‘The Deniers’, Reviewed by Art Raiche

DOES society benefit from a fear-driven science-funding policy that threatens the livelihood of scientists with the courage to argue against “orthodox” and established “beyond doubt” views on climate? 

The media drives this fear with increasingly hysterical messages that the earth is getting hotter, that this is being caused by human CO2 emissions and, that without radical social and economic surgery, we will face a myriad of global catastrophes, the like of which have not been seen since the dawn of our history.    We are told that all serious scientists agree with this and that those few who dissent are either charlatans or are funded by the fossil fuel companies.  Other dissenters are regarded on a par with creationists, Holocaust deniers or supporters of tobacco companies.  

But is this true?  Is the science really settled?

To answer this, Lawrence Solomon, the Canadian environmentalist and anti-nuclear campaigner, sought to find well-regarded scientists who disagreed with the AGW (anthropogenic global warming) hysteria promoted by Al Gore and the IPCC. 

The result was astonishing in that for all of the headline issues of the AGW hypothesis, he found dissenting scientists who were consistently the most accomplished and eminent people in their respective fields of expertise.  In fact, the more he searched, the more there seemed to be, complete with data and analysis to support their positions. Chillingly, several of them, despite their substantial expertise and reputations, declined on-record interviews for fear of losing their funding and, in some cases, their jobs.

Solomon’s book, ‘The Deniers’, is a tour-de-force of expert opinions organised into chapters corresponding to the headline issues of AGW.  It starts with a chapter on the famous “hockey stick” graph, created by Michael Mann from temperature proxies such as tree rings and ice cores.  The graph purports to show that for the past 1000 years, temperatures had been declining until about 1900 when they began rising alarmingly in correlation with the growth of human-induced CO2 emissions.    It showed the 1990s as the hottest decade and 1998 the warmest year of the millennium.  This graph of northern hemisphere temperatures for the last 1000 years appeared 7 times in the IPCC report of 2001.

Curiously, the “hockey stick” graph failed to show a well-known period of warming in the 1930’s and essentially contradicted records from Russian naval log books that noted substantial Arctic warming during the period 1920-1940.  It also contradicted information from British naval log books that showed a period of  rapid warming in Europe during the 1730s similar to that recorded during the 1990s. Most astonishingly, it failed to show the well-established existence of the Medieval Warming Period of 800-1300 CE.

Amongst many other critics, a Canadian statistician, Steve MacIntyre, recognised the graph as being similar to the deceptive graphics used by mining promoters to hype risky hard-rock mineral exploration projects based on isolated results.  After analysing the statistical process used by Mann, he concluded that even when applied to random data, it would produce a “hockey stick” graph.  The  Energy and Commerce Committee of the US Congress asked Edward Wegman, a man with a long, distinguished career, including being a past chairman of the Committee on Applied and Theoretical Statistics of the National Academy of Sciences, to examine the controversy.  After he corrected Mann’s errors in statistical methodology, the hockey stick disappeared.   Along with the panel of  prominent statisticians that he had recruited (pro bono) to help him, Wegman concluded that, at most, Mann’s graph was valid for less than half of that 1000 years.  As a result, despite its prominence in the IPCC’s 3rd AR (Assessment Report) of 2001, the graph was dropped from their 2007 4th AR. 

Another chapter of ‘The Deniers’ discusses the work of Richard Tol, one of the world’s leading environmental economists and an author for chapters from all three IPCC Working group contributions.  A holder of multiple prestigious academic appointments, he was highly critical of  the Stern Review on the Economists of Climate Change.  Tol said that the Stern Report was a mishmash of bad mathematics and bad faith and had treated worse case scenarios with the unwarranted likelihood of being correct.

A lot of the alarmism connected with climate change is associated with the predictions of various climate modelling programs, sometimes referred to as GCMs (general circulation models).  ‘The Deniers’ contains a long chapter on the limits of predictability of these programs and how their simplifications do not begin to capture the complexity of climate processes.  To quote Freeman Dyson, one of the world’s most eminent physicists: “The models solve the equations of fluid dynamics, and they do a very good job of describing the fluid motions of the atmosphere and the oceans. They do a very poor job of describing the clouds, the dust, the chemistry and the biology of fields and farms and forests. They do not begin to describe the real world that we live in.”  Solomon notes that Richard Lindzen, a professor of meteorology at MIT, consultant to NASA and recipient of many professional society honours, testified that numerous problems had been found with the way the models treated clouds and water vapour, two very critical drivers of climate.  He states:  “It isn’t just that the alarmists are trumpeting model results that we know must be wrong.  It is that they are trumpeting catastrophes that couldn’t happen even if the model results were right.”

One example of this was Lindzen’s observation that if the model results were correct, global warming would reduce temperature differences between the poles which would decrease rather than increase the energy in tropical storms.  Nevertheless, fuelled by Hurricane Katrina and several other storms in 2004, many doomsayers predicted an apocalyptic increase in the number and ferocity of hurricanes due to global warming.  Dr. Christopher Landsea, of the Atlantic Oceanographic & Meteorological Laboratory, one of the world’s top experts in hurricanes and a contributing author to the IPCC’s 2nd and 3rd ARs, disagreed strongly because his work was showing the direct opposite.  He resigned his involvement in the 4th IPCC report after the lead author of the chapter in which hurricanes were discussed had made a speech supporting the increased hurricane hypothesis.  Solomon devotes several pages describing the efforts of Landsea, Lindzen and others to combat this falsely generated hysteria.  These efforts eventually succeeded, partially due to the failure of subsequent hurricane seasons to live up to prior billing.  The latest IPCC Summary for Policymakers stated: “There is no clear trend in the annual numbers of tropical cyclones”.

‘The Deniers’ discusses another of the apocalyptic predictions of AGW, the rise of sea levels and the concomitant flooding of low-lying heavily populated areas.  After analysing satellite data from 1992 to 2003, Prof. Duncan Wingham, director of the NERC Centre for Polar Observation & Modelling and principal scientist of the European Space Agency Cryosat Satellite Mission, found that there was a net growth of the Antarctic ice sheet of 5 mm per year.  This includes the well-publicised melting on the Antarctic Peninsula that juts so far to the north.  Since Antarctica contains about 90 percent of the world’s ice, the fact that it seems to be a sink rather than a source of sea water would indicate that concerns of rising sea level are misplaced.

Another headline issue discussed in ‘The Deniers’ is the predicted catastrophic spread of malaria and other mosquito borne diseases with increasing temperature.  Prof. Paul Reiter, head of the Insects and Infectious Diseases Unit at the Pasteur Institute, chairman of the American Committee of Medical Entomology and contributing author to the IPCC 3rd AR regards this as utterly without foundation.  He notes that until the second half of the 20th century, malaria was widespread throughout the world including Europe, the US, Siberia and with major epidemics as far north as the Arctic Circle.  Malaria was an important cause of death in England during the Little Ice Age and only began to decline there in the 19th century when the present warming trend was well underway.    It was largely eliminated through the use of insecticides, anti-malarial drugs and sound public health and land management practices.  Reiter notes that the rapid recrudescence of mosquito-borne diseases is due to inept government public health policies and resistance to insecticides and drugs.

‘The Deniers’ features extensive discussions by prominent scientists of aspects of the greenhouse effect of CO2.  The technical details are difficult to summarise in a short book review but they include discussions of atmosphere-ocean interactions, radiative transfer, ice core measurements and the lifetime of CO2 emissions in the atmosphere.  All basically conclude that cultural CO2 concentration has very little effect on global temperature.  Several prominent researchers note that the graph in An Inconvenient Truth showing a 600,000 year correlation between increased atmospheric CO2 concentration and rising temperature is somewhat dishonest in confusing cause and effect.  Temperature rise led rather than lagged the CO2 increase, typically by a few hundred to a thousand years.  In the same vein, Dr. Syun-Ichi Akasofu points out that the dramatic fall in temperature from 1940 to 1970 doesn’t correlate with increasing CO2.  Moreover, the IPCC’s own models point to the irrelevance of CO2 as a driver of climate change because different geographic regions were warming at different rates while others actually cooled.

Has the earth actually warmed during the 21st century?  This is a contentious issue because of the problems associated with trying to define an average global temperature, especially from ground-based measurements.  Although 70 % of the earth’s surface is ocean, 90 % of the ground-based measurement stations are on land.  Moreover, as urban centres have expanded, these are now disproportionately located near heat sources.  The IPCC says that the data has been corrected for this but this is contentious.  By contrast, satellite temperature measurements, which can sample the entire globe, show a cooling trend so far this century.  Is this temporary or is it possible that the earth is starting to cool?

