Clean coal is the process of trapping carbon dioxide emissions from the burning of coal to prevent those emissions from entering the atmosphere. Local expert John Harborne, in a recent article, notes that the energy cost of trapping the emissions is almost equal to the energy produced from burning the coal and the area required to store the trapped emissions exceeds the area of the mined coal. 

For its part the Federal government has introduced the Renewable Energy Target [RET] to combat the alleged problem of AGW. The RET mandates that twenty per cent of base-load energy must come from renewable energy [RE] by 2020. The Greens support this and with the fallacy of clean coal now revealed are demanding that all base-load energy come from RE.  

The two main types of RE are solar and wind power. According to Professor Gary Willgoose the main form of solar power will be private residence solar panels. This is not a source of base-load power but the cost of these panels will impact on base-load power costs. They will do so because the cost of the panels will determine the cost of carbon emissions. A recent article by journalist Mark Davis shows that each solar panel will save twenty six tons of carbon dioxide emissions over 20 years at a net cost of $9000. This works out at $350 per ton. With the amount of carbon dioxide emissions being limited by government legislation this means the price of power from carbon emitting sources will have to increase by $350 per ton of emissions to enable the cost of the panels to be competitive. This will be achieved either by direct pricing to consumers or through subsidies paid by tax-payers.

In addition, most of the solar panels are imported from China. China is still expanding its fossil fuel energy network so coal power from Australia will be used to build the Chinese solar panels. There will therefore be no net saving of carbon dioxide emissions from the greater use of solar panels in Australia.

Wind power is also unlikely to be able to supply base-load power. Wind power is intermittent and to replace the twenty per cent or six mega watt of coal power with RE will necessitate the construction of twenty mega watt of wind capacity. Over twelve years this will mean two wind towers per day will have to be built at a cost of $34 billion. But even with this large oversupply of potential wind power there will be times when no power can be supplied by wind. Two studies by Dr Tom Quirk and Peter Lang showed that power from where the wind is blowing cannot be transferred to wind-free areas because wind-free conditions are usually simultaneously widespread over most areas of Australia.

The position of the Greens is that computer modeling shows that the construction of RE will be an economic and employment bonanza. But we do not have to rely on modeling to see whether this is true. Over the last decade many other countries have invested in RE. Spain and Germany have both invested in solar power and now have high unemployment and national debt. Both countries are continuing to invest in fossil fuels and Germany in particular is investing in nuclear power. A similar situation exists in Denmark which had invested heavily in wind power.

In fact nuclear power is the only feasible and proven alternative to fossil fuels. France has had the bulk of it power from nuclear for over thirty years and has the cheapest power costs in Europe. Nuclear power is cheaper than any other power source except coal and natural gas. The fourth generation Fast Integral Reactors are ninety nine percent efficient and produce small amounts of low radioactive, non-weapon grade waste. Fifth generation reactors will be ninety nine point nine per cent efficient and run on thorium as well as uranium. The efficiency of this power would mean that Australia’s resources of thorium and uranium could provide base-load power to the world for centuries.

The coal industry must either dispute the science of AGW or concede that the continued use of coal will acerbate AGW.  The Greens and Government must abandon their opposition to nuclear power. By limiting RE to solar and wind and excluding nuclear, the government and the Greens will be condemning Australia to a drastically reduced standard of living and far less prosperous future.

Cohenite lives in Newscastle.

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

Notes and Links

Cartoon by Nicholson from “The Australian” newspaper: www.nicholsoncartoons.com.au .

The John Harborne link is;

http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=8408

The Mark Davis link is;

http://www.smh.com.au/environment/energy-smart/touched-by-sun-stroke-20090605-byim.html

The Tom Quirk article is here;

http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=8559&page=0

The Peter Lang article is here;

http://bravenewclimate.files.wordpress.com/2009/08/peter-lang-wind-power.pdf

A discussion of the Baseload Fallacy in respect of wind power by Peter Lang is here;

http://bravenewclimate.com/2009/08/13/wind-and-carbon-emissions-peter-lang-responds/

Professor Gary Willgooses’s details are here;

http://www.newcastle.edu.au/school-old/engineering/our_staff/profiles/willgoose_garry.html

Professor Willgoose made his comments about solar panels in an ABC interview on the 19/8/09 morning session in Newcastle.

1. The world is warming

The first conclusion is that the world has been warming since 1850. This is generally correct but what Professor Raupach et al. don’t mention is the warming follows a particularly cold period called the Little Ice Age [LIA] which ended in 1850. The correlation of a decline in solar activity with the LIA is well established with various measures of solar activity showing an increase at the same time as the world warmed after 1850.

Professor Raupach et al. say that most of the warming since 1850 has happened since 1950. This is incorrect. The temperature data from both the official English agency, HADCRUT, and the land-based American temperature agency, NASAGISS, show an increase in temperature from 1910 to 1944 which is equivalent to the temperature increase from 1976 to 1998.

It is also problematic whether the temperature increase from 1976 onwards can be attributed to AGW. Two recent studies by Australian scientists throw doubt on AGW being a cause. The first is by John McLean, Christopher de Freitas and Robert Carter. They show that over the last 50 years from 1958 to 2008 the majority of the temperature trends, both warming and cooling, are from natural variation in the form of the Southern Oscillation Index which is a proxy for El Nino and La Nina climate patterns.

The second study is by David Stockwell. Dr Stockwell shows that the increase in temperature over the twentieth century occurred in the short interval between 1976 and 1978 and was due to the transition from a cool, La Nina dominated period called a negative Pacific Decadal Oscillation [PDO] to a warm, El Nino period called a positive PDO. Dr Stockwell also found a probable reverse transition in 1998 after which time world temperatures have declined consistent with the new negative PDO

2. Sea levels are rising

Professor Raupach et al. also refer to rising sea levels and increasing ocean heat content [OHC] as confirmation of temperature increase. In the recent reply by Senator Wong to Senator Fielding’s questions about temperature, Professor Steffen, a co-author of the article with Professor Raupach, stated that the increase in sea level rise and OHC was accelerating. This is incorrect. The sea level has been measured accurately by satellite since 1992. The satellite data shows a slight annual increase. Since 2005 this rate of increase has declined. This is simply shown by averaging the full data history and then showing how much each annual increase is above that average, or anomalous.

Recent studies by Ishii and Kimoto, Domigues, Willis and Loehle all show a decline in OHC since 2003. Even the official measurement from the National Oceanographic Data Center [NODC] shows no rise since 2003. In 2003 the more accurate measuring devices called ARGO were introduced replacing the less accurate ones.

None of the indices, atmospheric temperature, sea-level increase and rising OHC, support the theory of AGW. This means the increase in carbon dioxide during the twentieth century cannot be said to be the dominant cause of the warming which has occurred.

3. Tipping points

The third conclusion and prediction that “business as usual”, unchecked AGW will lead to temperature increases of up to six degrees and “climate tipping points” must be regarded as unsubstantiated alarmism, unsupported by any climate science, since it is well established that every extra carbon dioxide molecule has much less effect on temperature. Such computer based predictions have already been tested and found wanting. In his study Professor D. Koutsoyiannis and colleagues found that the IPPC’s computer predictions in its first report about future climate from 1990 to 2008 had a success rate of only one in eight, or about twelve per cent. This is not much better than random.
4. Warming is irreversible

The article’s fourth conclusion, that heating cannot be reversed for many centuries, is also problematic because OHC is already declining and if there is no increase in OHC there is nothing to sustain the predicted future heating.

Furthermore, for Professor Raupach and his co-authors to begin by claiming there is an overwhelming consensus of thousands of scientists who support the theory of anthropogenic global warming [AGW] is pure politics. Even if this were true it does not prove the science supporting AGW is valid. It only requires one fundamental disproof of a scientific theory for that theory to be invalidated.

