Matt Ridley: A Lukewarmer's Ten Tests

What it would take to persuade me that current climate policy makes sense

Guest post by Matt Ridley

Matt Ridley

Matt Ridley (Photo credit: thinkingdigital)

I have written about climate change and energy policy for more than 25 years. I have come to the conclusion that current energy and climate policy is probably more dangerous, both economically and ecologically, than climate change itself. This is not the same as arguing that climate has not changed or that mankind is not partly responsible. That the climate has changed because of man-made carbon dioxide I fully accept. What I do not accept is that the change is or will be damaging, or that current policy would prevent it.

For the benefit of supporters of climate change policy who feel frustrated by the reluctance of people like me to accept their assurances, here is what they would need to do to change my mind.

1. I need persuading that the urban heat island effect has been fully purged from the surface temperature record. Satellites are showing less warming than the surface thermometers, and there is evidence that local warming of growing cities, and poor siting of thermometers, is still contaminating the global record. I also need to be convinced that the adjustments made by those who compile the global temperature records are justified. Since 2008 alone, NASA has added about 0.1C of warming to the trend by unexplained “adjustments” to old records. It is not reassuring that one of the main surface temperature records is produced by an extremist prepared to get himself arrested (James Hansen).

2. Despite these two contaminating factors, the temperature trend remains modest: not much more than 0.1 C per decade since 1979. So I would need persuading that water vapour will amplify CO2’s effect threefold in the future but has not done so yet. This is what the models assume despite evidence that clouds formed from water vapour are more likely to moderate than amplify any warming.

3. Nor am I convinced that sulphate aerosols and ocean heat uptake can explain the gap between model predictions and actual observations over the last 34 years. Both are now well understood and provide insufficient excuse for such an underperformance. Negative cloud feedback, leading to total feedbacks being modest, is the more plausible explanation.

4. The one trend that has been worse than expected – Arctic sea ice – is plausibly explained by black carbon (soot), not carbon dioxide. Soot from dirty diesel engines and coal-fired power stations is now reckoned to be a far greater factor in climate change than before; it is a short-lived pollutant, easily dealt with by local rather than global action. So you would need to persuade me that this finding, by explaining some recent climate change, does not further reduce the likely sensitivity of the atmosphere to carbon dioxide. Certainly, it “buys time”.

5. Even the Met Office admits that the failure of the models to predict the temperature standstill of the last 16 years is evidence that natural factors can match man-made ones. We now know there is nothing unprecedented about the level and rate of change of temperature today compared with Medieval, Roman, Holocene Optimum and other post-glacial periods, when carbon dioxide levels did not change significantly, but temperatures did. I would need persuading that natural factors cannot continue to match man-made ones.

6. Given that we know that the warming so far has increased global vegetation cover, increased precipitation, lengthened growing seasons, cause minimal ecological change and had no impact on extreme weather events, I need persuading that future warming will be fast enough and large enough to do net harm rather than net good. Unless water-vapour-supercharged, the models suggest a high probability of temperatures changing less than 2C, which almost everybody agrees will do net good.

7. Nor is it clear that ecosystems and people will fail to adapt, for there is clear evidence that adaptation has already vastly reduced damage from the existing climate – there has been a 98% reduction in the probability of death from drought, flood or storm since the 1920s, for example, and malaria retreated rapidly even as the temperature rose during the twentieth century.

8. So I cannot see why this relatively poor generation should bear the cost of damage that will not become apparent until the time of a far richer future generation, any more than people in 1900 should have borne sacrifices to make people today slightly richer. Or why today’s poor should subsidise, through their electricity bills, today’s rich who receive

subsidies for wind farms, which produce less than 0.5% of the country’s energy.

9. Indeed I will need persuading that dashing to renewables can cut emissions rather than make them worse; this is by no means certain given that the increased use of bioenergy, such as wood or corn ethanol, driven by climate policies, is indeed making them worse.11 Meanwhile shale gas use in the USA has led to a far greater cut in emissions than

any other technology, yet it is opposed every step of the way by climate alarmists.

