jennifermarohasy.com/blog - The Politics and Environment Blog

Main menu:

Subscribe

August 2008
M T W T F S S
« Jul   Sep »
 123
45678910
11121314151617
18192021222324
25262728293031

Tags

Archives

Authors

Site search

Please visit

Categories

Nature Photographs

Links

Disclaimer: The inclusion of a blog or website in this list should not be taken as an endorsement of its contents by me.

Causal Linkage between Carbon Dioxide and Global Warming (Part 4)

On the evening of Sunday, August 10, I asked for citations of research papers in reputable scientific journals that examine the causal link between anthropogenic carbon dioxide and global warming and that quantified the extent of this warming.** In most areas of science, when a clearly articulated theory dominates, a student can nominate several seminal papers that have influenced and directed thinking in that area.

Many people believe increasing concentrations of carbon dioxide lead to increases in temperature. This can be demonstrated in a laboratory, but when you scale up laboratory experiments to the real world, what happens? We know from ice cores that global temperatures have decreased in the past even as carbon dioxide has continued to rise. There are some so-called skeptics who claim that in the real world the radiation forcing of carbon dioxide is overwhelmed by the more powerful constraints of evaporation cooling from the tropical oceans.

I cross-posted my request for papers as a comment on John Quiggin’s blog as I was interested to see what those who follow the issue and generally subscribe to AWG theory would suggest by way of best papers. The next morning my request turned into a bet when Michael Duffy offered to put up $1,000.

By Monday evening the thread at Professor Quiggin’s blog had thrown up three papers that the commentators suggested potentially provided explanation of the causal link and a quantification of the extent of warming. Interestingly one of them was published as long ago as 1938 – perhaps it was a seminal paper.
The papers are:
1. Callendar, G.S., 1938. The artificial production of carbon dioxide and its influence on temperature. Q. J. R. Meteorol. Soc., Vol 64, 223–237.
2. Hofmann, D.J., J. H. Butler, E. J . Dlugokencky, J . W. Elkins, K. Masarie, S. A. Montzka and P. Tans, 2006. The role of carbon dioxide in climate forcing from 1979 to 2004: Introduction of the Annual Greenhouse Gas Index, Tellus B, Vol 58, 614-619.
3. Crowley, T. 2000. Causes of Climate Change Over the Past 1000 Years. Science Vol 289: 270-277.

I have posted comment on two of the papers concluding they do not fit the criteria (part 2 and part 3 of this series of blog posts) and I understand that the author of one of the papers, Thomas Crowley, posted comment at John Quiggins site acknowledging that his paper did not deal with causation.

This is a key point acknowledged by Professor Quiggin in the thread at his blog, though he initially went as far as to claim that there are “hundreds of papers on both the causal link and the question of sensitivity” but could only cite a few papers which he suggested dealt with the issue of sensitivity later in that same thread.

While many scientists would claim you can’t deal with sensitivity if you haven’t established causality, this is attempted in climate science including by correlating output from computer models. Aynsley Kellow has explained this as a technique of post-normal science in his book, Science and Public Policy: The Virtuous Corruption of Virtual Environmental Science (Edward Elgar, 2007).

The 1938 paper by G.S. Callendar is the closest of the three to fitting the criteria in that it attempts to answer the types of questions that a scientist would need to consider if a credible link is to be established between anthropogenic carbon dioxide and warming in the real world. However, it is clear from the discussion section within the paper that Mr Callendar’s findings were not peer reviewed, and furthermore not accepted by his colleagues. Indeed, the following comments are included as part of the discussion within that paper which is presented as ‘a reading’ followed by discussion (pg 237): 1. the numerical results could not be used to give an indication of the order of magnitude of the effect of carbon dioxide, and 2. it is not clear how absorption energy by carbon dioxide is calculated. These are important points that the Callendar paper explains have not been properly examined.