In conclusion, the science is not settled and contrary to the claims of Professor Raupach et al. the available evidence does not support the theory of AGW.

Cohenite lives in Newcastle, Australia

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

Notes and Links

Climate change poised to feed on itself, by Michael Raupach and John Church, CSIRO; David Griggs, Amanda Lynch and Neville Nicholls, Monash University; Nathan Bindoff, Antarctic Climate and Ecosystems Co-operative Research Centre; Matthew England and Andy Pitman, University of NSW; Ann Henderson-Sellers and Lesley Hughes, Macquarie University; Ove Hoegh-Guldberg, University of Queensland; Roger Jones, Victoria University; David Karoly, University of Melbourne; and Tony McMichael and Will Steffen, Australian National University.
http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/climate-change-poised-to-feed-on-itself-20090731-e4gi.html?page=-1 
The Sydney Morning Herald
August 1, 2009
 
Read more from Cohenite here: http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/author/cohenite/

Still, the defining characteristic of the green is misanthropy; it is ridiculous for any green supporter to claim that it is only fringe fanatics who espouse drastic reductions in human population, or even eradication; such people as John Holdren, James Lovelock and Gus Speth are mainstream greens and have clearly enunciated programs for reducing population. The irony is of course that material prosperity is the best check on population as most Western nations show.

Prosperity is also the best for nature as Bjorn Lomborg shows but there comes a point when it has to be said that the interests of humanity diverge from the idea of pristine nature. The idea of pristine nature is terribly elitist and decadent; only a person nurtured by an advanced, unnatural culture could develop a non-utilitarian aesthetic about nature which dominates survival exigencies; how could it be otherwise; if one was living the sustainable life based on natural dictates one would be too busy doing what had to be done to survive to bother about that tree or that koala. This aspect of green ideology is both hypocritical and unrealistic; it is also as good an example of cognitive dissonance as a human could produce.

Cohenite lives in Newcastle, Australia

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

This series ‘Defining the Greens’ been archived here: http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/tag/philosophy/

A series on ‘What is Wilderness?’ is here: http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/tag/wilderness/

Read more from Cohenite here, including ‘The 10 Worst Man-Made Disasters’: http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/author/cohenite/

The picture was taken yesterday at Agnus Water, Central Queensland, by Jennifer Marohasy. Click on the image for a larger and better view.

Jay Leno has a good response to this;
“According to a new U.N. report, the global warming outlook is much worse than originally predicted. Which is pretty bad when they originally predicted it would destroy the planet.”

The question is, is there any evidence to support the worsening D&G?

Professor Chris Field was recently reported on the ABC doing D&G about an increase in fossil fuel emissions, but this quickly died when the penny dropped that the main increase in emissions was coming from China and India, not to mention the fact that temperature was declining concurrently.

With increased emissions insufficient to sustain the D&G could the peer-reviewed literature provide justification? Peer-review is the life-blood of AGW and lo-and-behold it was apparent that the D&G was backed up by several new and recycled papers. 10 of these papers which offer ‘evidence’ for the D&G are discussed. All of them exhibit the usual defects of pro-AGW papers; reliance on modeling regardless of contradictory or non-existent ‘real-world’ data.

1. Warming of the Antarctic ice-sheet surface since the 1957 International Geophysical Year
Eric J. Steig et al [including Michael Mann].

http://holocene.meteo.psu.edu/shared/articles/SteigetalNature09.pdf

This paper is an instant classic and template for future virtual science projects. Forget the prior AGW orthodoxy of a cooling Antarctic; forget the latest British Antarctic Survey report showing cooling due to ozone depletion [which is no longer declining]; forget cooling in the satellite data and the AWSs and manned stations; forget the geological distinction between the Western Antarctic Peninsula [WAP] and the rest of Antarctica; forget the volcanoes; forget the Thomas, Marshall, McConnell [2008] paper which shows snow cover in the WAP doubling since 1850; forget the expanding sea-ice and ice cover over 95% of Antarctica. The real problem with Steig et al is Mann and PCA [RegEM]; insufficient principle components and inappropriate weighting of those used. The same old methods, the same old tricks, the same old faux reality.

2. Water vapor climate feedback inferred from climate fluctuations, 2003 – 2008.
A.E. Dessler, Z. Zhang, P. Yang
http://geotest.tamu.edu/userfiles/216/Dessler2008b.pdf

Dessler et al say specific humidity, “q” is increasing as a factor of increased temperature, “Ta”, and the increased “q”, is a “strongly positive” feedback. There are only 2 problems; NOAA and NCEP data show declining “q” at mid and high altitudes; secondly, increased “q” at the surface is most likely not even a feedback but a cause of temperature [Spencer and Braswell]. Then there is the problem of decreased pan evaporation [Roderick et al, 2007] which means the increased “q” must come from the oceans. Sea surface temperature has been neutral or declining for almost 2 years; http://rankexploits.com/musings/wp-content/uploads/2008/11/sst_oct_nov_dec.jpg

3. An analysis of the independence of clear-sky top-of-atmosphere outgoing longwave radiation on atmospheric temperature and water vapor.
A.E. Dessler, P. Yang, J. Lee, J. Solbrig, Z. Zhang, K. Minchswaner

http://gesa.tamu.edu/people/faculty/dessler/Dessler2008.pdf

Dessler has a second shot at D&G and he concludes that the surface temperature, Ts, atmospheric temperature, Ta, and “q” combine, primarily in the tropics, to decrease outgoing long-wave radiation [OLR]. Dessler calls this the “super greenhouse effect”. Unfortunately neither “q” or Ts or Ta are increasing. Also the decrease in OLR is problematic with Professor Lindzen noting there has been an increase in OLR;

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/03/30/lindzen-on-negative-climate-feedback/

This elegant synopsis by Professor Lindzen was critiqued by Chris Colose. Too bad Chris didn’t read p33 of this;

Richard Lindzen, Beyond Models-using physics to assess climate sensitivity, attribution, and the relevance of both to alarm.
http://portaldata.colgate.edu/imagegallerywww/3503/ImageGallery/LindzenLectureBeyondModels.pdf

We will just have to wait for the ‘super-doper greenhouse effect’.

4. How declining aerosols and rising greenhouse gases forced rapid warming in Europe since the 1980s
Rolf Philipona, Klaus Behrens, Christian Ruckstuhl

http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2009/2008GL036350.shtml

Prolific Professor Philipona is a leading exponent of back-radiation and consequent temperature and humidity effects. Here he argues the rapid increase in temperature since 1980 is due to aerosol dimming ceasing, with a consequent increase in short-wave forcing. Some problems; the study covers Switzerland and a bit of Northern Germany, an area about the size of Al Gore’s backyard. Aerosols are assumed to have only a cooling effect and humidity only a warming effect; the temperature trends from the 25 Switzerland and 8 German sites have anomaly ranges from 0.56C and 0.87C respectively yet there is no consideration of UHI influence; long-wave down radiation [LDR] is derived from absolute humidity, Uabs, yet short-wave net radiation cloud effects are equated with LDR cloud effects [Table 1]; how can the top and bottom of clouds be equivalent? Read Clausius and Heinz Thieme instead.

