I have travel today, hence this open thread.
Some folks report issues with posting comments, and from what I can tell it seems to be related to wordpress.com. Try clearing your cache and/or using a different browser if this persists today.
I have travel today, hence this open thread.
Some folks report issues with posting comments, and from what I can tell it seems to be related to wordpress.com. Try clearing your cache and/or using a different browser if this persists today.
I have been having a discussion on Climate Etc, and I wonder what people on WUWT think. I maintain climate sensitivity, however defined, has never been measured. Warmists on CS insist that it has been measured, but wont quote a refereence, a value or an accuracy. This issure relates to the probabilites (>90% and >95%) which the IPCC quotes to support the conclusions in the SPMs of the AR4 to WG1. Who is right?
[Reply: Got a link to the discussion? — mod.]
I have been trying to get this considered over Easter:
http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2013/03/01/where-is-your-faith/
Any comments?
For those interested, here’s the last few weeks of ENSO data leading to Monday’s ENSO meter adjustment to 0.0:
Opening http://nomad3.ncep.noaa.gov/cgi-bin/pdisp_sst.sh?ctlfile=oiv2.ctl&ptype=ts&var=ssta&level=1&op1=none&op2=none&day=02&month=mar&year=2013&fday=01&fmonth=apr&fyear=2013&lat0=-5&lat1=5&lon0=-170&lon1=-120&plotsize=800×600&title=&dir=
Found target /png/tmp/CTEST136481400110077.txt
Opening http://nomad3.ncep.noaa.gov//png/tmp/CTEST136481400110077.txt
Data file
data from 00Z02MAR2013 to 00Z01APR2013
“———-”
-0.292665
-0.0628619
-0.276973
-0.0785116
0.00643479
Allseems very quiet on the climategate3 front, is there anything interestiing or is just fluff
Pity the Open Thread wasn’t on April 1, just think of all the funny stuff that would have been posted. :-))
Riesenbagger zerquetscht Mercedes. Not a happy fellow.
Update on the “Green” economy collapse taking place in Tennessee. Hemlock Semiconductor has terminated it’s 300 plus workforce at the polysilicon plant newly built here. No production ever took place at this state-of-the-art facility to nowhere. 100’s of millions of dollars in tax and TVA ratepayer money down the green drain. Another new facility of equal cost in the center of the state has been “delayed” by 18 months by Wacker Chenie AG. The gold has washed off of the shovels revealing the rust beneath. Of course just mentioning any of this may be seen by some as evidence of my fixation.
Too bad we have no sterilized emails to discuss. Are they locked away in the same vault as the password, or do they contain nothing worth discussing. Anybody know what is happening at the faucet or is the subject now taboo. GK
I propose to use part of this open thread for a serious conversation about letters to the editor. I’ve been trying to compose a short, effective letter for our local newspaper that can be read and taken to heart by all the folks that have been duped by the AGW hype. Get them to open their eyes and look deeper at the issue. Necessarily, it should not be an attack, it should be informative, short, provide online reference sources, and somehow appeal to the people that would most likely reject the message.
We are at a very interesting point on this topic. There are a lot of mainstream media sources continuing the hype and trumpeting doom. At the same time we have unprecedented sources of recent information that clearly shows most of that to be untrue. The challenge is to create a letter to the editor that can be used everywhere and help the masses realize that there is a change in the wind. If we don’t, we may end up with a new US federal carbon tax or similar situation, in spite of the fact that AGW “Climate Change” is not real.
So post some well considered thoughts that folks can copy and paste.
Consider it an essay contest, 250 words or less.
UK heading for a new Little Ice Age?
It’s official, CET March coldest for 125 years.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/CET-March.htm
I have posted this before but only one response.
Man made static is distorting the worlds surface temp data BUT Man made BTU Heat emmisions released everyday into the atmospher(Manufacturing, gas flare, autos, homes, pavement ect.) is keeping temps in a range the past 16 years. The earth is a giant green house and when heat is released in a green house it takes time to escape or absorbed by the water in it.. There are trillions? of BTU’s released as heat every day bymankind.
The sun has been very quiet for many years but that mankind BTU heat being released everyday is keeping temps stable is my feeling.
Please look at the world tempature chart and you will see in 2008 when the world economy was at a stand still the temps fell and a spotless sun. Mankind BTU heat emmisions fell and so did world surface temps.
Arctic is melting faster every year due to High altitude jet exhust emissions BC being deposited in the N hem ice and snow caps is my feeling also.
Thanks
Jim Cripwell says:
April 3, 2013 at 9:43 am
I have been having a discussion on Climate Etc, and I wonder what people on WUWT think. I maintain climate sensitivity, however defined, has never been measured. Warmists on CS insist that it has been measured, but wont quote a refereence, a value or an accuracy. This issure relates to the probabilites (>90% and >95%) which the IPCC quotes to support the conclusions in the SPMs of the AR4 to WG1. Who is right?
—-
Hi Jim, I argued with a warmist about this fairly recently. He insisted that there were paleo studies that ‘measured’ or at least provided bounds for CS, that the models provided certainty that CS was 3.0 + or – 1.5 to within 95%, and that a bunch of other assorted papers backed this up. We bickered back and forth about whether or not the models were worth a darn, I ignored the paleo argument I think, and he finally walked away when I noted that he cited papers that provided different / exclusive ranges for this 95% percent certainty he was claiming.
~shrug~
The IPCC is playing con games with people imho by assigning probabilities based on ‘expert opinion’ like they do, but I’m sure I’m not telling you anything new there.
Lots of people appear to have their opinions on CS, but given that so many people claim certainty to so many different ranges and values, it’d be a lot of tedious work to walk through each claim with a detailed analysis to figure out who’s got the genuine article, if anybody in fact does. As far as I’m concerned CS is still an open question.
Jim Cripwell says:
April 3, 2013 at 9:43 am
I have been having a discussion on Climate Etc, and I wonder what people on WUWT think. I maintain climate sensitivity, however defined, has never been measured. Warmists on CS insist that it has been measured, but wont quote a refereence, a value or an accuracy. This issure relates to the probabilites (>90% and >95%) which the IPCC quotes to support the conclusions in the SPMs of the AR4 to WG1. Who is right?
When I discuss sensitivity I try and relate it to previous times that were warmer. We’ve discussed them many times around here. Even Marcott’s paper shows it was much warmer earlier in the Holocene. Why should it make any difference if it is warmer due to CO2 vs. something else? When we look at the historical records we see nothing that even hints of a super sensitive climate.
G. Karst:
At April 3, 2013 at 10:08 am you say and ask
I offer my response.
Climategate 3 is a file of emails which is in the public domain but cannot be accessed without use of a password which has not been released. The file seems to have been provided by the same person(s) who leaked the Climategate 1 and 2 emails, and he/she/they claims to have the password.
The originators of the Climategate 1, 2 and 3 emails must know what is in all those emails because the emails are theirs.
The Climategate leaker has assurance of not being tackled whether or not the ‘authorities’ have identified him/her/them so long as
(a) the password is not revealed
and
(b) there is at least one devastating email in the Climategate 3 file.
Hence, I do not anticipate that the key will be revealed until either the AGW-scare is history or the Climategate leaker dies of natural causes and releases the key in his/her/their Will.
Richard
Mark Bofill, I think I remember those paleo studies and they were obviously a case of cherry picking. It’s pretty obvious that the planet is in a bi-stable situation with attractors to either an interglacial or glacial condition.
I believe those studies used situations where the climate was moving from a glacial state to an interglacial to claim the climate was highly sensitive. They are probably right for a climate in that particular state. However, it is pure nonsense as it says nothing about sensitivity when we are in a stable climate state.
vukcevic says:
April 3, 2013 at 10:18 am
UK heading for a new Little Ice Age?
It’s official, CET March coldest for 125 years.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/CET-March.htm
——————————————————————————————————-
Nice chart but I notice the tendency is for the temperature to peak out in the opposite direction after 3-5 yrs then repeat the other direction with around a 5C delta. What would cause the cycling?
Sure its been measured Jim. And you’ve been given many links over the past months.
measuring it is simple:
Sensitivity = Change in Temperature/ Change in Forcing
Like this
Speed = Distance/Time
You measure sensitivity by measure temperature and by measuring changes in forcing.
You can go do that today. Go ahead.
Example:
From 1850 to today we see a change in temperature of 1C (add whatever error you like)
and we see a change in forcing of say 2watts ( add whatever error you like)
Sensitivity is thus 1/2 or .5 add whatever error you have from your measurement proceedure.
Now to calculate the sensitivity to a doubling of C02
easy: Forcing from doubling from 280 to 560 = 5.35ln(560/280) = 3.71
3.71 * .5 = 1.85C per doubling.
See how simple. The issue is NOT measuring the quantity. The issue is how large the uncertainty is due to
A) accuracy of measurements
B) time dependence
So its very easy to measure. Its very hard to measure it
1. Accurately.
2. Systematically.
Its the same with other OBSERVATIONAL science.
For example, If the moon doubled in mass what would its orbit be?