Dr. Habibullo Abdussamatov the head of the Space Research Laboratory at the Pulkovo Astronomical Observatory, a man at the pinnacle of Russia’s space-oriented scientific establishment, is a strong critic of manmade CO2 as driving global warming.  The Deniers presents his observation that parallel global warmings on Mars and Earth can only be due to a long term change in solar irradiance.  He has identified a 200 year cycle in solar activity that has peaked and is now decreasing.  He believes that a protracted cooling period will begin in the period 2012-2015 leading to a deep freeze around 2055-60, similar to that of the Little Ice Age.  His hypothesis is now the focus of Russian experiments on the International Space Station.  Project Astrometria has been given high priority by the Russian and Ukrainian Academies of Science to try to identify the likely duration and depth of the predicted global cooling period.

The effect of solar cycles on our climate goes beyond the total solar irradiance reaching Earth.  Periods of high solar activity result in high solar wind velocities and magnetic fields that shield us from the cosmic ray barrage from the rest of the cosmos.  This shielding attenuates significantly during periods of low activity.  The Deniers presents the science that links increased cosmic ray flux with global cooling because it promotes an increase in low altitude cloud formation.  As shown by Project SKY at the Danish National Space Centre, this happens because the passing muons in the cosmic radiation release electrons that promote the formation of molecular clusters, the building blocks for cloud condensation nuclei.  A follow-on study of this crucial effect, the CLOUD experiment has been established at CERN, with an interdisciplinary team of scientists from 18 institutes in 9 countries, comprised of atmospheric physicists, solar physicists, and cosmic-ray and particle physicists.

‘The Deniers’ is a fascinating journey through leading-edge climate research.  The experts cited by Solomon are clearly neither charlatans nor pandering to any particular funding channel.  Rather, these eminent scientists present cogent reasons, strongly supported by data, for questioning the accepted “truth”.  One is left with astonishment and indignation that their work is largely ignored by the media.   

************************

The Deniers: The world-renowned scientists who stood up against global warming hysteria, political persecution and fraud,  by Lawrence Solomon, published by Richard Vigilante Books, 2008,
ISBN 978-0-9800763-1-8, is available from Amazons

This review was first published in ‘Preview’, a publication of the Australian Society of Exploration Geophysicists.

Art Raiche worked for CSIRO for 35 years, the last 15 of with the rank of Chief Research Scientist.  He ran the longest exploration project in AMIRA’s history (27 years).  He is now retired and appalled at the irresponsible way CSIRO is publishing climate-hysteria reports based on very inadequate climate modelling programs.

,

89 Responses to ‘The Deniers’, Reviewed by Art Raiche

  1. ianl December 3, 2008 at 10:09 am #

    Good post, Jennifer …

    but what’s to say ?

    The true deniers (AGW) will respond with silly superficial sarcasm, a string of ad-hominens or simply ignore this. What they will not do is read the book.

    Our “meeja” will pretend this doesn’t exist.

  2. SJT December 3, 2008 at 10:37 am #

    He only found out one side of the argument? What did he expect to be told?

  3. braddles December 3, 2008 at 10:48 am #

    I don’t think it is mentioned in the review, but Solomon has made an interesting observation about many scientists he quotes, in that they do not necessarily regard themselves as climate sceptics. They may criticise one aspect of AGW theory in which they have great expertise, but often go on to say that they still agree with AGW because it has other evidence. Since they are not authorites in that other evidence, they accept it, but it does not seem to occur to them that if the evidence in their province is wrong, it could be in other areas too.

    A good example is Ian Jolliffe, who wrote the book on principal components, the statistical technique that Mann relied on for the hockey stick. Initially Jolliffe said he couldn’t fathom Mann’s approach, but finally he came out and said that basically it was a crock (paraphrasing). However, Jolliffe added that he still accepted AGW.

    It’s like those countless papers whose results undermine AGW theory, but the authors still sign off with a comment like “but of course this does not conflict in any way with global warming”.

  4. Nexus 6 December 3, 2008 at 10:52 am #

    Are all denialists pathological liars? This is the question I’m beginning to ask myself.

    For example:

    Art Raiche:
    “As a result, despite its (MBH hockey-stick) prominence in the IPCC’s 3rd AR (Assessment Report) of 2001, the graph was dropped from their 2007 4th AR.

    Reality:
    pp.467 4AR WG1

  5. SJT December 3, 2008 at 11:15 am #

    “It’s like those countless papers whose results undermine AGW theory, but the authors still sign off with a comment like “but of course this does not conflict in any way with global warming”.”

    Misrepresented as undermining AGW theory. That’s all I’ve ever found. Constant claims that a paper undermines AGW theory, when it does nothing of the sort.

    The hockey stick does not make the case for global warming. The case for AGW does not rest on the hockey stick. The case for AGW relies principly on the physical basis for the claims. Not one serious scientist has ever questioned that in a recognised paper.

  6. kuhnkat December 3, 2008 at 11:23 am #

    SJT,

    you are willing to admit there is an argument?? What happened to the Consensus??

    Oh, that’s right, a consensus is only useful as propaganda in the press to suppress differing views!! Nothing Scientific about it!!

    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

  7. cohenite December 3, 2008 at 12:15 pm #

    “Are all deniers pathological liars?” You keep asking yourself that Nexus; and maybe as you walk around muttering to yourself, the men in white jackets will pick you up and do us all a service. FIG 6.10, that you condescendingly refer to, is a revelation; the top 2 graphs are junk; it is beyond question, except to the acolytes, that the 1930’s were the warmest years of the 20thC; the bottom graph is instructive because it shows the MWP warmer than today with a similar temperature gradient; of course the temperature trend of the 20thC went nowhere and was a reflection of PDO phase shift; McIntyre has an attempt at unraveling the hockeystock which Gore used based on Thompson’s ‘data’, who like Mann, refuses to release the figures;

    http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=1511

    Now’s that a hockeystick; not like that anemic thing in AR4 you reckon is a hockeystick.

  8. Andy December 3, 2008 at 12:33 pm #

    Related to this topic, I feel the need to rant!

    I’m convinced the publicity surrounding AGW is frighteningly simplistic. As a CSIRO scientist I know that every study of AGW is based on a list of assumptions longer than your arm. Yet almost no scientific assumptions and methodologies are publicised to the masses by any groups including the press, politicians, green groups and climate sceptics. This dumbing-down of information is not only abhorent to all scientists but should be vehemently attacked by us because this issue is so important.

    I also believe the dumbing-down and sensationalising of these scientific studies should be strongly resisted by green groups who appear to benefit in the short term. I am worried about a backlash in 5 years time when people say “hey, the climate hasn’t changed much and there’s still plenty of petrol around. Let’s just forget about AGW.” Then, if AGW is true, in 100 years time it’ll be very difficult. This issue is too important for us envionmentalists to use evidence that is only fairly likely to be correct to scare people into action.

  9. Taluka Byvalnian December 3, 2008 at 1:19 pm #

    Hey SJT – it’s you Flat-Earthers that constantly talk of the “Consensus”
    (Flat-Earthers believe in an old theory even after the science has moved on)

    After University of Oklahoma’s Prof David Deming’s paper at the end of the 90s, Prof Jonathon Overpeck a scientist from U of Arizona and an IPCC lead author sent the now notorious e-mail, which Deming exposed to the public domain. It read: “We have to get rid of that warm medieval period.”

    It was after that that Mann et al produced their discredited Hockey stick. Steve McIntyre proved the GIGO for the hockey stick.
    No matter what he put in, it still produced a hockey stick.

  10. Nexus 6 December 3, 2008 at 1:52 pm #

    Example 2:

    Cohenite:
    “it is beyond question, except to the acolytes, that the 1930’s were the warmest years of the 20thC”

    Reality:
    http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/nhshgl.gif

  11. cohenite December 3, 2008 at 2:21 pm #

    Reality is not temperature anomalies; read this Nexus;

    http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/2008/10/temperature-trends-and-carbon-dioxide-a-note-from-cohenite/#comments

    The link to base periods is germane; all the graphs in this link are to the point, especially the comparison between GISS’s 1999 version of US temps and their 2007 version;
    http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/05/02/a_tale_of_two_thermometers/

    Then this;

    http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2008/06/all-time-record-highs-by-state.png

  12. Taluka Byvalnian December 3, 2008 at 2:39 pm #

    Hey Necks Us Sick!

    You say: Cohenite:
    “it is beyond question, except to the acolytes, that the 1930’s were the warmest years of the 20thC”

    Reality: http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.D.txt
    Again Dragon-Slayer Steve McIntyre

    By Steve McIntyre

    There has been some turmoil yesterday on the leaderboard of the U.S. (Temperature) Open and there is a new leader.

    A little unexpectedly, 1998 had a late bogey and 1934 had a late birdie. (I thought that they were both in the clubhouse since the turmoil seemed to be in the 2000s.) In any event, the new leader atop the U.S. Open is 1934.

    2006 had a couple of late bogeys and fell to 4th place, behind even 1921. I think that there’s a little air in the 2006 numbers even within GISS procedures as the other post-2000 lost about 0.15 strokes through late bogeys, while it lost only 0.10 strokes. It is faltering and it might yet fall behind 1931 into 5th place.