There are of course the voluminous reports from the United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, with their findings and theories on popular Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) theory. The content of these reports, endorsed by governments around the world, have been repeated over and over, for example, in the recent influential report by economist Ross Garnaut to the Australian government. It is apparent, however, that a body of science published in peer-review journals, establishing a causal link between anthropogenic carbon dioxide and warming and quantifying the extent of this warming, is lacking but would be expected to exist to support popular AGW theory.

———————————
** I understand causality to be the relationship between cause and effect. American Environmental Scientists, S Marshall Adams, suggests seven causal criteria for evaluating the relationship between specific environmental stressors and observed effects: strength of association, consistency of association, specificity of association, time order of temporality, biological gradient, experimental evidence, and biological plausibility (Establishing causality between environmental stressors and effects on aquatic ecosystems. Human and ecological risk assessment. Feb 2003, 9, 1, pg. 17-35).

Part 1
Part 2 including comment on Hoffman et al.
Part 3 including comment on Crowley

Advertisement

343 Responses to “Causal Linkage between Carbon Dioxide and Global Warming (Part 4)”

Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 » Show All

  1. Comment from: spangled drongo


    “So AGWers, why are we cooling even though CO2 is going up?”
    Posted by: Steve Stip at August 31, 2008 02:28 PM

    But we ARE warming Steve, it’s just that the instruments aren’t recording it.

    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/05/080530144943.htm

  2. Comment from: Steve Stip


    SJT,

    I’m all ears.

  3. Comment from: GraemeBird.


    “Europe’s temperature increases considerably faster than the northern hemisphere average….”

    Well suprise surprise. It also cools quicker too. And becomes basically uninhabitable during glacial periods.

    “Detailed month-by-month analyses show temperature and humidity changes for individual months that are similar for all Europe, indicating large-scale weather patterns uniformly influencing temperature. However, superimposed to these changes a strong west-east gradient is observed for all months.

    The gradual temperature and humidity increases from west to east are not related to circulation but must be due to non-uniform water vapour feedback.”

    How does THAT follow. Thats like saying the waves are going backwards out at Cronulla…… GLOBAL WARMING!!!!

    Perhaps the centre of Eurasia isn’t used to a lot of water vapour when its cold and when it warms up has access to a bit more of it from all sides. That would make a great deal of sense. But to yell “Eureka, global warming” when they stumble on their first poser is not really the scientific way.

    How would that be for the red centre of Australia. We don’t have a comparable gulf stream to the West of the continent. But if we had oceanic warming on either side we might well expect disproportionate change to the water vapour level as we went in from Western Australia.

  4. Comment from: barry moore


    Luke I applaud your return to a pseudo scientific argument however as I have said before the one size fits all type all calculation can only be applied to a linear relationship, since Stefans’s law is a 4th power equation one has to do a finite element analysis over the entire globe taking into account the average temperature, cloud cover, humidity, CO2 concentration, suns irradiance etc. etc. etc. of each element at the same moment in time. This has never been done so unfortunately your general averaging technique is totally invalid.
    SJT “it’s a serious piece of speculation that is a based on a very simple model,” and what may I ask is the entire IPCC report.
    SJT try doing a Beer’s law calculation to determine the mean path of IR.
    ” Because the atmospheric residence time of tropospheric aerosols is short (about a week) compared to the decades-to-centuries lifetimes of the greenhouse gases…”
    I have to comment on this too, the aerosols are constantly being replenished on a daily basis clouds being by far the greatest.
    Greenhouse gas residence time ? I did a mass balance on Fig .7.3. Pg 514 IPCC 4AR. I will re post.