5. Consistency of modeled and observed temperature trends in the tropical troposphere.
Santer, B.D., et al [including G.A. Schmidt and S.C. {wind-shear} Sherwood]

http://www.realclimate.org/docs/santer_etal_IJoC_08_fact_sheet.pdf

This paper is one of the great obfuscations from a champion cherry-picker. Fig 9.1[c], AR4, p675, unambiguously predicts a tropical hot spot [THS] from increased ACO2 warming of the surface. Santer et al finds it using a “global” weighting function, T2lt, derived from a synthetic [sic] base, T2, with an error margin of 0.0 – 0.5CPD, which means no warming at all would still produce a THS. A crescendo of Santer support followed based on increased humidity [not happening], changes in the moist adiabat and a rising tropopause. The THS is not hotter, it’s taller. This height issue was rebutted by Spencer and Christy’s response to Fu et al. Finally, the non-existent THS was rationalized by Tim Lambert as a signature of surface warming from any source not just ACO2. The only problem with this is an equivalent solar forced THS requires a 2% increase in insolation. Now that’s hot [thanks Birdie].

6. Temperature trends derived from Stratospheric Sounding Unit radiances: The effect of increasing CO2 on the weighting function.
Keith P. Shine, John J. Barnett, William J. Randel

http://acd.ucar.edu/~randel/2007GL032218.pdf

The other side of the coin to a THS is a cooling Stratosphere. Keith Shine and the lads claim to have found it, again riding on the well-worn back of model corrections of incorrect data. After corrections to the CO2 weighting function Keith finds Stratospheric temperature trends ranging from – 0.4K decade-1 to + 0.4K decade-1. Yep, Keith found nothing.

7. Is the climate warming or cooling?
David R. Easterling, Michael F. Wehner

http://www.cdc.noaa.gov/csi/images/GRL2009_ClimateWarming.pdf

The previous Keenlyside et al effort predicted masking of underlying AGW due to SST driven natural variation. Unfortunately, when the ENSO is removed from temperature trends there is no post 2000 underlying AGW;

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

Easterling and Wehner revisit this trainwreck of an idea to prove that future cooling will still have underlying AGW. Their null hypothesis [NH] really settles the matter. The NH is that there will be an “equal percentage of statistically significant positive and negative trends” [p6]. This is high order virtual reality; the concept of the 100 year flood explains why. Pacific Decadal Oscillation [PDO] climate phases have greater probability of floods during a negative phase during which time [about 30 years] there may be several 1 in 100 year floods. During the positive, El Nino dominated PDO phase there will most likely be no 1 in 100 year flood.

The same principle applies to temperature. Positive PDOs will have increasing temperature trends and vice-versa for negative PDOs. The paper doesn’t consider ENSO at all apart from an admission that it is not modeled well [p6]. Table 1 shows more positive temperature trends in the 20thC. This was due to positive PDO dominance not, as the paper claims, AGW. Still, it’s a great title.

8. Decadal-Scale Temperature Trends in the Southern Hemisphere Ocean.
Sarah T. Gille

http://www-pord.ucsd.edu/~sgille/pub_dir/i1520-0442-21-18-4749.pdf

The issue of ocean warming is crucial for AGW but problematic. Sarah puts her hand up for warming and produces this gem;

“Overall, the results indicate that the Southern Hemisphere ocean has warmed substantially since the 1930s. Some 80% of this warming is concentrated south of 30 degrees S where it is evident at all depths. Observations are also sparsest in this latitude range. Estimates of the exact amount of warming that has occurred therefore depend on the details of the assumptions made about temperature trends in regions where no observations are available” [p4761] Priceless.

9. Role of water vapor feedback on the amplitude of season cycle in the global mean surface air temperature.
Qigang Wu, David J. Karoly, Gerald R. North

http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2008/2008GL033454.shtml

Speaking of Dr Karoly this little bit of virtual science; Dr K equates seasonal variation in Surface Air Temperature with water vapor feedback “since both are subject to the same feedback process” of downward long-wave radiation. The same problems with Dessler, Philipona and Santer apply. You would be excused in thinking they are reading from the same book.

10. Declining Coral Calcification on the Great Barrier Reef
Glenn De’ath, Janice M. Lough, Katharina E. Fabricius
Science. Volume 323, pp116 – 119; 2 January 2009

http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/2009/01/global-warming-unlikely-reason-for-slow-coral-growth/?cp=all

Coral is one of the ‘Koala Bear’ emotive images of AGW. This study found coral growth from Great Barrier Reef [GBR] samples increased 5.4% between 1900 -1970, but declined 14.2% from 1900 – 2005; the culprit, ACO2. Professor Hoegh-Guidberg started waving his hands and Premier Bligh promised action on the coral and got elected. More salient facts: Dr Alina Szmant noted that studies on coral decline used hydrochloric acid, not CO2, to lower the pH of water, so conclusions about the role of CO2 were premature; John McClean and Warwick Hughes noted there had been no temperature increase from 1982 to the present along the GBR; in fact, in June 2007 record low temperatures caused extensive bleaching of GBR coral; Professor H-G began hand-waving again and the culprit, again, ACO2. The good news is, according to Dr Guillermo Diaz-Pulido, the coral has recovered and expanded; the culprit… Perhaps Dr De’ath’s conclusions from his earlier study, that further data on the “links between environmental change and effects on coral growth” is needed, should have informed this study.

In Conclusion:  There is no evidence in the PR literature that AGW is worsening, or exists for that matter.

The media have seriously let the public down in its presentation of AGW, basically parroting Wong, Rudd, Turnbull, Brown et al, who basically parrot Hansen, Gore and the IPCC. Hopefully, with a political party presenting an alternative viewpoint not only will the media pick up its game and start doing some investigative and transparent reporting about the gross deficiencies of AGW, but, as well, the disparate groups fighting the malaise of AGW will have a banner organization to continue their fight against AGW, and the obscene amounts of money being thrown at it, in a unified fashion.

Given TCS’s arrival it is appropriate to reexamine the flaws and dearth of evidence to support AGW. Unlike “Climate Change”, which is the new, deceitful term used by alarmists, AGW does conform to Popper’s falsification principle; Climate Change is not a scientific theory because it cannot be disproved; the climate is always changing and nothing disproves it. But AGW is promulgated on the basis of definite assumptions; these assumptions can be examined for flaws and defects.

1st flaw: that increases in atmospheric CO2 cause increases in temperature. AR4 states [p666] that a doubling of CO2 will cause a temperature increase of 3C. CO2 increased ~ 30% from 1900 – 2000. According to AGW theory temperature should have increased ~ 1C; temperatures actually increased 0.4C. But this 0.4C does not represent the influence of CO2; a solar forcing [SF] must also be deducted. TAR gives a SF of 0.4C, AR4 a SF of 0.12C. Using AR4 0.28C is left. But the influence of ENSO must also be deducted. Douglass and Christy have calculated an ENSO temperature effect of 0.288C with an R2 correlation of .864. Both of these values are confirmed in other studies. McLean and Quirk give a value to the La Nina/El Nino transition of 1976 of 0.3C [see fig 4 and p4], while Joe D’Aleo attributes an R2 between ENSO and temperature of .85. When the ENSO temperature effect of 0.288C is deducted from 0.28C there is no CO2 effect.

