Inhofe Exposes Another Epic Fail by Global Warming Alarmists Thursday

Skipfill, Thanks for those corrective details concerning the precise locations of various institutions in the Boston/ Cambridge area. Very helpful to our understanding of science and I am sure that was your intent. FYI, however, I have never needed to go to the UCS headquarters. All the writing I did for them (generally to various newspapers in the US in order to neutralize the effects of people like Senator Inhofe) was done at my home here near Kalispell. All I needed know was where I lived and where my computer was – no offense indended, I am sure your beloved institutions in both Boston and Cambridge are wonderful places. By the way, are you a Bobcat or Grizzly fan? (surely I don’t have to explain which of the two Montana schools I am referring to. Have a nice life, Eric

Entropic man says:
August 4, 2012 at 5:16 pm
Of course it happens in Europe. It is however regarded as rather unsavoury and there have been several scandals in which political parties have accepted money from people who might wish to influence policy.
Senator Inhofe received funding from sources like the Koch brothers with a known anti-cAGW agenda. Were he to behave in Parliament as he does in the Senate, our police would be investigating him on charges of taking bribes to raise a topic in the House. Here that is illegal.
_________________________
Here in the USA we would be arresting our entire government….
That is the reason we can not get any legislation passed to make it illegal. Heck if I recall correctly… AHHhh, Yes here it is:

Supreme Court ends Montana ban on corporate political spending
The ruling squelches a long-shot hope that campaign finance reform advocates had of overturning the 2010 Citizens United decision.
The Supreme Court’s affirmation Monday that corporations may engage in direct political activity squelched campaign finance reform advocates’ long-shot hope of rolling back Citizens United, the 2010 decision that ushered in a new era of unbridled campaign spending.
In a 5-4 decision, the court summarily overturned a century-old Montana state law that banned corporate political expenditures, saying it conflicted with the 1st Amendment speech rights of corporations affirmed in the Citizens United case…..
Now, not only can corporations spend unlimited amounts of money on politics, but the 2012 campaign has been marked by the explosive growth of “super PACs” — independent political committees created by a lower-court decision that followed Citizens United and fueled by wealthy individuals and private companies.
With Monday’s action, the Supreme Court made it clear that any state laws seeking to ban corporate political expenditures are unconstitutional…..

So the USA is now “… that government of the people Corporation, by the people Corporation, for the people Corporation, and shall not about to perish from the earth…. (Corporations want a uniform world and not the hassle created by a bunch of different nations or competition from new corporations hence Agenda 21/Global Governance)

Sir Richardscourtney,
I too am sorry to see that DavyM has left us, but am pleased that you have not yet.
So back to science. I found your answer concerning the Sensitivity of CO2 to be lacking some key experimental and paleoclimate evidence. As you undoubtedly know, theory might guide, but experiments and measurements decide. In the ice core and ocean bottom samples, Mother Nature has left us with Her opinion as to what that correlation between T and CO2 might be. You undoubtedly know what Her answer is, but did not mention it. I will therefore let you expand your answer to include that information, if you wish. On the other hand, if you are not aware of that literature just say so and I will be glad to help out.
Hope I have been polite enough here so that you will also run away now that we finally have the most important scientific question on the table..

Hi Skiphill, I did indeed think that the UCS was associated with somehow with MIT. I’ll have to look back at my old notes to see why I had that impression. Since I am no longer doing those op eds for UCS I will remove all reference to it on my website – so you need not worry about future embarrasments to MIT, as you described.
Please also pardon the irrelevant quiz I gave you concerning our Montana universities. We sometimes indulge in little jokes out here in the sticks just to pass the time – whenever we aren’t misresprenting science on our websites – as you feared. Thanks for your help with the latter.
Eric

After our intrepid chemist gets done with the physics of Lindzen, Milosci and Brown, and then wades through Heinz Hug’s chemistry experiment trying to figure out the answer to my trick question, he might want to look at an in depth statistical analysis:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/02/14/new-paper-on/
After he reads through all that, I’d recommend to him IPCC AR4 WG1 2.2 which explicitly says that they define radiative forcing based on Ramaswamy et al 2001 (also recommended reading) and they state that it is:
“‘the change in net (down minus up) irradiance (solar plus longwave; in W m–2) at the tropopause after allowing for stratospheric temperatures to readjust to radiative equilibrium, but with surface and tropospheric temperatures and state held fixed at the unperturbed values”
Which is in direct opposition to the explanation by our intrepid but somewhat lost chemist from the Union of Concerned Scientists. He might be interested to note that the report goes on to say:
“Surface forcing has quite different properties than RF and should not be used to compare forcing agents ”
Again in opposition to our chemist’s over simplified and misleading explanation of the physics involved. Since he seems to have trouble finding articles when pointed at them (running off and looking for them everywhere except where he was told they were) I’ve provided a link to the relevant section in the IPCC report:
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch2s2-2.html
I would further draw his attention to figure 2.2 which depicts the four most likely changes to temperature profile from earth surface to stratosphere. It is worth noting that of the four methodologies contemplated, three result in no temperature change at surface at all.
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/figure-2-2.html
Still no word on the points I made upthread and which our somewhat lost chemist was directed in response to his direct question to me.

