Unthreaded #12

Continuation of Unthreaded #11

434 Comments

  1. John A
    Posted Jun 4, 2007 at 6:28 AM | Permalink

    Life Cycle of Junk Science

  2. PaulM
    Posted Jun 4, 2007 at 7:00 AM | Permalink

    From unthreaded #11:

    # 363 MarkR – Solomon is not reliable. Take a look at part VII, where you will see that Solomon had to publish an apology after falsely accusing a scientist of being a ‘denier’.

    # 351 Gerald – Heating of lakes is mostly solar, basically for the same reason as for the sea. Heat conduction from the air is very slow and would only reach a few cm. Solar radiation is absorbed over a few metres if the water is fairly clear. This is thought to be the dominant contribution to the lakes ‘heat budget’, compared with the air above or the ground below.

  3. Posted Jun 4, 2007 at 7:21 AM | Permalink

    For those interested in solar cycles material, I have written a post called “New Little Ice Age Instead of Global Warming?”
    http://landscheidt.auditblogs.com/archives/24

    This examines Dr Landscheidt’s 2003 paper of the same name – here is the the abstract of the paper:

    Abstract: Analysis of the sun’s varying activity in the last two millennia indicates that contrary to the IPCC’s speculation about man-made global warming as high as 5.8° C within the next hundred years, a long period of cool climate with its coldest phase around 2030 is to be expected. It is shown that minima in the 80 to 90-year Gleissberg cycle of solar activity, coinciding with periods of cool climate on Earth, are consistently linked to an 83-year cycle in the change of the rotary force driving the sun’s oscillatory motion about the centre of mass of the solar system. As the future course of this cycle and its amplitudes can be computed, it can be seen that the Gleissberg minimum around 2030 and another one around 2200 will be of the Maunder minimum type accompanied by severe cooling on Earth. This forecast should prove skillful as other long-range forecasts of climate phenomena, based on cycles in the sun’s orbital motion, have turned out correct as for instance the prediction of the last three El Nià±os years before the respective event.

    As Steve M wishes to keep his blog focused mostly on his current areas of interest this is simply a shameless plug :) and any discussion of this material should be done over on my blog rather than here.

  4. Mark H
    Posted Jun 4, 2007 at 9:18 AM | Permalink

    Apparently poor Dr. Hansn who supposedly battled political influence to moderate his views is now bullying (with Congress) a fellow NASA employee on his views.

    http://www.abcnews.go.com/Technology/Story?id=3229696&page=1

    …NASA Administrator Michael Griffin Questions Need to Combat Warming

    NASA administrator Michael Griffin continues to draw the ire of preeminent climate scientists inside and outside of NASA, as well as members of Congress, after apparently downplaying the need to combat global warming.

    In an interview broadcast yesterday on National Public Radio’s “Morning Edition” program, Griffin was asked by NPR’s Steve Inskeep whether he is concerned about global warming.

    I have no doubt that a trend of global warming exists,” Griffin told Inskeep. “I am not sure that it is fair to say that it is a problem we must wrestle with.”

    “To assume that it is a problem is to assume that the state of Earth’s climate today is the optimal climate, the best climate that we could have or ever have had and that we need to take steps to make sure that it doesn’t change,” Griffin said. “I guess I would ask which human beings ‘€” where and when ‘€” are to be accorded the privilege of deciding that this particular climate that we have right here today, right now is the best climate for all other human beings. I think that’s a rather arrogant position for people to take.”

    Griffin’s comments immediately drew stunned reaction from James Hansen, NASA’s top climate scientist at the Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York.

    “It’s an incredibly arrogant and ignorant statement,” Hansen told ABC News. “It indicates a complete ignorance of understanding the implications of climate change.”

    Hansen believes Griffin’s comments fly in the face of well-established scientific knowledge that hundreds of NASA scientists have contributed to.

    “It’s unbelievable,” said Hansen. “I thought he had been misquoted. It’s so unbelievable.”

    Several other NASA climate scientists contacted by ABC News echoed Hansen’s comments, saying an overwhelming majority of their colleagues believe global warming is an urgent issue that society should be addressing. The scientists asked that their names not be used because they did not want to jeopardize their careers.

    Griffin’s comments also angered scientists outside of NASA.

    “I was shocked by the statement and I think the administrator ought to resign. I don’t see how he can be the effective leader of a science agency if he doesn’t understand the threat of global warming,” said Michael Oppenheimer, a Princeton University atmospheric scientist and lead author of some of the latest reports issued by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, or IPCC. The international body, made up of thousands of climate scientists is considered one of the most authoritative bodies on global warming.

    …Hansen, featured prominently in Al Gore’s global warming documentary, “An Inconvenient Truth,” has been warning of the potential dangers of climate change since the 1980s.

    In late 2005, he accused NASA of trying to improperly censor him after he warned that Earth’s climate might be approaching a dangerous “tipping point.”

    The agency later fired a public affairs employee, a political appointee of the Bush administration, over the incident.

    Members of Congress also weighed in, criticizing NASA for cutting the budgets of satellite programs that help monitor the effects of climate change. …

  5. Gerald Machnee
    Posted Jun 4, 2007 at 9:21 AM | Permalink

    Re #2 – Thanks, Paul M. I have been searching and have found several studies. etc, but they talk about several aspects including long wave radiation at the surface, but no percentage caused by the short wave radiation was given.
    I have seen some “forecasts” of lakes warming several degrees due to global warming, but I think there is an upper limit based on the amount of sunshine that would be received. There is some contrbution by streams flowing in as well, but again, no percentages were given.

  6. jae
    Posted Jun 4, 2007 at 10:17 AM | Permalink

    From one of the articles in the link in Unthreaded 11, #363:

    How do such people become numbered among the IPCC’s famed “2,500 top scientists” from around the world? Prof. Reiter, wanting to know, wrote the IPCC with a series of detailed questions about its decision-making process. It replied: “The brief answer to your question below is ‘governments.’ It is the governments of the world who make up the IPCC, define its remit and direction. The way in which this is done is defined in the IPCC Principles and Procedures, which have been agreed by governments.” When Prof. Reiter checked out the “principles and procedures,” he found “no mention of research experience, bibliography, citation statistics or any other criteria that would define the quality of ‘the world’s top scientists.’”

    No wonder the IPCC Report is so full of nonsense.

  7. aurbo
    Posted Jun 4, 2007 at 10:27 AM | Permalink

    Re #4,

    Hansen isn’t happy unless the inmates are running the asylum. His complaints about his views being suppressed are a crock…just look at (via Google or elsewhere) how often his name and views were distributed throughout the media during the so-called period when he was being “gagged”.