    Let us analyze scientifically Chapter 7 of the 4th assessment report by the IPCC page 514 Fig 7.3. This is a representation of the global carbon cycle in terms of anthropogenic and natural carbon fluxes between the air, land and ocean. I would say therefore that it is at the very heart of this subject so please do not accuse me of nit picking some trivial side issue. This figure by the way has been around for at least 10 years to my knowledge having seen it first in an earlier form on the NOAA-PMEL web site.
    Now as an engineer the first thing I look at is the mass balance to see if it is valid.
    But first some basic rules: I will abbreviate A= anthropogenic carbon N= natural carbon.
    1. The N/A ratios must be the same for the content and the flux from either air, land or ocean ( surface )
    2. Assume the total carbon content of land and ocean is reasonably close per Fig 7.3
    3. The Air has about 840 GT of carbon. This model was from the 90’s so a little difference.
    4. Total anthropogenic carbon since the Industrial Revolution is 244 GT as per Fig 7.3 and 100GT has been sequestered in the deep ocean.
    Now try to do a mass balance.
    The N/A ratio for the air is 597 / 165 , but the air to ocean flux is 70 / 22.2 and the air to land flux is 120 / 2.6.
    The ocean N/A ratio is 900 / 18 but the ocean to air flux is 70.6 / 20
    The land N/A ratio is, believe it or not, 2300 /(-39) totally ridiculous!!! The flux is 119.6 / 1.6.
    This is the very heart of the IPCC’s case which has appeared in all reports and has been peer reviewed by the best of the best.
    I formulated a simplistic model in excel and got all the fluxes and content ratios to agree and the result was the atmosphere contains 29.22 ppm of anthropogenic CO2 out of 385 ppm which if you take the quite conservative number of 1.2 deg C for a doubling of CO2 from 300 to 600 ppm gives you .004 deg C per ppm thus the total impact of anthropogenic CO2 is .05 deg C.
    The residence time of anthropogenic CO2 is 1.83 years.
    If you want my excel program give me your e mail I will sent it to you and have fun.

  5. Comment from: GraemeBird.


    “Detailed month-by-month analyses show temperature and humidity changes for individual months that are similar for all Europe, indicating large-scale weather patterns uniformly influencing temperature. However, superimposed to these changes a strong west-east gradient is observed for all months.”

    A strong west-east gradiant. That would be the case always with water vapour as you crank the amount of it up. The air only holds so much overnight. So when you crank the amount up over seven years the former drier areas, further away from the ocean, will exhibit more of it in the air in precisely and east-west gradient.

    All this says is the warmer times are the wetter times. And the dispersal is opposite to what the liars at CSIRO tell us. The water vapour doesn’t flood in the already wet places in the warmer times and go drier in the already dry areas. Thats lies. The better warmer wetter conditions SPREAD OUT. The tropical and subtropical areas expand.

    Their own theory is moronic. They seem to be saying that the extra water vapour is coming from the continent itself and not the oceans.

  6. Comment from: barry moore


    “You left out another possibility, your assessment of the situation is wrong.”
    SJT
    “But we ARE warming Steve, it’s just that the instruments aren’t recording it.”
    Spangled drongo
    You have no idea how much genuine belly laughter you guys are giving me I had no idea there were so many so many morons who were so willing to expose their stupidity so blatantly.

  7. Comment from: Louis Hissink


    Barry

    have you read Segalstad’s paper http://www.co2web.info/ESEF3VO2.pdf – he deals with a “missing CO2 sink” that the IPCC believes in.

    The mass balance reconsiliation you did seems to confirm carbon cycle assumptions are baloney.

  8. Comment from: Jan Pompe


    Louis: “Here we show that *while solar radiation DECREASES temperature increases* and this because longwave downward radiation increases.”

    I think this had him perplexed.

  9. Comment from: barry moore


    Thanks Louis yes I have read the paper, Segalstads one of my favourites. Incidentally I love the comment on Page 446 of the IPCC 4AR “ Ice core records show that atmospheric CO2 varied in the range 180 to 300 ppm over the galactic-intergalactic cycles of the last 650 K yr ( Figure 6.3; Petit et al., Siegenthaler et al., 2005a) The quantitative and mechanistic explanation of these CO2 variations remains one of the major unsolved questions in climate research,” and I quote. The reason they can not be explained is because it never happened, 180 ppm for 10 000 years would cause 50% of the worlds flora to become extinct and there would be massive extinctions of the animals. This never happened so the ice core data is false.

  10. Comment from: cohenite


    Jan and Louis; yes, perplexed; throwing balls up into the air and expecting some to not come down; no particular reason for negative luminescence; it was either that or Casimir and ZPE; luke is putting great store in this Philopona business so I guess I’ll have to get my wife to do the maths.