10. Finally, you might make the argument that even a very small probability of a very large and dangerous change in the climate justifies drastic action. But I would reply that a very small probability of a very large and dangerous effect from the adoption of large-scale

renewable energy, reduced economic growth through carbon taxes or geo-engineering also justifies extreme caution. Pascal’s wager cuts both ways.

At the moment, it seems highly likely that the cure is worse than disease.

We are taking chemotherapy for a cold.

Full paper with graphs and references here

Advertisements

  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
Luther Wu

Well done, Sir.

oldseadog

So come on, where are the answers?
I’m not holding my breath, ‘cos I don’t think there are any rational ones.

Gary

i’m also going to need persuading that the climate activists don’t have too much influence, that politicians aren’t responding primarily to sociological factors, and that scientists have recovered objectivity. Policy certainly should reflect many influencing factors, but these should be separable and not cross-contaminated.

Stephen Brown

Basically, sir, you are asking the proponents of the CAGW meme either to put up or shut up, just as most here have been asking for some time.
The output of ‘climate models’ is not evidence, no rational explanation for the adulteration or expunging of existing temperature measurements has ever been forthcoming from those corrupting previously valid data and the proliferation of blatant untruths about “extreme weather events” being related to a global warming which has not occurred for the last sixteen years continues apace.

john robertson

Nice summary, #4 I wonder if the ice melt has a connection to the ENSO sending a pulse of warm water north and south at the end of each El Nino.
The time is certainly right for a summary of the cause, thank you Matt Ridley.

tadchem

The “98% reduction in the probability of death from drought, flood or storm” and the ‘retreat’ of malaria and other communicable diseases are more the result of the increased availability of food, transportation, medicines, and pesticides resulting from abundant energy and the cumulative effects of scientific research, but that argument is more useful in the fight against energy rescidivism and the ‘Stone Age’ goals of the environmentalists.

jim Steele

Matt Ridley says The one trend that has been worse than expected – Arctic sea ice – is plausibly explained by black carbon (soot), not carbon dioxide.
I would suggest that it is the intrusion of warm Atlantic and Pacific waters that have fostered the the rapid melting of Arctic sea. In the Antarctic sea ice has grown more than predicted. There the Antarctic Circumpolar Current prevents direct intrusions of warmer water and sea ice extends ~uniformly beyond the Antarctic Circle. The Antarctic ice is mostly thinner annual ice and the summer melt back is far greater than the Arctic, yet still the sea ice is expanding.
In contrast, even when the Hudson Bay or Bering Sea are frozen despite lying south of the Arctic Circle, deep inside the Arctic Circle the warm water from the Atlantic causes the Barents Sea to be largely open water. Moorings have shown that there has been an increased volume in warm water from the Atlantic entering the Arctic. Likewise during the 2007 melt there was more warm water entering from the Pacific. Because Atlantic water is so salty despite being much warmer it sinks below the surface of the Arctic water . The Pacific water is also warmer but less salty. Those subsurface waters have enough heat to melt all the Arctic ice several times over if brought to the surface.
Several studies have shown the Icelandic Low and Aleutian Low modulate how much warm water enters the Arctic. Furthermore studies have shown it was cold winds, not warmth from above that removed layers of thick multiyear Arctic ice. With the loss of insulating sea ice, the winds and ocean surface were reconnected and that allowed greater mixing of warmer subsurface waters causing ice to melt from below. Studies in the Bering Strait showed that even when the flow of intruding warm water slowed and cooled, surface temperatures in the Arctic Ocean near the Beaifort Sea continued to warm due to this mixing.
Climate models have failed to corrcetly simulate the oscillations that drive these warm water intrusions. Thus the same models that predicted the Antarctic ice should be melting from above, also failed to predict how rapidly the Arctic ice could melt from below.