    BTW, In regard to the usual assertion that AGW skeptics are being bought off by “big oil” didn’t Hansen receive “awards” of about $750,000 in the past few years…$250,000 from the Heinz Foundation in 2001 noted here and a whopping $500,000 from the Dan David Prize Foundation, a philanthropy managed this past year by the French Ministry of Culture and Communication and presented by Jacques Chirac see article here?

    The only incidents of gagging I’m familiar with comes after reading his pronouncements.

  8. Steve Sadlov
    Posted Jun 4, 2007 at 10:43 AM | Permalink

    [snip]

    RE: #3 – I am banking on it. For me, it means that much of the rest of my life is going to have lower quality than thus far. Specifically, it will mean oscillation between years (such as the current year) which are cold (possibly deadly cold) and dry, with ones which are cold and wetter than normal. There will likely be multi year droughts. Macroeconomically, it means serious inflation of food and energy costs. Geopolitically it likely means great war.

  9. D. F. Linton
    Posted Jun 4, 2007 at 10:54 AM | Permalink

    Re# 238, #308, and many other on urban heat inputs on #11:

    These discussions always end with changes in temperature. What if the term Urban _Heat_ Island is literally true? Can’t urban heat be stored in increasingly humid air just as easily as in higher temperature air? There are certainly large number of water vapor emitters, both huamn and mechanical in an urban environment. Does any one know if there has been any study of changes in absolute humidity in urban locations over that last century?

  10. Byron
    Posted Jun 4, 2007 at 11:16 AM | Permalink

    Re #13

    Urban precitation going down the storm drain reduces evaporation.

  11. Anthony Watts
    Posted Jun 4, 2007 at 12:00 PM | Permalink

    SteveM re: online database – see email sent directly

  12. Steve McIntyre
    Posted Jun 4, 2007 at 12:05 PM | Permalink

    “astrology” is now a banned term here. Posts including or discussing this term, like posts containing certain religious ideas, will be deleted.

  13. John Nicklin
    Posted Jun 4, 2007 at 1:36 PM | Permalink

    Well, Hansen and others aside, I was just informed that Climate Audit is paid for by Exxon through the George Marshall Institute. Unfortunately some people will believe anything that supports their agenda.

    As for me, I have found this site to be well balanced and very informative, particulaly for someone like me who does not have a physics or math background.

    Thanks to Steve M.

  14. John Nicklin
    Posted Jun 4, 2007 at 2:25 PM | Permalink

    I should also add thanks to all the other contributors here for enhancing the experience.

  15. Mark T.
    Posted Jun 4, 2007 at 2:31 PM | Permalink

    John, what I find funny is that this is actually used as an argument to refute Steve’s discoveries. These trained scientists don’t seem to understand the concept of simple logical fallacies. Even if he were funded by the devil himself, what difference does it make if he’s right? I.e., an argument stands on its own merits, regardless of who paid for it, or who backs it. Their own hypocrisy in this regard is also astounding.

    Mark

  16. John Nicklin
    Posted Jun 4, 2007 at 2:38 PM | Permalink

    Mark, I couldn’t agree more. Its just their way of avoiding the real debate and making themselves feel morally superior. Unfortunately people fall for such arguements.

  17. Absurdity
    Posted Jun 4, 2007 at 3:07 PM | Permalink

    Senators warn Bush on G8 climate push

    Germany has called for a statement limiting worldwide temperature rise this century to two degrees Celsius

  18. Anthony Watts
    Posted Jun 4, 2007 at 3:20 PM | Permalink

    “Germany has called for a statement limiting worldwide temperature rise this century to two degrees Celsius”

    I didn’t know that we could subjucate the sun’s output and earths dynamic atmosphereic and ocean systems to meet a human created specification. What progress we’ve made!

  19. Steve Sadlov
    Posted Jun 4, 2007 at 3:22 PM | Permalink

    RE: #17 – The statement will start out with the word “Achtung!” ……. sorry, I could not resist.

  20. Bill F
    Posted Jun 4, 2007 at 3:50 PM | Permalink

    I didn’t know that we could subjucate the sun’s output and earths dynamic atmosphereic and ocean systems to meet a human created specification.

    Sure…you just change the parameterizations in the model and Voila!…climate changes before your very eyes. Reducing man’s impact on climate would be much easier and cheaper if we just paid the modelers more instead of all these cumbersome emissions reduction plans and carbon taxes. They could change the model output for us and guys like Jones and Hansen would go out and adjust their data to match the models like they are doing now.

  21. Jon
    Posted Jun 4, 2007 at 3:58 PM | Permalink

    Following our discussion of Mann’s Divergence theory; I’ve suddenly become interested in this question of whether group-delay is being accounted for during graph plotting.

    My question to Steve and others who have access to the raw-datasets and the smoothing functions is this: Are the smoothed curves time-shifted to compensate for the group-delay?

  22. Reid
    Posted Jun 4, 2007 at 4:34 PM | Permalink

    Check out this interview with Freeman Dyson. Found on Lubos blog.

    http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=Sidewinder77+dyson

    He believes vegetation land use changes can easily absorb CO2 emissions. He doesn’t believe surface temperature averages are accurate. No mention of a Dyson sphere to save the planet from a supernove sun.

  23. Posted Jun 4, 2007 at 5:07 PM | Permalink

    Let me get this straight. You deleted my two line post because it contained the “A” word,
    but you are keeping the post that refers to an A__loger’s attempt to refute mainstream climatologists?
    Is that the situation here?

  24. Dave B
    Posted Jun 4, 2007 at 5:24 PM | Permalink

    big city lib…

    i think you will find that in general, you will be treated fairly here if you avoid namecalling and issues of religion. The newly banned “A” word, in your context, is really namecalling. in general, namecalling is a sign of a weak argument. weak arguments are not treated well here.

  25. jae
    Posted Jun 4, 2007 at 5:26 PM | Permalink

    22: Note, also, that his concern with CO2 is Stratospheric cooling and resulant ozone destruction.

  26. Bill F
    Posted Jun 4, 2007 at 5:28 PM | Permalink

    bigcitylib,

    I think the point here if you read around a little bit is that posting data, information, papers, etc. is accepted, and a critique of the content of the paper or the science behind it is fine as well. But disparaging a viewpoint by attacking the author of the paper or otherwise disparaging a viewpoint based on the occupation of the holder of said viewpoint is pretty much out of line here. In other words, if you don’t like the writings of Dr. Landscheidt or feel that you need to provide a counterpoint to his writings, the best way to do that is show how he is wrong and the best place to do it is on Carl’s blog where he is posting about Dr. Landscheidt’s work. A lot of people here are not climate scientists by trade, but we ARE scientists, and we have seen enough crappy science produced by the “real climate scientists” to recognize that just because somebody isn’t a “climate scientist” doesn’t mean that they can’t do a better job than alot of the “climate scientists” currently leading the AGW parade.