    Barry; informative posts; a correction on the Schwartz paper; he was subject to criticism from a number of sources including Hansen and Schmidt;

    http://www.jamstec.go.jp/frsgc/research/d5/jdannan/comment_on_schwartz.pdf

    And consequently made corrections;

    http://www.ecd.bnl.gov/steve/pubs/HeatCapCommentResponse.pdf

    Basically, the lag increased from 5+- 1 year to 8.5 +-2.5 years; the equilibrium climate sensitivity from 0.3+-0.14K/(Wm-2) to .51+-.26K/(Wm-2) and the temperature increase for a doubling of CO2 from 1.1+-0.5K to 1.9+-1.0K. Still somewhat below IPCC figures but closer than before.

  11. Comment from: Jan Pompe


    Barry: “This never happened so the ice core data is false.”

    Or interpretation is faulty.

  12. Comment from: GraemeBird.


    I think so too. These guys are just thrown by the fact that everything doesn’t work in unison and that things peak at different time.

    “I slowed down the hot water tap in the bath yet the temperature kept building.”

    “Global Warming.”

    “Well yes you know that its global warming.”

    The water vapour takes time to build up. The heat of the oceans takes time to heat up. The momentum of the gulf stream takes time to slow down.

    “… Then I turned the hot tap off entirely. I washed the hotter water down to the far side away from the taps and the temperature continued to climb at that end.”

    ” Global Warming”

    “You bet and I have the mathematics to prove it”

    They get solar cycle 23 being less powerful than solar cycle 22 and immediately its EUREKA GLOBAL WARMING.

    Imagine dealing with these people on a daily basis.

    “the South Island of New Zealand had its coldest winter since the 1940’s this year. And the Antarctic is accumulating ice and getting colder……”

    “Global warming?”

    “Well yes for sure.”

    It would be like that all the time.

    Simple things like ocean conveyer momentum, accumulating ocean energy, the water vapour continuing to accumulate after that ocean energy has peaked and turned down. It throws these people. Totally mystified by stuff like this. And yet superb at raising stolen money from the government for another study.

    These are very very stupid people.

  13. Comment from: Louis Hissink


    Jan,

    Ah, I see – I’ve just been scanning the posts here looking for something which might explain it.

    Graeme Bird has pointed to an impotant discussion

    http://freenet-homepage.de/klima/indexe.htm.

  14. Comment from: Steve Stip


    Barry Moore,

    You have a brain so I would like to ask you a question. Why not just measure:

    1.) the energy incident upon the earth (via satellite).
    2.) the energy reflected/radiated away (also by satellite).

    Subtracting 2.) from 1.) should give us the long term temperature trend of the earth, right? So why isn’t this being done?

    Thanks, I learn a lot from your posts.

    Steve

  15. Comment from: spangled drongo


    Barry,

    “You have no idea how much genuine belly laughter you guys are giving me I had no idea there were so many so many morons who were so willing to expose their stupidity so blatantly.”

    I was hoping someone would get the joke, but you could at least be a little more polite.

  16. Comment from: gavin


    Steve:

    I suggested our satellite could be the moon earlier thinking Jan could have a go but it involves thinking away from standards set here and by that I mean there is nothing wrong with accepting greenhouse as the concept in the first instance.

  17. Comment from: GraemeBird.


    I think I just heard that it was Sydneys coldest August in 40 years.

    “Global Warming?”
    “Yes and the models predicted it.”

    Its really about that dumb and we hear it every day don’t we?
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    The ocean-conveyer momentum issue is far more important than in the example of the bath. Since merely spreading out the heat energy helps continue the heat buildup via Stefan Boltzmanns law.

  18. Comment from: gavin


    SD: I tripped up on it because I’m quite used to people blaming their instruments before thinking.