    Four of the top 10 are now from the 1930s: 1934, 1931, 1938 and 1939, while only 3 of the top 10 are from the last 10 years (1998, 2006, 1999). Several years (2000, 2002, 2003, 2004) fell well down the leaderboard, behind even 1900. (World rankings are calculated separately.) Note: For the new leaderboard see data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.D.txt. The old data has been erased; by sheer chance, I had the old data active in my R-session but I can’t give a link to it.)

  13. Nexus 6 December 3, 2008 at 3:25 pm #

    My Gods…..I should not be surprised.

    The nice simple little graph I so kindly provided is GLOBAL.

    The fact it shows anomalies is inconsequential to the argument.

    It is not from GISS.

    It does not just concern an insignificant area known as the lower 48 states of the USA, like two of the meaningless links provided.

    My hypothesis appears to be proven.

  14. Taluka Byvalnian December 3, 2008 at 3:36 pm #

    Hey Necks Us Sick-o

    What about IPCC’s deliberate decision to deceive?

    “After University of Oklahoma’s Prof David Deming’s paper at the end of the 90s, Prof Jonathon Overpeck a scientist from U of Arizona and an IPCC lead author sent the now notorious e-mail, which Deming exposed to the public domain. It read: “We have to get rid of that warm medieval period.”

    It was after that that Mann et al produced their discredited Hockey stick. Steve McIntyre proved the GIGO for the hockey stick.
    No matter what he put in, it still produced a hockey stick.”

    Do you think that this was honourable?

  15. cohenite December 3, 2008 at 4:09 pm #

    I knew it Nexus, you mongrel; you’ve appropriated part of one of the greatest S-F movies of all time; I knew it was familiar, you swine; so, boiled eggs to you.

    Now returning to your pompous self-congratulation; you obviously didn’t read my piece on Base Periods and 20thC temperature analysis for which I use HadCrut to show that no temperature increase has occurred in effect during the 20thC even though there have been upward temperature trends during that time because of the sustained El Nino effect within the 2 +ve PDO phases; I’d link you to the White, Cayan, Dettinger and Auad paper which concludes that;

    “Thus global warming and cooling during Earth’s internal mode of interannual climate variability arise from fluctuations in the global hydrological balance, not the global radiation balance. Since it occurs in the absence of extraterrestial and thropogenic forcing, global warming on decadal, interdecadal, and centennial period scales may also occur in association with Earth’s internal modes of climate variability on those scales.”

    But I don’t think I’ll bother since you have the mental flexibility of a replicant; however these 2 graphs are ample to rebut your arrogant nonsense;

    http://i38.tinypic.com/16aa03o.jpg

    http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2008/08/did-9798-el-nino-cause-step-change-in.html

  16. SJT December 3, 2008 at 4:25 pm #

    “It was after that that Mann et al produced their discredited Hockey stick. Steve McIntyre proved the GIGO for the hockey stick.
    No matter what he put in, it still produced a hockey stick.”

    Thaere was a bug in the code. Fixing the bug produces essentially the same output.

    The hockey stick is not the case for AGW. The case for AGW starts with the science, that CO2 is a GHG. That is fundamental physics, and Pat Michaels accepts it as fact.

    I have never been that interested in the hockey stick, since from my point of view, even if it does or does not indicate past warming, we don’t know why it warmed or cooled to any reliable degree. The case is in the phsycis, the temperature record, the observed effects.

  17. wes george December 3, 2008 at 4:32 pm #

    “My Gods..”

    Nexus is a fine example of the kind of personality attracted to holier-than-thou faith (with an apocalypse, naturally.) And he’s here to preach to the sinners… and fish for a few hits for his pompous blog.

    Nexus, get ye to the pulpit. Witness to us! Behold the Gods!

    http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/slides/large/05.24.jpg

    What, Nexus? Afraid to let unbelievers contemplate the Holy Grail of AGW? Because that’s your religion in a graphic mandala nutshell. That’s all you need to know, isn’t it?

    In today’s secular world the only type of “knowledge” acceptable is scientific. So, certain insecure personality types, who 75 years ago would have been self-flagellating Fire and Brimstone evangelicals, have adopted instead a pseudo-faith that looks like a science, smells like science, but is really a classic example of an Apocalyptic Mythology. This time frocked up for the 21st century as Big Science.

    Unfortunately, history shows that human societies are structurally prone to every so often dream up a new apocalypse to frighten the punters into behaving as some oligarchy think they should. No conspiracy theory necessary, the oligarchy promoting the apocalyse are the most fanatical of the true believers themselves. Who doubts Al Gore hasn’t drank deeply of his own apocalyptic Kool-Aid?

    The AGW apocalypse hypthesis is merely the latest in a long line of apocalyptic prophecy and they all have one thing in common: They’re false.

    Look at this graph. It’s a religious tract, not science.

    http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/slides/large/05.24.jpg

  18. Taluka Byvalnian December 3, 2008 at 4:46 pm #

    Mr T-MsT-MrsT (Whatever) says “Thaere(sic) was a bug in the code. Fixing the bug produces essentially the same output.”

    The point is it was a deception.

    “After University of Oklahoma’s Prof David Deming’s paper at the end of the 90s, Prof Jonathon Overpeck a scientist from U of Arizona and an IPCC lead author sent the now notorious e-mail, which Deming exposed to the public domain. It read: “We have to get rid of that warm medieval period.”

    It was after that that Mann et al produced their discredited Hockey stick. Steve McIntyre proved the GIGO for the hockey stick.
    No matter what he put in, it still produced a hockey stick.”

    Of course there was a bug in the code, it was deliberate.

    Prof Jonathon Overpeck a scientist from U of Arizona and an IPCC lead author said “We have to get rid of that warm medieval period.”

    AND THEY DID! So of course there was a bug in the code! A deliberate bug!

    Oh did I say, Of course there was a bug in the code – a deliberate bug!

  19. cohenite December 3, 2008 at 5:44 pm #

    Will; Mann has bug? The Hockey-Stick is the bug? Joe Id has shown that using the statistical methods used by Mann, some hybrid of CPA, CPS and r correlation, will produce a Hockey Stick out of random data. The HS is the basis of AGW; if 20thC temperatures are not going up in an unprecedented way so as to establish unnatural warming through ACO2 increases then AGW has got nothing, it is a dead duck.

  20. SJT December 3, 2008 at 6:22 pm #

    “Mr T-MsT-MrsT (Whatever) says “Thaere(sic) was a bug in the code. Fixing the bug produces essentially the same output.”

    The point is it was a deception.”

    Rubbish.

  21. janama December 3, 2008 at 6:42 pm #

    “The point is it was a deception.”

    Rubbish.”

    The point is it was wrong!!

    Therefore…..

    We haven’t experienced unprecedented warming, we aren’t warming to a point that it’s dangerous, we have been warmer before when CO2 was lower, thus CO2 is not related to the warming, and it appears that the warming is the typical normal fluctuations in the earth’s ever changing temperature and could in fact be beneficial.

    So what part of that don’t you understand?

  22. SJT December 3, 2008 at 6:44 pm #

    You are quite entitled to make an argument any piece of science is wrong. To rustle up a conspiracy theory with no evidence is ludicrous.

  23. Janama December 3, 2008 at 7:44 pm #

    “You are quite entitled to make an argument any piece of science is wrong.”

    I didn’t make that argument – Steve MacIntyre did, he threw the hockey stick out of the arena – go Steve!

    The rest isn’t a conspiracy theory

    “Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity”
    Hanlon’s Razor

    It’s reality.

  24. Helen Mahar December 3, 2008 at 8:10 pm #

    Thanks Art Raiche for that review. You have persuaded me to buy the book. I liked Lombog’s Skeptical Environmentalist, and he started from the environmentalist stance. Like Lomborg’s work this should be a good, critical read.

  25. Sid Reynolds December 3, 2008 at 8:16 pm #

    The Australian Greenhouse Office still uses the “Hockey Stick” in some of its publications that go out to schoolchildren.

  26. SJT December 3, 2008 at 10:08 pm #

    ““Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity”
    Hanlon’s Razor”

    You didn’t attribute anything to stupidity, you accused him of deception.

  27. cohenite December 3, 2008 at 10:23 pm #

    Will; deception is such a harsh word; can’t we say obfuscate, or dissemble, or prevaricate, tell porkies, stretch the truth…?

  28. SJT December 3, 2008 at 10:52 pm #

    No, the constant refrain is that he is deliberately setting out to lie.

  29. Luke December 3, 2008 at 11:47 pm #

    New Scientist has summed it up:

    “We need climate change sceptics. Not because they are right – at least not on the big issue of human culpability in recent warming – but because they ask hard questions that lead to deeper knowledge. What we do not need is misrepresentation and cynical trashing of scientists work.”

    {which is essentially what the Australian sceptics stand for …}

    Let’s face it – both sides think the other is dishonest.

    Both sides think the other side has a hidden agenda.

    Whatever is said daily by either side reaffirms that confirmation bias !