  27. Posted Jun 4, 2007 at 5:32 PM | Permalink

    It frankly astounds me that Mr. McIntyre would delete my post critizing the notion that a blog like this
    should be paying ANY kind of attention to a climate change “skeptic” who told fortunes in his spare time,,
    but keep a link to a site propounding this guys theories. It seems to me that the onus is on Mr.
    McIntyre to keep his blog fruit-loop free, given its larger purpose.

  28. Mark T.
    Posted Jun 4, 2007 at 5:46 PM | Permalink

    My question to Steve and others who have access to the raw-datasets and the smoothing functions is this: Are the smoothed curves time-shifted to compensate for the group-delay?

    They must be. Often the filters are rather long, 40 years or so, and a 20 year shift that resulted would be readily apparent in the plots if they didn’t adjust for it.

    Mark

  29. Richard Sharpe
    Posted Jun 4, 2007 at 5:46 PM | Permalink

    Misuse of Scientific Data By the White House

    Surely not :-)

  30. Steve McIntyre
    Posted Jun 4, 2007 at 5:46 PM | Permalink

    #23-27. please stop this pointless bickering. I don’t have time to check every post that comes onto this blog. I’m not going to snip or edit posts that contain certain words – e.g. intelligent design, creationism, and now astrology. They are automatic deletes. The blog relies heavily on politeness by posters. I’ve said endlessly that I do not endorse every opinion that is expressed here or every link- this cuts to both sides of a spectrum. There are some topics that I’ve asked people to discuss elsewhere.

  31. Gerald Browning
    Posted Jun 4, 2007 at 6:44 PM | Permalink

    Steve M.

    Just thought that you might be amused that Doug Nychka is now posted as the latest superhero on the NCAR web site. :-)

    Jerry

  32. Posted Jun 4, 2007 at 6:47 PM | Permalink

    Steve M,

    Thanks for nipping the “A” word in the bud – that issue has the potential to be a real distraction from the serious work you are doing here, esp. when it used to disparage someones work.

    bigcitylib,

    [snip]
    You will find a comprehensive list of online versions of papers and articles he wrote on a page on my blog if you wish to read any of them, and I would be quite happy to set up a thread on my blog for you should you wish to submit a critique of the science behind any of them (except the 3 more ‘esoteric’ ones I notice are in the list of over 20 online papers and articles you can choose from).

    I suggest you read the new thread inspired by your comment at:
    http://landscheidt.auditblogs.com/archives/30
    - and make any further comments about it over there.

  33. Steve McIntyre
    Posted Jun 4, 2007 at 6:56 PM | Permalink

    #31. If you want to be pedantic, mentions of “astrology” are deleted “automatically” only in the sense that I will delete it automatically when I notice it. It’s not deleted automatically by software. No more discussion of this – please move it to Carl Smith’s blog. I’ve left in the url to Carl Smith’s blog for your convenience. No more here.

  34. Steve McIntyre
    Posted Jun 4, 2007 at 7:05 PM | Permalink

    test: “warmest in a milllll-yun years” :evil: “foolish and incorrect thing to do” :twisted:

  35. Steve Sadlov
    Posted Jun 4, 2007 at 7:10 PM | Permalink

    Ok what’s the emoticon construction of those? Gotta have them!

  36. Steve Sadlov
    Posted Jun 4, 2007 at 7:11 PM | Permalink

    :evil: Mahahahahaha!

  37. MarkR
    Posted Jun 4, 2007 at 8:31 PM | Permalink

    #2 PaulM. Does this mean if I falsely accuse a false accuser falsely, I am unreliable? Or, if I’m truly accused by a sometimes false argument, but sometimes truly, then I am somehow false?

    Gee, this is getting complicated, I prefer arguments, or statements that withstand falsification.

  38. chuck c
    Posted Jun 4, 2007 at 9:15 PM | Permalink

    #22

    Dyson clearly doesn’t trust the computer models, thinks they’re overfunded and observation is underfunded, and scoffs at global warming in general, but he does believe strongly that the CO2 rise is potentially catastrophic. Somewhat ironically, he links the increased CO2 to stratospheric warming which he expects to dramatically reduce ozone concentration in the stratosphere, with the obvious consequent dangerous health effects.

    Is this a new theory, and something that’s going to make it into Inconvenient Truth II?

  39. chuck c
    Posted Jun 4, 2007 at 9:17 PM | Permalink

    #38

    Obviously meant “stratospheric cooling” where I wrote “stratospheric warming”…sorry, that’s quite confusing.

  40. DeWitt Payne
    Posted Jun 5, 2007 at 3:10 AM | Permalink

    The fact that the satellite data shows no lower stratosphere cooling since the spike caused by the Pinatubo eruption in 1991 is another ‘inconvenient truth’. Chlorofluorocarbon concentration has been flat so its effect should be constant.

  41. MarkW
    Posted Jun 5, 2007 at 4:56 AM | Permalink

    #18,

    Anthony, be carefull, people might accuse you of dabbling in a certain, now forbidden concept.

  42. MarkW
    Posted Jun 5, 2007 at 4:59 AM | Permalink

    bigcitylib,

    The general procedure here is this. If you have a problem with someone’s science. Refute it. Either by showing where it’s false, or by showing other, real world data, that contradicts the science.

    Now, would you like to try again?

  43. David Smith
    Posted Jun 5, 2007 at 7:30 AM | Permalink

    Good writeup on Weather Underground ( link ) on Cyclone Gonu, an unusual storm approaching Oman and Iran. It’s quite strong (cat 5 at one point) but appears to be weakening as it approaches land, which is normal. It may be only a cat 1 at landfall, but will carry the storm surge of a larger storm.

    I’m sure there will be AGW/Gonu connections drawn, but the fact is that globally 2007 has been slightly below-normal on storms so far.

  44. Posted Jun 5, 2007 at 8:30 AM | Permalink

    Mark wrote:

    The general procedure here is this. If you have a problem with someone’s science. Refute it. Either by showing where it’s false, or by showing other, real world data, that contradicts the science.

    [Steve- snip- "horoscope", like astrology, is now a banned word here. ]

  45. David Smith
    Posted Jun 5, 2007 at 9:08 AM | Permalink

    Re #43 Sorry for this weather-not-climate interruption, but Gonu may develop into a tragic event, as it appears to be closer to Oman than forecast. This will bring considerable rain and storm surge into areas that have no history of large amounts of water, including villages situated in dry river beds. Gonu is weakening but not fast enough. It needs to veer north, and very soon.