Now, If you insist that this question cannot be answered UNTIL we actually
double the mass of the moon, then you’ll end up having to doubt all sorts of things
that you rely on.
for grins
from charles the moderator.. a moshpit inspired chart
http://img687.imageshack.us/img687/7097/marcottvostokbaselinesh.jpg
My discussion on measuring climate sensitivity started on the Climate Etc. thread
Has Trenberth found the ‘missing’ heat?
with a post
angech | March 30, 2013 at 6:53 am | Reply
I took it to a new piece at
Jim Cripwell | March 31, 2013 at 2:19 pm | Reply
Is there such a thing as a running estimate of cloud cover for the Earth? The excellent photo in Robert Sanders post “Future shifts In rainfall” shows clear skies over the Sahara which led me to wonder if a “shade” estimate of the earth could be estimated from cloud cover.
Jim Cripwell, take a look at Kiehl, 2007, “Twentieth century climate model response and climate sensitivity.
Keihl discussed the problem that models are able to reproduce the 20th century temperature trend despite the fact that climate sensitivity varies by a factor of 2-3 among climate models. He shows that modelers anti-correlate aerosol forcing — also poorly constrained — to offset variations in climate sensitivity, so that the two parameters cancel enough to let modelers reproduce the 20th century temperature trend.
The short answer is that climate sensitivity is not known. The longer answer is that climate modelers fudge their results by “tuning” the models to get the right answer.
Steve McIntyre discussed the problem here.
Mosher. You just contradicted yourself. See: Heisenberg, W.
“Sensitivity = Change in Temperature/ Change in Forcing”
Steven, I pick the year 2000 and the year 2013.
Both years should have amongst the best possible instrumental measurements for both quantities.
Steven Mosher says:
“Sensitivity = Change in Temperature/ Change in Forcing”
Not good enough. Any measurement must be verifiable as being caused specifically by human CO2 emissions, and it must be quantified. All you are doing is pointing out a simple correlation, which may or may not be factual. Certainly it is not an empirical, testable “measurement” as I understand the term. As posted, it is simply hand-waving.
NASA tells us that the average global temperature in 2012 was about 58.3F. I didn’t see an error margin stated but let’s say it +/-0.5F for discussion purposes. I’d like to compare that figure to the year 1198. Can anybody help out?
IMNSHO: CS was 1.0C around the time CO2 rose from 11ppmv to 22ppmv – it has been decreasing logarithmically since that time 😉
I dropped the thermostat on the house heating to 16.0C to replicate government advice (every year for a long time now) to householders to save money. I usually set it at 21.0C so we are pretending to have followed said advice for 5 years.
Our (condensing) boiler is on for exactly the same periods as it was previously. For 48 hours now. Outside temperatures, having not risen above 4.0C or dropped below -2.0C in the interim, may have had something to do with it.
Hydraulic Hybrids – I used to do engineering work on the UPS hydraulic hybrid truck, an EPA project out of Ann Arbor. I would like to see the technology make it in to the mainstream, but it seems that this type of hybrid is too expensive, noisy and inefficient. The payback time is too long. People are willing to go green if it pays green. The only real application for hydraulic hybrids is big trash trucks, but it is not catching on like wildfire. Green technology only works when it is heavily subsidized, in other words when someone else is paying for it.
OnAverage says: April 3, 2013 at 11:00 am
…………….
Hi
At this time of the year, the CET (& the N.W. Europe’s temp) is following the negative Icelandic atmospheric pressure (with a very few exceptions).
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/CET-IAP.htm
With proviso that I am not either meteorologist or climate scientist, or scientist at all, in my opinion the Icelandic atmospheric pressure is driven by the balance of warm and cold currents flow through the Denmark straits (see also http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/NH-NV.htm ).
Is there a meteorologist about?
Gee, that is simple. If you double CO2, the temperature will rise by 1.85C.
So, if we start with one CO2 molecule in the atmosphere and then add one more, the temperature will rise by 1.85C. Then, if we double again by adding two more molecules, we get another 1.85C rise for a total of 3.7C. I could go on for a few more doublings. but you can see that it’s a wonder that we haven’t fried to death with all of those CO2 molecules that are in the atmosphere today.
Steven Mosher, you write “Sensitivity = Change in Temperature/ Change in Forcing”
Yes and no. In principle you are correct. But in any measurement of this sort, there is an independent and a dependent variable. In this case the independent variable is the CO2 level, or the change in forcing. According to the scientific method, it is essential to prove that the changes observed in the dependent variable were casued by changes in the independent variable. With the earth’s climate, this is simply impossible. We do not know either the magnitude or duration of all the different things that can affect global temperatures.
So, measuring climate sensitivity by your approach is impossible with current technology.
Steven Mosher says:
April 3, 2013 at 11:08 am
I count up to eleven spikes that are higher than the far-right “tack-on”. That’s what makes me grin.
Pat Frank:
Re your post at April 3, 2013 at 11:27 am, it seems sensible for me to again post the following on WUWT.
None of the climate models – not one of them – could match the change in mean global temperature over the past century if it did not utilise a unique value of assumed cooling from aerosols. So, inputting actual values of the cooling effect (such as the determination by Penner et al.
http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2011/07/25/1018526108.full.pdf?with-ds=yes )
would make every climate model provide a mismatch of the global warming it hindcasts and the observed global warming for the twentieth century.
This mismatch would occur because all the global climate models and energy balance models are known to provide indications which are based on
1.
the assumed degree of forcings resulting from human activity that produce warming
and
2.
the assumed degree of anthropogenic aerosol cooling input to each model as a ‘fiddle factor’ to obtain agreement between past average global temperature and the model’s indications of average global temperature.
More than a decade ago I published a peer-reviewed paper that showed the UK’s Hadley Centre general circulation model (GCM) could not model climate and only obtained agreement between past average global temperature and the model’s indications of average global temperature by forcing the agreement with an input of assumed anthropogenic aerosol cooling.
The input of assumed anthropogenic aerosol cooling is needed because the model ‘ran hot’; i.e. it showed an amount and a rate of global warming which was greater than was observed over the twentieth century. This failure of the model was compensated by the input of assumed anthropogenic aerosol cooling.
And my paper demonstrated that the assumption of aerosol effects being responsible for the model’s failure was incorrect.
(ref. Courtney RS An assessment of validation experiments conducted on computer models of global climate using the general circulation model of the UK’s Hadley Centre Energy & Environment, Volume 10, Number 5, pp. 491-502, September 1999).
More recently, in 2007, Kiehle published a paper that assessed 9 GCMs and two energy balance models.
(ref. Kiehl JT,Twentieth century climate model response and climate sensitivity. GRL vol.. 34, L22710, doi:10.1029/2007GL031383, 2007).
Kiehl found the same as my paper except that each model he assessed used a different aerosol ‘fix’ from every other model. This is because they all ‘run hot’ but they each ‘run hot’ to a different degree.
He says in his paper:
And, importantly, Kiehl’s paper says:
And the “magnitude of applied anthropogenic total forcing” is fixed in each model by the input value of aerosol forcing.
Thanks to Bill Illis, Kiehl’s Figure 2 can be seen at
http://img36.imageshack.us/img36/8167/kiehl2007figure2.png
Please note that the Figure is for 9 GCMs and 2 energy balance models, and its title is:
It shows that
(a) each model uses a different value for “Total anthropogenic forcing” that is in the range 0.80 W/m^-2 to 2.02 W/m^-2
but
(b) each model is forced to agree with the rate of past warming by using a different value for “Aerosol forcing” that is in the range -1.42 W/m^-2 to -0.60 W/m^-2.
In other words the models use values of “Total anthropogenic forcing” that differ by a factor of more than 2.5 and they are ‘adjusted’ by using values of assumed “Aerosol forcing” that differ by a factor of 2.4.
So, each climate model emulates a different climate system. Hence, at most only one of them emulates the climate system of the real Earth because there is only one Earth. And the fact that they each ‘run hot’ unless fiddled by use of a completely arbitrary ‘aerosol cooling’ strongly suggests that none of them emulates the climate system of the real Earth.
Richard
mpcraig, you write “Can anybody help out?”
I would be very surprised if anyone can help. The longest continous record of temperatures is that for Central England, going back to the 17th century. Some people are going over older records to see whether we can go back further in time. But no good global data exists until the 18th century. So comparing 2102 tro 1198, is simply not possible
Can someone explain how, if CO2 levels are rising — and are expressed as an increase in ppm — then what atmospheric gas(es) are decreasing? What gases are going down in ppm?
Regarding Artic ice – The rate of ice increase going into winter seems nearly constant (loss of solar heating + natural seasonal increase in clouds) year after year while the rate of ice loss for all reasons (drift, compression, melt, sublimation, falling cloud cover) is increasing year after year. This seems to be a consequence of cleaner air after 1979 owing to our efforts to clean up our atmosphere. Clean air is bad for arctic ice because more sunlight reaches the surface. WUWT?
Jim S,
Oxygen is combining with carbon to form CO2. But it is nothing to worry about; we’re talking parts per million.
Chris @njsnowfan says:
April 3, 2013 at 10:37 am
“I have posted this before but only one response.
“Man made static is distorting the worlds surface temp data BUT Man made BTU Heat emmisions released everyday into the atmospher(Manufacturing, gas flare, autos, homes, pavement ect.)”‘
This has been discussed before on this site and elsewhere.The actual heat emissions from mankind are too miniscule to change the earth’s climate. Heat emissions can change microclimates around temperature measuring stations and hence the controversy over the urban heat island effect. But this is only possibly effecting the temperature record measurement, not the actual global temperature. So I think you are barking up the wrong tree if you think this is a facture in a possible rise in global temperatures.