Learning anything yet UCS chemist with a PhD? Are you beginning to see how over simplified and misleading your explanation is? Do you even begin to comprehend the significance of the points I made to you?
Duh. Why am I asking? He’s made up his mind, he’d rather not be confused by facts. His explanation doesn’t even fit the narrative of the IPCC which he espouses as the settled science. Let’s take a look at 2.8.1 where the IPCC states:
“It should be noted that a perturbation to the surface energy budget involves sensible and latent heat fluxes besides solar and longwave irradiance; therefore, it can quantitatively be very different from the RF, which is calculated at the tropopause, and thus is not representative of the energy balance perturbation to the surface-troposphere (climate) system. While the surface forcing adds to the overall description of the total perturbation brought about by an agent, the RF and surface forcing should not be directly compared nor should the surface forcing be considered in isolation for evaluating the climate response (see, e.g., the caveats expressed in Manabe and Wetherald, 1967; Ramanathan, 1981).”
Gee Eric, if your explanation is so accurate, how come the IPCC says otherwise? Here’s the link to make it easy for you to verify:
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch2s2-8.html
I’ve read what you said on your site Mr PhD in Chemistry so I have credentials and you don’t. Your whole premise that “only three factors” determine the energy balance at surface (or heat balance or climate temperature or whatever misnomer you are currently using) seems rather naive, and that’s according to the very people who have the exact credentials you claim are required for their work to be considered. Credentials that you do not have btw.

richardscourtney;
In total, it consists of unsubstantiated innuendos in support of your starting assertion which was;
I found your answer concerning the Sensitivity of CO2 to be lacking some key experimental and paleoclimate evidence.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Sad is it not? Confronted with the actual science, he simply retreats into either argument from authority or argument by assertion. Despite having the explanations, experiments, and even the IPCC reports themselves which dispute his point of view provided to him, he simply keeps repeating himself as if doing so makes it right. He is ultimately no different than Myrhh and Greg House, who, no matter what evidence you provide to them simply respond “that’s not proof, I asked for proof”.
He likely doesn’t know who Myrrh and Greg House are, so he’ll not truly understand the depth of the insult. But the fact of the matter is that despite their complete lack of scienctific education and a belief system so astounding that they eventually got themselves banned for their incessant proclomations, there is little difference between them and Eric Grimsrud PhD.