Stephen Skinner

Reasonable questions like these require reasonable answers. Surely, modern science is based on reason so this set of questions could not be considered ánti-science’? In fact from my humble position the vast body of knowledge that is science are answers to searching questions. The answers are not always complete and continue evolving as the ability to improve the questions continues.
The most disappointing aspect of discussions on “Global Warming””is the attempt to stop the questions and the tawdry attempts to align such questioning with one of the worst episode of human history.
And what about Ocean PH ”neutralisation”?

Manfred

“That the climate has changed because of man-made carbon dioxide I fully accept.”
From a well published individual of such prodigious ability, and given the following ‘Lukewarmer’s Ten Tests’ it appears very off-beat to make this statement without quantification or reference to indisputable empirical findings. Beyond any very small theoretical inconsequential warming, this statement maintains the devastating socioeconomic hypothesis of causation over quite harmless association.
A ‘Lukewarmer’ indeed.

Kev-in-Uk

@Matt Ridley
I fail to see how, via this set of perfectly valid arguments – you can remain a Lukewarmer!
On the one hand you say you accept that man made CC is happening (or rather, has happened, because it isn’t at the moment?) and then raise the perfectly valid point that natural climate variation at least matches that supposed anthropogenic ‘signal’. In reality, the natural variation is probably many times larger than any possible anthropogenic signal (especially if you take UHI and duff station data out of the equation – as you say satellites do not show the warming!) – For heavans ssake if we have a natural climate variation from the MWP, etc, of similar or greater rate changes than today – which real scientist would conclude (without apparent doubt, a la the IPCC and alarmist camp) that it MUST be anthropgenically caused.
Your arguments are far more skeptical (of the mainstream consensus) than perhaps you realise!

Auto

Well done that man.
Pretty much encapsulates my stance – global warming exists, about part of the time [so does global cooling, and global not much change here – move along. Both for about a part of the time.]; we have an effect – UHIs most obviously, but soot and other factors, too; and I have read nothing to prove that human effects dwarf, or even approach, those of Nature [galactic, solar, terrestrial, and smaller scales].
But this is much better informed and much more elegantly written than I could hope to do.
Much appreciated.
Auto

MattS

“and malaria retreated rapidly even as the temperature rose during the twentieth century.”
Malaria is NOT a tropical disease and there is no reason to think that warming would have any affect on it’s spread. The worst outbreak of malaria in the 20thC happened in Siberia. And it happened before any significant human contribution to warming. Alaska has also had severe outbreaks.
The range of malaria today is largely defined by the areas that hadn’t run DDT based eradication programs prior to DDT being banned.

Bruce Cobb

“That the climate has changed because of man-made carbon dioxide I fully accept.”
It’s an article of faith, then. No evidence required.

Mike Smith

Thank you for an interesting and thoughtful article. However, I feel it won’t have a lot of impact.
It would be more powerful if it focused on the projected costs of current policy and the likely benefits which we know are miniscule at best. More so if it then compared those costs/benefits to those associated with alternative policy scenarios (e.g. improving water and air quality, increasing food production, reducing disease).
Folks need to understand that CO2 is the most expensive red herring in the history of mankind.

Phil Ford

Thanks, Mr Ridley, for a clear, easy-to-understand piece. Thanks to all the regular technical writers here, infact. As a non-scientist, but as someone is who is nevertheless interested in the subject of CAGW and all the competing arguments, I appreciate it.