Steven Mosher says:
April 3, 2013 at 11:07 am
“From 1850 to today we see a change in temperature of 1C (add whatever error you like)
and we see a change in forcing of say 2watts ( add whatever error you like)
Sensitivity is thus 1/2 or .5 add whatever error you have from your measurement proceedure.
Now to calculate the sensitivity to a doubling of C02
easy: Forcing from doubling from 280 to 560 = 5.35ln(560/280) = 3.71
3.71 * .5 = 1.85C per doubling.
See how simple. The issue is NOT measuring the quantity. The issue is how large the uncertainty is due to
A) accuracy of measurements
B) time dependence”
So you are holding that the temperature change from 1850 to today is entirely caused by CO2.
That is surely the most preposterous claim you have ever made.
troe says:
April 3, 2013 at 9:54 am
One bright spot in the manufacturing picture these days is firearms, ammunition and accessories. Everyplace I check for reloading supplies is out of stock and backordered for months. They all say they’re adding staff and working extra shifts. Meanwhile, I can’t get what I need. It’s not just the reloading components that are out of stock, but stuff like dies as well.
They may not be “green” jobs, but I’ll bet you can convert those solar panel factories into bullet foundries fairly easily, unless you expect to run the lead furnaces on PV Solar power …
A possible sighting of Dark Matter was announced today, April3 (not April1).
LinkText Here
Vuk
You might be interested in this graph
http://climatereason.com/Graphs/Graph01.png
tonyb
Geez, John, isn’t their a kind of ‘friction’ problem with fluids pumped through hoses and hydraulic motors contrasted with standard gear boxes, clutches and belts even? Laminar vs turbulent fluid flow and all that vs smooth rotating shaft movement in a suitable ball bearing?
.
Overlooked by nearly all of the climate-science “community” is some recently-revealed, dramatic footage of the “team’s” heretofore secret, initiation ceremony in which a loyal, brain-washed, suck-up novice, of demonstrated, party-line reliability to the “cause”, concludes his novitiate and, with much pomp, receives his made-parasite “wings” and access code to the tenured-cadre trough in reward for his many years of useful-tool, scut-work, lefty-hack, exploited-drudge, hive-toady, gofer, conditioned-reflex devotion to his tax-payer, rip-off betters.
Google: “wiki imago”. WARNING!–the images may be disturbing to some viewers.
Congrats on the Bloggie Award
[WUWT readers deserve the credit. — mod.]
Can anyone point me to a source of gridded wind-speed data for the UK? Preferably daily resolution or better. I’ve found monthly data (link below) but I’m looking for something of a higher resolution.
http://data.gov.uk/dataset/ukcp09-gridded-monthly-values-mean-wind-speed
Any assistance gratefully received.
Hi Tony
Thanks I’ll have a go at it. In mean time don’t neglect your tom’s patch, summer after next (2014,15) looks it is going to be a degree or two warmer than last lot.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/NAP-SST.htm
(graph two)
Chris @njsnowfan says:
April 3, 2013 at 10:37 am
I have posted this before but only one response.
Man made static is distorting the worlds surface temp data BUT Man made BTU Heat emmisions released everyday into the atmospher(Manufacturing, gas flare, autos, homes, pavement ect.) is keeping temps in a range the past 16 years. The earth is a giant green house and when heat is released in a green house it takes time to escape or absorbed by the water in it.. There are trillions? of BTU’s released as heat every day bymankind.
The sun has been very quiet for many years but that mankind BTU heat being released everyday is keeping temps stable is my feeling.
Please look at the world tempature chart and you will see in 2008 when the world economy was at a stand still the temps fell and a spotless sun. Mankind BTU heat emmisions fell and so did world surface temps.
Arctic is melting faster every year due to High altitude jet exhust emissions BC being deposited in the N hem ice and snow caps is my feeling also.
Thanks
Chris
There is an anthropogenic warming effect from all the air conditioners, central heating furnaces, car engines etc etc. There is no doubt that exists. However, the amounts involved a dwarfed by the energy removed by the water cycle for example.
From http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/tcfaq/D7.html
• 1) – Total energy released through cloud/rain formation:
An average hurricane produces 1.5 cm/day (0.6 inches/day) of rain inside a circle of radius 665 km (360 n.mi) (Gray 1981). (More rain falls in the inner portion of hurricane around the eyewall, less in the outer rainbands.) Converting this to a volume of rain gives 2.1 x 10^16 cm3/day. A cubic cm of rain weighs 1 gm. Using the latent heat of condensation, this amount of rain produced gives
5.2 x 10^19 Joules/day or
6.0 x 10^14 Watts.
This is equivalent to 200 times the world-wide electrical generating capacity – an incredible amount of energy produced!
• Method 2) – Total kinetic energy (wind energy) generated:
For a mature hurricane, the amount of kinetic energy generated is equal to that being dissipated due to friction. The dissipation rate per unit area is air density times the drag coefficient times the windspeed cubed (See Emanuel 1999 for details). One could either integrate a typical wind profile over a range of radii from the hurricane’s center to the outer radius encompassing the storm, or assume an average windspeed for the inner core of the hurricane. Doing the latter and using 40 m/s (90 mph) winds on a scale of radius 60 km (40 n.mi.), one gets a wind dissipation rate (wind generation rate) of
1.3 x 10^17 Joules/day or
1.5 x 10^12Watts.
This is equivalent to about half the world-wide electrical generating capacity – also an amazing amount of energy being produced!
The same order of magnitude of energy is liberated by any large depression and then there is the band of weather around the equator the Inter-Tropical Convergence Zone with continual severe storms…. These systems are liberating huge amounts of energy from the surface which are then continually radiated away as the water vapor condenses into rain or ice way above the so called Effective Radiation Level and as it is latent heat it is not subject to Stefan Boltzmann limitations.
These calculations do not take into account albedo increases due to clouds formed in hurricanes storms and depressions that will act to reduce input energy at the same time as radiating out energy. The water cycle is driven by the energy input from the surface – so all the air conditioners, central heating furnaces, car engines etc etc. just speed up what is an extremely efficient heat engine. This is Willis’ thermostat at work.
From my point of view the efficiency of the system at removing heat greatly exceeds any possible forcing from CO2.
Richardscourtney
So, each climate model emulates a different climate system. Hence, at most only one of them emulates the climate system of the real Earth because there is only one Earth. And the fact that they each ‘run hot’ unless fiddled by use of a completely arbitrary ‘aerosol cooling’ strongly suggests that none of them emulates the climate system of the real Earth
Thanks for the explanation and in short “they suck” if I read your post correctly. Do the models offer any kind of useful information or do they just consume computer time at a huge rate?
Yikes.
Not only did the 5.35 get plucked out of absolutely nowhere, but the math isn’t even correct.
And a calculation isn’t a measurement, a measurement is a measurement.
richardscourtney;
I think you missed a chapter 😉
The CG3 password is out, and has been sent to select recipients, of which Anthony is one. The problem is that the CG3 emails have not been scrubbed for personal info etc like CG1 and CG2 were. They are leaking out a bit at a time, but it sounds so far like there’s nothing really new in them:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/03/13/climategate-3-0-has-occurred-the-password-has-been-released/
Hydraulic Hybrids — Peugeot showed a car propelled by a hydraulic hybrid at the Geneva Auto Show two weeks ago. They have announced plans to produce such a car. They have also invited other auto companies to help them commercialize the technology.
JIm S writes “What gases are going down in ppm?”
I suspect all of them. Assuming the added CO2 increases the total weight of the atmopshere, then all the other gases will be reduced by a very small amount.
I’m wondering if Hansen is- despite his activism- going to be doing PR for nuclear?
Open Thread? OK, remember Mr FOIA’s request for bitcoin donations? Seems he was pretty smart…
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-04-03/bitcoins-go-parabolic
&more Open Thread: the NORKS have a Plan to make you pay for all your sins! ☺
What if the temperatures are being measured by relativistic thermometers?
polski says:
April 3, 2013 at 1:28 pm
“And the fact that they each ‘run hot’ unless fiddled by use of a completely arbitrary ‘aerosol cooling’ strongly suggests that none of them emulates the climate system of the real Earth”
Last I heard from the IPCC is that none of them simulates the QBO so none of them simulates the Earth.
http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg1/279.htm
But that’s not the point of climate science anyway…
davidmhoffer:
Thankyou for your useful and informative post at April 3, 2013 at 1:38 pm.
You are right: I was not aware of that. I stand corrected.
Thankyou.
Richard
The internet sure can be good for some unexpected entertainment. Here in Germany I’m seeing an advertisement at the upper right of the WUWT homepage for the DVD release of a movie called “Mann tut was Mann kann” (“Man does what man can”; or, alternately, “Mann does what Mann can”).
What’s the time frame supposed to be for atmospheric temperature increases due to a doubling of CO2 according to ‘mainstream’ AGW theory? Is there a generally accepted idea about this from any particular source anybody is aware of?
New reader seeks info. Dean Brooks’ paper:
http://declineeffect.com
[Link: The ‘Pot Lid’ hypothesis]
appears relevant to this blog, as it appears to question some (all?) of the GCM.s; but the thread goes cold. Any further links would be appreciated.
Also there’s V Toth’s paper (if it hasn’t already been discussed):
arXiv:1002.2980 [pdf, ps, other]
btw A quick search of the IPCC site gave me “Arrhenius” hits- 4, “Virial”- 0, which makes me wonder..