2nd flaw: given the failure of CO2 to be an adequate heating agent AGW created the “Enhanced Greenhouse”[EG] concept [see AR4 FAQ 3.1]. EG allows for natural temperature increases with [anthropogenic] increases in CO2 following the temperature increase and causing an increase in atmospheric water vapor, with the increased water vapor in turn causing extra heating. Indeed CO2 does seem to follow temperature over medium geological time spans;

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v453/n7193/fig_tab/nature06949_F2.html

But this ‘following’ relationship neither supports EG or AGW for 3 reasons;
(i) CO2 does not follow temperature in the way predicted by EG. Frank Lanser has shown that for equivalent atmospheric concentrations of CO2 [and presumably vapor] temperature can be both increasing and decreasing;

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/01/30/co2-temperatures-and-ice-ages/#more-5392

Furthermore, the rates of temperature increase and decrease for equivalent concentrations of CO2 are also different.
(ii) Even if H2O vapor was increased by CO2 [which is contradicted by NOAA data from 1949] Spencer and Braswell have shown that increased H2O is not only not a positive feedback but may not be a feedback at all. That is, it is H2O which affects temperature and CO2, not the other way round.
(iii) Over the short term CO2 doesn’t follow temperature at all;
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/MSUCRUvsCO2.jpg
Nor does it in the long-term;
http://www.junkscience.com/images/paleocarbon.gif

3rd flaw: if the EG is problematic does that mean the basic greenhouse concept is suspect? CO2 and other GHG’s are photoluminescent; they absorb and reemit radiation in the long-wave spectrum. Is this photoluminescent property sufficient to produce the 33C increase above the temperature that a planet such as Earth would have without an atmosphere containing GHG’s? Arthur Smith’s classic piece says it is;

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0802/0802.4324v1.pdf

The 33C greenhouse effect is subject to a logarithmic decline in the photoluminescent effect;

http://img216.imageshack.us/img216/9652/logwarmingillustratedkn7.png

But there are profound contrary views to this; Dr. Heinz Hug’s paper shows that the greenhouse effect of CO2 is maximized at 10 metres with maximum asymptocality at 357 ppm so that further increases in CO2 have no effect on temperature. Gerlich and Tscheuschner, who Smith wrote his paper in response to, argue that there is no greenhouse effect, while Heinz Thieme argues against backradiation, a crucial aspect of both the greenhouse and the EG. Thieme has also argued against the concept of the greenhouse and presented an alternative view about the thermodynamic properties of the atmosphere being consistent with the mass and composition of the atmosphere and consequent atmospheric pressure;

http://www.geocities.com/atmosco2/atmos.htm?200820

Smith has addressed the issue of pressure in his response to the comments on his paper [at 15/10/2008; 12.49pm];

http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/2008/10/proof-of-the-atmospheric-greenhouse-effect-arthur-smith/#comment-66797

Smith compares Earth with Venus and says the GHG’s produce a tropopause which is pushed higher as GHG’s increase. But he misses a couple of crucial points; firstly, there is no evidence the tropopause on Earth is going higher with increased GHG’s; secondly, Venus’s atmosphere warms bottom up with SO2 and H2SO4 from the constant volcanic activity increasing the density and temperature of the atmosphere; on Earth, H2O reduces density by being instrumental to vertical convection which removes from the surface the incoming heat from the sun; Chilingar, Khilyuk and Sorokhtin have confirmed this in their paper;

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15567030701568727

4th flaw: the AGW atmospheric model has no empirical evidence; the AGW atmospheric model is semi-opaque and infinite as described in Spencer Weart’s paper;

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

Basically Weart says extra CO2 traps IR in layers which raise the point at which the IR can finally escape from the atmosphere. This process, amongst other things, should produce a Tropical Hot Spot, as predicted by Fig 9.1(c), AR4. Despite much obfuscation and vitriol against sceptics of this prediction, no THS has been found. The most profound critique of the AGW model, however, has been found in Miskolczi’s finite semi-transparent atmospheric model. This model was based on an empirical LBL flux analysis of the atmosphere which showed no Top-of-atmosphere imbalance and no surface to immediate atmosphere discontinuity; both of these characteristics are essential to AGW

5th flaw: AGW asserts that anthropogenic CO2 [ACO2] is both long-lived in the atmosphere and entirely responsible for the increase in atmospheric CO2 [FAQ 2.1, AR4]. The basis for this assumption by AGW that the CO2 produced by human emissions can be distinguished from natural CO2 is the isotopic distinction between different CO2 molecules; fossil fuel burning releases 12C CO2 and this should decrease the proportion of natural 13C isotope in the atmosphere; there are a number of things wrong with this theory:
(i) Delta 13C atmospheric ratios have been historically overestimated;

http://folk.uio.no/tomvs/esef/ESEF3VO2.htm

Professor Segalstad has also shown that natural forms of CO2 have similar isotopic values to fossil fuel emissions and the C12/C13 ratio can therefore be disrupted naturally.
(ii)Dr Steve Short’s work on Cyanobacteria suggests that they may preferentially consume C13 CO2 thus altering the C12/C13 ratio
(ii) With the isotopic distinction problematic the issue of how much natural and ACO2 is entering and remaining in the atmosphere can be looked at. Fig 7.1 of AR4 shows the total of all natural and anthropogenic emissions of CO2;

http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-chapter7.pdf

Fig 7.1 shows the total emissions are 218.2Gt; the anthropogenic contribution is 1.6 + 6.4 = 8Gt; which is 3.67%. For ACO2 to be entirely responsible for all CO2 increase none of this 3.67% can be reabsorbed. Table 3 of the US Department of Energy report shows that 98.5% of all emitted CO2 is reabsorbed;

http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/FTPROOT/environment/057304.pdf

If 98.5% of CO2 is reabsorbed then 1.5% accumulates. Since ACO2 cannot be distinguished from natural CO2 the amount of ACO2 accumulating and contributing to the increase in CO2 is 3.67% of 1.5% which is 0.055%; a miniscule amount. So, even if CO2 did have a warming effect, as AGW predicts, the anthropogenic contribution to this warming would be negligible.

The TCS website is;

http://www.climatesceptics.com.au/

Join now and have a say in your future.

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

This is a guest post by Cohenite, who lives in Newcaste, Australia.

The anthropogenic global warming (AGW) paradigm is that interference with nature will inevitably produce disastrous results.

Danish Statistician Bjorn Lomborg is castigated for even suggesting there has been progress in humanity’s living conditions and the destruction of nature to achieve this, on balance has been worthwhile.

AGW does not contemplate any benefit from any compromise or destruction of nature. We are continually informed by AGW advocates that progress using carbon energy sources will lead to “tipping points”, “dangerous heating”, “dangerous climate change” and “irreversible damage to the Earth” through “runaway greenhouse”.

But AGW remains unverified.  As climatologists Demitris Koutsoyiannis, David H. Douglass and John R. Christy have shown the general circulation models (GCM’s) have failed. As well, the atmospheric model of AGW has been refuted by climatologists Ferenc M. Miskolczi, Roy Spencer and William D. Braswell.

Given these failures, AGW maintains traction in three ways:

1. It includes within its brand real environmental problems which have nothing to do with AGW; as such AGW has become a catch-all phrase for every environmental concern, real or imagined.

2. It relies heavily on the precautionary principle, the “what-if” threat which appeals to base fears and guilt.

3. AGW sources its cause in western society, with its materialism, waste and use of unsustainable energy forms as the preferred agents. In this respect AGW is anchored by a critique of western society with that critique mired in green aesthetics and values (see James Lovelock, Clive Hamilton, Maurice Strong, Charles Birch and James Gustave “Gus” Speth).

AGW sceptics acknowledge that man’s progress can cause environmental damage.  But most sceptics recognize there are two standards for measuring this damage. The first is that which is adopted by green values and AGW; this is damage to a pristine natural template (PN) and disruption of an environmental equilibrium. Extreme exponents of this criterion not only critique western lifestyle but the validity of human existence. The second method of measuring this damage is in terms of the welfare of humanity. The criterion for this is what benefits humanity rather than what preserves PN. From this perspective, with population increasing and despite tremendous technological advance (which has kept Thomas Malthus and Paul Ehrlich at bay) sustainability, or a steady state, non-interference with PN, cannot be achieved without an erosion of living standards.

Former Newcastle and now Murdoch University academic and pro-AGW supporter, Glenn Albrecht, said that the only human society remotely sustainable was ancient aboriginal custom. Mega fauna aside, the point is, human progress has been at the expense of PN, and sustainability and PN are 2 sides of the one coin.