rgbatduke

Sounds pretty reasonable to me, and is very similar to my own basis for skepticism. I would add that a synthesis of all of these questions constitutes yet another point independent of the points themselves standing alone. In total, they suggest that we are remarkably ignorant about the correct solution to a highly complex problem, with new discoveries (such as the black soot discovery) arising with some regularity, each of them a potential game changer, usually (given flat temperatures) in the direction of less warming and cause for alarm, not more.
The really funny thing is that temperatures have been flat across pretty much the entire post-Mann era, after the 1997-1998 Super-ENSO event. That is, across the entire functional lifetime of the IPCC. Every additional year without warming now is a further embarrassment to the entire institution of science (and further constrains likely climate sensitivity). So far, there is little reason to expect that temperatures are going to spike up in 2013 to rejoin a “catastrophic” curve somewhere. If anything, the degeneration of a weak (effectively skipped) El Nino into an incipient triple La Nina suggests further stagnation of global temperatures if not actual reduction. Our ignorance and ability to explain or predict this sort of thing is profound.
rgb

pat

28 Jan: Bloomberg: Adam Ewing: Norway Data Shows Earth’s Global Warming Less Severe Than Feared
After the planet’s average surface temperature rose through the 1990s, the increase has almost leveled off at the level of 2000, while ocean water temperature has also stabilized, the Research Council of Norway said in a statement on its website. After applying data from the past decade, the results showed temperatures may rise 1.9 degrees Celsius if Co2 levels double by 2050, below the 3 degrees predicted by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
“The Earth’s mean temperature rose sharply during the 1990s,” said Terje Berntsen, a professor at the University of Oslo who worked on the study. “This may have caused us to overestimate climate sensitivity.”…
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-01-27/norway-data-shows-earth-s-global-warming-less-severe-than-feared.html

Jimbo

That the climate has changed because of man-made carbon dioxide I fully accept.

The climate would change irrespective of man’s co2.

We need more lukewarmers like Matt, it give our side of this argument better PR.
Because if we’re losing the argument, it because of PR, not science.

Jeff Condon

Well done Matt.

Matt Ridley

There are actually ten points in my list, if you click through to the actual paper. It’s a pity it got cut off at 7 : Anthony might like to update it by adding in the rest of the piece. That would answer one or two queries here.
Thanks for the comments. I don’t (yet!) question the greenhouse properties of CO2, because I convinced myself a few years ago that the physics is sound, but of course I’ll retain an open mind.
Matt

Matt I’ll be happy to, but I didn’t want to kill interest in the full paper by showing the whole essay.
-Anthony

Items 8-10 added per Mr. Ridley’s suggestion.

Latitude

That the climate has changed because of man-made carbon dioxide I fully accept.
===========
it has increased 0.01% of total
….what percent of that can you attribute only to man
and do you really think the weather is that sensitive

Jimbo

Our ignorance and ability to explain or predict this sort of thing is profound.
rgb

Amen to that. The problem is climate scientists absolutely need to hide their doubts and put up a united front against sharp shooting sceptics. Oh, and to keep the funds rolling in.

Annie

Matt sums up the reasons for scepticism pretty well. These cause me to be a sceptic rather than a lukewarmer. He has written clearly and well I though and what he says is a good addition to the discussion that should be taking place.

Annie

Surplus ‘I’ in last sentence of my comment…sorry.
I like the last comment made by Matt.

jim Steele

Matt Ridley writes Thanks for the comments. I don’t (yet!) question the greenhouse properties of CO2, because I convinced myself a few years ago that the physics is sound, but of course I’ll retain an open mind.
I agree that the physics are sound. CO2 can slow the escape of infrared. The debate is how much does Co2 effect the climate. There are numerous “warming holes” such as the southeastern United States that argue other factors are far more important. LIkewise the flattened warming and the increasingly colder winters.

jim Steele

BTW, I loved your books Genome, Red Queen, and Nature via Nurture. I used the latter to teach supplement my biology classes.

I am pretty far to the left progressive side yet I find myself agreeing with these points.
I am actually fairly convinced that drastic action to limit greenhouse gases is not a good policy agenda even for the left, although it will be very hard to convince many of them of that. The biggest issue to me is that increasingly future greenhouse gases will come from the underdeveloped world so to achieve significant reduction would actually hamper the ability the underdeveloped world to adapt to any future effects of warning.
http://broadspeculations.com/2012/08/26/climate-of-change/

Alan Bates

You have summarised how I feel about climate change. The only difference between us is that you put it much better and more succinctly that I could!
Thank you.