  30. Ninderthana December 4, 2008 at 12:02 am #

    SJT,

    If you had even the faintest idea of the science involved in CO2 absorption you would known that cores and wings of the infra-red CO2 aborption bands are completly saturated
    in the lower troposphere.

    In laymen’s terms this mean that 100% of the infra-red light in these bands is absorbed. As a consequence, an increase in the level of CO2 has little to no efffect upon infra-red light absorption.

    The net consequence of this is that the dominant effect of a CO2 increase in the atmosphere is to heavily limit infra-red re-absorption to the top of the troposphere.
    This is actually what is predicted by the GCM models that include the correct physics.
    As a consequence of increased CO2 concentraions, the GCM models predict that upper
    layers of the troposphere should heat more quickly than the layers near the ground
    (even if allowance is made for mixing times). This pattern of heating is not observed.

    Silly arguements that cooling in the lower stratosphere hides this temperature
    signature in the troposhere are totally false. A simple arguemet based on principles
    of thermal physics will show you that if anything the lower stratosphere will warm
    relative to the upper troposphere.

    Where SJT and his co-believers go wrong is that seriously overestimate the positive feedback mechanisms that amplify the warming caused by CO2. Most scientists who have
    not sold their soul to the alarmists realize that the warming over the coming century will
    be less than 0.1 C per decade. This is still a serious concern but it is not enough for people
    to start slitting their wrists.

  31. SJT December 4, 2008 at 6:40 am #

    “If you had even the faintest idea of the science involved in CO2 absorption you would known that cores and wings of the infra-red CO2 aborption bands are completly saturated
    in the lower troposphere. ”

    A saturated gassy argument, parts I and II.

    http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/06/a-saturated-gassy-argument
    http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/06/a-saturated-gassy-argument-part-ii

    You see, you are the one who does not have the faintest idea.

  32. Luke December 4, 2008 at 8:18 am #

    Unfortunately for Neanderthal ……

    GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS, VOL. 35, L20704, doi:10.1029/2008GL035333, 2008

    Water-vapor climate feedback inferred from climate fluctuations, 2003–2008

    A. E. Dessler

    Department of Atmospheric Sciences, Texas A&M University, College Station, Texas, USA

    Z. Zhang

    Department of Atmospheric Sciences, Texas A&M University, College Station, Texas, USA

    P. Yang

    Department of Atmospheric Sciences, Texas A&M University, College Station, Texas, USA

    Between 2003 and 2008, the global-average surface temperature of the Earth varied by 0.6°C. We analyze here the response of tropospheric water vapor to these variations. Height-resolved measurements of specific humidity (q) and relative humidity (RH) are obtained from NASA’s satellite-borne Atmospheric Infrared Sounder (AIRS). Over most of the troposphere, q increased with increasing global-average surface temperature, although some regions showed the opposite response. RH increased in some regions and decreased in others, with the global average remaining nearly constant at most altitudes. The water-vapor feedback implied by these observations is strongly positive, with an average magnitude of λ q = 2.04 W/m2/K, similar to that simulated by climate models. The magnitude is similar to that obtained if the atmosphere maintained constant RH everywhere.

    Received 13 July 2008; accepted 19 September 2008; published 23 October 2008.

  33. cohenite December 4, 2008 at 9:06 am #

    Will with Weart, and now luke with Dessler, again; its true, you 2 are the antiquated, non-self-correcting models;

    Weart is simply a fantasy; successions of vertical layers of CO2, each layer intercepting the SU (reemitted surface LW), thermalising before isotropically reemitting the LW, 1/2 down, ED, and 1/2 up, EU, to the next layer of CO2 in a semi-infinite process which carries the 14.7 micron photosphere, where CO2 is most active higher and higher into the atmosphere; less energy is emitted to space,OLR, then is coming in because of the semi-infinite delays and the ‘fact’ that when the emission level is finally reached temperature is lower so less radiation is OLR; is that your understanding of Weart Will? Well, its junk; CO2 exhausts its absorption at about 650cm; this is proven by HARTCODE spectral analysis and confirmed by the Cabauw measurements; at this level there is a LTE where SU = ED; that means the LWD is matching the upward LW; the air is continually thermalised and lapse rate based convective uplift takes that air to the CEL level which is typically 7-8km [pressure 400-300hPa; which is important for Dessler’s SH paper]; here dethermalisation of the parcel of air occurs and EU (atmospheric outward emission of LW) is unhindered; the isotropic component of this CEL EU adds marginally to the ED at the 650cm level but does not give further CO2 additional capacity to absorb because the dominant surface layer of CO2 is continually saturated and removed by the convective process. If Weart were right there would be a THS, there isn’t; the surface would be warming due to the Philipona effect; it isn’t; and the stratosphere would be cooling due to the elevated CO2 photosphere; it isn’t.

    luke; Dessler; atmospheric SH, ‘q’, is increasing due to surface temp, Ts, increasing atmospheric temp, Ta,; that is the general gist, do you agree? As with Weart, none of those things are happening; both RH and SH are decreasing as NOAA data shows, especially at the CEL level; admittedly SH is increasing at the surface level, but Spencer and Braswell have shown that low-level increased ‘q’ is not a +ve feedback; it cools the surface through evaporation and the atmosphere through cloud cover and condensation and rain; also, as we both know, pan evaporation levels have been decreasing so that surface ‘q’ must be coming from the sea through increased SST; which inturn have been caused by a +ve PDO. If the PDO phase has changed you would expect the trend of CO2 increase to decline and SH to fall. In respect of PDO and the SOI you may be interested in this paper;

    http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/121542494/abstract?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0

  34. SJT December 4, 2008 at 11:02 am #

    “Weart is simply a fantasy; successions of vertical layers of CO2, each layer intercepting the SU (reemitted surface LW), thermalising before isotropically reemitting the LW, 1/2 down, ED, and 1/2 up, EU, to the next layer of CO2 in a semi-infinite process which carries the 14.7 micron photosphere, where CO2 is most active higher and higher into the atmosphere; less energy is emitted to space,OLR, then is coming in because of the semi-infinite delays and the ‘fact’ that when the emission level is finally reached temperature is lower so less radiation is OLR; is that your understanding of Weart Will? Well, its junk; CO2 exhausts its absorption at about 650cm; this is proven by HARTCODE spectral analysis and confirmed by the Cabauw measurements; at this level there is a LTE where SU = ED; that means the LWD is matching the upward LW; the air is continually thermalised and lapse rate based convective uplift takes that air to the CEL level which is typically 7-8km [pressure 400-300hPa; which is important for Dessler’s SH paper]; here dethermalisation of the parcel of air occurs and EU (atmospheric outward emission of LW) is unhindered; the isotropic component of this CEL EU adds marginally to the ED at the 650cm level but does not give further CO2 additional capacity to absorb because the dominant surface layer of CO2 is continually saturated and removed by the convective process. If Weart were right there would be a THS, there isn’t; the surface would be warming due to the Philipona effect; it isn’t; and the stratosphere would be cooling due to the elevated CO2 photosphere; it isn’t.”

    If I didn’t know any better, I would think you know what you are talking about.

    What the heck does this mean? “CO2 exhausts its absorption at about 650cm”.

  35. Ivor Surveyor December 4, 2008 at 12:06 pm #

    I have no objection to being called a “greenhouse denier.” Given that the alternative is to be placed in to the ranks of the credulous and gullible.

  36. Rick Beikoff December 4, 2008 at 12:22 pm #

    Jennifer,

    I think I picked up this article from one of your posters, but I can’t find it right now. I can’t help but think that if you summarised Professor Lindzen’s paper in layman’s language, it would have a big impact. I’m sure The Australian would run it.

    http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2008/09/corrupted_science_revealed.html

    Rick Beikoff

  37. cohenite December 4, 2008 at 12:31 pm #

    Will; exhaust, you know like your’s and luke’s arguments in support of AGW; HARTCODE is a LBL spectral analysis of the atmosphere; it shows what is happening at each wavelength; it shows that the wavelengths that CO2 absorbs are exhausted at about 650cm; that’s it; it doesn’t matter whether there is CO2 above that level because the relevant wavelengths are knocked out and CO2 at higher levels is just plantfood for bamboo. There are other LBL methods other than HARTCODE, eli had a list somewhere but I can’t find it, but they all give similar results, and the Cabauw measurements confirm HARTCODE; here’s an explanation with some formula of what I’m saying;

    http://www.john-daly.com/artifact.htm

  38. Eli Rabett December 4, 2008 at 12:57 pm #

    “Curiously, the “hockey stick” graph failed to show a well-known period of warming in the 1930’s and essentially contradicted records from Russian naval log books that noted substantial Arctic warming during the period 1920-1940.”

    Wrong

    More interesting is how wrong this is and why and how it show that while dear Raiche has an opinion content is not his strong suit.

    First, in Mann Bradley and Hughes 1998/99, etc, the period from 1900 to 1980 was used to calibrate the proxies using the instrumental measurements.