  46. Stan Palmer
    Posted Jun 5, 2007 at 9:11 AM | Permalink

    http://women.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/women/the_way_we_live/article1875538.ece

    Al Gore demonstrates his deep knowedge of engineering.

  47. jae
    Posted Jun 5, 2007 at 9:38 AM | Permalink

    46: I like this part in your link.

    Matt Bellamy, front man of the rock band Muse, labelled it “private jets for climate change”.

  48. Denial psychologist
    Posted Jun 5, 2007 at 9:39 AM | Permalink

    It seems to me that the onus is on Mr.
    McIntyre to keep his blog fruit-loop free, given its larger purpose.

    But of course, without the fruit-loops, the whole psychology behind GW denial wouldn’t be worth observing.

    Keep ‘em, I say.

  49. Jon
    Posted Jun 5, 2007 at 9:53 AM | Permalink

    They must be. Often the filters are rather long, 40 years or so, and a 20 year shift that resulted would be readily apparent in the plots if they didn’t adjust for it.

    Not always. Smaller filters are used, and I’ve seen a lot of misalignment of peaks and troughs which is exactly what you’d expect… ::shrugs::

    I still want to hear from people who’ve been recreating published graphs.

  50. Mark T.
    Posted Jun 5, 2007 at 10:17 AM | Permalink

    Not always. Smaller filters are used, and I’ve seen a lot of misalignment of peaks and troughs which is exactly what you’d expect… ::shrugs::

    Yes, I agree, sometimes they use smaller filters and misalignment, though small, can be apparent. The use of filtfilt solves that, but creates all manner of other issues that have been discussed.

    I’ve given some thought to the causal/acausal filter argument w.r.t. comm systems, btw, and I’ll probably post in an appropriate thread at some point.

    Mark

  51. Steve McIntyre
    Posted Jun 5, 2007 at 10:27 AM | Permalink

    I can’t access http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/paleo.html or http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov right now. Does anyone else have this problem?

  52. Posted Jun 5, 2007 at 10:31 AM | Permalink

    I can access them both, but they are both very slow.

  53. Steve Sadlov
    Posted Jun 5, 2007 at 10:48 AM | Permalink

    Weather not climate, but an interesting data point. Over the past few years, we seem to be experiencing various flavors of the Siberia Express (e.g. north to south flow, bringing unseasonable cold and possibly, wet conditions, to places in its path). Last year and the year before, the Express had a bead on California. We had cold springs which maintained “early spring” type conditions until the Solstice. We experienced multiple late season low elevation snow events. This year, the Express has mostly aimed further East, Coloradans can testify to this. However, for short periods, the Express has resumed its more Western mode. We can blame / thank it for a series of low elevation snow events – and when it morphed for a few weeks into the Mackenzie Express, for our severe freeze during January and early February. It’s back again, for a couple of days:

    “FXUS66 KMTR 051545
    AFDMTR

    AREA FORECAST DISCUSSION
    NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE SAN FRANCISCO CA
    845 AM PDT TUE JUN 5 2007

    .DISCUSSION…A DEEP TROUGH (ESPECIALLY FOR JUNE) OFF THE COAST
    CONTINUES TO BECOME NEGATIVELY TILTED AS IT MOVES TO THE COAST. A JET
    STREAK NOTED ON WATER VAPOR IMAGERY IS ENHANCING A FRONTAL BAND NOW
    OVER THE SFO BAY AREA. AS THE BAND MOVES SOUTH TO THE MONTEREY BAY
    AREA…AND WITH THE CONTINUATION OF THE NW UPSLOPE FLOW…THERE COULD
    STILL BE A FEW SHOWERS THIS MORNING. IN FACT…THERE WAS MEASURABLE
    RAIN SOUTH OF SAN FRANCISCO LAST NIGHT WITH LA HONDA RECORDING 0.07
    INCHES AND MONTEREY AND SALINAS RECORDING A FEW HUNDREDTHS OF RAIN.
    WILL BE UPDATING THE FORECAST FOR THIS POSSIBILITY. WILL ALSO TAKEOUT
    THE MENTION OF FOG IN THE FORECAST…SINCE THERE IS NO MARINE
    LAYER…AND ANY LOW CLOUDS WOULD BE SYNOPTIC DRIVEN. THE GRADIENT
    PICTURE INDC A STRONG ONSHORE FLOW WITH SFO-SAC NOW AT 3.0 MB.

    “TEMPS WILL REMAIN COOL TODAY INLAND WITH THE COLD AIR ALOFT MOVING
    OVER THE DISTRICT. IN FACT…TEMPS WILL BE FAIRLY HOMOGENEOUS
    TODAY…MORE IN LINE WITH EARLY SPRING.”

    =====================================================================

    In my mind’s eye, I view the generally crummy springs we’ve had in California as indicators of a sort. We had warmer, earlier springs, during the 70s and 80s. The early 90s were a mixed bag. The late 90s to present have been a bum steer. ENSO and PDO likely factor into it. But is there something with an even longer wavelength?

  54. Steve Sadlov
    Posted Jun 5, 2007 at 11:58 AM | Permalink

    More on today’s Express … from Reno:

    “ANOTHER CHANGE WE WILL EXPERIENCE WITH THIS SYSTEM WILL BE THE
    POSSIBILITY OF LIGHT SNOW MAINLY IN THE SIERRA. THE NAM HAS 700 MB
    TEMPERATURES OF -10 C OVER THE NRN SIERRA BY 18Z WEDNESDAY WITH
    TEMPS AS COLD AS -8 C OVER THE TAHOE BASIN. THESE COLD TEMPERATURES
    WOULD BRING SNOW LEVELS DOWN TO BELOW LAKE LEVEL AT TAHOE. THE GFS
    HAS 700 MB TEMPS A COUPLE OF DEGREES WARMER THAN THE NAM BUT WOULD
    STILL BRING SNOW LEVELS DOWN TO LAKE LEVEL TO AROUND 6000 FT. A
    LIGHT DUSTING OF SNOW IS POSSIBLE WEDNESDAY MORNING IN THE NRN
    SIERRA SOUTH TO TAHOE. IN WRN NEVADA FLURRIES ARE POSSIBLE WED
    MORNING BUT SHOULD NOT POSE ANY PROBLEMS OTHERWISE. JUST A REMINDER
    TO US OF WHAT CAN OCCUR WHEN SUCH AN UNSEASONABLY COLD SYSTEM MOVES
    THROUGH THE AREA.”