  19. Comment from: GraemeBird.


    Look guys one of you must have good knowledge of the hydraulics involved. We have one part of the cycle with little pressure and where an individual bit of water can make it from Florida to the sea of Labrador in a matter of weeks…… then it sinks down mabe three kilometres and now its a slow-moving giant ooze that takes maybe 5000 years to get back to where it started.

    So you have small, not under pressure fast-moving stream of about 20 amazons at one part of it. But if its so slow-moving elsewhere the size of the oozing mass must be truly gigantic.

    The potential for at least a one solar-cycle tide-over thanks to the momentum of this whole system is clear if indeed that pulsing momentum can be maintained.

  20. Comment from: SJT


    “But we ARE warming Steve, it’s just that the instruments aren’t recording it.”

    Weird. The ground station records are totally unreliable, but weather balloons and satellites never have any problems.

  21. Comment from: Louis Hissink


    Graeme

    That reference you linked is excellent – basically summarises in more technical detail my assertion that there is no such thing as a greenhouse gas, though I would take issue with the Venus example that it’s temperature is high due to the CO2 in its atmosphere.

    There is some excellent work by Brian Tindley on the role of atmosphere electricity and climate change etc

    http://www.utdallas.edu/physics/faculty/tinsley.html

    But as we well know here, the largest force in the universe has no relevance to anything on earth except for cell phones, computers and reading lights etc.

    A review of Tinsley’s latest is published in the next AIG News due out now……

    In terms of Callendar’s work, Segalstad has some detailed criticism of Callendar’s theory – and as expected, the use of the Socratic method was employed to create the CO2 dogma.

  22. Comment from: GraemeBird.


    You look at Venus. No moon or fast rotation to create disturbance to the thick CO2 down the bottom. The layered strata, including cloud strata above, and the strata within the planet. The heat cannot get out.

    Extreme compression. Super-rotation of clouds, implying massive overturning of the higher CO2 beneath the clouds so the hot air is funnelled under, recycling the heat. The whole damn planet set up like a you-beaut furnace.

    And if greenhouse is relevant the heat is such that its relevant for all three absorption spectra regions. Unlike earth one would THINK. That is probably only relevant at night for one of these.

    It wouldn’t matter what the gas was so long as you could maintain the compression and this bizzare set of circumstances. Any other gas. Well it would be very very hot. I don’t know how hot. But very very hot.

  23. Comment from: spangled drongo


    “Weird. The ground station records are totally unreliable, but weather balloons and satellites never have any problems.”

    SJT,
    With ground station records there is strong visual evidence of both bad science and UHI.
    The balloon and satellite data are, OTOH, generally accepted by both persuasions and are in all other respects correct.

  24. Comment from: Louis Hissink


    But one thing is clear, the only scientific paper proposing a causal link between CO2 and “global warming” is the 1938 one by Callendar, and then his work is questioned, so we end up with none.

    But this is simply the Socratic dialectic method where common assent deems that CO2 must cause warming – a sort ‘it must be true because no one has disproven it’ type of reasoning.

    Well sorry but the facts show otherwise.

    However Canberra will steam full ahead to implement the ET scheme.

  25. Comment from: Luke


    Sigh Barry – shortwave down, aerosols down, longwave up. Temperature up. Go figure.

    You’ve diverted onto climate sensitivity and global averaging 4th power bilge (analysis is at points). Maaattteee – settle the fudge down. Separate topics.

    So instead of racing all over the place IMO we should debate whether we have any evidence of “greenhouse radiation” doing its thing. See topic of this post. Clouds, PDO, water vapour yadda yadda next.

    Barry when confronted with a decent paper(s) with empirical data matching theory it could simply be telling you what’s it’s telling you. i.e. it checks out

    Now if Birdy would STFU and Louis disconnect the prejudice and bullshit philosophy modules we might progress. Pretty difficult to progress here with so many mad bastards running about trying to show who has the biggest dick.

  26. Comment from: SJT


    “Pretty difficult to progress here with so many mad bastards running about trying to show who has the biggest dick.”

    That would be me.

  27. Comment from: Lazlo


    SJT: ‘Weird. The ground station records are totally unreliable, but weather balloons and satellites never have any problems.’ So will you be the one to tell Kevin that there really is major uncertainty about all this?