    Second, the instrumental record that Mann Bradley and Hughes used includes the 1930s warming, and in fact includes not only the global anomaly, but also anomalies at over 1000 points on the surface between 1902 and 1980

    Third, given first and second, the hockey stick graph not only showed the warming in the 1930s, but it showed it twice and the good Dr. Raiche ignored it twice while ranting.

    A nice version of the hockey stick graph is here
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:1000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png

    You can find MBH 1998/99 here
    http://www.meteo.psu.edu/~mann/Mann/articles/articles.html

  39. cohenite December 4, 2008 at 1:00 pm #

    eli; MBH – Jolliffe = disaster.

  40. Eli Rabett December 4, 2008 at 1:11 pm #

    cohen old buddy, you need to understand what you are trying to write about before you actually write it. Eli has to admit that when he first read this jumble

    “it shows that the wavelengths that CO2 absorbs are exhausted at about 650cm; that’s it; it doesn’t matter whether there is CO2 above that level because the relevant wavelengths are knocked out and CO2 at higher levels is just plantfood”

    He thought he know what you were trying to say, which was wrong, but the poor bunny started to answer, so he read it again, and ….. well suffice it to say that the screen needed cleaning.

    So, let us see if Bunny Labs can help. The vibrational bend of CO2 has a frequency of ~ 1.95 x 10(+13) Hz. Most people who do spectroscopy divide this number by the speed of light 3 x 10(10) cm/sec and get 650 cm(-1), called wavenumbers or inverse cm. Since E= hv (h being Planck’s constant, and v the frequency) frequency, wavenumbers and energy are related by constants and people treat them equivalently as mad as that gets some of my organiker friends. CO2 absorbs on a set of rotational transitions centered on 650 cm-1. You can see a picture of this spectrum here
    http://rabett.blogspot.com/2007/07/temperature-anonymice-gave-eli-new.html

    It has nothing to do with height off the ground.

    Now, be a good lad, and try and rewrite your incorrect thoughts in a way that doesn’t have me spewing good wine on the screen.

  41. SJT December 4, 2008 at 1:19 pm #

    “it shows that the wavelengths that CO2 absorbs are exhausted at about 650cm; that’s it; it doesn’t matter whether there is CO2 above that level because the relevant wavelengths are knocked out and CO2 at higher levels is just plantfood for bamboo”

    You aren’t making any sense. The radiation doesn’t just disappear. It gets re-emitted, in a random direction.

  42. Gordon Robertson December 4, 2008 at 4:18 pm #

    Nexus 6 “Reality: pp.467 4AR WG1″

    First of all, I need to point out that your AR4 directions are next to useless. Are people supposed to wade through every chapter in AR4 to find page 467. It’s in chapter 6 of WG1.

    The new graph, refered to as the spaghetti graph, in its existing form, was dropped. The new one is a pathetic attempt to save face. The graph to which you refer bears little resemblance to the original, but it’s not the graph as much as the other concessions by the IPCC that count. For one, they dropped the hottest decade in a millenium rant and modified it to certain recent years being 10 out of the 12 hottest since 1850, which is misleading (it’s not true in North America). They gave up the the original graph and its implications, offering a new one with generous error bars that allow for a wide interpretation.

    Pressure was brought on the lead author of the section to abandon the hockey stick altogether and to re-examine the claims by McIntyre and McKitrick that the bristle cone data should be omitted from the data. The latter request was ignored and nothing was changed. Why? Look at this link for the answers, on page 12 near the top:

    http://www.garnautreview.org.au/CA25734E0016A131/WebObj/D0830755GeneralSubmission-DavidHolland-DeficienciesintheIPCCFourthAssessmentReportofTheScientificBasisofClimateChange/$File/D08%2030755%20General%20Submission%20-%20David%20Holland%20-%20Deficiencies%20in%20the%20IPCC%20Fourth%20Assessment%20Report%20of%20The%20Scientific%20Basis%20of%20Climate%20Change.pdf

    Sorry about the length of that URL, but it is an Aussie site. :-) If the link doesn’t work in its present form, change all the ‘%20′ to ‘space’ (no quotes). Or go here:

    http://www.garnautreview.org.au/CA25734E0016A131/pages/submissions#general

    and page down to Holland, David and download the PDF directly.

    It claims, “(Caspar) Ammann who was a contributing author in the Palaeoclimate Chapter 6 of IPCC, 2007a was a former student of Mann, an employee of UCAR and his immediate supervisor at UCAR was Bette Otto-Bliesner who was one of the 14 lead authors of Chapter 6″.

    Hmmmm! How do you spell conflict of interest? Not only that, look who else is on the lead-author list for Chapter 6. Why it’s our old friend Stefan Rahmstorf, who is Michael Mann’s fellow contributor at realclimate. I’m surprised Gavin Schmidt and William Connolley were not on the Chapter 6 panel as well.

    If you read the rest of the linked article, you will see what a load of nonsense the new hockey graph turned out to be. When you consider that Mann only had his doctorate for about a year before publishing the graph, suggesting much of his work may have been done as a graduate student, and that the IPCC achnowledged in TAR that satellite data was throwing the whole mess into the dustbin, you have to ask why the graph received so much prominence from the IPCC in the first place. Were they that desperate to promote their gospel? The graph completely contradicted a graph of the Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age that the IPCC had already published. Where was the peer review?

  43. Gordon Robertson December 4, 2008 at 4:38 pm #

    Nexus 6 “The nice simple little graph I so kindly provided is GLOBAL”.

    Don’t you smell a rat? 1934 is the warmest year in the United States, yet globally it’s 1998, due to an unusually warm El Nino. Even with that El Nino, 1934 is still the warmest year in the United States. Why?

    What the heck does ‘global’ warming mean? How can you claim that a global warming in 1998 due to an El Nino event has relevance, yet several regional record high years in the 1920 to 1940 era are meaningless? If that 1998 year was so significant, why has the trend in warming since 1998, globally, been zero? That’s right. Despite the unusually high 1998 spike, there has been no net warming since, despite CO2 increasing at 0.6% per year.

    It’s back to what Mark Twain said, “there are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies and statistics”. We might at a new one: computer models.

  44. SJT December 4, 2008 at 4:48 pm #

    “Don’t you smell a rat? 1934 is the warmest year in the United States, yet globally it’s 1998, due to an unusually warm El Nino. Even with that El Nino, 1934 is still the warmest year in the United States. Why?”

    The US is the only country that matters? You want an explanation for why there is a country colder than the US? Or why there is one that is midway between the two?

  45. cohenite December 4, 2008 at 4:52 pm #

    I do so enjoy our little talks eli, no matter how painful they may be; if “it has nothing to do with height off the ground”, and there is an even mix of CO2, why is there a lapse rate, or more to the point why isn’t the troposphere warming so that the lapse rate decreases? If near surface CO2 doesn’t do all the work of absorbing CO2 and succeeding layers of CO2 continue the process wouldn’t convective processes cease or decline drastically because of the decrease in the lapse rate? If the lapse rate declined wouldn’t evaporative and condensation processes also decline (are you looking luke?)? If what you say about the broadening capacity of the CO2 ‘wings’ to absorb increasing amounts of IR is right then that is a recipe for runnaway temperature increase, is it not? Mars is a problem for that with 96% of its atmosphere made up of CO2, why hasn’t it got runnaway? Mars of course has no water in its atmosphere, Earth has relatively lots; Dessler has found SH to be increasing but his retrieval of Ta and q, being troposphere temperature and SH respectively, involves a radiative transfer model; it is, therefore, not right to say the AIRS instrument is delivering direct observations of increasing SH; conversly, NOAA figures show declining SH except near the surface; Spencer and Braswell show an increase in low-level water clouds and a decline in high-level ice clouds, which is consistent with both NOAA and Lindzen; also, previously, Minschwaner, one of Dessler’s co-authors, found RH to be declining. The Cabauw measurements showed that near surface SU is matched by ED; this means 2 things; firstly CO2 is most active near the surface; secondly, this is replicated at higher levels of the atmosphere but not between those higher levels and the surface because the ED would then be greater than the SU; as Will says, the “radiation doesn’t just disappear” but it plays no further part in surface radiative flux; the optical depth or mean free path of the CO2 relevant IR is just a matter of metres (ie longer than 650cm, but not by much) so there is no surface boundary discontinuity and the convective process prevents a build-up of layers of opaque, non-saturated CO2 parcels of air above the surface.

  46. Gordon Robertson December 4, 2008 at 4:54 pm #

    Ninderthana “A simple arguemet based on principles of thermal physics will show you that if anything the lower stratosphere will warm relative to the upper troposphere”.

    The AGW crowd has no interest in any science that contradict their mathematical models. I’m beginning to think SJT is a computer model. With respect to the warming being 0.1 C per decade in the future, that presumes CO2 is causing the warming. It may just as easily cool off into one of its natural cycles.

  47. SJT December 4, 2008 at 5:07 pm #

    “Mars is a problem for that with 96% of its atmosphere made up of CO2, why hasn’t it got runnaway?”