GlynnMhor

Beautifully and concisely written.

More Soylent Green!

8. So I cannot see why this relatively poor generation should bear the cost of damage that will not become apparent until the time of a far richer future generation, any more than people in 1900 should have borne sacrifices to make people today slightly richer. Or why today’s poor should subsidise, through their electricity bills, today’s rich who receive
subsidies for wind farms, which produce less than 0.5% of the country’s energy.

Given today’s political climate, there’s a good chance future generations won’t be wealthier, particularly if the green extremists get their way.

TestEleven

Then there is also a complete failure to follow even basic forecasting science:
http://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/4361/1/MPRA_paper_4361.pdf
PS: Pg 5 is especially interesting.

sailboarder

Matt Ridley says:
January 28, 2013 at 12:42 pm
“I don’t (yet!) question the greenhouse properties of CO2, because I convinced myself a few years ago that the physics is sound, but of course I’ll retain an open mind.”
Willis did a fine job of showing empirically that the earth has a natural cooling mechanism. That told me that the so called 1.2 C theoretical warming might end up being only 0.3 C or so. Thus it is not the physics, it is the dynamic earth that counts.
Maybe in 20 years our models might get it right.
Overall though, the empirical data shows us that the sun and our orbits drive climate.

RockyRoad

Great post, Mr. Ridley. For our edification, can you offer a 2-3 sentence definition of the term “Lukewarmer” as it applies to you?
Thanks.

Resourceguy

Duh! But then again the debate has ended and second guesses do not matter at this point. You are on the train or you are not. The truth, model errors, and cost concerns were left at the station a long time ago. Get right with the climate gods or be labeled by the high priests for stoning.

Greg House

Matt Ridley says, January 28, 2013 at 12:42 pm: “I don’t (yet!) question the greenhouse properties of CO2, because I convinced myself a few years ago that the physics is sound, but of course I’ll retain an open mind.”
=========================================================
Matt, I am pleasantly surprised! To retain an open mind is very unusual for “lukewarmers”, from my experience.
To avoid derailing this thread I’d like to direct you to my comments on the issue on the parallel thread “Yet another study shows lower climate sensitivity”, starting with this one: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/01/25/yet-another-study-shows-lower-climate-sensitivity/#comment-1209163 .

Matt Ridley says The one trend that has been worse than expected – Arctic sea ice – is plausibly explained by black carbon (soot), not carbon dioxide.
##########
huh? there is no such explanation. There is a hypothesis that it may contribute, but anybody who has a look at the changes in circulation over the 30 years will see that circulation plays a role.
And anybody who looks at SST understands that it plays and role. And yes, soot plays a role.
And yes, winds play a role. But there is no evidence whatsover that the decline is fully and completely explained by soot. That’s as nuts as saying the full decline is fully explained by C02.And, nobody argues that there is a direct connection betweeen c02 and ice melt. C02 is ONE forcing. It plays a role in causing a warmer planet. A warmer planet plays role in having less ice in the NP.
Or i could just ask matt how more soot means more ice in the south pole

