HAS the greenhouse effect increased with man-made greenhouse gas emissions? Canadian Ken Gregory asks and answers this question concluding…
The greenhouse effect as characterized by the normalized greenhouse factor has increased by only 0.19% from 1960 to 2008. The temperature change from 1960 attributable to AGW is less than 0.1 C. The extrapolated temperature change attributable to AGW at doubled CO2 concentration is 0.26 C. The data shows that the IPCC estimate of climate sensitivity at doubled CO2 concentration of 3.0 C is unrealistic.
Read more here: http://www.friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/OLR&NGF_June2011.pdf
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
0.26c instead 0f 3.0c for a doubling of CO2?
Climate sensitivity reduced by around 90%?
So about 75% of that 0.7c warming to date is natural variation?
The “Anthropocene” has added all of 0.175 c to our burden.
How will we survive?
I followed Science of Doom’s comprehensive analysis of Miskolczi and I’m still digesting it.
http://scienceofdoom.com/2011/05/28/the-mystery-of-tau-%e2%80%93-miskolczi-part-six-minor-ghgs/
At this stage of the discussion the issue was the accuracy of the TIGR2 data set compared with TIGR3 and subsequently SoD put up 2 threads dealing with the Paltridge/ Dessler dispute on water levels and whether radiosonde or satellite data was more accurate; SoD prefers the Dessler approach which became apparent in the final chapter of this dispute where he weighed into a critical analysis of a paper by William Gibson which described the relationship between water vapor levels, pressure and temperature:
http://scienceofdoom.com/2011/06/12/paradigm-shifts-in-convection-and-water-vapor/
Perhaps Ken can comment on these developments given that he has conceded some errors with the Miskolczi theory but still maintains that the crucial issue of water levels are consistent with Miskolczi.
O/T but re sensitivity:
“Well, maybe what is really missing is the IPCC’s willingness to admit the climate system is simply not as sensitive to our greenhouse gas emissions as they claim it is. Maybe the missing heat is missing because it does not really exist.”
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2011/06/more-evidence-that-global-warming-is-a-false-alarm-a-model-simulation-of-the-last-40-years-of-deep-ocean-warming
Even if the results got by Dessler from the data by means of torture is right, the bottom line is that the claims regarding AGW are still in the noise, and not clear at all.
Frankly I do not trust Dessler at all, since he is that most dangerous of amphibians, a creature thriving in both academia and Al Gore’s Vice Presidential staff.
“Dessler spent the year 2000 as a senior policy analyst in the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Dessler
Like Mann, Dessler seems to already know the answer and simply looks for data to torture until it gives up that answer.
We now have our stupid govts reply to one of Bolt’s readers.
Our co2 reductions will not reduce the temp for the next 50+ years. GEEZZZ what a surprise, but in the next breath they’ll be telling us that we still have to TACKLE CC.
All those countless billions flushed down the toilet for decades to come and for ZERO return.
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/dreyfuss_confirms_zero_gain_from_our_pain/#commentsmore
Cohenite, I am surprised that in trying to understand Miskcolzci that you did not consultant Dr Van Andel’s excellent paper “A note on the Miskolczi Theory” in Energy & Environment Vol 21 No4 2010 pp 277-292. It is also worth reading all the papers ( including the paper by Miskolczi, another paper by Van Andel -“Tropical rainstorm Feedback” and a general paper by Willis Eschenbach on thunderstorms) in that issue of E&E. Unfortunately, the papers are behind a pay wall but there are copies around. Dr Van Andel was a highly respected Dutch engineer who understood heat transfer and was the inventor of the Fiwihex -Fine Wire Heat Exchanger. He has made presentations to KNMI. Something on him can be found here http://climategate.nl/2011/05/10/ingenieur-tegen-de-draad-in/ (if you open with Google Chrome you can get a automatic translation). I did not realise that he was sick when I asked him by email some questions to which he kindly replied. I only realised today when I did a search that he had died. He will be a loss not only to the Dutch people but to all who wish to see good science in climate assessment.
Taking in articles, posts & comments by people who lack a complete understanding of engineering subjects such as thermodynamics and heat & mass transfer (or those who wish to support poor science) will not improve your knowledge of factors affecting climate.
Further to the above on the same web page a comment from Arthur Roesch (google translation) 10th May 2011
“Dear Joost,
Solid story from you about the ‘engineer’. Still a little underexposed his battle cry: “Long live physics”. See obituary of his predecessor at AKZO, his boss, Dick Thoenes in the next issue of SPIL. According to him NVA could always act very rapidly to a new physics problem for him. Like last year, also appeared in his description of, and calculations, the material and energy flows in the atmosphere.
