I find it odd the praise nature gets here

It wasn’t praise. It was a statement of fact that it is the journal with the highest “impact factor” in terms of the size of audience your paper will reach. I did not mean to imply that it was authoritative. Just that it is widely considered the most prestigious journal for ecosystem scientists, and many other domains. Newsgroups and logs yield biased samples, so your impression is not surprising. The academics who are most critical of Nature are likely the ones who have tried and failed to get published there.

Note both posts can be correct – they are certainly not mutually exclusive.

FP 338.1 refers to “properly history-matched climate computer models”.

I believe FP 339 refers to models that have not been history-matched again after deleting the fabricated aerosol data.

Regards, Allan

It is well-established that increased atmospheric CO2 is a very effective fertilizer of most/all plants, but apparently poison ivy is fundable

I doubt they would have gotten funded if the FACE experiments were based on the premise of studying poison ivy response to CO2. I believe the goal of this aspect of the study was to measure ALL plants’ responses (since they were measuring neighbouring plants, the marginal cost of the additional measurements was incredibly low), and it was just that the most surprising outcome was the QUALITY of the response from poison ivy. It didn’t just grow more, I believe it also contained new chemical constituents never before observed.

The FACE experiments are not just about the effects of CO2 enrichment. They are used as a platform by other researchers, such as plant physiologists, to figure out the underlying basic of things like how plants work.

You’re going to see all kinds of seemingly quirkly results coming out of the FACE studies because of the fact that it is so interdisciplinary. Nature LOVES to publish those kinds of “gee-whiz” papers that make the rest of us sometimes wonder where the academic world’s priorities are.

” John, it was discussed here awhile back that if you assume the “increase in growth” curve for increased CO2 is a logrithmic response, high-altitude trees are lower down the curve due to lower CO2 partial-pressure & respond more quickly than low-altitude trees to ambient increases in CO2. It may have something to due w/what some observe (S_M, I believe) “¢’‚¬? that many or most of the classical hockeystick proxies come from high altitudes.

Many or most of the proxy studies don’t even adequately document elevations/locations of the treering proxies.
”

Thanks for the CO2 relation model. It is very unfortunate that most proxy studies don’t include elevations and locations. It is also unfortunate that they don’t include other factors such as typical rainfall and cloud cover. Speaking of trees I am wonder about the whole growth cycle of a tree. Clearly trees tall enough to reach the light should respond similarly to age but I wonder how shorter trees respond. Clearly until they reach a certain height they can not be a climate indicator.

Predictions (Fearless) :

1. Using actual rather than fabricated aerosol data

the climate models will run off the tracks and show far greater warming than was actually measured from 1940 on.

It is regrettable and indeed reprehensible that atmospheric aerosol data has not been fully analyzed, when billions have been spent elsewhere on bogus “climate research”, much of it little more than alarmist propaganda – intended to raise the level of fear rather than help understand this complex issue.

For example, I recently came across an article (no doubt well-funded) that claimed that poison ivy was growing faster and more virulent because of increased atmospheric CO2 levels. It is well-established that increased atmospheric CO2 is a very effective fertilizer of most/all plants, but apparently poison ivy is fundable, but similarly increased yields of wheat, corn and soybeans are of less interest. I have also seen numerous studies by biologists and geographers which assume an alarming level of warming (e.g. greater than 4-5 degrees C) and then predict the resulting reduction or extinction of a plant or animal species within a particular geographic area – these well-funded studies are, in general, just more examples of “garbage in, garbage out”.

Conclusions (Primary, subject to revision):

A. The climate computer models that claim history-matching, including the 1940-1975 cooling period, used fabricated aerosol data and are therefore rejected as unsound.

B. Adequate research funding should immediately be allocated to analyze the aerosol data, as far back as such data is available.

C. History-matching of climate computer models should be re-run using the actual aerosol data and the results compared to the previous runs using the fabricated data.

Predictions (Fearless) :

1. Using actual rather than fabricated aerosol data, properly history-matched climate computer models will illustrate that more than 80% of the current warming trend is due to natural factors such as solar radiance, and less than 20% is due to humanmade causes. Using such corrected models, projections of future warming due to human activity (assuming a doubling of atmospheric CO2 to 560 ppm) will equal less than 0.3 degrees C.

2. Natural solar-driven cooling, which will begin prior to ~2020 during Solar Cycle 25, will overwhelm the current warming trend.

Regards, Allan

“And what exact frequencies does a pyrheliometer measure?”
All the radiation from 0.3 to 2.5 microns where the quartz glass cuts off the solar radiation. This is about 98-99% of the total radiation.