There is an ideological lacuna between the two criteria, which this blog post is not concerned with. The purpose of this post is to present ten environmental disasters caused by man which have nothing to do with either AGW or western society. These disasters demonstrate that AGW is a distraction from a proper analysis of those incidents where man disrupts PN. It is only on the basis of an evaluation of real environmental issues such as these 10 that proper decisions and choices about future human intrusion into PN can be made.

1. Communism in the USSR – Chernobyl and Aral Sea etcetera

This was the cause of the greatest and most sustained anthropogenic disruption of PN. As professor Mnatsakanian explains, “Clean air, water, and a pristine environment were considered free goods without value. So polluting them was acceptable”. Certain kings of capitalism were prone to similar sentiments.  Lang Hancock’s infamous statement that you can’t make an omelette without breaking eggs comes to mind. But for collective, ideological indifference to PN, corruption of science (Lysenko), sheer human suffering and culmination in the iconic anthropogenic ecological catastrophe, Chernobyl, USSR communism takes the ‘cake’. A visit to the Aral Sea anyone?
Disruption of PN 7, Progress, 0

2. East Germany – Coal Furnaces etcetera

If USSR communism has been humanity’s worst disruption of PN, than East Germany was its pin-up boy. The brown lignite coal furnaces are still going (accounting for 11.6% of all energy in 2007, sustainables were 6.7% with biomass three quarters of that) and East Germany was responsible for the green apocalypse story of the 1960’s-1980’s, acid rain.  This is indeed a heavy price for some gold medals.
Disruption of PN 6, Progress 0

3. Communist China – Air pollution etcetera

The biggest Asian Tiger of them all. Some would say its ecological problems are due to its capitalist tendencies but they would be wrong. China’s accountability is as opaque as USSR communism. 750,000 Chinese die each year due to air pollution demonstrating the stark distinction between real air pollution and CO2 “pollution”.
Disruption of PN 5, Progress, 3

4. The Iraqi Marshes – Drained

After his defeat in Kuwait, Saddam evened a few scores by draining the 9,000 sq km’s of the Southern Marshes, reducing them to 760 sq km. The destruction of such a large body of water had devastating consequences for PN. Since Saddam’s overthrow the marshes have rejuvenated. There is little man can do to PN which is irreversible.
Disruption of PN 4, Progress 0

5. The Kuwaiti Oil Wells – Burned etcetera

Before draining the Southern Marshes Saddam set fire to over 700 Kuwaiti oil fields while simultaneously dumping 10 million barrels of oil into the Gulf. This exceeded the Exxon Valdez spill 20 fold. The consumption of oil by the flames was over one billion barrels for the first seven months. The fields were not extinguished for three years. Probably three billion barrels went up in smoke; about 10% of what the world uses in a year. According to AGW temperature is going up about 0.3C PD or 0.03C per year. Saddam by himself increased the temperature by 0.003C.
Disruption of PN 4, Progress 0

6. Indonesian land-clearing

The Australian Conservation Foundation says the emissions from Indonesian land-clearing are five times Australia’s total emissions. This clearing is occurring because of transmigration and/or for palm oil production destined for biodiesel, and/or timber mainly for Asia pulp and paper, and/or subsistence farming.  The main problem is the method of clearing by burning, which makes Indonesia the world’s third highest carbon emitter.
Disruption of PN 4, Progress 2

7. Amazonian land-clearing

The Amazon is 5.7 million sq km, 75% of the Australian land area. Since 1970, 1/6 of the Amazon has been cleared, mainly for beef, and increasingly for ethanol. Clearing a rainforest to grow ethanol creates a carbon debt 17-420 times the carbon benefit of that ethanol replacing fossil fuels. Ethanol grown on already cleared land has little or no carbon debt. The green dilemma: to clear or not to clear.
Disruption of PN 4, Progress 2

8. DDT

DDT is an iconic example of the clash between the ‘PN and human progress by keeping nature at bay’ dichotomy. It also demonstrates the “Sword of Damocles” aspect of every application of human technology. There are still unresolved questions including: Was DDT losing its efficacy and creating resistant bugs when it was banned; or did banning/reducing DDT use cause more deaths?
Disruption of PN 4, Progress 3.

9. New Guinea

New Guinea is the quintessential PN, second only to the Amazon in extent and variation. A 2009 study will determine whether its glaciers are retreating. Many of its peoples live according to Albrecht’s maxim of sustainability. OkTedt showed how Progress through development of New Guinea’s vast mineral wealth should not be done. Will the Lihir Island resource be a reasonable compromise between PN disruption and Progress?
Disruption of PN 4, Progress 3

10. Bhopal

Bhopal caused over 4000 deaths and half a million casualties due to severe air pollution by MIC gas. India was keen to have western technology. Union Carbide compromised standards to an extent it couldn’t do at its equivalent plant in West Virginia. The Indian and regional Madhya Pradesh governments were complicit in this. There have been no more Bhopal’s. Can we learn by Bhopal and have progress without such disasters?
Disruption of PN 3, Progress 4

The question remains, regardless of whether AGW is a false threat, is any disruption of PN acceptable if the prevailing value is that PN should be preserved, and only a minimalist lifestyle be tolerated?

Cohenite lives in Newcastle, Australia.

Here goes, the ten worst, according to Cohenite:

1. On April 16, 2008, at a blog called ‘Open Mind’, the prince of AGW, he who is known as Tamino, posted a piece entitled ‘Perjury’. Tamino’s basis for the charge of perjury was that someone had claimed there had been a temperature decline since 1998. The accused included two well known heretics, Joe D’Aleo and Australia’s own Dr Don Parkes. Two other well known proponents of AGW, James Hansen and Al Gore, have also demanded legal action against AGW opponents while simultaneously, in Gore’s case, advocating civil disobedience. http://tamino.wordpress.com/2008/04/16/perjury/#more-724

2. If Tamino is the prince of AGW, then Eli Rabett of ‘Rabett Run’ is the court jester.   At‘Rabett Run’ blog, on 19 March 2007, his humour was neither embracing nor kind. Eli has taken a set against anti-AGW papers which argue against global indices like global average temperature (GMST). The Essex, McKitrick and Andresen paper (“Does a Global Temperature Exist?”) particularly gets up his nose. Essex et al state: “local equilibrium states in a field are defined at a particular location, r” (p 6); they also say; “the data are independent of the averaging rule used, therefore the sign of the derivatives are not intrinsic to the data, but a property of the averaging rule selected” (p 13); which means different methods can produce different results. Eli intends to prove them wrong but proves them right by changing the value of ‘r’. Well done Eli.  http://rabett.blogspot.com/2007/03/once-more-dear-prof.html

3. On the 6 March 2008, at ‘Open Mind’, prince Tamino encountered karma. It came about like this. Tamino has used the web equivalent of forests defending Mann and the Hockey-stick. In respect of Mann’s first paper and his use of a statistical method called decentred Principle Component Analysis (PCA), Tamino was so enthusiastic about PCA, that he invoked the authority of “one of the world’s experts on PCA”, Ian Jolliffe, to substantiate his representation that “PCA doesn’t change the data. It only changes our description of it.” Dr Jolliffe declined and noted that noone is sure what decentred PCA does; he also said it was crazy that AGW gave such prominence to the Hockey-stick and that surely the evidence for AGW rests on much more than the Hockey-stick. Well, not really. Tamino was left to ponder the difference between perjury and misrepresentation. All the links to this triumph of scientific integrity are here:   http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=3601#comments