Moreover, after his nomination in the KNMI (September 2010) continued his extensive e-mail with KNMI researchers exchange views . Much understanding he received for his “sums” do not. He found it in a number of foreign physicists. On his sterkbed he asked one of his job done. In a group they are now working the calculations of NVA, and his references, once a thorough assessment and the last piece of him to work up a decent publication. I hope by the end of the week to give an overview of the status of the manuscript entitled: Global Temperature Processes
Part 1, CO2 and Water Vapor Effects on Temperature. Which the conclusion: This paper concludes That every 1 º C or warmer sea surface convected Bring The Heat Increases 1.5 km higher and the latent heat transfer by Typically 16.5 W/m2. This strong negative feedback Reduces the Climate sensitivity to a doubling of CO2 to below 0.25 ° C.”
Interesting.
1. Gerlich & Tscheuschner don’t believe the inappropriately-named “greenhouse” effect can exist. (In their followup they do believe in radiation from the atmosphere to the surface but wisely declined to comment on what happens to it when it “reaches the surface”).
They are applauded on this blog.
2. Miskolczi believes the inappropriately-named “greenhouse” effect does exist but the effect from CO2 is cancelled out by changes in water vapor. (Standard greenhouse effect but negative feedback from water vapor).
He is applauded on this blog.
3. Nasif Nahle believes that CO2 emissivity is so tiny it will be unnoticeable in any calculation of radiation from the atmosphere (No noticeable greenhouse effect because CO2 can’t really absorb/emit significant radiation).
He is applauded on this blog.
4. Claus Johnson believes that photons don’t exist and quantum mechanics is a huge mistake. Therefore there is no such thing as “back radiation” or “surface radiation”. (Last 100 years of physics all wrong, including the 3 people above).
He is applauded on this blog.
Each of these is in direct contradiction to the others. (And I’m only an occasional reader here so it’s not an exhaustive study – maybe there are more).
No one has noticed this?
hunter said:
“Like Mann, Dessler seems to already know the answer and simply looks for data to torture until it gives up that answer.”
What do you think of Ross & Elliot? They analyzed radiosonde data?
How about Wentz & Schabel? They analyzed satellite data?
Did they torture the data as well?
Why didn’t Paltridge, Arking & Pook comment on the interesting comparison by Trenberth & Smith?
This comparison showed that EITHER the measurements of surface pressure were wrong OR the measurements of water vapor were wrong in NCEP/NCAR & ERA-40 – but the problem was worse in NCEP/NCAR.
NCEP/NCAR is a climate model. Not data.
Prof Kalnay, the director of the NCEP/NCAR project, said (on humidity data) “..although there are observational data that directly affect the value of the variable, the model also has a very strong influence on the value..”
– See Water Vapor Trends
Of course, the director of this project is torturing the data as well…
If the result isn’t what you want, clearly anyone involved is biased.
Believe a climate model if it gives the “right” result. It’s much easier when you know the result in advance, saves tons of work.
Just a quick note – if we assume the mass of the solid earth to have a low dynamic specific heat, (new term since specific heat of matter is not defined in terms of time, only in terms of mass and temperature etc), then this fact(or) seems not to be known in physics.
It suggests that we are dealing with a physical bi-modal system – a solid earth coated by a surficial biosphere/gas system that are physically independent.
The AGW argument is that human activity affects the surficial system, with no input from the underlying earth system.
Hi Sience of Doom
I don’t have a problem with posting very different perspectives on carbon dioxide – even those that are contradictory.
Indeed, the only thing that I am sure about is that there is no unifying theory of climate and the role of carbon dioxide is unclear.
You misrepresent Nasif Nahle.
And there would be somewhere at this blog, a post that suggests an impact from carbon dioxide.
Cementafriend, the E&E edition on Miskolczi is here:
http://www.eike-klima-energie.eu/uploads/media/EE_21-4_paradigm_shift_output_limited_3_Mb.pdf
SoD has paid particular attention to William Gibson’s paper in the Miskolczi edition of E&E, see here:
http://scienceofdoom.com/2011/06/12/paradigm-shifts-in-convection-and-water-vapor/
I don’t think the water level dispute has been resolved despite SoD’s thorough analysis; one thing that analysis has overlooked is the decline in H2O emissivity in the overlapping spectrum; to this layman that would seem to severely mitigate the potential of H2O feedback to CO2 warming and undermine AGW to that extent; see this graph:
http://scienceofdoom.files.wordpress.com/2011/05/co2-h20-spectrum-spectralcalc.png
cohenite, cementafriend
SOD enlightens his readers with this observation
….”And the (less well-known) equation which links heat capacity at constant volume with heat capacity at constant pressure (derived from statistical thermodynamics and experimentally verifiable):
Cp = Cv + R ….[5]
where Cp = heat capacity (for one mole) at constant pressure”……
http://scienceofdoom.com/2011/06/12/paradigm-shifts-in-convection-and-water-vapor/
This is a hugely hilarious joke.
To appreciate the joke all you need is to have attended a physical science or engineering degree introductory course.
Those who have know that this equation is derived effortlessly in 3 lines from classical thermodynamics.
“Derived from statistical thermodynamics” says SOD, who inadvertently displays the fact that he has never been anywhere near an introductory course in thermodynamics.