Julian Flood

My Lord,
It is not enough to simply accept the warmers’ case for CO2. It may be that the undoubted simple physics of the greenhouse effect is overwhelmed by water vapour variation, stochastic wanderings, other forcings. The only way to find out what is going on is to look for strange happenings, things which do not fit the narrative, and then explain them. Excessive warming is as damaging for the theory of CO2 AGW as no warming at all.
Tom Wigley understood this as he frantically massaged away at the WWII sea temperatures, with Folland and Parker inventing bucket corrections to smooth over the unconvincing narrative. Even so, Wigley was still enough of of a scientist to ask ‘why the blip?’
See http://bobtisdale.blogspot.co.uk/2008/12/nighttime-marine-air-temperature.html Fig. 2 as an illustration of the the thing that did not fit. Perhaps I can ask you the same question: why the blip?
Arctic warming is much faster than the theory predicts. Why? Black carbon will be some of the answer, but I distrust it because it is another of the patches and plasters applied by climate science to fill the gaps. Consider this; enough light oil comes down the Siberian rivers to equal an Exxon Valdez every four weeks. I have been unable to quantify the North Slope pollution levels. I mention this in passing, you understand.
Then see:
Hughes S.L., N.P. Holliday, J. Kennedy, D.I. Berry, E.C. Kent, T. Sherwin, S. Dye, M. Inall, T. Shammon, and T. Smyth (2010) Temperature (Air and Sea) in MCCIP Annual Report Card 2010-11, MCCIP Science Review,
Fig 1.
What’s going on there? Why the blip just off the Rhine?
I can give you an overarching theory which explains all these observations. Got screw? I got hammer.
[sigh]
JF
Rave, froth etc….

Gary Pearse

rgbatduke says:
January 28, 2013 at 12:15 pm
“The really funny thing is that temperatures have been flat across pretty much the entire post-Mann era, after the 1997-1998 Super-ENSO event. That is, across the entire functional lifetime of the IPCC.”
And more rgb: the 16 years pretty much equals the time it spent warming (since 1979?). Also, as Matt points out, we have extremist activists looking after and fiddling with the temperatures. It took them 15 years and three adjustments since 1987 to push July 1934 out of the picture as a record warm temp for the US and, in that decade, apparently for much of the rest of the world.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/01/23/a-question-for-zeke-hausfather/
I would say this fact, should whittle you and Matt Ridley’s reckoning down a bit below luke (slightly tepid?) warmer. Have we heated the world, probably a little bit, but if it takes dollops of positive feedbacks to make the CO2 affect responsible for +0.4C since 1950, and more and more we seem to be getting studies that indicate the earth responds to warming with negative feedbacks – a thing that makes sense with all that water changing phases.

wikeroy

Manfred says:
January 28, 2013 at 11:43 am
“A ‘Lukewarmer’ indeed.”
I don’t think Matt is anymore a “lukewarmer”, than that “Best” Professor ever was a “Sceptic”. It is just a saying in order to get more acceptance in the “other camp”.
When that is said, it was a very good essay in my camp.
Hehe.
So keep on the good job, M. Ridley! Although I don’t think logical reasoning wil help much, as long as one “believe” that CO2 will induce warming from water vapour. And disregard the positive and negative feedback effects from clouds.

Gary Pearse

Oops my last ‘sentence’ isn’t complete but I think the missing conclusion is obvious.

Ian H

Very well put

Ron

Methinks Mr. Ridley wants to broker the conversation, much as an arbitrator works in labor disputes, or a mediator in a marriage. Very sly. We on the correct side of this never ending dispute *may* have fewer numbers and far FAR less money for promotion/propaganda, but we also have observational data gleaned from Nature herself, and empiricism. May as well argue with a thermometer. Matt, you are outed. We know you are not an innocent ‘lukewarmer’, but THEY don’t .. nudge nudge wink wink. I’ll say no more. Let’s see if anyone wants to accept your challenge(s), especially right here on WUWT.

Mike Bentley

If I am correct in my reading of the whole argument Matt makes, seems that “””EVEN THOUGH” he currently believes mankind, through CO2 emissions is adding a warming piece to climate change, it is not the SOLE cause.
OK, so this is a man you can debate the fine points with. Given there is no proof of CO2 as the single cause of Anthro warming, his 10 questions should stop any activist cold. But they won’t. Even so, he walks away from this essay leaving any of us arguing the window dressing.