    I don’t think anyone is predicting runaway. 96% of what? Have you looked at how thin the atmosphere of Mars is?

    As for CO2 it absorbs and re-emits radiation. It doesn’t catch it and never let it go.

    http://www.ucar.edu/learn/1_3_1.htm

  48. Gordon Robertson December 4, 2008 at 5:12 pm #

    SJT “The US is the only country that matters? You want an explanation for why there is a country colder than the US? Or why there is one that is midway between the two”?

    No…I want someone to explain what a global mathematical average means when a significant portion of the globe went through a warmer period in the 1920-1940’s than in modern times. We are being fed rhetoric today that the globe is warming due to CO2 anthropogenic emissions. CO2 emissions were a fraction of today in the 1920-1940 era yet a large part of the globe was warmer then than it is today.

    The claim is that the hot years in 1920 -1940 era, in the United States, did not contribute to global warming, yet the AGW crowd claim CO2 has been warming the atmosphere globally since the Industrial Era began. Do you think the CO2 just hung over North America like a large cloud? Europe was emitting large amounts of CO2 from coal burning. Why was it not a record year for global warming? Why did it cool off till 1970, then begin warming again?

    There is strong evidence that the Arctic went through a period of unusual melting in the 1920’s as well. What caused that? Don’t you want to understand such phenomena? The great scientists throughout time all had intense curiosities about such matters.

    I’m wasting my time responding to you because you have no intention of addressing such questions other than in a dismissive way. I don’t care if that’s how you want to carry on, I just get tired participating in your game.

  49. cohenite December 4, 2008 at 5:48 pm #

    Gordon; have you opened that rum yet? Will would drive anyone to drink.

  50. Gordon Robertson December 4, 2008 at 5:53 pm #

    Rick Biekoff…re Lindzen’s paper from the article. Do you mean this Novemeber 2008 paper?

    http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0809/0809.3762.pdf

    He reveals more shenanigans from Pierrehumperdink of realclimate, along with a slew of other overt attempts to corrupt science by others. The Stalinist mentality for suppression is alive and well in the AGW community. We’ve replaced the Church of Galileo’s time with a newer church running under the guise of science. Michael Crichton was right and will be sorely missed.

  51. Gordon Robertson December 4, 2008 at 5:56 pm #

    cohenite “Gordon; have you opened that rum yet”?

    No, but I have a devious plan to email Louis some Foghorn Leghorn cartoons to make sure he follows through.

  52. Ninderthana December 4, 2008 at 5:59 pm #

    Gordon,

    Sorry, I forgot to mention natural cycles that would cause a +/- 1.0 – 2.0 C change in temperature that would easily overwhelm the slight increase caused by CO2.

    I am convinced that SJT doesn’t actually think for himself/herself. I believe that he/she
    is a Knowbot that simply regurgitates whatever is posted at Realclimate.org under the
    assumption that it is the gospel truth. I am thinking posting an article at realclimate claiming that fairies and unicorns are true. I am sure that in no time SJT will be quoting my article as “peer-reviewed science” that cannot be crticized or impeached.

  53. cohenite December 4, 2008 at 6:03 pm #

    That reminds me; perhaps I should send a bottle of double strength rum to poor old eli who is having trouble keeping his usual tipple and source of anti-oxidants down.

  54. SJT December 4, 2008 at 6:16 pm #

    “I am convinced that SJT doesn’t actually think for himself/herself. I believe that he/she
    is a Knowbot that simply regurgitates whatever is posted at Realclimate.org under the
    assumption that it is the gospel truth. I am thinking posting an article at realclimate claiming that fairies and unicorns are true. I am sure that in no time SJT will be quoting my article as “peer-reviewed science” that cannot be crticized or impeached.”

    You want the opinions of people on an internet blog, or a summary of the science as it is understood? Weart’s reasoning looks fine to me, and it all refers to physical processes.

  55. SJT December 4, 2008 at 6:25 pm #

    “Sorry, I forgot to mention natural cycles that would cause a +/- 1.0 – 2.0 C change in temperature that would easily overwhelm the slight increase caused by CO2.”

    Have you stopped to ponder what AGW plus cycles is going to result in? We have already seen a sample in 1998.

  56. Ninderthana December 4, 2008 at 6:25 pm #

    Here is the “telling” arguement” that SJT referes to at realclimate:

    “So, if a skeptical friend hits you with the “saturation argument” against global warming, here’s all you need to say:

    (a) You’d still get an increase in greenhouse warming even if the atmosphere were saturated, because it’s the absorption in the thin upper atmosphere (which is unsaturated) that counts
    (b) It’s not even true that the atmosphere is actually saturated with respect to absorption by CO2

    [NOTE: I AM USING BOLD NOT BECAUSE I AM SHOUTING BUT TO DIFFERENTATE MY TEXT]

    IF SJT HAD ACTUALLY READ WHAT I WROTE HE(SHE?) WOULD REALIZE I DIN”T SAY THAT THE
    INFRA-RED ABSORPTION BY THE ATMOSPHERE WAS SATURATED BUT THAT IT IS SATURATED BY THE CO2 IN THE LOWER TROPOSPHERE – [UN]realclimate.org actually agrees with this and points out that the bulk of excess absorption (caused by an increase in CO2) takes place higher in the troposphere.

    (c) Water vapor doesn’t overwhelm the effects of CO2 because there’s little water vapor in the high, cold regions from which infrared escapes, and at the low pressures there water vapor absorption is like a leaky sieve, which would let a lot more radiation through were it not for CO2, and

    I AM NOT CLAIMING THAT H2O IS BLOCKING THE INFRA-RED FROM BEING ABSORBED BY CO2
    ALL I AM SAYING IS THAT BULK OF THE EXCESS ABSORPTION IS TAKING PLACE ABOUT 8 – 10 km ABOVE THE TROPICS. [UN]Realclimate agrees that this should be the case.

    (d) These issues were satisfactorily addressed by physicists 50 years ago, and the necessary physics is included in all climate models.”

    BULL SHIT – alarmists are claiming that something which their own model predicts is not true.
    If you are going to argue that CO2 is not producing greater warming in the upper, rather the lower troposphere, then for GOD sake look at your own models. Either are telling you the truth or they are not.

  57. SJT December 4, 2008 at 6:48 pm #

    [NOTE: I AM USING BOLD NOT BECAUSE I AM SHOUTING BUT TO DIFFERENTATE MY TEXT]

    IF SJT HAD ACTUALLY READ WHAT I WROTE HE(SHE?) WOULD REALIZE I DIN”T SAY THAT THE
    INFRA-RED ABSORPTION BY THE ATMOSPHERE WAS SATURATED BUT THAT IT IS SATURATED BY THE CO2 IN THE LOWER TROPOSPHERE – [UN]realclimate.org actually agrees with this and points out that the bulk of excess absorption (caused by an increase in CO2) takes place higher in the troposphere.

    I think your problem is comprehension. They are saying the excess absorption happens in the higher troposphere. That is, the new absorption as a result of the increase in CO2. That’s their whole point, ‘saturated’ doesn’t explain what is a complex situation.

  58. SJT December 4, 2008 at 6:52 pm #

    No…I want someone to explain what a global mathematical average means when a significant portion of the globe went through a warmer period in the 1920-1940’s than in modern times. We are being fed rhetoric today that the globe is warming due to CO2 anthropogenic emissions. CO2 emissions were a fraction of today in the 1920-1940 era yet a large part of the globe was warmer then than it is today.

    Have you thought of going out and reading up some of the information yourself, rather than just waiting for someone to come along and answer your questions?

    After 1940, there was a huge increase in particle pollution, that had a cooling effect. Particle pollution is relatively shortlived, CO2 effects last a lot longer.

  59. Ninderthana December 4, 2008 at 7:13 pm #

    You hit it right on the head SJT – and it is the warmers who are having the comprehension provlem.

    CO2 absorption takes place in lines or bands. As you increase the number of CO2 atoms along a line of sight you will find that any given aborption line will appear to expand and deepen i.e. in the core (or central wavelength) of the absortion line the amount of light will start to rapidly decrease and approach saturation, while in the wings ofthe line – the aborption process will remain unsaturated.

    Using the real climate analogy of M&M’s on a conveyor belt – it is as as though the red m&m’s are preferentially being eaten by the children from the centre of the conveyor belt i.e. they eat only a few of the M&M’s from the left and right sides of the conveyor belt and they get through.

    If you increase the CO2 further, most of the increased absortion takes places in the wings of the absorption lines and not in the cores i.e. the line as a whole is still unsaturated even though the cores are near saturation.

    This is like adding having a second group of children furter down the conveyor belt (equaivalent to CO2 atoms higher in the atmosphere) who must live off the M&M’s that are left over after the first group of kids have had a feed.