SOD runs the pseudo science blog where regulars are convinced that heat flows from colder to hotter bodies.
Go there for a laugh but take an elementary course in thermodynamics first.
Science of Doom,
It’s good to see you going to some length in understanding the scientists you mentioned above. It is also pleasing to see you use quote marks around , “greenhouse” etc. You may even come to realise one day that these guys are most likely to be correct in their analysis of atmospheric physics.
Jennifer,
I recall you saying to Neutrino that he had courage in confronting us (and everybody) with his scientific opinions. The people with courage around here are yourself and Nasif Nahle.
Most of the rest of us including Science of Doom are sitting in bunkers taking pot shots.
SOD says
…….” Interesting.
1. Gerlich & Tscheuschner don’t believe the inappropriately-named “greenhouse” effect can exist. (In their followup they do believe in radiation from the atmosphere to the surface but wisely declined to comment on what happens to it when it “reaches the surface”).
They are applauded on this blog.”……
Had SOD read the original Gerlich & Tscheuschner paper with several diagrams and equations showing two way radiative transfer between surfaces at different temperatures then he would not have needed to post this snide comment.
The way SOD presents it here is that G&T had to correct themselves by a “In their follow up they do believe in radiation from the atmosphere to the surface”.
SOD makes no effort to understand science.
He (or she or them) post in a propagandist mode.
The half smear is taken to be a refutation.
Its noticeable that Joel Shore one of the Halpern et al critics of the G&T paper has now distanced himself from the Halpern paper.
But poor old SOD keeps plugging away without updating his script.
Cohenite, I think you know I have the E&E issue but forgot the download link. I have now added that to my reference list.
Glanced at the SoD link. I saw a comment which suggested that SOD was out of his comfort zone. I think I saw somewhere previously (maybe on The Air Vent blog) that SoD does not have any engineering qualifications or experience. Having experience helps in understanding the theory, measurement and errors. Willis’s comments in here http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/06/28/mistaking-numerology-for-math/ “I loved my slide rule. In addition to my K&E, I had a circular slide rule that just fit in my shirt pocket. I used that one all through high school. I ascribe the accuracy of my mental Bad Number Detector™ to the use of the slide rule” is very apt.
Random comments from the blog-less and post-less. Noted.
Has SOD ever explained his statement that measured ~240/m2 at TOA and measured ~390w/m2 at the surface show Greenhouse??? Maybe he is going to retract it some day??
How timely luke, the 1st July, official year zero time, when now the lunatics rule the roost.
Happy new year to all.
Jennifer on June 30th, 2011 at 9:38 pm:
“Hi Science of Doom
I don’t have a problem with posting very different perspectives on carbon dioxide – even those that are contradictory..”
Of course, you are the blog owner. It is your blog. I am only making comment on the applause from the audience. Many people won’t realize that these perspectives contradict each other.
Four witnesses provided four different alibis for the suspect to the police for the time in question. This equals 4 witnesses for the defence?
Alert readers with an interest in science will notice that in the rapturous followup to my comment no one has:
a) attempted to demonstrate that the 4 perspectives are not contradictory, or,
b) claimed that the 4 contradictory perspectives are not applauded
Instead, random claims that don’t address the point. Message received and understood.
New Theory Proves AGW Wrong!
Funny crowd over at Mr Doom’s place…had me laughing at least.
Bob Tisdale has a guest post at Watts and I plucked this par…
‘A more recent paper, Shakun and Shaman (2009) “Tropical origins of North and South Pacific decadal variability” also confirms that the PDO is an aftereffect of ENSO. In addition to the PDO, they use the acronym PDV for Pacific Decadal Variability.’
In the mid-1970s my employer company was in joint venture with the Dutch company AKZO. The head Dutch rep was Dr Dick Thoenes, mentioned above, later a Prof at Eindhoven. Dick is one of those rare people whose mind is so organised that a quick reply can be contemplated at leisure and found to be a comprehensive reply. I suspect that we have all met an occasional person with that ability, but not many exist.
In emails in the last couple of years, Dick has been pessimistic about the establishment takeover of climate matters in Holland and the silencing of skeptics. He is a beaut guy and I hope that he sees the improvement that is steadily under way in many countries – including his own.
Science of Doom,
Here’s the foundation of your ” foundational physics”
Pay attention here Luke!! (biffs chalk hard)
http://briefingroom.typepad.com/.a/6a00d8341c51bc53ef0154321c3271970c-popup
– just govt. propaganda.
Whether you advance in science, law or anything else this is what your young unquestioning mind has recieved.
‘Random comments from the blog-less and post-less. Noted.’
Did I miss something? Ken Gregory’s paper is fairly damning evidence that your mob have got it badly wrong.
Thinking about Shakun and Shaman….the ENSO dog wags the PDV tail and I assumed it was the other way round.