Phillip Bratby

Jim Steele “I agree that the physics are sound. CO2 can slow the escape of infrared.” Are you sure CO2 can slow the escape of infrared? Are you sure it doesn’t speed up the escape of infrared? Perhaps by colliding with N and O molecules, CO2 can take some of their energy and radiate it to space?

DN

Nice try, but such lists are not science. This whole article founders upon the following:
“That the climate has changed because of man-made carbon dioxide I fully accept.”
This is a statement of blind faith. Until someone presents observed data to support the hypothesis that carbon dioxide of human origin is a significant player in global temperature forcing, and until such data is more convincing than all of the myriad other explanations (from AMO/PDO to the GCR low-cloud nucleation) there is no justification for such a belief. Absent observed data to validate the AGW conjecture, and confirmation thereof by experiment, there is simply no scientific basis for any policies aimed at constraining CO2 emissions. There is no need to take the argument any further.

pottereaton

“I have come to the conclusion that current energy and climate policy is probably more dangerous, both economically and ecologically, than climate change itself.
Nicely succinct statement and oh the irony! Brings to mind, “We’re from the government and we’re here to help.”
theduke

Konrad

Matt Ridley says:
January 28, 2013 at 12:42 pm
“I don’t (yet!) question the greenhouse properties of CO2, because I convinced myself a few years ago that the physics is sound, but of course I’ll retain an open mind.”
——————————————————————————————————-
Matt,
Perhaps now would be a good time to go back and re-examine the “basic physics” of the “settled science” Here is a helpful check list of things not to do when trying to determine the true role of radiative gases in the atmosphere –
– Do not model the “earth” as a combined land/ocean/gas “thingy”
– Do not model the atmosphere as a single body or layer
– Do not model the sun as a ¼ power constant source without diurnal cycle
– Do not model conductive flux to and from the surface and atmosphere based on surface Tav
– Do not model a static atmosphere without moving gases
– Do not model a moving atmosphere without Gravity
Those claiming to have a mathematical model representing the physics of radiative gases in our atmosphere have usually included most of that list. The result is that the critical role of radiative gases in convective circulation below the tropopause is not correctly modelled. When you do correctly model a moving atmosphere with gravity you will find that radiative cooling at altitude is critical for continued convective circulation in the troposphere. If convective circulation stalls, the atmosphere heats. How did the ludicrous claim that the atmosphere would be 33C cooler without radiative gases come about? Generally the climate pseudo scientists had one of the first two “Do nots” on the list above at the core of their modelling. Given the critical role of radiative gases in deep vertical convective circulation in the troposphere, they will act to cool the atmosphere at all concentrations above 0ppm.
It seem that some prominent AGW supporters have known for quite some time just how wrong their “basic physics” was. The recent acceptance of the Makarieva2010 discussion paper for publication has put blog debate from 2010 in new light. This paper proposed that rising moist air masses being less than wholly adiabatic could be a partial driver of horizontal winds particularly in tornadoes and cyclones. A slight improvement on basic meteorology with little to do with climate. Yet strangely AGW supporters threw up fierce opposition to the discussion paper in thousands of comments across several blogs. At the time many thought that this was just so no fault could be found with GCMs. But reviewing today one of the threads from 2010 –
http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2010/10/26/weight-of-water-and-wind-hurricane-pros-weigh-in/
– the fierce opposition can also be seen to be an attempt to suppress any discussion of water vapour radiating IR to space making rising moist air masses less than wholly adiabatic. A quick read will show a number of prominent AGW supporters defending the adiabatic assumption and stamping repeatedly on any suggestion that radiative cooling of a moist air mass could make the Markarieva Effect possible.
The “basic physics” of AGW does not appear sound. It also appears than may of those claiming it was have known of the mistakes for many years.

dearieme

If the Global Warmmongers arguments are so good, why do they feel the need to keep faking it?

Number 11 Does CO2 in the atmosphere actually trap heat