I still haven’t seen a non-circular argument that shows that climate sensitivity is not temperature dependent itself. It is one of the problems with the whole construct that in order to show sensitivity to CO2 increase you have to first ASSUME there is a sensitivity to CO2 and not some other factor or combination thereof, or at least that all the other factors are in some way dependent upon CO2 for their effect. The simple logarithmic relationship is one of many things that does not pass the smell test in the climate system overall. It might work for first order estimations, but I doubt it is the whole story.
polski:
Your post at April 3, 2013 at 1:28 pm
quotes from my post about climate models at April 3, 2013 at 12:22 pm
and asks me
That depends on what you mean by the word “useful”.
Each climate model is constructed from the understandings of climate of its constructors. Therefore, a model output indicates implications of those understandings of climate: it does not indicate anything about the behaviour of the real climate system because each model is of a different system (see my post you are querying).
Hence, outputs of climate models can be very useful because they can be USED to observe differences between
(a) the indications of a model
(i.e. the implications of the modellers’ understandings)
and
(b) the behaviour of the real climate system.
Those differences are heuristic information which is very useful because it indicates needs for further climate study to correct detected misunderstandings of the climate system.
The outputs of climate models can be MISUSED to project future climate according to the understandings built into the model. There is no reason to think any of these projections indicate future reality and at most the output of only one (probably none) of the climate models would.
However, these climate model projections of future climate are useful because they can be used as a tool to scare politicians into providing more research funds for the modellers and their colleagues.
Richard
Beta Blocker writes “What if the temperatures are being measured by relativistic thermometers?”
I have no idea. But global temperatures are measured with thermometers in Stevenson screens, or the “brightness” temperature by satellite. So I suspect you question is irrelevant.
Physics Major says:
April 3, 2013 at 12:19 pm
So, if we start with one CO2 molecule in the atmosphere and then add one more, the temperature will rise by 1.85C. Then, if we double again by adding two more molecules, we get another 1.85C rise for a total of 3.7C. I could go on for a few more doublings. but you can see that it’s a wonder that we haven’t fried to death with all of those CO2 molecules that are in the atmosphere today.
———————————–
This has been discussed elsewhere and the discussion always states (without any evidence) that at very low concentrations, or very high ones, the logarthmic doubling and temperature relationship breaks down.
But what is rarely discussed is the other common claim, that CO2 levels have been remarkably stable for many thousands of years. So if CO2 levels have been so stable, how can the relationship between temperature and CO2 increase be so confidently understood?
The battle over wind turbines heats up as NextEra takes a stand
“Cease and Desist” order sent. Ontario Wind resistance must quit Picking on NextEra of Florida.
http://ontario-wind-resistance.org/2013/04/03/nexterror-energy-sent-me-a-cease-and-desist-demand-what-would-you-do/
Wind Turbines above all! May the eagles rest in peace!
I believe CFCs are going down, and methane may be going down, or anyway going up much less than predicted.
For some reason I really like this graph:
http://suyts.files.wordpress.com/2013/02/image_thumb265.png?w=636&h=294
Originally posted by
D.B. Stealey says:
March 5, 2013 at 12:39 pm:
“We are currently in a cool period of the Holocene. But global temperatures have been amazingly constant, only fluctuating by a minuscule 0.8ºC over the past century and a half. By using a normal Y-axis, it is clear that global warming has stalled during this entire time period.”
I assume the Y-axis is degrees F it doesn’t say. Does anyone know the origin of this graph?
Couldn’t find it at GISS. Haven’t seen too many sites (media/newspapers, etc.) posting the above graph.
He also posted this graph:
http://i.imgur.com/s19MOMd.jpg
I just got a popup saying that Microsoft has identified WUWT as a phishing site.
Since Microsoft is known to harbor global warming alarmists, I suspect this is an attempt to keep people from visiting this site and posting here.
Anthony, I think your webmaster should look into this for you. Also, to other regular posters here: has anyomne else gotten such a popup? If so please say so.
And if it is Microsoft doing this, would seem you have a gigabucks lawsuit for libel against old Billyboy and his fellow alarmies.
Actually, I should say, we’ve had hydraulic drives in cars since the late 1940’s in the form of Torque Converter equipped (automatic) transmissions. Our 1964 Chevy had a
two-speed Powerglide automatic transmission. GM originally introduced the Hydromatic series of automatic transmissions in 1939 for the 1940 model year. Notably, various vehicles in WW2 were equipped with ‘hydraulic’ transmissions as well.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydramatic
Later incarnations, of course, ‘improved’ the design incorporating a clutch to “lockup” the torque converter to avoid otherwise inadvertent slipping (and associated inefficiencies) for the purpose of wringing out that last mpg.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torque_converter
.
Hmmm! Anthony is on a travel day the same day James Hansen retires?
“Every great cause begins as a movement, becomes a business, and eventually degenerates into a racket.”
― Eric Hoffer, The Temper of Our Time
Just sayin’………….
Owen in GA says:
April 3, 2013 at 2:21 pm
I still haven’t seen a non-circular argument that shows that climate sensitivity is not temperature dependent itself. It is one of the problems with the whole construct that in order to show sensitivity to CO2 increase you have to first ASSUME there is a sensitivity to CO2 and not some other factor or combination thereof,
>>>>>>>>>
Oh, but it is SO much worse than that.
The general meme is CO2 doubling = 3.7 w/m2 = +1 degree.
Even introductory physics says you cannot possibly simplify the matter to that kind of an estimate. The Stefan-Boltzmann Law of physics that relates Power in w/m2 to Temperature in degrees Kelvin is:
P = 5.67 * 10^-8 * T^4
So, if you’re in a spot on earth where it is +30 C, or 303 K, an extra 3.7 w/m2 would only get you +0.6 degrees. If you were someplace cold, say -30 C, or 243 K, an extra 3.7 w/m2 would get you about +1.1 degrees. How do you average this across the entire earth with temps varying by latitude, season, time of day and altitude? This is the kind of math problem that would give even Einstein fits.
But that is actually over simplifying the issue. Is the “average” of 3.7 w/m2 itself a meaningful number? It is not.
At +30 C, upward radiance from earth surface is about 478 w/m2. At -30 C, upward radiance is about 198 w/m2. So, there is no way that a doubling of CO2 has a uniform result of 3.7 w/m2 in the first place. Doubling of CO2 cannot capture 3.7 w/m2 from both +478 and + 198, can it? Of course it can’t.
So the “average temperature” we need to calculate a sensitivity against doesn’t exist, and the “average forcing” we need to apply to the “average temperature” also doesn’t exist. But it is so much worse than that….
In the tropics, water vapour might be as high as 40,000 ppm. In the arctic it is darn near zero. Since water vapour and CO2 have overlapping absorption spectra, CO2’s effects are a greater percentage of the total GHE in cold/dry regions than it is in regions with high water vapour content. So even if you could come up with a mathematical description of how many w/m2 to expect CO2 to re-radiate back to earth based on a given surface temperature, you still have to adjust that number for the amount the number would change based on water vapour in that specific local.
Calculating sensitivity is simple? I think not.
I have a post on:
http://climateclash.com/the-limits-of-atmospheric-carbon-dioxide-effects-and-control/
which has had many favorable reviews including one from Will Happer.who made helpful suggestions on its presentation.
I own the copyright on the article and Ed Berry of Climate Clash owns the one on its presentation. We both grant permission to use it, but Ed Berry requests that comments come through the above website for keeping track of them.
Bryce Johnson
An article in scienceblogs.com (http://scienceblogs.com/significantfigures/index.php/2013/04/02/three-iconic-graphs-showing-the-climate-fix-were-in/#comment-2009) by Peter Gleick was brought to my attention from Tom Nelsons blog. In it are three graphs of CO2, Temperature deviation and Arctic Ice Volume. The one that caught piqued my interest was the temperature graph with a nice exponential curve running through it (basically showing runaway heating). 1
The problem with the graph is that it does not even represent the data that it is supposedly sourced from. Never mind the various discussions on data tampering which cool the past (which this data shows). This graph has removed the early 1900’s cooling, minimized the 1940’s cooling and now show a more or less steady progression of rising temperatures.1
I can’t vouch for the other graphs as no source has been supplied. Why is it that certain writers must adjust (tamper, falsify, whatever word you want) the data to make their case. The data either shows it or it does not. End of Story.
Richard
Ok, now global warming is the culprit of our nice spring winter: http://weather.yahoo.com/why-cold-spring-201231727.html
focoloco on April 3, 2013 at 4:39 pm
Ok, now global warming is the culprit of our nice spring winter:”….
Even if if was true that AGW caused cold weather, this kind of thing is hard if not impossible for the average person to believe. If they claim CO2 causes global warming and it’s 100F then sure, everyone can believe it. But when it’s April and it’s 25F outside they just look like total fools to the average person.
The true believers of course lap it up like warm milk.
On Real Climate today, tamino has responded with a link to his own site (see below) to comments by skeptics that a spike in the paleoclimate record, similar to what has been seen in 20th century would not be visible in the results of Marcott. His analysis (supposedly replaying Marcott style averaging and Monte Carlo) claims to show that spikes on a duration as short as 100 years of increasing temp followed by 100 years of decreasing temp (by 1/2 degree C) would still be visibie (only slightly reduced peak). I wonder what the thinking on this analysis is among the technically savvy on WUWT, familiar with the Marcott methods?
http://tamino.wordpress.com/2013/04/03/smearing-climate-data/
Jim S says:
“Can someone explain how, if CO2 levels are rising — and are expressed as an increase in ppm — then what atmospheric gas(es) are decreasing? What gases are going down in ppm?”