EG, the idea that the PDO is the puppet of ENSO has been around for a while:
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/people/gilbert.p.compo/Newmanetal2003.pdf
Bob Tisdale is doing another post to explain ENSO/PDO… Check him out!!
http://bobtisdale.wordpress.com/2011/06/30/yet-even-more-discussions-about-the-pacific-decadal-oscillation-pdo/#more-586
Mack,
scientists say oceans will rise 88-2100cms.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Notice the wording, “scientists say.” Yup, scientists say a lot of bunk. Don’t make it true. Now, what has scientists research shown??? OOOPS!! No mention of that in the propaganda!!!
Hey SOD!!!
still waiting for your explanation of how the 390w/m2 from the surface and 240w/m2 at TOA = greenhouse. You gotta face it some day.
Hi! Geoff Sherrington, if you know Dr Dick Thoenes maybe you could get him to make a post (or posts) here on some of the good work of Dr Noor Van Andel- his solar power research, his fuel cell, his heat exchanger invention and then his digestion of Miskolczi leading to his own theories of climate involving solar cycles, cosmic rays, clouds, evaporation, and convection.
Kuhnkat,
🙂 Yeah , I’d be calling that stuff “Science of Doom” too.
What a bunch of silly responses to SoD – as usual sceptics wallowing in hypocritical intellectual bankruptcy.
He’s right of course – you lot believe at least 6 mutual exclusive things simultaneously. Face it – you’ll jump on anything?
Mack – well I can see goobers are easily amused ! (hits hard does it …. hmmmm)
The Denialati do not ‘wallow’, but I cannot speak for the sceptics.
Luke, still waiting for your guest post….. ‘A re-examination of SWWA wet/dry cycles.’
All in all
You’re just another
brick in the wall
Luke
Luke,
I only believe that you and your lot are a joke. That leaves me room for 5 more things. Any suggestions??
How about you explaining the 240 and 390 greenhouse thingy that SOD seems to have better things to do than explain to me.
Mack,
“All in all
You’re just another
brick in the wall
Luke”
I think you are overrating him. Luke’s head is too large to fit.
‘Face it – you’ll jump on anything?’
Brown wants to debate the Opposition leader on climate change and the warmists ridicule me with Yabbot has the brain of a flea, and also lacks the knowledge of the subject compared to Brown.
I argue that they are both ignorant and should have ‘seconds’ – Bob Carter would be good support for the ‘pug’.
Kuhnkat – and sorry you are whom to be listened to ? some drive by shooter?
Anyway wouldn’t you lot be rejoining the chorus with
“We don’t need no education
We don’t need no thought control
No dark sarcasm in the classroom “
In fact I see poor old Bob got hit for six for being a norty sceptic in the Age.
http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/society-and-culture/half-the-truth-on-emissions-20110627-1gne1.html Good call for Tones.
Luke,
John Cook couldn’t hit a lit skyrocket for six. He seriously rates himself as a sceptic yet has the most closed mind of any CAGWer I know. And he has the temerity to accuse people of cherry picking!
1998 is still the hottest year, current global temps are similar to 30 years ago and ice cap melting is around 10% of the uncertainty factor.
So much for JC being a sceptic.
“1998 is still the hottest year”
That is, if you leave out the great adjuster:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1979/to:2011/normalise/plot/uah/from:1979/to:2011/normalise/plot/rss/from:1979/to:2011/normalise
But John Cook is in good company:
http://climateaudit.org/2011/07/02/more-mendacity-from-east-anglia-revealed/
Luke,
If I sent you a map of Syrria do you think you could find the road to Damascus like Mark Lynas has?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/jul/02/green-movement-lost-its-way
“Over the past 40 years as temperatures have risen, drought severity has also increased. This is exerting significant pressure on agriculture as water supplies become strained.”
Your mate John Cook needs to stick his head out the window:
“Facts: Global surface temperature rose about three-fourths of a degree Celsius in the 20th century. U.S. corn yields quintupled. Life expectancy doubled. People got fat. Global warming didn’t cause all of this, but increased atmospheric carbon dioxide directly stimulated plant growth. Further, greenhouse warming takes place more in the winter, which lengthens growing seasons. With adequate water, plants then fix and yield more carbohydrate.”
h/t Justin Gillis
Except for where it didn’t rain. HAHAHAHAHAHAHA
What drivel.
Crop yields have increased due to enhanced agronomic techniques, agro-chemicals and genetic modification. The CO2 effect is lower than experimental statistical resolution. i.e. teensy weensy
You guys sure are drongos !
kuhnkat on July 3rd, 2011 at 8:48 am
“How about you explaining the 240 and 390 greenhouse thingy that SOD seems to have better things to do than explain to me.”
What do you need explaining? It is pretty simple stuff.
Have a read of Understanding Atmospheric Radiation and the “Greenhouse” Effect – Part One.
And perhaps Do Trenberth and Kiehl understand the First Law of Thermodynamics?
Fasinating isn’t it ,
When it comes to plant growth and CO2 the effect is a “teensy weensy”
But as for the earth’s climate and CO2….well Woooohhhhh!