  55. jae
    Posted Jun 5, 2007 at 12:24 PM | Permalink

    54, Steve S: Yeah, here in SW Oregon, we had summer (90s) two days ago; now we are back to the low 60s. It’s just probably all that “whipsawing” of climate that Hansen talks about. Damn CO2.

  56. Steve McIntyre
    Posted Jun 5, 2007 at 12:30 PM | Permalink

    It’s very cold in Toronto today. It may go below freezing tonight. I was joking to someone about the Al Gore effect as being the cause of the cold spring. Gore had visited Toronto twice earlier in the year, and each time, cold weather followed soon after. We had a near-record length of time below zero in February. We’d been having pleasant weather for a couple of weeks though prior to this newest cold snap. We thought that maybe Schwarzenegger’s visit was to blame. However, the real explanation was in the newspapers: Gore is in Toronto for the third time this year, once again bringing Arctic air with him.

  57. Jonathan Schafer
    Posted Jun 5, 2007 at 12:33 PM | Permalink

    #53,

    Steve, I wonder if that eastern push to the Siberian Express has been partially responsible for the unusually wet spring we’ve had here in TX. I’ve lived here for 10 years and never experienced a spring like this. Tremendous rainfall and few days into the 90′s and here it is early June. Of course, we are coming off an extremly serious drought in N Central TX over the past 2 years, so I’m extremely happy with all the rain, filling up the lakes and reserviors.

    With the end of El Nino and the beginning of La Nina, I had expected this spring to be warm and dry, followed by an extremely hot and dry summer. This now appears not to be the case. In fact, several long term forecasts for TX indicate above average precip and normal temps. Having lived through a number of extremely hot summers here (temps up to 112 in 98), I look forward to having a normal summer and actually getting some summer precip (although remains to be seen). The big question right now is whether the Mexican plume will settle over us for an extended period of time this summer as it has in years past, or whether it will periodically retrograde allowing clouds/rain chances to increase during those times.

  58. Steve Sadlov
    Posted Jun 5, 2007 at 12:38 PM | Permalink

    RE: #57 – Undoubtedly, the repeated cold pools reaching Texas have yielded the prolific rain you have experienced. Just about every one of them has started out in the Pac NW then made a right turn at the Rockies.

  59. Steve Sadlov
    Posted Jun 5, 2007 at 12:40 PM | Permalink

    RE: #56 – In the Great Lakes region, there have been many cold fronts coming straight down from Hudson Bay. I’ve noticed lots of persistent deep cold lows over the Bay as well. Some of these fronts are coming down so straight to the South that at their Western ends they are actually moving toward the SSW. There, they are running into the Express. Ergo, the soggy plains.

  60. Matthew Drabik
    Posted Jun 5, 2007 at 2:05 PM | Permalink

    Steve M,

    Yesterday I was listening to the radio and heard the DJ talk about AIT and how impressed he was and how he searched the internet for an objective confirmation of Al Gore’s message. His search for objectivity lead to the recent IPCC SPM. Needless to say, I was gobsmacked. Nearly hit another car from laughing so hard.

    Anyway, I wrote the DJ a polite email about the IPCC’s bias and suggested he check out RC and CA to get the two sides to the story. Today, the DJ updated his webpage and posted RC and CA together.

    http://www.idigbig.com/pages/struber.html

    I almost feel bad about the hell he is likely to catch from the true believers.

  61. Matthew Drabik
    Posted Jun 5, 2007 at 2:13 PM | Permalink

    #53

    Steve S,

    Since climate is weather averaged over 30 years, I believe you made climate observation. Disclaimer was unneeded.

  62. Posted Jun 5, 2007 at 2:50 PM | Permalink

    # 351

    To express question from Gerald Machnee in thread # 11:

    We’ve detected a weak penetration of solar radiation at 70 m deep in oceans around 1.7 eV (some 2.724 x 10^-19 W). I think our measurement is correct, although it is open to be tested because it was not the objective of our research.

  63. JP
    Posted Jun 5, 2007 at 3:10 PM | Permalink

    #59

  64. Bill F
    Posted Jun 5, 2007 at 4:33 PM | Permalink

    Jonathan,

    The rainfall totals in central and south Texas this year from Jan to Jun 1st were among the top 5 wettest periods since records have been collected. In Austin they haven’t had a first 5 months this wet since 1965 and Del Rio hasn’t been this wet in the 1st 5 months since 1957. And just for Steve S and his PDO shift theories…The max temperature in San Antonio from Jan to Jun 1st was 89 degrees. The last time San Antonio reached June without having a daytime high reach 90F? 1977.

  65. David Smith
    Posted Jun 5, 2007 at 4:58 PM | Permalink

    The May, 2007 Arctic ice extent time series is here . As indicated, this May was not the lowest, or second lowest, year. May is an important month for ice extent because of the large amount of sunshine entering the Arctic.

    The May Antarctic ice extent time series is here . The series is trendless, but the 2007 value is curious when compared to the Cryosphere Today plot ( link ). The Cryosphere chart seems to show a May, 2007 about 0.5MM km2 above the 1979-2000 average yet the NSIDC time series seems to show 2007 as below-average.

  66. David Smith
    Posted Jun 5, 2007 at 7:14 PM | Permalink

    Earlier today, someone mentioned that the surface temperature record and satellite record are now reported to be in closer agreement. That reminded me of a chart I made several months ago which showed how the two measurements compared over time. The chart, and a short writeup, are here .

    I simply find it odd that the month-to-month variation is typically small – I expected to see greater values and randomness.

  67. John Lang
    Posted Jun 5, 2007 at 7:17 PM | Permalink

    Some of the weather being experienced in Texas is probably related to the current colder than average sea surface temperatures around North America and La Nina (which looks to have strengthened again last week.)

    Sea Surface Temperature Anomalies Last Week

  68. Steve Sadlov
    Posted Jun 5, 2007 at 8:18 PM | Permalink

    RE: #65 – I consider NSIDC to be an advocay site and therefore any “data” shown there are innately suspect. Cryosphere Today, as those who’ve seen my previous posts over the past year and half, was once a site I leaned on heavily. But ever since a one two punch of repeated outright bad data and glitches (later semi corrected) and a series of Jones-esque “adjustments” of past data done a few months ago, it too has fallen greatly, in my estimation. The only descent things I’ve seen for sea ice exstent are the limited area charts done by the NWS and Navy for selected areas. Sadly, none of them are total NH or total SH. So they cannot be used for overall extent assessments.