Answer:
Over the last 100 years the CO2 level has gone up by about 100ppm. If Nitrogen, the most abundant gas in the atmosphere, went down by that much it would change in concentration by about 0.01%. I doubt that they could reliably measure the amount of Nitrogen in the atmosphere to 0.01% 100 years ago. That is why they call CO2 a trace gas, the other constituents of the atmosphere are so large by comparison, any corresponding reduction in the other gases my be unmeasurable… the day to day changes in the concentrations my vary by more than 0.01%.
Professor Murray Salby form Macquarie University in the ‘Australian’ newspaper this morning Thusrsday edition (4/04/2013) has blasted the Oz Climate Commission for their Australia’s “Angry Summer” announcement recently. He maintains that last summer was not “angrier” than other summers and presents data to prove the point.
But he goes further and states (quote)” The Climate Commission was enshrined as an ‘independent panel of experts’. It was installed and paid for by the government. The panel is comprised of biologists and ecologists, a materials engineer and members of the business community. It has no demonstrated expertise in the physics or chemistry of climate, or even meteorology, the scientific underpinnings of its conclusions.” (unquote).
In assessing the Commissions report he notes” This report is but the latest in a series of dire proclamations from the [Commission] panel. It just happens to buttress the government’s controversial carbon tax, a maladroit policy that will be pivotal in the forthcoming federal election.”
At last some sensible and truthful assessments from a true climate expert and august University.
Incidentally I recommend reading Salby’s book “Physics of the Atmosphere and Climate” Cambridge University Press. 665 pages. It’s a heavy going academic tome with a lot of supporting maths but an exhaustive and comprehensive survey of this field.
got an automatic transmission?
you already have a hydraulic hybrid.
I see the UPS is accumulator stored type, wonder how big a bang that will make 🙂
Richard Courtney, I agree with everything you wrote, and would enjoy receiving a reprint of your paper (pfrank_eight_three_zero_AT_earth_link_dot_net, all run together).
In addition to what you wrote, the compensating uncertainties in aerosols and climate sensitivity should be propagated as uncertainties through every step of every single global temperature projection. Any proper physical discipline would do so. The result would show that climate models are immediately — within the first year — unable to predict anything.
I recently gave a seminar at Stanford, on error propagation through global temperature projections. In that case it was cloud error, but it just as well could have been the uncertainty in aerosols/climate sensitivity. It showed exactly what you have described: climate models predict nothing whatever about the future climate of Earth.
Mosh said that the forcing from a change in CO2 concentration is 5.35*ln(C1/C0), C0=initial concentration and C1=final concentration.
So this formula is not valid for all concentrations of CO2? Then what is the proper relationship as calculated from physical laws? There must be some formula that works at all concentrations, even if it is much more complex than the very naive formula that contains the factor ln(C1/C0) which blows up when C0=0.
Steve, you said that it is stated “without any evidence”. Well, I would like to see the evidence.
Can anyone provide a link to the correct computation that relates temperature change to CO2 content change. I really want to know because I am bothered when I see a formula that is obviously incorrect.
Physics Major
—
I think even Arrhenius realized that the log relationship couldn’t hold at low concentrations (for obvious reasons), and suggested that at some point it transitions to linear, and intercepts zero. He wasn’t very clear about the details. I don’t now for sure, but I don’t think anybody’s done any really good work since that (about 100 years ago) about just exactly what the details of that transition are.
P-chem is like that. Long on fuzz, short on precise details.
tried to post the comment below on hansen/nuclear thread for hours yesterday, with no success.
also now getting “compatibility view” problem every time i open WUWT which causes the page to refresh before i can read anything:
as we know, hansen has been a nuclear shill all along. it’s also well-known that the guardian’s george monbiot is extremely pro-nuclear, as is long-time CAGW-advocate, the widely-published fred pearce. CAGW-followers (and some sceptics) pretend not to notice:
27 Nov 2011: UK Daily Mail: Fred Pearce:
Nuclear power? Yes please!: A former opponent calls on Chris Huhne to
embrace the energy source that’s cheap AND good for the environment
I never thought I’d say this – but the future is nuclear. Or it should be…
In fact, I see no sensible low-carbon future that does not involve a lot of
nuclear power…
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2066726/Nuclear-power-Yes–A-opponent-calls-Chris-Huhne-embrace-energy-source-thats-cheap-AND-good-environment.html
Wikipedia: Fred Pearce
Pearce is currently the environment consultant of New Scientist magazine and
a regular contributor to the British newspapers Daily Telegraph, The
Guardian, The Independent, and Times Higher Education. He has also written
for several US publications including Audubon, Foreign Policy, Popular
Science, Seed, and Time.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Pearce
as for me, no nuclear until cold fusion is doable.
Physics Major;
Can anyone provide a link to the correct computation that relates temperature change to CO2 content change.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
As I tried to explain upthread, there is no such thing. If you want the explanation from the IPCC as to how it is calculated:
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch2s2-2.html
Now if you can figure out a way to physically measure such a thing in order to verify it…. good luck with that.
DavidMHofferTe (Is that you, David?) has an excellent post on climate sensitivity.
Climate sensitivity is not something that can be directly observed or directly measured. There is nothing like a thermometer reading for climate sensitivity. It is a purely theoretical concept. And to suggest that it can be measured as temperature can be measured is highly misleading.
Climate sensitivity is determined by the sum total of all GHG forcings minus all feedbacks. At this time in the history of climate science, no one has a clue what the sum total of all GHG forcings and feedbacks is. To know the sum total, we would also have to know all other factors that influence the global average temperature, itself a highly theoretical concept. We would have to know these others factors so that we could confidently assert what changes in temperature are caused by them, along with the magnitude of the changes, and then subtract them from the sum total of forcings and feedbacks from GHGs.
I am sure that a figure for climate sensitivity will be established no later than 2100 and no earlier than 2075.
But the devil is in the details. Show me the correct formula and it’s derivation from physical law. Otherwise the whole thing is bogus.
davidmhofferTe says:
April 3, 2013 at 3:43 pm
It is even more complicated than you suggest.
In the tropics due to the humidity the atmospheric enthalpy is very high and it takes many more kilojoules to raise a volume of atmosphere by 1K than at the poles where the humidity is close to zero. Therefore, a volume of air temperature at the poles will rise more per KiloJoule than the same volume of air in the tropics. Using temperature to measure atmospheric sensitivity shows ignorance. Averaging the atmospheric ‘sensitivity’ to CO2 by quoting temperature and not heat content or consideration of enthalpy is a nonsense.
Something I noticed a few weeks ago and found time to summarize last week:
multidecadal heliosphere structure, solar cycle deceleration, & terrestrial climate
Superposed is figure 5 (p.198) from section 8 (pp.196-198) of:
Obridko, V.N.; & Shelting, B.D. (1999). Structure of the heliospheric current sheet derived for the interval 1915-1996. Solar Physics 184, 187-200.
http://helios.izmiran.troitsk.ru/hellab/Obridko/189.pdf
“[…] quasi-periodic oscillations […] The convergence region of the field lines moves up and down with the same period. […] results in secular variations of the entire structure of the heliosphere.”
Compare with Figure 4:
Wyatt, M.G.; Kravtsov, S.; & Tsonis, A.A. (2011). Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation and Northern Hemisphere’s climate variability. Climate Dynamics.
Physics Major
I don’t have any desire to go hunting for it, but I recall several years ago Lubos Motl did a reasonable explanation for the logarithmic rationale. It’s based on statistical arguments of the likelihood of a photon being intercepted. He likened it to coats of paint on a window.
speaking of that….does anyone know what the temp would be…if man hadn’t created global warming?
….and exactly what is the temp at that zero line?
David, as I’m sure you know, that link does not answer my query. If, as you state, “there is no such thing” as a computation that relates temperature change to CO2 change, then what is the point of the “climate sensitivity to CO2 doubling” calculation?
OldWeirdHarold,
No offense intended, but if you can’t be bothered to “go hunting for it”, then don’t bother to post..
Physics Major says:
April 3, 2013 at 7:11 pm
davidmhofferTe says:
April 3, 2013 at 6:12 pm
“David, as I’m sure you know, that link does not answer my query. If, as you state, “there is no such thing” as a computation that relates temperature change to CO2 change, then what is the point of the “climate sensitivity to CO2 doubling” calculation?”
There is no point. At this time in the history of climate science, the calculation has no empirical meaning whatsoever. If you want the mythic version, David gave you the correct IPCC reference. The mythic version is all there is at this time.
Latitude says:
April 3, 2013 at 7:06 pm
Roughly what it is today.
ThinAir says:
April 3, 2013 at 5:15 pm
“His analysis (supposedly replaying Marcott style averaging and Monte Carlo) claims to show that spikes on a duration as short as 100 years of increasing temp followed by 100 years of decreasing temp (by 1/2 degree C) would still be visibie (only slightly reduced peak).”
You must have misstated something. That up and down interval is 200 years. It won’t work for a century. Are you saying that the left side of such a 200 year interval can be measured in a century? Or maybe you are not talking about the uptick?