Btw Luke who’s measuring the growth rate of all plant matter. You?
Mack,
Luke needs to take the sandwich-boards off and look around too. In spite of droughts, soil carbon is increasing as is food production everywhere.
Recent surveys of ground feeding, worm eating birds have shown big increases in local populations.
Stupid CAGWers wouldn’t know good times if it was raining watermelons. They’d rather waste taxpayer funds on crazy schemes like this:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2009152/UK-Government-invests-670k-strawberries-resistant-climate-change.html
More evidence of alarmist drivel from the mouths of CAGW plonkers.
Warm periods traditionally produce more and better wine but not if the bed-wetters can help it:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/07/02/wining-and-climate-change-in-california/
Looking at the Cook article both sides appear to be cherry-picking. Not that there is anything wrong with that, it’s academic.
Bob Carter ‘has long hung his hat on the proposition the climate has been cooling since 1998. But with 2005 and 2010 being the hottest years on record, he resorts to cherry-picking which dataset to use. Rather than use temperature records that cover the entire globe, he opts for datasets that do not include the Arctic region, where warming is the strongest.
Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/society-and-culture/half-the-truth-on-emissions-20110627-1gne1.html#ixzz1R2HBkuyx
eg,
There not being much in the way of reliable thermometers in the Arctic and oceans, UAH and RSS should be a reasonable choice but Cook ignores this and goes for the highest readings. However, he claims that SLR is as per satellites.
IOW, he uses whatever is the most extreme so he picks cherries as vigorously as anyone.
Here is an interesting comparison of SLR:
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3206/3144596227_545227fbae_b.jpg
But maybe Cook ought to try this satellite, Envisat. Not much happening here:
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2011/06/19/hiding-the-decline-in-sea-level/#more-32692
There’s nothing worse for scepos like my good mate Spanglers (and incidentally I’m currently baby-sitting a Polytelis alexandrae – when I asked its age they told me to look up it date – I think they are having me on – anyway it seems to like crawling all over me – shitting on me and attacking my keyboard and mouse – as you’ll appreciate I’ve been trying to locate its spatules to find out if I should call it bastard or bitch …. but anyway where were we …)
Oh yes don’t you hate that nasty click sound when you’re marauding in the science undergrowth and you know you’ve stood on a land mine.
” In spite of droughts, soil carbon is increasing as is food production everywhere.” WHOOPS – sorry soil carbon ain’t. FIZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
So Spanglers wouldn’t frigging know. I might as well ask Polly here for a comment once she/he/it lets go of my mouse. LET GO YOU VICIOUS LITTLE BASTARD ….
Anyway funny how all the stuff up there in the Arctic melting like a mofo isn’t it. hmmmmm – must be the global cooling.
And speaking of dickwits did you see Bob’s latest try-on in the SMH. http://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/the-science-is-not-settled-20110702-1gvy6.html He’s retrospectively up the IPCC for not acknowledging the latest solar scam. Sheesh – give’em a break – the solar conference has just concluded…. and where’s his scepticism. And he’s banging on about a CO2 starved world – I guess he’s probably using 10,000ppm in in house which explains a lot.
Better reading this http://www.sunnybankaviaries.com/princess_parrots.php
Luke says
….”Anyway funny how all the stuff up there in the Arctic melting like a mofo isn’t it. hmmmmm – must be the global cooling.”…….
Luke must be about ready to be reprogrammed.
If for instance the Arctic had an unusually cold year, Luke would be stumped.
I will supply the correct IPCC(2011) response.
“If the Arctic has an unusually cold year is all due to climate change.”
Are you some sort of sceptic comedian Bryan! Or maybe just a sceptic numb nuts.
A cold year eh ? ooooooooooooooooooooooo weally ! scary
http://tamino.wordpress.com/2011/06/23/sea-ice-3-d/#more-3910
I was talking about the climate Bryan not the weather. But anyway let’s play cherry pluckin’ http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2011/2011EO150002.shtml
Luke says
……”I was talking about the climate Bryan not the weather.”
Yes, but lets try to be a little consistent.
IPCC adherents, now called “changers” for brevity (since “warmists” is soon to be obsolete) claim any tornado, snow fall, flood, drought can be blamed on increased atmospheric CO2.
Yet any study of any of these over say 50 years show no CO2 correlation.
Luke you will just need to get used to making it up as you go along like the other changers.
Any pretence that the IPCC promotes science has for long been abandoned.
Don’t be a class A nong Bryan. As we all know sceptics like yourself are bereft of any science ability and just love to dream new ideas up (e.g. your entire last comment). Rule 4. You can always find some little sceptic sneaking out the back to get into a quick bit of fabrication, verballing, framing, context warping or in general “just making shit up”. The difference between a faux sceptic and a computer – you only have to punch the data into a computer once.
Luke,
Rule 4. You can always find some little Alarmist sneaking out the back to get into a quick bit of fabrication, verballing, framing, context warping or in general “just making shit up”. The difference between an alarmist and a computer – you only have to punch the data into a computer once.