    What the second group of kids see is conveyor belt with M&M’s mostly on the left and right hand sides of the belt [as virtually alll of the M&M’s in the middle have been eaten by the first group of kids]. An additional kids in the second group who can only eat M&M’s from the middle of the conveyor belt have slim pickings as there are few left to eat [these are like the extra CO2 atoms that are added to the atmosphere but do not contribute to an increase in unfra-red absorption]. It is only the Kid’s who can eat the M&M’s on the sides of the conveyot belt who can eat.

    So uou can see that the CO2 absorption can be saturated in the abortion line cores but not the wings – leaving the CO2 abortion lines unsaturated overall. This means that any additional CO2 will preferntially absorp infra-red flux in the wings of the lines – shifting the point of maximum absortion to hgher and higher altitude in the tropshere.

    This is what the models at REALclimate predict from the physics. However, it is not what is observed.

  60. Ninderthana December 4, 2008 at 7:23 pm #

    SJT,

    You are absolutely right in pointing out that with natural variations of 1 – 2 C, the CO2 contribution from humans will eventually become a very serious problem. We just disagree when this will ocuur.

    Our research indicates that there will be a cooling of ~ 1 C over the next two to three decades, followed by a warming starting in about 2040. By then the human component to the warming will be ~ 0.2 – 0.3 C warmer and so when warm up again it will be from a higher base. So I firmly believe that we need to reduce our CO2 emissions, however, I believe tha we have ~ 50 – 100 years to clean up our act, not the 5 – 20 years that the alarmists are
    frothing at the mouth about.

  61. Louis Hissink December 4, 2008 at 7:38 pm #

    Andy,

    Would you contact me please?

    Thanks

    Louis

  62. Louis Hissink December 4, 2008 at 7:58 pm #

    “SJT: As for CO2 it absorbs and re-emits radiation. It doesn’t catch it and never let it go.”

    Says it all.

  63. SJT December 4, 2008 at 8:09 pm #

    Glad I could help, Louis. :)

  64. James Mayeau December 4, 2008 at 8:26 pm #

    “Let’s face it – both sides think the other is dishonest.
    Both sides think the other side has a hidden agenda.
    Whatever is said daily by either side reaffirms that confirmation bias !”

    Long experience arguing with democrats tells me that this is as close as you will ever get to a mea culpa from a liberal. If you caught them red handed with their dirty fingers in the pickle jar, they will never admit fault, but they will try to plea bargain down the coming retribution by saying “Reagan did such and such too”.
    Luke has as much as waved the white flag.

  65. Luke December 4, 2008 at 8:32 pm #

    White flag? Pigs recty James – especially not for a dishonest skunk like you. I’ve seen enough mate to realise we won’t be getting any objectivity from you. Now back to your banjo records. “Peace out “as you used to say when in stealth mode.

  66. Louis Hissink December 4, 2008 at 8:41 pm #

    SJT: “t doesn’t catch it”

    Otherwise known as putting foot in mouth.

  67. SJT December 4, 2008 at 10:23 pm #

    Oh, I see now, Louis. If you pick a part of a sentence and selectively quote it, you can make it appear to mean the opposite of what I actually said. You are a clever little rascal, aren’t you. ;)

  68. cohenite December 4, 2008 at 10:38 pm #

    Ninderthana; your CO2 ‘wings’ exposition and consequent upper troposphere cooling is the subject of a new paper by P Keating which is discussed at lucia’s latest post; looked at in this light, extra CO2 will steepen the lapse rate and produce overall cooling; what a strange world.

  69. cohenite December 4, 2008 at 11:08 pm #

    Will, the 1940-70 cool period was not due to aerosols; aerosol levels were high to the 1980’s;

    http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2007/2006JD008037.shtml

    Aerosols have a heating capacity as Professor Ramanathan has found and this study shows;

    http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2007/2007GL030380.shtml

    As well, since aerosol is a product of industry, then due to the concentration of such aerosol generating sources in the Nthn hemisphere the cooling should only have affected the Nthn hemisphere, but the Sthn hemisphere was equally affected.

  70. Eli Rabett December 5, 2008 at 3:15 am #

    Aerosols have both heating and cooling capacities in the atmosphere depending on where and what they are. Black carbon, low down heats strongly, sulphate aerosols up near the tropopause cool strongly (see volcanic eruption). Really cohenites, you gotta get out of the habit of thinking you understand this stuff.

  71. cohenite December 5, 2008 at 8:29 am #

    Eli; I defer to your superior knowledge on the subject, and all I can say in my own defence is that ignorance craves company.

  72. James Mayeau December 5, 2008 at 12:08 pm #

    “Peace out “as you used to say when in stealth mode.”

    Stealth mode?

    Must be refering to the good ol’ days when Luke assumed me a push over.

  73. Luke December 5, 2008 at 12:49 pm #

    No James – I still regard you as hopeless – a science ninny.

  74. Janama December 5, 2008 at 1:36 pm #

    “I still regard you as hopeless – a science ninny.”

    of course you do – you regard everyone in the same manner – it’s defined as arrogance where I come from.

  75. Rick Beikoff December 5, 2008 at 1:51 pm #

    Yes, Gordon Robertson. Thanks. It looks to me like this conspiracy, this greatest ever hoax and fraud against humanity, is about to blow it’s head off. Just like an over-ripe boil.

  76. Gordon Robertson December 5, 2008 at 4:53 pm #

    Rick Beikoff “this greatest ever hoax and fraud against humanity, is about to blow it’s head off”.

    Wish I could share your optimism but history tells us reaction to such paradigms are slow. Going back to the times of James Lind, who had never heard of Vitamin C, but who recommended the British Navy carry limes on it’s long voyages to heal scurvy, we can see with dismay that it took the Navy 45 years to act.

    In the early 1900’s a pellagra outbreak in the southern US states was quickly identified by a health official as being diet related. Researchers in officialdom went on looking for a viral/bacterial cause for 30 years, till another researcher discovered the B-Vitamins. That’s when they started fortifying cereals and grain products with B-Vitamins.

    In 1983, Robert Gallo, a researcher who had made a collosal mistake by claiming he had identified a viral cause for cancer, claimed to have found a viral cause for AIDS. An independent study by Luc Montagnier made the same claim at the same time, but soon qualified his claim by stating that the virus, HIV, could not cause AIDS on its own but needed a mysterious cofactor. A few years later, a leading viral researcher, Peter Dueberg, claimed there was no way HIV could cause AIDS, for the simple reason that AIDS in North America was restricted to groups that were predominantly male. There is no known virus that attacks only males.

    Here we are 25 years later, with no cure for AIDS in sight, or a vaccine, and people like Gallo are clinging tightly to their theory that AIDS is caused by a virus. Maybe it is and maybe it isn’t. The point is, why have we wasted 25 years where we could have been looking for alternative causes for AIDS? They used exactly the same rhetoric as for global warming: the science is settled and anyone not accepting the ‘consensus’ is a flat-earther. Duesberg’s career has been ruined due to a loss of funding, he can’t get published and his university has brought sanctions to limit his tenure.

    It’s one thing to form a theory that CO2 is causing global warming and quite another to suppress research into other areas of possible causation. These are scary times for science when political, egotistical twits have taken control. With the advent of the internet, activists can embellish Al Gore-type nonsense while refuting good sense from skeptics. Fortunately it works both ways. Blogs like Jennifers can have an effect. I was doing a Google search and encountered one of my blog entries here being discussed, good and bad, as far away as Belgium. The point is that a minor statement form a nobody like me can be fodder for discussion half way across the world.

    Hopefully we will have a more expeditious breakthrough but I’m not overly optimistic.

  77. Will Nitschke December 5, 2008 at 6:51 pm #

    Gordon Robertson,

    You are a disgrace. Trying to suggest that AIDS denialism is even plausible, casts a shadow on every genuine sceptic trying to make sense of the data and the reasoning behind AGW. You sir, are a rather nasty crank.

  78. Will Nitschke December 5, 2008 at 7:10 pm #

    Eli Rabett:

    “Aerosols have both heating and cooling capacities in the atmosphere depending on where and what they are. Black carbon, low down heats strongly, sulphate aerosols up near the tropopause cool strongly (see volcanic eruption). Really cohenites, you gotta get out of the habit of thinking you understand this stuff.”

    How about addressing the points raised, rather than going off on a tangent and then throwing in an insult that only ends up making yourself look stupid?

    Why not address the issues directly?

    If a evolutionary biologist is debating a creationist, he’ll tackle the creationist’s arguments head on. I’ll happily change my opinion and join the ‘warm’ side if you stopped doing little dances and just addressed the points raised in the links provided in a straight forward way. And how about dropping all the smarmy insults that make you look like an arrogant arse, at least to casual readers? (No, Luke is not a good role model.) That more than makes up for all the conspiracy theory rubbish I have to wade through posted by the ‘cool’ side…

    Right now I think I’m sitting in the middle here, but if we get another la nina next year, I might have to start rooting for Cohenite rather than feeling so ambivalent about his postings.