Well, I guess that I was hoping that someone like Steven Mosher would enlighten me. But silence speaks volumes.
Agreed, with caveats. It serves the purpose of ‘framing’: It leads discussions, and the unwary, where the modellers wish to lead them.
Warm a glass of carbonated drink and it loses CO2 to the atmosphere. You can choose to define CO2 sensitivity to climate; it is just as valid as the converse. In a model world you are master of the universe, and can choose the definitions that suit you.
Physics Major;
Well, I guess that I was hoping that someone like Steven Mosher would enlighten me. But silence speaks volumes.
>>>>>>>
I’m not certain what it is you are asking for. Or are you trying to make a point? If so what? If you’re looking for an explanation from Mosher… good luck with that too 😉
The IPCC definition doesn’t answer the question, and cannot be verified by measurement in any event. In fact, if you read carefully, they even say that the concept of Radiative Forcing cannot be directly reconciled with Surface Forcing.
I suppose we could go back to the Third Assessment Report where they talk about sensitivity in the context of the Earth’s “effective black body temperature”. That’s different from the surface temperature. If you were to measure the “temperature” of earth from space using an IR thermometer, you’d get something in the range of -18 C because you’d be measuring (well sort of anyway) an average of the temperature from earth surface to TOA (top of atmosphere). So -18 C is the temp of earth as seen from space while +15 is the temp of earth at surface.
Now, we turn to CO2 in the absence of water vapour, feebacks, etc, and double it. In that scenario, the effective black body temperature of earth changes by, once equilibrium is returned to the system… exactly zero. So what has changed?
The amount of w/m2 entering the system (from solar radiance) and the amount leaving (from earth radiance) balance out exactly both before and after CO2 doubles. What changes is the number of times any given photon bounces between the CO2 molecules themselves. With twice as much CO2, the photons get absorbed and re-emitted in a random direction a greater number of times before they finally hit a path where they can escape to space. So, even though the amount leaving and the amount coming in are the same, there are more of them after CO2 doubles and equilibrium is once again established.
Now if we calculate through some statistical methods that I was once adept at several decades longer ago than I care to admit, you can figure out how many “extra” downward travelling photons there would be at any given point in time. If you turn that into a total energy flux over time, you will get about 3.7 w/m2. There’s plenty of slop in that number depending on how you do the statistical analysis in the first place, but it is a decent approximation in my judgement.
So, take SB Law, plus an additional 3.7 w/m2 into a temperature of -18 C, and you will get something on the order of 1 degree for a doubling of CO2.
Now there’s plenty wrong with that approach too, but I think that is roughly where the original CO2 doubling = 3.7 w/m2 = 1 degree came from. The reasoning is faulty because the effective black body temperature doesn’t actually change. What changes is the average altitude at which the effective black body temperature occurs. From there you have to make some assumptions about lapse rate and how uniform it is to arrive at an estimate of temperature change at surface… which as I’ve already explained, calculating an average of is a fool’s game.
Sorry there’s no clear answer. But that is exactly why this is such a complex field of science, and why you should be immediately suspicious of any explanation that seeks to give you a simple answer.
I forget the author, but the quote applies:
Complex difficult problems have simple, easy to understand, wrong answers.
What I’m saying is that the the formula for temperature rise for CO2 doubling cannot be true for all possible CO2 concentrations because ln(C1/C0) goes to infinity if C0 =0. So until you get rid of that infinity, you don’t have the correct equation. QED.
Physics Major;
So until you get rid of that infinity, you don’t have the correct equation. QED.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
There’s only so much detail that you can put into any given explanation. If your point is that the relationship cannot possibly hold for very low concentrations of CO2, you are correct. For the range of concentration we are dealing with in the climate discussion, a background level of 280 and current levels of 390, the relationship is valid.
David,
Please give me a link to the calculations that show the the temperature increase that will result from increasing the CO2 concentration from zero to 400 ppm. If you can do that, I will shut up.
Physics Major;
Please give me a link to the calculations that show the the temperature increase that will result from increasing the CO2 concentration from zero to 400 ppm. If you can do that, I will shut up.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
http://forecast.uchicago.edu/Projects/modtran.html
Kent Noonan!
“Top Ten Reasons to Ignore Global Warming!”
10. “if they could have proved it they would have proved it already!” But they didn’t.
9. “There are 25-30,000 Polar Bears!” Each one eats a seal every week or two, glad I don’t own stock in Seal Pups Unlimited.
8. “Ice has come and gone for thousands of years!” Glacier Bay in Alaska retreated 45 miles from 1794 to 1865, no SUV’s yet!!!
7. “Ice in Antarctica is at an all-time high!” Why was this not a headline at the New York Times?
6. “NASA ‘Adjusts’ Temperature records from the 1930’s, actually the hottest decade in history!!!”‘ Someone told them to do this, who could it be? Who stands to gain from Global Warming? Whoever it is, who can tell NASA what to do, most likely..
5. “Climate Models on the computer have already been trashed by NASA!” The satellite study known as NVAP-M shows that humidity is not rising, since 1988, even though ALL climate computer models require humidity to rise to amplify CO2 effects!!
4. The Oceans are not heating! The Oceans have almost one-thousand times more heat than the atmosphere, and yet, pretty much the same temperature since 1851 when the British Navy first began taking temperature records!
3. Satellite Temperatures show no trend! Satellites began taking temperatures of the entire Earth in 1979, and show little if any change! Far more accurate than ground thermometers, which only record 1/3 of the Earth.
2. Sea Level is not rising any faster since the 1800’s! Pretty much the same it has always been, maybe 1/8″ to 3-16″ inches a year, mostly due to the end of the Ice Age 12,000 years ago when the heavy ice pushed the continents down, but it takes them a while to come back up.
And the No. 1 Reason to Ignore Global Warming,
1. Cold Kills People! A warm, CO2-rich planet grows more crops, less people freeze, deserts shrink, costs less to pay the heat, food prices go down, pretty sweet!!!
Latitude says:
April 3, 2013 at 7:06 pm
“speaking of that….does anyone know what the temp would be…if man hadn’t created global warming?
….and exactly what is the temp at that zero line?”
I don’t know, but my marxist indoctrination informs me that it is flat. We marxists believe in a static universe, and “social justice” will not be realized until we have a flat planetary temp.
If private business, or the government, decides to employ fewer lamplighters as time goes by, then the workers of the world are being oppressed, and deserve to slit the throats of the proletariat.
If the average planetary temp changes from 1979 to 2015, then the proletariat deserve to riot in the streets until oil and coal are out of business. Those evil capitalists. Slit throats will simply be de riguer.
David,
So, it doesn’t work for low concentrations, but it must be valid for for
highmedium concentrations? How scientific is that?Martin Hutchinson over at Asia Times joins some dots for us-
http://atimes.com/atimes/Global_Economy/GECON-01-030413.html
Shiny new Green banner, same old Pol Pot mentality.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=drier-climate-may-spread-diarrhea
If diarrhoea kills 1.5 m per annum – 1.5 m more deaths than has actually been proven to be caused by cAGW – why are we wasting so many $billions on cAGW and not spending more on fighting for clean water and sanitation for the worlds poor?
It seems that, according to a government commission,the Climate Commission no less, that we in Australia are all doomed.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/opinion/last-summer-was-not-actually-angrier-than-other-summers/story-e6frgd0x-1226611988057
Whoops, perhaps not..
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/opinion/last-summer-was-not-actually-angrier-than-other-summers/story-e6frgd0x-1226611988057
Another whoops.
The Climate Commission link is..
http://climatecommission.gov.au/report/the-critical-decade/
True cost of “renewables”
http://theenergycollective.com/barrybrook/201991/counting-hidden-costs-energy?utm_source=tec_newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=newsletter&inf_contact_key=be5dd4efe904270cede6177b419dd7e04d2bc6b55c83077e6fbfcd805aec8c15
Physics Major,
The CO2 relationship formula in question is known as a mathematical approximation, valid over a limited domain of values.
I wonder if the actual relationship can be ascertained through empirical investigation.
Physics Major;
So, it doesn’t work for low concentrations, but it must be valid for for high medium concentrations? How scientific is that?
>>>>>>>>>
You are getting tiresome. There is a range of concentrations for which the relationship holds. Outside that range it doesn’t. The concentrations of interest to us for the climate debate are inside the range. F=MA and E=IR and other formulas are no different. There are conditions under which they do not apply. There is nothing wrong with applying them in the range of conditions where they do apply.
Latitude says:
April 3, 2013 at 7:06 pm
“speaking of that….does anyone know what the temp would be…if man hadn’t created
global warming? ….and exactly what is the temp at that zero line?”
Good question, but not answerable. As our climate system exhibits spatio-temporal chaos at all timescales, averaging global temperature to find a base period for comparison is a meaningless task.
“For every complex problem, there is a solution that is simple, neat, and wrong.”
–HL Mencken
Physics Major says:
April 3, 2013 at 9:56 pm
The Stefan-Boltzmann Law of physics based on a “Black Body” must be off a bit when used with a round gray rock.
http://suite101.com/article/apollo-mission-a-giant-leap-to-discredit-greenhouse-gas-theory
It seems the link I had got scrubbed from the web.