(you should really be more careful, “faux sceptic” doesn’t reflect on real sceptics at all. You need to be more clear about whether you consider the person you are arguing with a real or faux sceptic.)
Can I ask why we are making decisions on something that is still theory? (Greenhouse Effect is still theory)
Saying; “We can’t account for the warming, it must be Human Emmissions of Co2 (Which the models, that don’t unclude clouds or any accurate understanding of solar influence, tell us must be the case) which in turn get’s Water Vapour, which is a heaps more potent theoretical greenhouse gas all worked up” is not evidence. It’s Assumption thrown at a thoery.
Just asking thats all.
If the “Greenhouse Effect” is provable fact, why do Astronomers and Astro Physicists use Atmospheric Preasure as an Influence of the Temperature Calculations on planets and we’re using the Greenhouse Effect?
Venus doesn’t have a runaway Greenhouse, It’s hot, but you’de be hot if you were that close the Sun I’d wreckon. Mars isn’t cooking.
Just Wondering.
“So Spanglers wouldn’t frigging know.”
At least I know which end of that Princess Parrot the messy stuff comes out which you don’t seem to. BTW, females and juveniles are duller [you should be able to pick that]with shorter tails.
I could list you many ground feeders [such as Kookaburras, Brush Turkeys and Lyrebirds] that are increasing in numbers but I am probably wasting my time seeing as you aren’t able to lift your foot off the landmine either.
“And speaking of dickwits”
Did you see this Lukey?
D’ya get the impression that it is kakking at ya?
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2011/07/03/hansen-vs-the-earth/
As Tom Fuller says:
“We don’t know how many species exist now. We don’t know how many species existed in the past. We don’t know how many species are going extinct in modern times. We don’t know if it is happening more quickly or more slowly than in times past.
So of course we read impassioned statements that the extinction rate is 50,000 times normal.
Real science there.”
My landmine is only a penny bunger compared to you alarmists.
Well KuhnKat – it would be faux sceptics for you lot would it not. And sorry I pinched the “punch the data into a New Zealander” joke. Well there was a series of those wan’t there – how do you know if a gay person has burgled your house? Ans: There’s a quiche in the oven and the dishes are done. But a bit more to the point – how do know that a faux sceptic (removing New Zealander) has burgled your house ? Ans: Your things (flip-flops for you) are missing and your cat is pregnant. But we won’t tell those jokes are they are somewhat rank. And I love NZ-ers.
CO2 fertilisation helps out !
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/06/28/us-africa-drought-idUSTRE75R2JQ20110628
Kiwis are nice, great sense of the ridiculous.
Too bad about the ETS, it’s a bad reflection on their thinking.
Okay CO2 bombs out in the horn, but the drought has nothing to do with AGW because it happened 60 years ago.
The main problem with the horn of Africa has nothing to do with climate.
But guys you’ve been assuring me CO2 is magic stuff – why is this happening. Where’s the luxuriant growth of plants?
Don’t be feeble. Mark Lynas has found the Damascene track, so could you:
In his new book he says much including:
“Anyone who still marches against nuclear today, as many thousands of people did in Germany following the Fukushima accident, is in my view just as bad for the climate as textbook eco-villains like the big oil companies.”
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2010981/You-mustnt-believe-lies-Green-zealots-And-I-know–I-one.html#ixzz1R7Tu9FjG
More on his book here:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/jul/02/green-movement-lost-its-way
‘Where’s the luxuriant growth of plants?’
According to the NYT the drought is not new.
‘Predictions of the current drought depend on ocean temperatures. A La Niña episode, caused by cooling ocean surface temperatures, began in the central Pacific Ocean in July 2010. Temperatures lowered by 1.5 to 1.6 degrees Celsius, changing ocean and atmospheric circulation patterns.
‘In historical terms, this episode has been among the strongest in a century, according to the World Meteorological Agency. The system unleashed massive flooding in Australia and Southeast Asia. In East Africa, it caused a dry spell between October and December 2010. It was the driest short rain season in 30 years.’
But it’s the CO2. CO2 my man. It’s magic plant food. Why are the plants not growing.
You need to purge your mind, body and soul of CO2 Luke,
We’ll have a joint exorcism right here right now…..
Mmmmmmmmmmmmm.
Say after me…
I will not think about CO2 : mmmm :I will not worry about CO2: mmmmm :CO2 does not pollute :
mmmmm :Cast from my mind climate and CO2 :.mmmm :CO2 has nought connection to climate.:mmmmm
There, does that make you feel better. Luke.
Maybe not, your logo looks the about same.
Jeez I feel like new ! I can see clearly. I … I’m free ……
At least at Cape Grim, according to the PM, CO2 hasn’t been this high in a million years.
“It’s an unambiguous fact — carbon dioxide at its highest level in more than a million years, and to tackle climate change we have to cut carbon pollution, we have to cut those carbon dioxide levels, with that carbon dioxide generated overwhelmingly by human activity.”