To All,
This “discussion” of the science of AGW with DavyM and Sir Richardscourtly is clearly now going nowhere. Note that when I agreed to focus on the science behind the most important scientific question on the table – that is what is the temperature Sensitivity to increased levels of CO2 – that both the these self proclaimed experts (resumes please) cried foul and resorted to personal insults. If there is a more important scientific question than the one I asked, I can’t imagine what that would be. While Davey and and Sir Richy will respond to my last sentence by simply saying that I am stupid. I will suggest that they are both rascals who are simply trying to fool the public with their unsubstantiated claims “expertise” (resumes please).
The very clear indicator of this is that they do not seem to realize that Mother Nature has provided Her opinion concerning the Sensitivity of CO2 via the Ice Core Records – which have become the major source of climate information for the period from 800,000 years ago to the present. That record suggests that the sensitivity of CO2 (with all feedbacks) is about 6.5 degrees C for the longer term (several centuries). This number includes both fast and slow feedbacks. Other measurement including those derived from ocean bottom core samples taken prior to about 35 mil years ago when there was no ice on the planet suggest that about half of that total 6.5 degree C is due to fast feedback (operative of a few decades) and half are due to the slow feedback (operative over a few centuries).
Note that Sir Richy has suggested that CO2 Sensitivity is only about 0.3 degrees C !!! and did not even mention the opinion of Mother Nature on this topic !!! Instead, Sir Richy scolded me for asking my simple question. Note also that the lessons learned from what Mother Nature has done in the past are more important and credible than are our theoretic estimates – because the climate is indeed very complex and Mother Nature does a better job than humans in including all of the effects. The information derived from the Ice Record includes all of the variables – even including those that we do not yet well understand.
So why would both Sir Richy and DavyM want to ignore this paleoclimate information? One reason might be that they really are not aware of this central aspect of modern science (resumes please). Another would be that they are hard core deniers of AGW who simply ignore the very direct and obvious clues provided by Mother Nature because they don’t like what She is telling them. I don’t know which of these possibilities is more likely because I have no idea who they are or what their backgrounds and professional ties are (resume please).
Without the benefit of seeing their resumes, I will conclude here with the following statement. Sir Richy and DavyM are in no way critical professional-level scientists and are, in fact, no more than pseudo scientists who pontificate only before the general public and governmental committees, who often have a hard time telling the difference. Their objective is to confuse the public and delay action on climate change. Please note next that if they respond further my additional comments here, I am certain that all we will see are cute little put downs and condescensions – the British are so damn good at that and I do enjoy watching it (those of Winston Churchill are some of my favorites). Nevertheless, so much of it is nothing more that horse emission and both of these guys are full of it
[Moderator’s Note: The tone in this exchange is becoming increasingly petulant and needs to be a bit more restrained. Dr. Grimsrud, I am allowing this comment as it stands because you have been on the receiving end of some not entirely undeserved invective. This comment, however, is rife with ad hominem, assertion and misdirection, which in my dictionary is the definition of “troll”. Richard Courtney is a public figure and you will, from now on, use his name correctly. All participants should raise the level of civility. -REP]

[SNIP: -REP]

I will respond to Eric Grimsrud’s tirade with due care in regard to polite and civil discourse, despite my opinion that he deserves no such treatment.
1. I have brought to Dr Grimsrud’s attention numerous confounding factors regarding the calculation of sensitivity and the fact that the literature by well credentialed authors, including the official position of the IPCC, does not support his position. Instead of engaging on the issues raised, the articles I’ve linked to, and the explanations of the IPCC themselves, he instead continues to complain about credentials and then attempts to turn the conversation to the ice core record. His inability to converse knowledgeably on the very aspects of the science that he claims his credentials give him credibility on is more indiciative of his actual expertise in the matter than the credentials he claims.
2. Resorting to a discussion of the ice core record is a strategic error on Dr Grimsrud’s part, as it further underscores his lack of familiarity with the subject matter. The ice core record is increasingly a thorn in the side of the warmist meme for the simple reason that it shows quite conclusively that CO2 increases follow warming, they do not precede it, suggesting that elevated concentrations of CO2 are a consequence of warming, not a driver of warming. The ice core record further shows periods of massive CO2 concentrations, often in the thousands of ppm at times when insolation and other relevant factors were similar to our current environment, but temperatures were very little elevated over current temperatures. Taking these matters into consideration, the ice core record is one of the major sources of data that undermine the theory that CO2 sensitivity is high.
3. Considerable research has been done on the growth response of the biosphere under various temperature and CO2 concentrations. The research shows that the plant kingdom for the most part (there are exceptions) experiences maximum growth potential at current temps but at CO2 levels several times the current atmospheric concentration. This suggests that plants evolved for the most part in an environment of high levels of CO2, supportive of the levels indicated by the ice core records themselves over the time period when currently common plant life would have been subject to the evolutionary processes in question. In summary, the research indicates that both the ice core record and the biosphere suggest that temperatures similar to today’s but with much higher concentrations of CO2 are the norm. Keep in mind also that photosynthesis shuts down at concentrations below 180 ppm, making background concentrations of 280 ppm dangerously low.
4. Dr Grimsrud quotes a sensitivity of 6.5 degrees C per CO2 doubling. He fails to cite his source, so we are only left to make assumptions as to where he gets this number from. A combined (all feedbacks) equilibrium sensitivity with an upper bound of 6.5 deg C was proposed (if memory serves correctly) in the IPCC TAR (Third Assesment Report) but this was one end of a range and the consensus estimate was for the mid point of the range which was 4.5 deg C. This value was reduced to 3.0 deg C in the FAR (Fourth Assesment Report) and the upcoming Fifth Assesment Report is likely to reduce this number further, most likely in the range of 2.4 to 2.6 degrees. While I and others would personaly dispute this number on a variety of grounds, the ice core record that Dr Grimsrud cites being one of them, what should be clear here is that Dr Grimsrud is citing data that is obsolete by the standards of current climate science which he purports to represent, and quoting the upper bound of a large range is simply alarmist cherry picking.