Anyway, when NASA used “black body” to figure out the Moon’s surface “temperature” to land Apollo, they off by 20% or so. So NASA used a different formula. So if NASA couldn’t use it for a piece of rock without an atmosphere, what good is it to use “Black Body” to figure surface “temperature” of any rock with an atmosphere?
old construction worker says:
April 4, 2013 at 3:33 am
“Anyway, when NASA used “black body” to figure out the Moon’s surface “temperature” to land Apollo, they off by 20% or so. So NASA used a different formula. So if NASA couldn’t use it for a piece of rock without an atmosphere, what good is it to use “Black Body” to figure surface “temperature” of any rock with an atmosphere?”
Oh come on.
“A body that does not absorb all incident radiation (sometimes known as a grey body) emits less total energy than a black body and is characterized by an emissivity …”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stefan%E2%80%93Boltzmann_law
Physics Major says:
April 3, 2013 at 9:56 pm
The logarithmic relationship ultimately is just curve fitting to provide something that’s easy to work into climate models. It doesn’t work for high concentrations either.
If you don’t like it, don’t use it. Use Modtran or other first principles sources, just like you don’t (I assume) use the approximation of g = 9.8 m/s^2 because gravity isn’t a constant over the surface of Earth.
And don’t forget to include convection and clouds in your model.
Just a note, I had enough of the effing ‘global warming’, here in SW London (UK), outdoor temperature is +2C with cold wind and it is snowing.
The idiocy of Climate Science & Climate Modelling is that at this point NO ONE can even say what all of the variables are, much less measure them, quantify their relative impacts on each of the others, or upon the whole . . . nor does the ‘Community’ DWELL ON THAT REALITY AT ALL!
This is why I find Mosher’s Temperature/Sensitivity/Forcing post, above, very amusing.
Take a variable such as Albedo . . how many subvariables? Cloud/Ice cover, Vegetation type and extent, Volcanic activity . . . . every variable has subvariables! Volcanic activity alone is a Wild card of unknowable implications.
The Mystery train is more than sixteen coaches long.
old construction worker says:
April 4, 2013 at 3:33 am
I believe there was a post here about it. IIRC the “paper’s” critique depended on ignoring the thermal mass of the Moon’s surface. It also didn’t include anything from NASA, I just wrote it off as uninformative junk. I might be able to find it with a couple minutes of searching, but I’d rather go eat breakfast.
I’m quite certain that S-B could be readily applied to the Moon if it were at a constant, homogenous temperature.
@Physics Major.
Another thing that makes the 5.35*ln(560/280) equation rather meaningless IMO is the fact that isn’t very non-linear. You get almost the same answer using y = mx + b. For example, assuming a linear increase in temperature of 3.71 degrees from 280 to 560 ppm gives a maximum departure of 0.3 degrees (2.17 deg logarthmic and 1.87 deg linear @420 ppm). In other words if your empirical data extends for only a few hundred ppm and the logarithmic effect over this narrow range is very nearly linear then what evidence do you have that your logarthimic equation is in fact correct? It’s a little bit like trying to prove a sine wave is periodic when you only have 1/16 th of a period.
As an interested, yet non scientific, observer in the AGW (non-debate) for quite a few years now, one question has always bugged me – how is it possible to have a “Global” average or “mean” temperature calculated with accuracy.
Dismissing the UHI effect / debate for this purpose surely the number of possible variants would make this almost impossible.
Do we put all the data / approximations into one large spreadsheet or do we average each country individually then average the averages?
Yours
Seriously curious
Where does the constant 5.35 come from in the equation that shows that the change in heat is proportional to the log of the CO2 concentration change expressed as a ratio?
Jo Nova has post up about the hotspot, or rather the lack of it. She quotes AR5 draft:
quote
In summary, there is high confidence (robust evidence although only medium agreement) that most, though not all, CMIP3 and CMIP5 models overestimate the warming trend in the tropical troposphere during the satellite period 1979–2011. The cause of this bias remains elusive.
unquote
Only medium agreement… I take that to mean ‘even though the evidence is robust we can’t get the believers to agree that it matters’.
This really deserves a lot of attention: as Jo Nova says ‘… instead they deny the importance of 28 million weather-balloons, call the missing heat a “travesty”, they pretend that if you slap enough caveats on the 1990 report and ignore the actual direct quotes they made at the time, then possibly, just maybe, their models are doing OK, and through sheer bad luck 3000 ocean buoys, millions of weather balloons, and 30 years of satellite records are all biased in ways that hides the true genius of the climate models.’
JF
“Another thing that makes the 5.35*ln(560/280) equation rather meaningless IMO is the fact that isn’t very non-linear.”
sadly it is correct. 5.35ln(c02a/C02b) is known, verified observation. The physics behind it were developed and refined by the US Air force. We use that physics to develop working tested devices. Device that protect you day in and day out. its the same physics we use to design radars, ir seekers, cell phones.. anything that sends EM through the atmosphere.
The satillite “data” RSS and UAH.. both DEPEND on that physics being correct. because it is.
The logarithmic relationship ultimately is just curve fitting to provide something that’s easy to work into climate models. It doesn’t work for high concentrations either.
If you don’t like it, don’t use it. Use Modtran or other first principles sources, just like you don’t (I assume) use the approximation of g = 9.8 m/s^2 because gravity isn’t a constant over the surface of Earth.
##############
you ding dong. If he wants a more accurate number than 5.35ln() he should use a LBL prediction code. MODTRAN approximates these higher fidelity transfer codes.
Steven Mosher says:
April 3, 2013 at 11:07 am
Sure its been measured Jim. And you’ve been given many links over the past months.
measuring it is simple:
Sensitivity = Change in Temperature/ Change in Forcing….
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
That means ALL possible influences must first be identified and then measure. Good luck with that. Just dealing with a close system chemical process is enough to get the Chem Engineers tearing their hair out at times where confounding variables can be identified using designed experiments.
The earth’s climate does not allow designed experiments so the process of identification and determination of confounding variables is not only a PITA but at times close to impossible.
It appears, from the ENSO page, that the cold tongue is emerging in the NINO1 region a few weeks earlier than it did last year. Anyone for La Nada 2013?
polski says:
April 3, 2013 at 1:28 pm
….Thanks for the explanation and in short “they suck” if I read your post correctly. Do the models offer any kind of useful information or do they just consume computer time at a huge rate?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
First the computers can only work with the information given. If you leave out factors or get the relationships wrong it is GIGO.
Second the IPCC mandate is to hang humans not to determine the factors that effect climate, therefore that mandate will warp the input and outcome of the computers as well as the funding of research.
The IPCC mandate states:
Physics Major says:
April 3, 2013 at 9:17 pm
davidmhoffer says:
April 3, 2013 at 8:53 pm
Physics Major;
So until you get rid of that infinity, you don’t have the correct equation. QED.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
There’s only so much detail that you can put into any given explanation. If your point is that the relationship cannot possibly hold for very low concentrations of CO2, you are correct. For the range of concentration we are dealing with in the climate discussion, a background level of 280 and current levels of 390, the relationship is valid.
David,
Please give me a link to the calculations that show the the temperature increase that will result from increasing the CO2 concentration from zero to 400 ppm. If you can do that, I will shut up.
###########################
go ask John Christy or Roy spencer for the radiative transfer codes they use. You could start by looking at any LBL transfer codes. If you were an engineer building a sensor that had to see through C02 ( or any other gas, water vapor etc ) you would have these codes in your physics tool chest. You cant build a working device without understanding what C02 or H2O does to a transmission signal. This physics is tested. Its engineering. One way its tested is by going to regions of the world where the atmosphere is different ( like more dry) and measuring downwelling and upwelling signals. So, for example, you test in antarctica.
now, this physics didnt start as climate science. It started in the department of defense.
Why? Imagine a heat seeking missile on the ground, looking into the sky. What does it see?
For example, I will tell you how we used this physics in the design of the stealth fighter.
The plane had an IR signature ( different wavelengths for hot parts, burning fuel, and aero heating) When you fly at 50K feet you have to prove to the government that your IR signature will not be visible to a seeker on the ground. That physics, the physics of how signals
travel through the atmosphere used to be classified ( MODTRAN was classified when I used it )
Any way, the physics codes are used to predict the incident signature of an airplane after that energy has propagated through the atmosphere. The propagation is a function of the gases and the distance. You have to calculate this for all sorts of different conditions. tropical, arctic, etc.
An interesting side note. At one stage during the design of a certain unamed vehicle we had to test the effect of venting C02 to hide engine exhaust. very easy. you take your Air force validated transfer code ( like MODTRAN) you calculate the signature with a standard C02 concentration in the atmosphere. Then you calculate the same signature with double the C02. Then you hit the test range and see how well it actually works.
sound weird? how about this
“Plasma stealth is a phenomenon proposed to use ionized gas (plasma) to reduce RCS of vehicles. Interactions between electromagnetic radiation and ionized gas have been studied extensively for many purposes, including concealing vehicles from radar. Various methods might form a layer or cloud of plasma around a vehicle to deflect or absorb radar, from simpler electrostatic to RF more complex laser discharges, but these may be difficult in practice.”
read this
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=21&ved=0CDUQFjAAOBQ&url=http%3A%2F%2Fdspace.library.iitb.ac.in%2Fxmlui%2Fbitstream%2Fhandle%2F10054%2F613%2F5740.pdf%3Fsequence%3D1&ei=saJdUZziA-rx0wGRsoAI&usg=AFQjCNG68c4MONx3ulydrPYQXwHh0K297Q&sig2=cjmC2KF1veRCMbuowQHtmA
@Julian Flood – Dean Brooks’ paper:
http://declineeffect.com
[Link: The ‘Pot Lid’ hypothesis]
claims the tropospheric “hotspot” is an artifact (see my comment above)
So its April 4th 17:00 British Summer Time, on the south coast of England, and global warming is dropping out of the sky, Splendid….