  69. David Smith
    Posted Jun 5, 2007 at 8:38 PM | Permalink

    Pardon this weather-not-climate interruption but Cyclone Gonu took just about the worst possible path for the people of Oman. It is passing immediately along their coast ( map ) which creates storm surge and heavy mountain rains in places where those are unfamiliar. The only good news is that the cyclone weakened considerably down to around a cat 2 as it neared land.

  70. Bob Weber
    Posted Jun 5, 2007 at 9:20 PM | Permalink

    Hansen, Gore and others claim the Earth “is close to dangerous climate change, to tipping points of the system with the potential for irreversible deleterious effects.” All this due to increased CO2 due to burning fossil fuels.

    Since all this CO2 was once in the earth’s atmosphere without runaway catastrophic effects, why would projected increased levels by 2100 be a problem? Especially since we’ve only buned a fraction of the total amount of fossil fuel?

    Bob

  71. Andrey Levin
    Posted Jun 6, 2007 at 1:40 AM | Permalink

    Eugenio Hackbart, Chief Meteorologist for MetSul Weather Center, a private weather center located in Sao Leopoldo, state of Rio Grande do Sul, Southern Brazil:

    http://icecap.us/images/uploads/TheGreatSouthAmericanMayColdSpell.doc

    “May 2007 will go to history as one of the coldest starts to climatic winter ever observed in South America. A brutal cold wave brought record low temperatures, widespread frost, snow and major energy disruption. The death toll for the 10-day cold wave was the highest for any single weather event in Argentina in recent history. Authorities confirmed 34 deaths directly or indirectly linked to the polar air incursion.

    The cold snap led to electricity and natural gas shortages, idling factories and taxis and causing sporadic blackouts in Argentina, according to press reports. Millions of residents fired up space heaters, straining Buenos Aires’ electrical grid for three nights and forcing authorities to slash power supply nationwide and briefly cut domestic natural gas provisions and exports to Chile. Many factories went idle when distributors shut off or reduced gas supplies to give priority to homes. Government regulators also ordered an 800-megawatt electricity cut nationwide for four hours, which led to sporadic blackouts in the capital Buenos Aires. Grumbling taxi drivers waited for hours in lines stretching several blocks to fill up their black-and-yellow cabs with scarce compressed natural gas. The shortages also had a ripple effect in neighboring Chile, where authorities scrambled to provide energy after Argentina slashed natural gas exports.”
    “The record spell is an evidence that natural variability of the SSTs in the Pacific have a major role in South America’s Southern Cone temperature. La Nià±a conditions are historically associated with severe winters or extreme cold events. During the month of May typical La Nià±a conditions were observed in the Pacific, mainly in the Nià±o 1+2 region that has a profound repercussion in Southern Brazil temperature and rainfall regime. The last 50 years show that the most important cold spells in Southern Brazil occurred under La Nià±a conditions. The great cold waves of 1955, 1957, 1965, 1975, 1984, 1988, 1994, 1999, 2000 and 2007 all took place under La Nià±a events or cooling of the Nià±o 1+2 region.

    The same can be applied to the Pacific Decadal Oscillation. The most important cold eruptions to reach Southern Brazil during the last 60 years were observed during negative periods of the PDO as 1955, 1957, 1965, 1975 and 2000. Regarding rain regime, the most catastrophic flooding took place during periods of strong positive signal in the Equatorial accompanied by positive values of the PDO as in 1941, 1983 and 1997.

    All those historical cold events in Southern Brazil illustrated in the photos (1957, 1965, 1975, 1984, 1996 and 2006) have another aspect in common. They all took place around the 11-year Sun cycle solar minimum
    As the Sun is under the solar minimum of this cycle now in 2007 its is not a surprise this major cold spell in May here in the Southern Hemisphere. History proves that there were always extreme cold events near or at the solar minimum in the recent decades in Southern Brazil. As there is no surprise to see South Africa also facing record breaking low temperatures as well as Australia and New Zealand in 2006. Australia, by the way, was an amazing site for extreme weather events last year and one astonishing episode was the snowstorm observed during the Christmas period in the higher grounds of the country last December. The firemen that were facing brutal forest fires suddenly were whitened by snow and not ashes. As the Pacific is still in negative phase, the PDO monthly values are near zero and the Sun is under its decadal solar minimum (graphic below), more extreme cold weather events should be expected in the coming months in the Southern Hemisphere.”

    P.S. Next “unprecedented” cold snap is expected on July 7, when NBC will air 75 hours of Al Gore “Climate in Crisis” concerts.

  72. MarkW
    Posted Jun 6, 2007 at 5:17 AM | Permalink

    #70,

    If the affects of increased CO2 are irreversable, to use Hansen’s own words, how the heck did the earth ever recover from the many times in the past when CO2 was an order of magnitude and more higher than it is today?

  73. ALLAN AMES
    Posted Jun 6, 2007 at 7:04 AM | Permalink

    Is the whole AGW concept a modeling error? What am I missing about CO2 heat absorption?

    Could I get some help from Steve and Climate Audit bloggers? (I think this post is in the spirit of auditing the work of climate models.)

    Many threads ago jae was wondering about the magnitude of the effect on temperature of doubling CO2, and I felt the need to undertake a calculation for myself. Under the AGW model, the first step is for CO2 to block heat radiation. I therefore asked myself, what is the loss in transmission due to CO2. Eventually I was forced to the HITRAN data base, and found there that the transmittance of CO2 is a set of narrow lines. The consequence of narrow lines is that the lines rapidly saturate and permit photons to pass unmolested. My first round calculation with 0.5/cm wavenumber rectangular intervals shows almost complete saturation at 70 ppmv CO2, with 45% transmission and mostly saturated at 30ppmv. (T=55%) I may be off by heaven knows how many factors, but the phenomenon of rapid saturation should follow from the narrow absorption lines, and the 45% transmission should also persist. If this result is correct, there is no AGW phenomenon.

    Are there some other broadening or interaction effects I do not understand? What do actual measurements show? (There seem to be precious few.)

  74. Jeff Norman
    Posted Jun 6, 2007 at 7:56 AM | Permalink

    Re:#71 Andrey Levin,

    Next “unprecedented” cold snap is expected on July 7, when NBC will air 75 hours of Al Gore “Climate in Crisis” concerts.

    Very funny (I spilled my coffee). ^o^

  75. Posted Jun 6, 2007 at 8:21 AM | Permalink

    OK. I’m going to bite the astr*logy thing and risk banning.

    It seems that reliable ionosphere predictions re: short wave communications can be made by the relative positions of the Earth Mars and Jupiter.