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/12/04/la-nina-is-back/

  79. cohenite December 5, 2008 at 8:42 pm #

    Actually Will N ( to distinguish you from SJT who I have christened Will in honour of Will Robinson, another fantasist), eli is wrong for other reasons about aerosols; it is not the case that they just warm at altitude in the stratosphere;

    http://junkscience.com/MSU_Temps/Stratosphere1278-1204.gif

    Both the El Chichon and Pinatubo reuptions show an immediate heating effect consistent with eli’s theory, but then there is a drastic dropping off; is this due to the resumption of the AGW effect, or is due to another effect of the eruption, namely SO2 ozone-destruction? This ozone depletion has been well documented with extra UV reaching the ground and enhanced photosynthesis as a result; some other factors to consider; Lucia has done a couple of posts about the duration of volcanic effects, and 7-9 years is likely; this dovetails with Pinatubo because since 2001 Stratosphere temperatures have been moving back up while surface temperatures have been declining (with the exception of GISS, of course). A further complication is a new paper by Pat Keating which finds that correct modelling of the radiative transfer mechanism of CO2 would actually produce cooling in the mid to high troposphere, well below the higher cooling predicted by the Weartian AGW atmospheric model, but at the level, the CEL, or Characteristic Emission Layer, noted by Christy and Douglass in their most recent paper; Keating’s paper is featured in Lucia’s most recent post.

  80. Eli Rabett December 6, 2008 at 1:38 am #

    It’s due to the injection of sulphate aerosols into the lower stratosphere which block solar insolation. You are such an amusing guy.

    http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/295/5558/1242

    “PINATUBO ERUPTION:
    The Climatic Aftermath
    Alan Robock*

    The eruption of Mount Pinatubo on Luzon Island, Philippines (15.1ºN, 120.4ºE), on 15 June 1991 produced the largest stratospheric volcanic aerosol cloud of the 20th century (1). In just a few days, about 20 megatons of SO2 was injected into the stratosphere (1). The effect of the eruption on global climate could be felt for years. Surface air temperatures over Northern Hemisphere (NH) continents were cooler than normal by up to 2ºC in the summer of 1992 and warmer than normal by up to 3ºC in the winters of 1991-92 (see the figure) and 1992-93.”

    Oh yeah it was well know immediately that Pinatubo would be a test of GCMs and they were shown to be right

  81. Eli Rabett December 6, 2008 at 1:43 am #

    To continue (hit the submit too early)

    “Several volcanic aerosol effects collude to create this pattern of tropospheric temperature changes: warming of the tropical lower stratosphere, ozone depletion at high latitudes, tropical surface cooling, and mid-latitude surface warming (15). The pattern is associated with a strong polar vortex and is called the positive mode of the Arctic Oscillation (16) [which is closely related to the North Atlantic Oscillation (17)]. External stratospheric forcing can push the system into this natural mode of the winter atmospheric circulation relatively easily.

    The polar vortex is strengthened by lower stratosphere warming at low latitudes, which is caused by absorption of solar and terrestrial radiation by the volcanic aerosol cloud. Ozone depletion, which in the case of Pinatubo took place mostly at high latitudes in the NH (15), also strengthens the polar vortex by causing polar cooling. Climate models have reproduced the observed winter warming when forced with the observed aerosols (18) and ozone changes (15) after the Pinatubo eruption (15, 19). The results show that the dynamical response of atmospheric circulation to radiative forcing is an important aspect of climate change and highlight the climatic role of the stratosphere (20).

    Global warming was retarded for several years after the Pinatubo eruption because of the cooling effects of the volcanic aerosols. Simulations of this cooling helped to validate climate models used for global warming. The strong but relatively short-lived climate forcing was used to test and improve climate models and has sharpened our understanding of the climate system. In the past, it has been difficult to attribute global warming to anthropogenic greenhouse gases because observations of climate change show irregular coolings that do not match the expected warming from greenhouse gases. Simulations that include solar forcing and volcanism (21-23) accurately simulate climate change before the past century but do not reproduce the 0.6ºC warming observed in the past century unless anthropogenic greenhouse gases are considered. These studies have allowed the latest Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change assessment report (24) to give the strongest support yet to the attribution of recent warming to human actions.”

  82. cohenite December 6, 2008 at 9:23 am #

    I wish I had your sense of certainty eli; there has been no meaningful Stratosphere cooling, at any level, since 1995;

    http://www.met.sjsu.edu/~tesfai/RESULTS/Journals/SPARC_paper.pdf

    Randel et al are also more forthcoming about data uncertainties than you appear to be; Lucia also deserves a comment on this issue;

    http://rankexploits.com/musings/2008/embrace-the-volcano-when-volcanos-erupt-temperatures-swing/#comments

    You’ll notice she draws on your Robock source. She also links to an interesting paper by Sothers which deals with SO2; I don’t think the Stratosphere ‘fingerprint’ is quite there yet.

  83. janama December 6, 2008 at 10:23 am #

    “Red Hot Lies” – the author speaks

    http://www.heritage.org/Press/Events/ev120408a.cfm

  84. janama December 6, 2008 at 11:34 am #

    I’m not sure if I’ve ever mentioned that I flew past the Pinatubo eruption. The volcano blew as we we taking off from Melbourne on a flight to Hong Kong. We reached the Philippines to be confronted with this huge brown fiery cloud, lightning was going off inside and at 30K ft it loomed high above us. The pilot said absolutely nothing and we veered away from it and it wasn’t until we got to HK that we realised what it was.

    Awesome.

  85. Eli Rabett December 7, 2008 at 2:19 am #

    cohenite, go take a look at Fig. 3 on this site
    http://www.atmosphere.mpg.de/enid/20c.html

    you can click on it to blow it up. Note that the strong cooling from CO2 in the atmosphere occurs above 3 hPa (~20 km) and that there is not a lot, if any up to 100 hPa because cooling from water vapor and CO2 is balanced by a warming from O3. As the SPARC paper says

    “The global-mean cooling of the lower stratosphere has not occurred linearly over
    the past few decades, but rather is manifested as two downward steps in temperatures that
    are coincident with the end of the transient warming associated with the El Chichon and
    Pinatubo volcanic eruptions (e.g. Ramaswamy et al. 2006). In the global-mean, the lower
    stratosphere has not noticeably cooled since 1995.”

    The strong cooling is expected to occur above 100 hPa, which is what is observed at the link you provided. The maximum cooling will be at 1 hPa which is near the stratopause and not discussed in the paper. FWIW

    “Estimates of climate trends in the middle and upper stratosphere rely primarily on
    a single dataset derived from the operational SSU satellite data, and hence have
    substantial uncertainties. . . .

    Our assessment shows that the mid-stratosphere is now
    believed to be cooling at around 0.4-0.5 K/decade, considerably higher than indicated in
    earlier assessments, as a result of the inclusion of a correction for the effect of changes in
    atmospheric CO2 on the satellite weighting functions. As a consequence, there is much
    less vertical structure in the cooling derived from SSU data than previously indicated.”

    So at this point, the modeling may indeed be a better representation of reality than then measurements, which at best are a check against the models (they do agree) until they are improved. It is this competition (remember competition is good) that characterizes science. BTW, the figure Eli referenced above comes from the same sort of line by line calculation that Miskolczi uses, so if you reject it, you are rejecting what he did (Eli differs with M on other grounds, for example his mistaken assumptions, error filled statistical mechanics calculations, use of a non representative atmospheric profiles from early TIGR data sets, and his lack of mechanism beyond feverish handwaving for requiring that the optical density of the atmosphere remain constant. The Bunny has no problem with the line by line calculation. Details at Niche Modeling and CA discussion groups)

    btw, thanks for the SPARC paper link

  86. James Mayeau December 7, 2008 at 4:15 am #

    ” So at this point, the modeling may indeed be a better representation of reality than then measurements … ”

    and if you click the ruby slippers together three times, saying “There’s no place like home. There’s no place like home.”
    you can save your frequent flyer miles to use on vacation next summer.

  87. SJT December 7, 2008 at 2:04 pm #

    “and if you click the ruby slippers together three times, saying “There’s no place like home. There’s no place like home.”
    you can save your frequent flyer miles to use on vacation next summer.”

    Didn’t you read what he said. The problem with satellite temperature readings is the depth. They are sitting up there out in space, reading temperatures through different layers of the atmosphere, indirectly. What if I was to say to you I can read the temperature of the stratosphere from down here on the ground? Would you believe me.

    Theoretically it can be done, and the satellite methods are improving, but this blind faith in their accuracy is puzzling.

  88. James Mayeau December 8, 2008 at 5:02 am #

    There is so hot a summer in Al’s bosom,

    That all Gore’s bowels crumble up to dust:

    He is a scribbled form, drawn with a pen

    Upon a parchment, and against this fire

    Does he shrink up.

  89. Eli Rabett December 9, 2008 at 12:37 pm #

    On coherence and incoherence in science: when one has noisy data and imperfect models one looks for coherence with such other information as one has to judge the case rather than arbitrarily choosing data or model.

Website by 46digital