@Mosher. If you would be kind enough to post a link on the US Air Force calibration of the CO2 equation I will continue with my homework.
Temperature records for London go back some 300 years. The BBC weather man solemnly proclaimed that today (4th April 2013) was the coldest April day on the record. It’s still snowing in SW.
Steve Mosher;
go ask John Christy or Roy spencer for the radiative transfer codes they use.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
You can ask, but that’s not how they do it. Read Spencer’s site.
Further, you (yet again) use examples that are dead wrong. We know how the cell phone signal that arrives at our phone relates to the signal that left the cell tower. We have enough information at the cell phone to know what the cell tower sent. We have precisely ZERO information about the part of the signal that got lost between the cell tower and the cell phone. We don’t know what happened to it, or where it happened. We know absolutely NOTHING about the part of the signal that got absorbed by the atmosphere between the tower and the phone, and we don’t NEED to in order to make the phone work. But for THIS discussion we WOULD need to know precisely what happened to the part of the signal that never got to the phone AND WE DON’T.
Ric Werme says:
“old construction worker says:
April 4, 2013 at 3:33 am
Anyway, when NASA used “black body” to figure out the Moon’s surface “temperature” to land Apollo, they off by 20% or so.
Ric
I did a little search and came up with this:
The study questions the numeric bedrock of the greenhouse gas theory
(GHG) by applying data collected by NASA decades ago. It seems during
the Apollo Moon landings era NASA devised a whole new set of hitherto
unreported equations, more reliable than those relied upon by supporters
of the GHG theory, to get Neil Armstrong’s carbon boot prints safely
planted on that airless Sea of Tranquility.
https://groups.google.com/forum/?fromgroups#!topic/sci.environment/G58PsNpgqp8
Physics Major says:
April 3, 2013 at 9:56 pm
So, it doesn’t work for low concentrations, but it must be valid for for highmedium concentrations? How scientific is that?
It is very scientific. Some properties are macroscopic and others are microscopic. For example, we all know that temperature and sound exist. However neither can be measured with only a single gas molecule.
You cannot “calculate” that which has never been measured first.
http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2011/08/11/the-greenhouse-effect-and-the-principle-of-re-radiation-11-aug-2011/
Please provide me with the relevant balance sheet.
MangoChutney says: @ April 4, 2013 at 12:21 am
If diarrhoea kills 1.5 m per annum – 1.5 m more deaths than has actually been proven to be caused by cAGW – why are we wasting so many $billions on cAGW and not spending more on fighting for clean water and sanitation for the worlds poor?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Because TPTB want them dead and they really really want the control over energy and the tax revenue they hope CAGW scam will create.
In case you have any illusions about benevolent government, see DEATH BY GOVERNMENT By R.J. Rummel
sounds like UNEP wants another huge bureaucracy to pretend to police the CO2 trading corruption! read all:
March 2013: pdf (13 pages): UNEP Global Environment Alert Service:
The impact of corruption on climate change: threatening emissions trading mechanisms?
This bulletin provides an overview of recent discussions about the impact of corruption on environmental governance, with a focus on emissions trading. It reviews new definitions and the latest corruption assessment methodologies in order to emphasise the broader challenges faced by GHG trading mechanisms and climate finance…
The implementation of cap-and-trade systems in both developed and developing countries has been recurrently tainted by cases of fraud and bribery, abuses of power, and other conventional forms of corruption. Corruption in this sector has also taken more original forms, such as the strategic exploitation of ‘bad science’ and scientific uncertainties for profit, the manipulation of GHG market prices, and anti-systemic speculation (Lohmann, 2007; TI, 2012a; Wara, 2007). The challenge that corruption poses to climate finance also contributes to broader debates about the impact of corruption in environmental governance…
http://na.unep.net/geas/archive/pdfs/GEAS_Mar2013_EnvCorruption.pdf
old construction worker says:
April 4, 2013 at 10:16 am
The main post there says:
Which is what I I was trying to get people to pay attention to. Unfortunately, the post also says “But, despite the U.S. government knowing since the 1960’s that the blackbody equations were of no use to real-world science,” “The paper tells us how far out Stefan-Boltzmann’s equations could be,” and “But it isn’t just Earth’s Moon that doesn’t support the GHG theory.”
This is crap – the S-B equation works just fine, but by itself it doesn’t describe climate, using just it can lead to big errors for obvious reasons, and that the frigging Moon doesn’t have an atmosphere so it of course it doesn’t support the GHG theory.
Basically, the only thing in the report is that a first order approximation of the Moon’s surface temperature (a black body) is not good enough for government work.
And that’s why the report doesn’t warrant the attention it received.
Ric Werme says:
April 4, 2013 at 5:21 pm
old construction worker says:
April 4, 2013 at 10:16 am
“the frigging Moon doesn’t have an atmosphere so it of course it doesn’t support the GHG theory.”
I think you missed the point. If the “Back Body” equations could not be used in the Apollo landing because errors, then what “good” is the “Back Body” equations used to arrive at .5C for re radiation of CO2. And, wouldn’t the errors make “climate “sensitivity” be off as well? I would think a physicist or mathematician would cringe if they knew there were errors in their work.
Maybe it is close enough for “climate model work”.
Open Thread? OK…
Here is a bitcoin infographic. Enjoy! [Also]
old construction worker says:
April 4, 2013 at 7:10 pm
I think you missed my point. If the “Back Body” equations alone could not be used in the Apollo landing because thermal mass is important, ….
Climate and weather models have always dealt with thermal mass, that’s one of the reasons the coldest day of the year in temperate zones lags the winter solstice by a month or so. People know that, the models know that, NASA probably knew that too, but without knowing how heat is conducted through the lunar surface probably went with S-B alone as a “first pass” approximation. Heat conduction was one of the big unknowns and one of the goals of of the Surveyor probes (and I assume Luna).
From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surveyor_1 :
Just because the first pass at calculating the Moon’s temperature was wrong, doesn’t mean the same flaw exists in Terran models, nor does it mean the knowledge “gained” from the lunar misstep is enough to show how to calculate climate sensitivity on Earth.
For example, I think one of the big errors in determining climate sensitivity is not accounting for increased convection. Nothing from that report provides any assistance in that.
Things have been very quiet on the Andreas Rossi E-Cat front of late. Part of the problem is a new partnership that might be a real business and Rossi hasn’t been as free with information as he has been. (Yeah, yeah, it could also be that cold fusion progress is as slow as the global temperature, but that would be a cheap shot to couple things to main topic of this blog 🙂 .)
It could also be I have been checking frequently lately, neither have others. At any rate….
http://www.e-catworld.com/2013/03/rossi-reports-tests-concluded-results-positive/ includes this Rossi-speak. (I converted it from all-caps. You’re welcome.):
I’m not sure what plants these are. I hope there will be some announcement then, it’s easier to wait than research.
This two-stage thing is new too, there’s a little more speculation in the post.
[ …that I have [not] been checking recently … ? Mod]
@Kent Noonan
The abstract from this paper says a lot in a few words:
Abstract. The threat of dangerous climate change from anthropogenic global warming has decreased. Global temperature rose from 1975 to 1998, but since then has levelled off.
Sea level is now rising at about 1.5mm per year based on tide gauges, and satellite data suggests it may even be falling. Coral islands once allegedly threatened by drowning have actually increased in area.
Ice caps cannot possibly slide into the sea (the alarmist model) because they occupy kilometres-deep basins extending below sea level. Deep ice cores show a succession of annual layers of snow accumulation back to 760,000 years and in all that time never melted, despite times when the temperature was higher than it is today. Sea ice shows no change in 30 years in the Arctic.
Emphasis on the greenhouse effect stresses radiation and usually leads to neglect of important factors like convection. Water is the main greenhouse gas. The CO2 in the ocean and the atmosphere are in equilibrium: if we could remove CO2 from the atmosphere the ocean would give out more to restore the balance. Increasing CO2 might make the ocean less alkaline but never acid.
The sun is now seen as the major control of climate, but not through greenhouse gases. There is a very good correlation of sunspots and climate. Solar cycles provide a basis for prediction. Solar Cycle 24 has started and we can expect serious cooling.
Many think that political decisions about climate are based on scientific predictions but what politicians get are projections based on computer models. The UN’s main adviser, the IPCC, uses adjusted data for the input, their models and codes remain secret, and they do not accept responsibility for their projections.
Ollier c., 2013. Global warming and climate change: science and politics. Quaestiones Geographicae 32(1), Bogucki Wydawnictwo Naukowe, Poznań, pp. 61–66. DOI 10.2478/quageo-2013-0008, ISSN 0137-477X.
Link to full paper:
http://geoinfo.amu.edu.pl/qg/current/quageo-2013-0008.pdf
Ric Werme says:
April 6, 2013 at 5:19 am
[ …that I have [not] been checking recently … ? Mod]
Oops, right. Why is that typo so easy to make?