4. Eli from “Rabett Run’ is helpful again on 15 March 2007. Eli doesn’t like regionalism because it tends to undermine AGW. Eli’s attack on Pielke Snr’s Stefan-Boltzman paper was repudiated by Lucia (http://rankexploits.com/musings/2008/spatial-variations-in-gmst-eli-rabbet-vs-dr-pielke-sr/). Earlier Eli had another shot at the Essex et al paper. Eli attempted to prove that Essex et al’s anti-GMST approach meant there is also no local temperature or LTE. Essex et al don’t say there is no local temperature (just the opposite in fact), but Eli proves them right anyway and also confirms Pielke Snr and Miskolczi. Well done again Eli.  http://rabett.blogspot.com/2007/03/what-is-local-thermodynamic-equilibrium.html

5. Kare Fog blog, January 2004 (updated): Is Lomborg really this bad? Many anti-AGW scientists attract vitriol; Roy Spencer, Vincent Gray and John Christy because they are alleged to be creationists; Christopher Monckton because he is a ‘mad’ peer; Beck because he is an underqualified upstart who makes sense; but Bjorn Lomborg, author of “The Skeptical Environmentalist” and “Cool It”, is special. He has his own hate website, set up by biologist Kare Fog, who compares Lomborg’s ‘mistakes’ with Gore’s. The introduction includes: “Lomborg is not a normal person.” http://www.lomborg-errors.dk/

6. Deltoid blog, 12 August 2008; more Lomborg. If Tamino is the (dark) prince and Eli the court jester of AGW, then Deltoid is the boy in the corner pulling wings off a fly. It seems Deltoid has a special loathing of Lomborg. His sins appear to be: he argues conditions are better than ever for more of us; interference with nature does not always produce bad results; and AGW preventative measures are a waste of time and resources; and he hates polar bears. This post really gives it to Lomborg with Stuart (“I was one of the plaintiffs”) Pimm at comment 4 setting the tone by referring to, with unabashed approval, Kare Fog. http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2008/08/so_whats_wrong_with_lomborg.php#commentsArea

7. At BraveNewClimate blog, 14 October 2008 we see Barry’s premature celebration. Professor Brooks is chuffed that the Tropical Hot Spot (THS) has been found, proving the Global Climate Computers (GCM) correct, as shown in Santer et al’s paper. The Professor is also happy that new research shows volcanoes can’t explain Arctic melting. The Arctic ice is, of course, reforming; but Santer et al did find a THS; unfortunately it is only in the period 1979-1999 and requires a global weighting function, defining the tropics as 30S-30N and depends on GCM predictive skill to 0.0-0.5C per decade, which means the GCM’s will only be invalidated if temperature drops; which it has from 2001 onwards. A typical, one-eyed acceptance of anything, no matter how flawed, remotely supportive of AGW.  http://bravenewclimate.com/2008/10/14/two-denialist-talking-points-quashed/#more-615

8. At Deltoid blog, 16 May 2008, Tilo bets AGW is based on certainty; the science is settled. A bet in favour of AGW would appear to be a sure thing. Tilo Reber, well known blogger, offers one at comment 13; the terms are simple and consistent with AGW theory. The next 111 comments, until Tilo is warned off by Deltoid, are remarkable for avoidance, obscurantism  and pettiness.  If AGW was a sure thing Tilo would have had his bet. http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2008/05/pielke_train_wreck.php#commentsArea

9. At JenniferMarohasy blog on 7 April 2008, the BBC is shown to take a ‘flexible’ approach to the green viewpoint. There are many examples of mainstream media (msm) censorship to do with AGW.  This is perhaps the most striking where a greenie, Jo Abbess, browbeats a BBC reporter, Roger Harrabin, into twisting the fact that no warming has occurred since 1998.  “This is not an issue of ‘debate’. This is an issue of emerging truth,” pontificates Jo. The BBC has not denied this. I have included this even though it was an e-mail event because it was exposed on a blog; the pro-AGW msm didn’t touch it; and neither did the pro-AGW blogs.  http://www.jennifermarohasy.com/blog/archives/002906.html 

10. At On Line Opinion blog, 2 July 2008, Clive Hamilton takes his ball and goes home! No list of the worst posts would be complete without at least one of the following: Clive Hamilton, anti-materialist; George Monbiot, roving reporter; James Lovelock, inventor of Gaia. Hamilton will do, demonstrating all the ego behind AGW. The cause of Clive’s hissy fit. John McLean and Tom Harris had the temerity to reveal the falsity of the IPCC scientific consensus and OLO editor, Graham Young, to publish it online. http://onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=7580

Honourable mentions to Tim Flannery and his many predictions – all wrong, David Karoly and Robyn “100 metres” Williams.   

Cohenite lives in Newscastle, Australia.

Looking at the temperature trends from 1900-2008, it is not clear that there is a carbon dioxide signal.

In a recent post I looked at how base periods can create an artificial upwards temperature trend;

http://www.jennifermarohasy.com/blog/archives/003303.html#comments

The 20thC featured 2 El Nino dominated climate patterns (+ve PDO), and one La Nina phase (-ve PDO) from 1940-1976. The temperature trend in the first +ve PDO is almost identical to the temperature trend in the second +ve PDO;

http://tamino.files.wordpress.com/2008/01/smooth.jpg

The similar slopes at the beginning and end of the 20thC represent warming WITHIN the +ve PDO’s, while the lower starting point for the first +ve PDO is an artifact of the 1951-1980 GISS base period. The GISS graph also shows post 1998 temperatures as increasing. This is contradicted by the other temperature data collectors, which show a decreasing trend consistent with the emergence of another –ve PDO post 2001 (discussed below). The issue is, what would be the temperature trend be with ENSO removed and what part would CO2 play in causing that residual trend?

In a recent paper, David Douglass and John Christy isolate a temperature trend due to CO2 forcing, independent of feedback (ie: the enhanced greenhouse) and natural factors such as ENSO and volcanic effect;

http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0809/0809.0581.pdf

Douglass and Christy’s (DC) study is based on 1979-2008 UAH non-surface data. After extracting ENSO, volcanoes and allowing for latitude band effects, they isolate a CO2 signal of+0.070g/decade; where g is the gain due to any feedback. In respect of ‘g’ DC note “there is general agreement among climate scientists for the case of no feedback”. (p3).

DC estimate there is an undeducted solar irradiance forcing (SF) of 20% (p10), or +0.014C per decade. This generally agrees with AR4’s figure for SF of +0.12Wm-2, which translates to a temperature of +0.16C per century (see Chp 2 pp 187-193). AR4 has reduced this SF figure from TAR’s estimate of +0.3Wm-2, or a temperature increase of approximately 0.4C PC (see 6.11.1.2; FIG 6). The AR4 amount for SF is based on the period from 1750-present, but, according to FIG 2.17, the bulk of the SF has occurred in the 20thC. DC’s SF estimate seems about right then.

So, deducting DC’s SF from +0.07 – +0.014 = +0.056C PD for a CO2 signal in the period 1979-2008.

However, DC note that “the global atmospheric temperature anomalies of Earth reached a maximum in 1998 which has not been exceeded during the subsequent 10 years”. (Abstract). As noted above, GISS is showing increasing post 1998 temperature, so what is happening in the 21stC?

In an analysis based on the period 2001-2008 Lucia also removed ENSO from 5 of the temperature indices;

http://rankexploits.com/musings/wp-content/uploads/2008/07/ipcc-falsifies-gavin.gif

For a full discussion of Lucia’s analysis see;

http://rankexploits.com/musings/2008/gavin-schmidt-corrects-for-enso-ipcc-projections-still-falsify/

Lucia has applied 2 statistical approaches to all post 2000 data, GISS, HadCrut, NOAA, UAH and RSS, and obtained a combined result for OLS of -0.3C(+-1.6) PC, and for Cochrane-Orcutt, -0.6C(+-1.5) PC.

Averaging the 2 methodologies gives an ENSO free temperature trend for 2001-2008 of-0.45C or a decadal trend of -0.045C. Lucia has not adjusted for volcanoes as there were no proximate eruptions, or for SF. If an offset for SF of +0.014C is made, this would produce an underlying cooling trend of -0.059C PD, presumably due to CO2.