  28. Comment from: GraemeBird.


    We have just got to keep reminding people that only mass-sackings can cure these problems. Since the causal relationship between solar activity is obvious and the causal relationship with CO2 is OBVIOUSLY not there.

    So they just don’t want to know. They are liars. They are frauds. They are traitors to their fellow Australians. And every last one of them in the public sector must be sacked for incompetence or malice.

    Its not a line ball call.

  29. Comment from: Louis Hissink


    Graeme

    Mass sackings? That means writing out mass warnings according to the anti-dismissal laws. Three times! These are public servants as well – so it’s a big ask.

    Be prepared for another period of darkness because we don’t have the numbers to make any difference in terms of policy.

    And the ALP know this as well, hence their cynical electioneering in WA, for example.

  30. Comment from: gavin


    Hmmmm: Which C-Thru graphics art ruler do we need?

  31. Comment from: GraemeBird.


    “Mass sackings? That means writing out mass warnings according to the anti-dismissal laws. Three times! ”

    We’ll change the legislation. This sort of civilisational suicide attempt is just that serious. Anti-nuclear and against fossil fuels. Thats a body blow to our viability.

  32. Comment from: Louis Hissink


    Graeme

    I work in the mining industry that is regulated by state laws of industrial legislation, under which we have an ever growing federal burdern.

    And I see that Gavin has progressed to esoteric commentary – a sort of pensioned Humphrey Appleby waning in his dotage.

  33. Comment from: GraemeBird.


    Right. Well we will need a severely trimmed down public sector and regulatory environment to escape the energy-capital vortex that we risk falling into. Its going to be tough going getting through the next 30 years of energy stress.

    Energy stress is a bit like suddenly finding out that your capital investment resources have been cut in half. And we already depend far too much on foreigners for our investment resources.

  34. Comment from: Louis Hissink


    In order to that one needs to be in charge of policy and as revolution is not possible under our philosophy, what then?

  35. Comment from: SJT


    “SJT: ‘Weird. The ground station records are totally unreliable, but weather balloons and satellites never have any problems.’ So will you be the one to tell Kevin that there really is major uncertainty about all this?”

    I’m just repeating back to you guys what I’m hearing here.

  36. Comment from: cohenite


    luke; Philipona’s paper; his measure of longwave down radiation (LDR) is based on the ist derivative of SB; that is the rate of change of the average of the temperature to the 4th power; I have referred to Pielke’s and Motl’s work on the difference between the average of SB and the 4th power of the average temperature before; I know you will say that Philipona’s study counters this because it is regionally based; but that is the point; you can’t generate a global average from in effect regional LTE’s. But the calculation has more pressing problems;

    1 Philipona has chosen the period of 1995-2002; he derives his averages as the rate of change over this period, calculated as the annual variation for each year then deducted from each month; a simple linear regression like this is a form of running mean; running means are fraught with problems; they can give false trends in terms of the actual data; ie; 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 15 , 14, 13, 12, 11 is a sequence of 11 values; including the no 16 in adding the 1st 6 events you average 13.5; after the 15, average 14.6; after 14 average of 14.5 for 6 events; after 13 average of 14.5; the actual values are falling but the moving average is continuing to rise; since I presume each year is treated in discrete fashion, a false trend would be magnified over the full 7 years of data.
    2 Philipona uses Hadcrut data anomalies; as you know I’m a fan of base period taint, so to illustrate this here is a graph of Philipona’s data extended from 95-2002 to 95-2005;

    http://www.warwickhughes.com/papers/phil9505.gif

    I guess the point here is that the first order curve fit can be of limited analytical value. It appears to be a straight line fit through the data, but the slope, or rate of change of that line, is dependent on the starting point, and in this case the finishing line, which is an arbitary decision. As an additional blemish the MSU temperature data for 95-2005 has only 38% of the warming of HadCrut.
    3 Philipona says insolation (I presume, as opposed to an aerosol effect which some of his other papers have dealt with) was decreasing during this period; Fig 2.1 here shows this is incorrect;

