really need to send a picture up to the mound. But we’ve run out of time ….. signing off.”
What good would an image on the mound do? Not that AGW isn’t pure illusion …

Brian H

@John West;
Actually, 2 errors: “up at bat its “The Mann” …”
That would be “it’s”, as in “it is”.
;p

DirkH

tallbloke says:
March 31, 2012 at 6:57 am
“Dirk, what do you make of this comment from Ferd?”
Yes, the N2 lines are spread over a much wider part of the spectrum, and they are much weaker. The argument that there is far more N2 and that this compensates for the lost order of magnitudes is interesting, I didn’t think of that. But the absorption spectrum of N2 looks like a comb of needle peaks separated by quite a distance… the area under the absorption spectrum is what counts and looks much lower than for CO2 or H2O… I still think N2 is very weak. Has to do with the possible vibrational modes of a 3-atom molecule I think, they kinda allow for “detuning” and smearing of the lines into a continuous spectrum – for absorption as well as for emission… in the cold stratosphere, this smearing is reduced and the absorption spectrum becomes needle-like for CO2 and H20 as well. The temperature of the molecule plays a role.

Andrew Judd

Tallbloke, Tyndall found that oxygen and nitrogen were like a vacuum to absorption.
By the way, I saw your sugestion that I write a humorous post about my experiences with Wiki. I will see what I can do.

Lars P.

bair polaire says:
March 31, 2012 at 1:51 am
“Why then is CO2 not considered to shield the earth more from the suns heat than warming the earth (actually just slowing heat loss) through a little back radiation from a dim source?”
Maybe because the 15um range where CO2 radiates is the radiation of a -75°C body?