So, in summary:

1.     AR4 notes that “Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20thC is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic gas concentrations” (Executive Summary, CHP 2)

2.     AR4 allocates a Radiative Forcing to the combined GHG’s of 2.63Wm-2; CO2 is allocated a RF of 1.66Wm-2, or 2/3’s of the total RF.

3.     The RF for CO2 is estimated by AR4 to lead to an increase in temperature from a doubling of CO2 of ~ 3C. CO2 has increased ~ 40% since 1900. This should have produced a temperature increase of 1.2C or 0.12C PD.

4.     Applying AR4’s quotient for CO2 RF of 2/3 to the findings of DC and Lucia we obtain the following CO2 signals; DC = +0.056  3 x 2 = + 0.037C PD for the period 1979-2000; for Lucia = -0.059  3 x 2 = -0.039C PD for the period 2001-2008.

5.     A further complication applies to the first ½ of the 20thC temperature trends. There was less CO2 and GHG’s prior to 1976, yet the temperature trends at the beginning of the 20thC, as shown by GISS above and HadCrut are very similar; http://i32.tinypic.com/2s01m5y.jpg

6.     Then, of course, there is the 30 year decline in temperatures from 1940-1976 when CO2 was increasing.

7.     DC and Lucia have found a CO2 signal. It is inconsistent, I draw 3 conclusions;

a) The inconsistency found by DC and Lucia reflects the contrary movements of CO2 and temperature apparent during the rest of the 20thC and history generally.

b) IPCC forcing estimates for CO2 are grossly over-inflated. Even more so when enhanced greenhouse, “g”, is quantified with +ve feedback.

c) In respect of “g”; if the CO2 signal is larger than that found by DC and Lucia, then –ve feedbacks would have to be much greater. These –ve feedbacks cannot be aerosols (see DC p 12), or ENSO as suggested by Keenlyside et al. Perhaps climate sensitivity to SF is greater than AR4 assumes.

Cheers, Cohenite

Newcastle, Australia

As a layman reading the literature and arguments in support of Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) three defining characteristics of those arguments have become apparent.

The first is the idea that the science is settled and that there is a consensus in favor of this science. This is wrong and the Oreskes thesis has been repudiated.  

Secondly, the pro-AGW literature uses terms of apocalyptic consequence; we read about tipping points, rapid sea rises and extreme weather. Because of this, pro-AGW statements often take on a ghoulish, vulture-like quality with every bad climate event being hailed as proof of AGW. But again, there is no compelling evidence that the climate is becoming more extreme or worse than it has been.

The third and most striking characteristic are the computers, the General Circulation Models (GCMs), which are the basis of AGW science. They have informed the msm to the extent that nearly every report confirming AGW (are there any other kind?) begins with ‘computer modeling has shown’…etc.

The result of the dominance of GCM’s has seen a growth in what Aynsley Kellow, Professor and Head, School of Government, University of Tasmania, calls climate virtual reality where there is a persistent conflict between GCM evidence and empirical data.

What stands out for me in this debate is the clash between real data and AGW data and the repeated examples where data has been manipulated, adjusted, discarded or subject to arcane statistical methodology so it conforms with the GCM simulations.

All of the 10 papers, statements and articles I have selected as the worst of the pro-AGW support literature exhibit the above 3 qualities. Some of them have iconic status and others, while more obscure, present such glaring examples of this matrix science, or climate virtual reality, that they cannot be ignored.

1.Dr James Hansen’s 1988 Statement to the US Senate.

http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-files/Environment/documents/2008/06/23/ClimateChangeHearing1988.pdf

Hansen is the public face of AGW science. This statement establishes all 3 of the defining characteristics. He says “the earth is warmer in 1988 than at any time in the history of instrumental measurements.” Why then does GISS adjust their US data to stop the ‘30’s being the warmest decade? He says the greenhouse effect is proven; why then does IPCC have to invent the enhanced greenhouse? He takes pride in his “computer climate simulations”. Money for jam for Koutsoyiannis.

2. Dr James Hansen’s 2008 Anniversary speech before the US Congress.

http://www.worldwatch.org/node/5798

After 20 years of climate zilch Hansen ups the apocalypse ante; tipping points are now “ominous”, AGW is a “time bomb”, and there is a need to “preserve our planet, and creation.” The public face of AGW is now Moses. Amidst the blatant untruths there is a resonant irony; “The fossil fuel industry maintains its stranglehold…via demagoguery.” Is Hansen the copper or the kettle?

3. Michael Mann et al (MBH): Northern Hemisphere Temperatures During the Past Millennium: Inferences, Uncertainties and Limitations. AGU GRL 1999

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/pubs/mann_99.html

The Hockey stick is the figurehead of the good ship AGW. If anyone says that it is not essential for AGW to prove that 20thC temperatures are higher than any other time in recent history they are dreaming. MBH do so using tree-rings and esoteric statistical analysis (Principle Component Analysis); they ignore discrepancies with instrument data and obfuscate about their sources. McIntyre eats them for breakfast.

4. Eugene R. Wahl and Caspar M. Ammann: Robustness of Mann, Bradley, Hughes; Reconstruction of Northern hemisphere surface temperatures: Examination of criticisms based on the nature and processing of proxy climate evidence.

http://www.cgd.vcar.edu/ccr/ammann/millennium/refs/Wahl_ClimChange.2007.pdf

Before the Hockey stick could be used in AR4 it needed to be rehabilitated after McIntyre’s, and others’, demolition. Wahl et al said they had a new standard for Reduction of Error verification, i.e. zero=skill. McIntyre wanted proof. Wahl procrastinated until AR4 was published and then said the proof was that the new verification had been referred to in their paper. Fidus Achates writ large.

5. Mann et al (part 2): Proxy-based reconstructions of hemispheric and global surface temperature variations over the past two millennia.

http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2008/09/02/0805721105.full.pdf

Rehabilitated, Mann threw out the tree-rings and used an even more esoteric form of statistical analysis (PCA) to produce data so robust it could withstand minimal correlation with instrument records and 2 confirming dates over a millennium in some of the proxy series. McIntyre couldn’t believe it, but Tamino, in praising Mann’s use of whatever form of PCA he used, is taken to task by Ian Jolliffe, the world’s leading expert on the method, whatever it is. Jolliffe is nonplussed and declares, “This is just plain wrong.”

6. Spencer Weart: A Saturated Gassy Argument.

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

This is the user friendly version of AGW’s semi-infinite atmospheric model; this model ‘shows’ that vertical layers of CO2 trap and delay the rise of surface emitted IR. If it was right there would be a troposphere hotspot/fingerprint as unequivocally predicted in AR4 by FIG 9.1(c). The satellite and other data collectors show there is none.

7. Robert J. Allen, Steven C. Sherwood: Warming maximum in the tropical upper atmosphere deduced from thermal winds. Nature Geoscience 25 May 2008

http://lubos.mtol.gogglepages.com/sherwood-allen-ngeo-2008.pdf

Concerned that the instruments showed no troposphere hotspot, Allen & Sherwood repudiated the instrument data and developed a windshear model which showed if there was windshear there would be warming. Matrix science. Resonant irony; the instruments which were not good enough for temperature were used to establish windshear and model predicted temperature.

8. Rolf Philipona et al: Radiative forcing-measured at Earth’s surface- corroborate the increasing greenhouse effect. Geophysical Research Letters, Vol 31 2004

Anthropogenic greenhouse forcing and strong water vapor feedback increase in Europe. Geophysical Research Letters, Vol 32 2005

http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2004/2003GL018765.shtml

http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2005/2005GL023624.shtml

2 papers from Philipona who deals with increasing downward longwave (DLR). If the semi-infinite model is correct, as well as a troposphere hotspot, there will be increased clear-sky LDR. This is a crucial point but Philipona’s studies are flawed by statistical method, inadequate study period, selective use of insolation and temperature data and extrapolation from regionalized Stefan-Boltzman.