I’m afrayd, so very afrayd, just like Luke.
Graham Lloyd in the same article in the Oz said:
‘In fact, while the Cape Grim data goes back only 800,000 years, scientific literature says global atmospheric carbon is at its highest level for almost 20 million years.’
Comedy gold!
As Judith Curry says re that new paper finally admitting “no warming”:
“The political consequence of this article seems to be that the simplest solution to global warming is for the Chinese to burn more coal, which they intend to do anyways.”
http://judithcurry.com/2011/07/04/an-explanation-for-lack-of-warming-since-1998/#more-3966
Well, that’s a remarkable case of healing Luke.
Superficially, I would say, these are unexpectedly encouragingly good results.
You’d better not keep that logo up for too long though. You could risk excommunication or worse still -agreeing with Bob Carter.
Why are the plants not growing? My tomatoes and cucumbers are doing GREAT!! The flowers and cacti can’t be killed. The new blueberry and strawberry bushes are doing excellent. The little evergreen seedling I haven’t been able to kill even mistreating it. Luke, are you becoming a DENIER???
Oh, wait, the weather outside of balmy areas like southern California has ranged between heavy snow to floods and tornados, not to mention earthquakes and volcanos. Well, can’t expect great growth in those conditions especially with lower than normal temperatures.
Luke, what ever happened to all that warming that was going to be really nice before we boiled?? I seemd to have missed it. We went from warnings about tipping points to entering a little ice age too quickly for me!!
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
What? DROUGHTS?? Dang, have you ever checked the history of droughts in the world?? The midwest is currently having a drought as strong as the Dust Bowl, er, except we are also having major flooding. Those guys just can’t seem to make up their minds can they Luke??
If we weren’t so worried about taking down dams to save the fish maybe we could be building waterways that would redistribute the water to needed areas when it comes down like that!! But NOOOOOOOOOO. Little lukey tells us we need to reduce the level of CO2 so we will have even WORSE plant output than we have now!!! How much is that going to cost us again little lukey?? More than your and mine and everyone elses’ allowance and their kids and grandkids for how many generations???
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
If you didn’t have ridiculous ideas you wouldn’t have any ideas at all!!
Want to really see some CO2 in action, Lukey Boy?
Is this our feral furure or what?
WAKE UP, AUSTRALIA!
http://notrickszone.com/2011/07/04/weed-covered-solar-park-20-acres-11-million-only-one-and-half-years-old/
KookyKat – the only reason your strawbs are growing is that you’re pissing on them each day – “bushes” – gee you must be from Texas boy ! Goddam ! Bushes !
What about the Horn of Africa? Why isn’t CO2 working there.
BTW numbs nuts – it seems to be warming again http://www.carbonbrief.org/blog/2011/06/global-warming-since-1995-statistically-significant
Spangled – oh diddums – why don’t we post piccies of old coal power stations full of asbestos. Do wank on.
luke
“What about the Horn of Africa? “
You own property there Luke? you keep mentioning it.
Just in case it escaped you, it needs more than just CO2 to make plants grow.
You having trouble identifying the pointy end of a parrot I can understand, but plants?
Lukey, aren’t you a bit like the chief warder in the Shawshank Redemption, er, obtoose?
This is about the capacity to produce the goods.
Solar in Germany is just an act. A feel-good for well-off green wankers. At the expense of the battlers. And we’re going down the same path.
But you and Germany are in good company. More stoopid here:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/8612716/Proof-that-the-Government-is-tilting-at-windmills.html
“…Climate over the 21st century can and likely will produce periods of a decade or two where the globally averaged surface air temperature shows no trend or even slight cooling in the presence of longer-term warming.”
That should give them a couple of years up their sleeve, but the electorate won’t wait.
Freeman Dyson on climate scientists:
“It is also true that the whole livelihood of all these people depends on people being scared. Really, just psychologically, it would be very difficult for them to come out and say, “Don’t worry, there isn’t a problem.” It’s sort of natural, since their whole life depends on it being a problem. I don’t say that they’re dishonest. But I think it’s just a normal human reaction. It’s true of the military also. They always magnify the threat. Not because they are dishonest; they really believe that there is a threat and it is their job to take care of it. I think it’s the same as the climate community, that they do in a way have a tremendous vested interest in the problem being taken more seriously than it is.”
But guys you love CO2 – CO2 is plant food – my cup says so – and you can’t tell me why the plants aren’t growing on the Horn of Africa. Come on now – you can say it …
Without water nothing will grow, I blame a very strong La Nina for the droughty conditions in the The Horn and I blame the US for the starving people.
On a lighter note, a UFO had taken out a turbine in the UK.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/lincolnshire/7817378.stm
Luke,
Don’t be so pathetic. I’ve spent more time in droughts than you’ve spent eating hot dinners and CO2 can help but it can’t cure. Less population can help but it can’t cure. Civilised existence can help but it can’t cure.