    http://www.pmodwrc.ch/pmod.php?topic=tsi/virgo/proj_space_virgo#VIRGO_Radiometry

    4 Philipona extracts from his LDR figure a cloud-free component so as to be able to isolate the GHG source of LDR; there have been some good comments already on this thread about the difficulty of estimating the thermal effect of atmospheric water vapour but I’ll quote from Judith Curry; “Basically the “clear sky” radiative transfer problem is regarded as pretty much solved in terms of radiative fluxes” by the models. “But seperating cloud from water vapor feedback is rather artificial, they are both totally entertwined.”

  37. Comment from: Louis Hissink


    SJT

    You can’t hear anything here, you can only read what’s here.

    That written, I don’t think you understand anything written here. So why bother?

  38. Comment from: GraemeBird.


    You put the hard yards in before the time comes when the hard times can no longer be kicked down the road. If you have put the effort in and you don’t seem to have made any difference than when the crisis comes you can get a lot of things done quickly.

    If people who don’t know better don’t put the effort in early the leftists sieze the momentum and wreck things by an unbelievable degree then spend the next century talking about what a triumph their wrecking ball activities were. Witness the FDR relentless ballsup.

    Its all about “Crisis and Leviathan”. These clowns get to change everything for the worse in a crisis and expand the governmental footprint.

    We have to reverse this logic and make it a crisis and anti-Leviathan.

    You look what we’d have to do to set things right now. We’d have to bring ourselves into surplus by getting rid of taxes on retained earnings. Get rid of taxes on interest earnings. This to beef up our capital investment. We’d have to slash welfare but raise the income tax threshold to give low-paid workers a break. We’d have to raise pensions because those guys are already hurting. But raise the retirement age 1 day every 2. We’d have to take energy production right out of the tax system entirely and give a 50 year guarantee to keep it that way.

    To pay for all this we’d have to close down government departments by the bushel. These guys would simply have to stop consuming all our resources and they’d have to start making a contribution. And if they weren’t going to do that at least we could have them contemplating their own self-importance in their bedroom or at centrelink.

  39. Comment from: Louis Hissink


    “But seperating cloud from water vapor feedback is rather artificial, they are both totally entertwined.”

    Especially if neither are based on sampled data.

  40. Comment from: Louis Hissink


    Graeme

    But it’s political reality we have to face.

  41. Comment from: Luke


    Cohenite – if you’re using the missus put her on. It’s that obvious.

  42. Comment from: Luke


    Mate – complaining about a regression now – far out ! He’s not measuring “insolation” at TOA?

    All darting around the undergrowth – if you were FAIR DINKUM you’d be onto Rolf via email and checking out all your worries. Hanging close to your own hobby horses and not networking is mistake #1. To me these papers basically say that greenhouse theory in terms of radiation is working. So that’s dispenses with a whole bunch of b/s.

    Anyway hopefully soon there’ll be much more of these data despite frigging idiots like Bird being out there.

    A New Network for Monitoring the Radiative Forcing from Greenhouse Gases
    Wayne Evans
    NWRA