    Not directly pertinent but interesting. Currents in space affect earth weather:

    http://www.planetary.org/news/2006/0913_Connection_Found_Between_Earth_and.html

    A cursory search did not turn up the “astr*logy” connection to the ionosphere. I believe I read the piece in Analog Magazine 20 or 30 years ago in a science fact article. I’ll report back if I find a reference.

    I found it here:

    http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=820#comment-46887

    With cites.

    CA is the best!

    Let me quote a bit from the CA comment linked above:

    J.H. Nelson received acclaim from people all over the globe – from those who are interested about what is happening in the earth’s ionosphere. The acclaim is the result of Mr. Nelson’s achievement of 85% accuracy in predicting magnetic storms affecting radio signals. In this book, long awaited by the scientific community, Mr. Nelson discusses in detail his unique method of charting planetary angles to make his predictions. J.H. Nelson became the president of RCA.”

    There is little doubt that Nelson’s methods were effective, and to this day the RCA forecasts derived by Nelson’s methods are accepted as reliable by their users, particularly airborne geophysical survey contractors and the like who are very sensitive to the impact of magnetic storms.

    An interesting test for scientists is whether they are prepared to look into Nelson’s work from a scientific viewpoint. Unlike certain other scientists, Nelson provided his data and methods, and it has turned out that they are indeed replicable. However, we can anticipate that many “scientists” will dismiss his work as “astr*logy” or similar pejorative terms, without bothering to actually look at the work.

    I’ll blog this and give a link here (or some where on this blog) when I’m done.

    Climate is much more complicated than the IPCC scientists even imagine.

  76. Posted Jun 6, 2007 at 8:45 AM | Permalink

    #56 Steve M.,

    Has any one considered that if we could get the Al Gore probability distribution (ala quantuum electrodynamics) sufficiently high around the globe, global warming could be averted?

    I suggest putting him on an aircraft and keeping him on the move. He would have to land every few hours and get out of the plane to localize the probabilty distribution and then back in the air.

  77. Posted Jun 6, 2007 at 8:48 AM | Permalink

    # 73

    Allan Ames:

    Although I’ve not revised your numbers, you’re right. AGW does not exist, only Natural Global Warming (NGW). I invite you to check this formula to calculate the equivalence of heat absorbed by any substance (CO2 for this case) to see that at a higher density of CO2 the warming decreases:

    ΔT = q/m (Cp)

    Where Δ T is the change of temperature, q is the heat absorbed, m is the volumetric mass of the substance, and Cp is the specific heat of the substance. Due to a limit in the bands of absorption of CO2, q would increase as we increase temperature (that’s the logic); however, for CO2, as we increase temperature, his absorptivity decreases. For example, at 500 R, its absorptivity is of 0.142, but, if you increase the temperature to 540 R then the absorptivity of CO2 decreases to 0.112, and at 550 R it decreases to 0.085. This phenomenon is correlated with the bands of absorption of the CO2 and of any material. Steam behaves differently.

    In the formula ΔT = q/m (Cp) the higher the mass of the substance, the lower ΔT will be:

    We have now 0.00069 Kg/m^3 of CO2 in the atmosphere. If we double the mass, that is up to 0.00138, the heat absorbed by the CO2 will decrease because of the saturation of the bands of absorption of the gas. This condition makes the CO2 has a limited absorptivity of heat, then q could remain unaltered, while m(Cp) will be a higher number.

    Assume that the heat absorbed by the current mass of CO2 is 0.0096 calories and that m(Cp) of CO2 is 0.291 (0.00069 x 421.13 cal). Dividing 0.0096 by 0.291 the change of temperature is 0.033 K. Now we will double the volumetric mass of CO2 to 0.00138 Kg/m^3. The heat absorbed must decrease by the saturation of the absorption bands, but we will concede the same value of 0.0096. We will assume the same thing for the Cp, which would increase as the density increases. The product m(Cp) is 0.5812. Now divide 0.0096 by 0.5812 and the change of temperature will be 0.017 K.

    You can calculate the change of temperature taking into account the decrease of the heat absorbed and the increase of the carbon dioxide specific heat (Cp) as the density of CO2 increases.

  78. D Walton
    Posted Jun 6, 2007 at 10:07 AM | Permalink

    76

    Could he not perform the same role through teleconectics?

  79. MarkW
    Posted Jun 6, 2007 at 10:15 AM | Permalink

    #77,

    Wouldn’t we get the same effect by just spreading him out thin enough, all over the globe?
    This method has the side benefit that we wouldn’t have to sit through any more pictures with him as the star.

  80. MarkW
    Posted Jun 6, 2007 at 10:16 AM | Permalink

    oops, that’s 76

  81. ALLAN AMES
    Posted Jun 6, 2007 at 10:29 AM | Permalink

    RE: 73 Thanks for the thoughts.

    It does seem true that vibrational ground states could depopulate and make the gas even more transparent, and I agree that Cp will go up as this happens, though I don’t know how much.

    But there are still several pieces missing, and the more I think about it the more complicated it gets, much like real science.

  82. Michael Jankowski
    Posted Jun 6, 2007 at 10:43 AM | Permalink

    Re#76, can we correlate temperature changes with his change in mass?

  83. jae
    Posted Jun 6, 2007 at 10:45 AM | Permalink

    71:

    All those historical cold events in Southern Brazil illustrated in the photos (1957, 1965, 1975, 1984, 1996 and 2006) have another aspect in common. They all took place around the 11-year Sun cycle solar minimum

    Right on!

  84. Steve Sadlov
    Posted Jun 6, 2007 at 10:53 AM | Permalink

    The Express is bringing woes:

    ============================================

    SPECIAL WEATHER STATEMENT
    NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE EUREKA CA
    611 AM PDT WED JUN 6 2007

    CAZ001>004-076-062300-
    REDWOOD COAST-MENDOCINO COAST-NORTH COAST INTERIOR-
    UPPER TRINITY RIVER-MENDOCINO INTERIOR-
    611 AM PDT WED JUN 6 2007

    …PATCHY FROST POSSIBLE INLAND THURSDAY MORNING..

    REMNANTS OF A COOL AIR MASS ACCOMPANIED BY LIGHT TO CALM WIND WILL
    ALLOW TEMPERATURES TO DROP INTO THE 30S ACROSS INTERIOR LOCATIONS
    LATE WEDNESDAY NIGHT INTO THURSDAY MORNING. THE COLDEST TEMPERATURES
    WILL OCCUR AROUND DAYBREAK THURSDAY…WITH A THREAT OF PATCHY FROST
    BETWEEN 4 AM AND 7 AM THURSDAY.