9. AR4, Chapter 2; Changes in Atmospheric Constituents and Radiative Forcing; Executive Summary; pp131-132.

http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/Report?Ar4WG1_Print_Ch02.pdf

The science is settled. The standard of scientific understanding in the Executive Summary ranges from “very high” to “very low”; the great majority of climate indices have “medium-low” to “very low” levels of scientific understanding; yet the Summary concludes that “humans have exerted a substantial warming influence on climate.” Diagnosis: scientific schizophrenia.

10. Keenlyside N S, Latif M, Jungclaus J, Kornblueh L, Roeckner E: Advancing decadal-scale climate prediction in the North Atlantic sector. Nature 453, 84-88 May 2008

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v453/n7191/full/nature06921.html

Both sides of the debate claimed this paper as proving/disproving AGW. The paper asserts that natural, contrary climate patterns can “temporarily offset the projected anthropogenic warming.” To this layman that has a Claytons feel about it, but the kicker is Lucia’s 2001 and onwards temperature analysis; Lucia removed the ENSO and found a decline in post-2001 temperature trend. If there was an underlying warming it would have shown. How can anthropogenic warming be “temporarily offset” when it isn’t there?

These papers and articles and statements are the worst because they exhibit all three defining characteristics of AGW science. Some are indefensible, others don’t make sense.

*******

To read the ten best climate research papers according to Cohenite, click here .

The accusation of a lack of peer review (PR) by those who mount arguments against anthropogenic global warming (AGW) is at the heart of the elitism, consensus and ad hominem approach used by many supporters of AGW.  

It is a red herring.  Science should be like the Law; transparent and universally accessible. 

It should not be used by specialists to dominate the general populace, or to promulgate ideological based alterations to the social and economic structure. Nor should it be used to stifle debate because, apart from anything else, the importance of science is diminished by such oppression. Because the AGW advocates have used such tactics, and been supported by a sizeable proportion of the mainstream media, the importance of blogs has grown. Their importance has also been highlighted by the degree of vitriol leveled at anti-AGW sites.

Most of all the PR argument is simply wrong.

As a layman my AGW education curve has been steep. But it has been informed by a number of peer reviewed papers which have provided substantial critiques of AGW. In the interest of providing a rebuttal to the insidious PR stigma I present my ‘top 10’ papers which mount arguments against AGW, nine of them peer-reviewed.

I have had to exclude a number of valuable articles; the McLean and Quirk paper on the Great Pacific Climate Change was my first exposure to the misrepresentation of temperature base periods; the first Beck paper is a notable exclusion; the castigation against Beck was particularly condescending and elitist, no doubt because he does not have a PhD; likewise none of the valuable contributions made by Monckton, Watts, Castles, Hughes, Lucia, Bob Tisdale or Steve Short are eligible.

But I am going to list 10 papers, and start with a non peer-reviewed paper as an exception because of his sustained and exemplary efforts, any one of which is worthy of a Doctorate.

1. Steve McIntyre’s Ohio State University Address;

How do we “know” that 1998 was the warmest year of the millennium? (May 16, 2008)

http://www.climateaudit.org/pdf/ohio.pdf

This is a seminal paper which synthesizes all the errors and obfuscations to do with the Hockey Stick. It also demonstrates McIntyre’s methodical, scientific and unadorned approach to the issue.

2. Craig Loehle’s paper;

A 2000-year global temperature reconstruction based on non-tree ring proxies, Energy & Environment 18(7-8): 1049-1058. 2007

http://www.ncasi.org/publications/Detail.aspx?id=3025

This paper was important because it was a counterpoise to Mann’s tree-ring data and provided good support for the Medieval Warming Period, a major obstacle to AGW.

3.Douglass, Christy et al; this is the first of the GCM critiques;

A comparison of tropical temperature trends with model predictions. International Journal of Climatology, 2007

http://www.scribd.com/doc/904914/A-comparison-of-tropical-temperature-trends-with-model-predictions?page=6

http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=3058

This paper really touched a nerve and the level of hostility leveled at it was astounding; it mostly boiled down to nit-picking about Raobcore data and whether a falsification was distinct from a bias. The second link is to an addendum to the paper; comments 69-74 are entertaining.

4.Koutsoyiannis et al;

http://www.itia.ntua.gr/en/docinfo/850

Assessment of the reliability of climate predictions based on comparisons with historical time series.  Geophysical Research Abstracts, 2008

This link is to the first presentation. This was a crucial paper; it covered the 18 year predictive history of the GCM’s on a regional basis; regionalism is the Achilles Heel of AGW.

5.Stockwell;

http://landshape.org/stats/wp-content/uploads/2008/08/article.pdf

Tests of Regional Climate Model Validity in the Drought Exceptional Circumstances Report. 2008

This paper did the job on CSIRO and demonstrated the political imput into the AGW science.

6. Misckolczi;

Greenhouse effect in semi-transparent planetary Atmospheres.  Quarterly Journal of the Hungarian Meteorological Service, Vol. 111, No. 1, January–March 2007, pp. 1–40.

http://met.hu/doc/idojaras/vol111001_01.pdf

This is my favourite. It has everything; the dead hand of AGW censorship, and the demolition of the AGW’s semi-infinite opaque layered atmosphere. People have quibbled about the Kirchhoff equations but Miskolczian –ve feedbacks have been established.

7. Essex, McKitrick, Andresen;

Does a Global Temperature Exist? Journal of Non-EquilibriumThermodynamics, 32 (1) 1-27.   2007

http://www.reference-global.com/doi/abs/10.1515/JNETDY.2007.001?cookieSet=1

The fallacy of a global average temperature was taken to task in this paper, and, again, the reaction was hostile. This paper wittily compared averaging temperature to averaging the phone book; an important addition to the regionalism lexicon.

8. Spencer and Braswell;

Potential Biases in Feedback Diagnosis from Observational Data: A simple Model Demonstration, Journal of Climate.

 http://ams.allenpress.com/perlserv/?request=get-abstract&doi=10.1175%2F2008JCLI2253.1

No list would be complete without Mr Cloud and –ve feedback. As well, Spencer has been a bastion of reliable temperature data. This was still a close call. Minschwaner and Dessler’s paper on RH decline as a response to increasing CO2 is a crucial paper, conforming to Miskolczi’s feedbacks.

9.Chilingar;

Cooling of Atmosphere Due to CO₂ Emission, Energy Sources, Part A: Recovery, Utilization, and Environmental Effects.  Volume 30, Issue  1, January 2008 , pages 1 – 9

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15567030701568727

An important paper about convective heat transfer which relegates CO2 radiative heating to its proper subordinate position; and incorporates atmospheric pressure as a heating factor. Thanks to Louis for alerting me to the paper. An honourable mention to the Gerlich and Tscheuschner paper on the fallacy of the greenhouse concept and a host of other errors AGW science makes.

10. Pielke Sr et al;

Unresolved issues with the assessment of multidecadal global land surface temperature trends. Journal of Geophysical Research, Vol 112. 2007.

http://climatesci.colorado.edu/publications/pdf/R-321.pdf

An elegant paper which uses Stefan-Boltzman to support regionalism and show that the notion of a radiative imbalance is defeated by regional temperature based energy differentials. Somewhat superfluous since AR4, FIG 1 shows no global radiative imbalance.

Given the above, what 10 papers can AGW supporters produce to vindicate AGW?

Cohenite,

Newcastle, Australia