But are you saying like ol’ Flannelmouth that it won’t rain again? Or that like the Mayans, they should start offering sacrifices?
This cold weather is coming straight off Antarctica.
http://www.bom.gov.au/australia/charts/indian_ocean.shtml
And according to Lubos, Antarctica has been cooling at the rate of 1.27 c per century this century. [-0.40 c globally]{RSS data}
January 2001 – the beginning of the new century – as the initial month. Note that we’re not trying to include the El Nino year 1998: instead, we just pick the most natural beginning of the centtury. It’s been more than 10 years and the linear regression in this period gives us:
•-0.40 °C / century: globally
•-1.16 °C / century: tropics
•+0.22 °C / century: North extratropics
•-0.19 °C / century: South extratropics
•+3.83 °C / century: Arctic
•-1.27 °C / century: Antarctica
•-4.84 °C / century: contin. USA
•-0.23 °C / century: North Hemisphere
•-0.58 °C / century: South Hemisphere
So the guys finally have to admit CO2 isn’t magic plant food. Clowns.
CO2 is the best fertilizer in the world, but too much will make my hair fall out with worry.
Joolya is doing her best to warn us of this impending doom, yet some commercial TV stations refuse to run her direct feed propaganda on Sunday night, preferring to wait for the dosh from the miners fighting fund with the counter argument.
Pacific sub-surface temperatures have been down for a couple of months so the fast money is on a modest La Nina return.
http://origin.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/people/wwang/cfsv2fcst/images3/nino34Mon.gif
“CO2 is the best fertilizer in the world, but too much will make my hair fall out with worry.”
EG at least you’re not tearing it out like Ol’ Travesty and the Team.
Luke, is that mug of yours advertisting CO2 Science? That’s good but just make sure you keep up now.
On my bush walk this am I came across a large white Grey Goshawk [great bird killers] and while I was watching, a tiny Scarlet Honeyeater [another species doing well out of extra CO2] landed beside it, and proceeded to lecture it on the evils of its ways.
Reminded of the current political situation.
Ric Werme has a guest post at Watts, looking at a recent paper by Nils-Axel Morner.
‘The past Solar Minima were linked to a general speeding-up of the Earth’s rate of rotation. This affected the surface currents and southward penetration of Arctic water in the North Atlantic causing “Little Ice Ages” over northwestern Europe and the Arctic.’
It’s a whole new ball game and where the hell is the global warming they promised?
Morner has strong convictions on the connection between rotation rate and SLs.
This study by Nicholas Lewis of IPCC’s tampering with real observations on GH sensitivity supports Ken Gregory:
http://judithcurry.com/2011/07/05/the-ipccs-alteration-of-forster-gregorys-model-independent-climate-sensitivity-results/
Jennifer, thanks for this posting on my article. Sorry for not posting earlier, but I just found this.
I am disappointed that few of the 101 comments in this thread commented on my article, but I didn’t see any criticism of it.
The article was written partly in response to ScienceofDoom’s (SoD) comments on Miskolczi’s 2010 E&E paper. Miskolczi focuses on optical depth changes. SoD said in his first post on Miskolczi’s paper “optical thickness of the total atmosphere is not a very useful number …This is because where the atmosphere emits from is very important in calculations of flux.” I agree. In fact, Miskolczi’s calculations using HARTCODE shows that an increase in water vapour in an atmosphere layer at the 300 – 400 mb level has 41 times the effect on out-going long-wave radiation (OLR) as the same change near the surface. SoD agrees that the more important parameter is the greenhouse factor, being the difference between the upward surface radiation and the OLR. I use the normalized greenhouse factor to calculate climate sensitivity.
SoD might not have realized that using the greenhouse factor results in a lower climate sensitivity than using optical depth.
In part IV, SoD says Miskolczi should have added the reflected portion of the downward longwave flux to the surface radiation to create the total upward radiation. I have shown that this changes the climate sensitivity calculation by 0.03 Celsius at Co2X2, which is insignificant. The Excel spreadsheet linked at the bottom of the paper can by used to show this. You can exclude the reflected downward radiation in the graphs and calculation by changing cell Z2.
SoD further suggests that the drying of the upper atmosphere as recorded by the radiosondes before 1970 may by exaggerated . Humidity instruments in the 1960’s were slower reacting than modern instruments, so as measurements are taken while the weather balloons are ascending, older readings might not have enough time to react to the lower humidity and might read too high.
I have therefore calculated the climate sensitivity using start dates from 1960 through 1970. The results are in the spreadsheet uploaded today, linked to the paper. The results are;
Start year Sensitivity
1960 0.256
1961 0.305
1962 0.365
1963 0.389
1964 0.433
1965 0.422
1966 0.385
1967 0.371
1968 0.362
1969 0.356
1970 0.404
average 0.368
A graph of this is in the spreadsheet at cell AZ6.
Based on this, I think the best estimate of climate sensitivity to double CO2 is 0.4 Celsius. This small temperature change would not cause any problem, but would be beneficial.