    Category: Radiation

    http://www.arm.gov/publications/proceedings/conf18/display.php?id=NTM3

    A new network is proposed to monitor the radiative forcing of global warming by greenhouse gases. The calibrated spectrum of greenhouse radiation at the surface has been measured for the last 10 years in the Great Lakes area of Ontario, Canada. From these measurements the radiative flux from each greenhouse gas been extracted. A 10-year record exists of the radiative fluxes from carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, and chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs). The increase of these fluxes represent the forcing function of global warming, which is an experimental version of radiative forcing similar to, but different from, the radiative forcing used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). It is proposed that this radiative forcing be monitored similar to the ozone layer. A world monitoring network should be set up similar to the world total ozone monitoring network of Brewer and Dobson spectrophotometers. The AERI instrument already exists; 12 AERIs, manufactured by ABB BOMEM (a Canadian company), are deployed around the world. The spectral measurements have been processed to extract the radiative forcing fluxes from each greenhouse gas, which is related to the work of Philipona et al. (2007) who measured the total radiative forcing increase due to greenhouse gases in Switzerland with broadband instruments. The methodology will be to process the AERI infrared spectrometer measurements into the downward surface radiation flux in W/m2 from each of the major greenhouse gases. Well calibrated infrared spectral measurements of the downward infrared long-wave radiation have been made routinely by the AERI at three DOE ARM Climate Research Facility (ACRF) sites for more than 7 years with a 12-year record at the Southern Great Plains (SGP) site. These measurements are being processed into longwave radiation fluxes from each of the major greenhouse gases using a methodology already developed for similar measurements at 44° N in the Great Lakes area. Comparisons with surface radiation fluxes calculated from global climate models (GCMs) will be conducted using the methodology already successfully used to compare previous 44° N data with the Canadian and National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) GCMs. The uses of the data would be to: 1. Investigate the seasonal and climate regime variations of the surface greenhouse radiation flux. 2. Compare the measurements with climate model simulations of the surface forcing radiation fluxes for each greenhouse gas. 3. Evaluate the reduction of the surface forcing radiation by various types of clouds by measuring the reduction in surface radiation forcing under cloudy conditions. 4. Conduct complementary measurements of surface radiation forcing with radiative trapping measured from space with overpasses of satellites. 5. Monitor the increase with time of the forcing radiation from each gas. This network will provide a new experimental dataset to complement the calculated radiative forcings from climate models currently used for policy determination of safe levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. This proposed network will support the accomplishment of DOE’s long-term goal to deliver improved scientific data and models about the potential response of the Earth’s climate to increased greenhouse gas levels, thus assisting policymakers in determining safe levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. It will provide the experimental capability to conduct long-term monitoring of increases in individual greenhouse gases without using an intervening climate model and add a new climate observation that potentially could be used to compare changes in the longwave radiation balance of the atmosphere with other climate variables. The analysis of the data from ACRF AERI sites, combined with the existing AERI instruments deployed around the globe, would be a big step toward building a network to monitor radiative forcing. These aspects also emphasize the extreme importance of continuing the DOE ARM AERI measurements for the foreseeable future. Philipona, R, B Durr, C Marty, A Ohmura, and M Wild. 2004. “Radiative forcing-measured at Earth’s surface-corroborate the increasing greenhouse effect.” Geophysical Research Letters 31, L03202, doi:10.029/2003GL018765.

    And as always Bird STFU !

  43. Comment from: Luke


    And what’s the MSU doing over his region? And do support Judith Curry’s position then?

  44. Comment from: SJT


    “That written, I don’t think you understand anything written here. So why bother?”

    The irony, it burns.

  45. Comment from: Graeme Bird


    No SJT. The irony doesn’t burn. Its just that you are an idiot.

  46. Comment from: gavin


    Luke:

    It’s been raining all day and I reckon its time we gave this lot a going over

    http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/ahead/rain_ahead.shtml

  47. Comment from: Lazlo


    SJT: ‘”SJT: ‘Weird. The ground station records are totally unreliable, but weather balloons and satellites never have any problems.’ So will you be the one to tell Kevin that there really is major uncertainty about all this?”

    I’m just repeating back to you guys what I’m hearing here.’
    So SJT, do you think there is any uncertainty, and if so should it be reported to Kevin and Penny?

  48. Comment from: Lazlo


    So, SJT, as a scientist, no uncertainty..

  49. Comment from: John F. Pittman


    by: Luke at August 31, 2008 10:22 PM
    A New Network for Monitoring the Radiative Forcing from Greenhouse Gases
    Wayne Evans
    NWRA

    Category: Radiation

    It would appear that this type of effort should have b een done long before anybody should be willing to sink trillions of dollars into a problem. Seems a bit strange for the science to be started, long after the conclusion has been arrived at.

  50. Comment from: Luke


    Well John – why not wait till the place is cooked and then we’ll be 100% sure.

Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 » Show All