    THOSE WITH COLD SENSITIVE OUTDOOR CROPS OR PLANTS SHOULD TAKE
    NECESSARY PRECAUTIONS IN THE EVENT OF FROST FORMATION. A DEEP OR
    WIDESPREAD FREEZE IS NOT EXPECTED…BUT OCCURRENCES OF FROST IN
    EARLY JUNE CAN CREATE AGRICULTURAL DAMAGES.

    =====================================================================

    This is for the agricultural area of Mendocino County, in the “wine country” north of San Francisco. While this is clearly not a hard freeze and will not be deeply damaging like what happened earlier this year, the timing couldn’t be worse for a number of crops, especially tree fruit and truck crops around Ukiah. The one exception may be vintners.

  85. jae
    Posted Jun 6, 2007 at 10:58 AM | Permalink

    Is Gore on the West Coast?

  86. Posted Jun 6, 2007 at 11:09 AM | Permalink

    # 82

    We have to take volumetric mass because when matter absorbs heat (IR) it is converted to molecular K-P energy, from which heat is transferred by conduction (0.016742 for CO2) and convection to colder volumes of air.

  87. David Smith
    Posted Jun 6, 2007 at 11:37 AM | Permalink

    Ongoing revision of US climate history:

    1999 graphic from NOAA

    2007 graphic from NOAA

    Note how the 1930s and 1940s change relative to the 1980s and 1990s. “Adjustments” continue apace.

  88. bernie
    Posted Jun 6, 2007 at 11:53 AM | Permalink

    David:
    Intrguing charts. Are there similar charts that cover the same part of the year, so that the nature of the adjustment can be identified?

  89. Jon
    Posted Jun 6, 2007 at 12:03 PM | Permalink

    Mark writes:

    I’ve given some thought to the causal/acausal filter argument w.r.t. comm systems, btw, and I’ll probably post in an appropriate thread at some point.

    I don’t exactly agree with all the attention this causal/acausal detail is getting. It isn’t particularly interesting or relevant. The filters under discussion are simply being used to enhance the signal to the noise ratio.

    What is interesting is: the filter’s frequency response can distort the graph in misleading ways.

    I remember a picture very distinctly from one of my college textbooks. They took a grayscale image and took its 2-D fourier transform.
    1) They showed another image with the same phase data but where all the frequency components had been given the same amplitude.
    2) They showed another image with the same magnitude data but where all the phase components had been equalized.

    #1 was recognizable as the same image. #2 was not.

  90. David Smith
    Posted Jun 6, 2007 at 12:13 PM | Permalink

    Re #88 bernie, my mistake! I’m comparing apples to oranges, in that the second chart covers only January to May. I’ll get the apples-to-apples and post.

  91. Posted Jun 6, 2007 at 12:20 PM | Permalink

    Last week in the News (I don⳴ remember the Media) the IPCC (I hope these initials don’t be banned by the relationship of the panel with magic) reported that the forcing of heat by CO2 was 1.74 W/m^2. Since the thermal properties of this gas, the heat forcing given by the IPCC would correspond to 73136 ppmv of CO2 alone… Thatⳳ a great magic because the current concentration of CO2 is 381 ppmv. Could someone here explain me this?

  92. jae
    Posted Jun 6, 2007 at 12:32 PM | Permalink

    Nasif: If your calculations in #77 are correct, that’s pretty amazing. You are saying that there CANNOT be an increased greenhouse effect from CO2. Are you sure? It appears so simple that I would think the AGW experts would have thought through this.

  93. Jos Verhulst
    Posted Jun 6, 2007 at 12:39 PM | Permalink

    Here is a comment (in French) on the climateprediciton.net experiment.

    http://skyfall.free.fr/?p=139#comments

    Main observations:

    - with the CO2 concentration kept constant, a model can both remain stable or tumble into instability, in function of the parameter values that it is fed with (figures 1 and 2, resp.)
    - using parameter values inducing a stable regime, doubling of the CO2 concentration can lead to both warmer or colder climates (fig. 3 and 4)
    - focusing on the stable’ simulations, the global temperature could rise with 6°C degrees within the next 30 years, but it could also dive down by 6°C or more (figures 5 and 6).

  94. Mark T.
    Posted Jun 6, 2007 at 12:43 PM | Permalink

    I don’t exactly agree with all the attention this causal/acausal detail is getting. It isn’t particularly interesting or relevant. The filters under discussion are simply being used to enhance the signal to the noise ratio.

    That’s not what I’m talking about. From the graphical standpoint, it’s more of a matter of opinion of appropriateness, rather than some fundamental problem with the method. I’m only marginally concerned here, and even then, some of the other viewpoints that have been expressed have convinced me that it is not that big of a deal.

    The biggest causality problem I’ve found is that contained within Mann’s code (for the RM2006 paper) is the use of filtfilt with a 10-point Butterworth IIR (I’d have to check to verify the actual filter) in the actual data processing routines. I.e., not for grapical representation. The concern is what happens in correlation processing routines (which component analysis ultimately becomes) when you’ve pre-correlated “future” data points with the current. Do end-points begin to dominate? I don’t have time at the moment to dig into it (though I will, in 10 months). He also takes the mean of his set of proxy vectors by mean(mean(X)). I.e., rather than subtracting a vector of means, one for each proxy, from the set, he finds the mean of the vector of means and uses that. But that’s another issue.

    What is interesting is: the filter’s frequency response can distort the graph in misleading ways.

    Yes. Gerald Browning and I had a discussion a while back regarding what it actually means to filter signals that are not truly representable in a Fourier sense. What happens? I’m not sure I have an answer.

    Mark

  95. jae
    Posted Jun 6, 2007 at 12:56 PM | Permalink

    The head of NASA has changed his tune.

  96. Steve Milesworthy
    Posted Jun 6, 2007 at 1:00 PM | Permalink

    #73
    The model I’m familiar with uses data from the HITRAN database.

    As I understand it, the CO2 bands in upper air are much narrower because it is colder and because pressure is lower. This means the effect of the partially saturated side bands is proportionally bigger. Furthermore, upper air is drier, so the CO2 absorption is less swamped by the overlap with water vapour.

    Simplifying a lot, radiation from well-saturated infrared bands will not escape the earth unless emitted from a particular height in the atmosphere. Add more greenhouse gas, and this height increases slightly. But the higher level is colder, and therefore radiates less energy. To get back into radiation balance, the earth needs to warm up enough to warm that slightly higher and colder layer to the same temperature as the previous layer.

  97. ALLAN AMES
    Posted Jun 6, 2007 at 1:40 PM | Permalink

    jae (92)
    How about Global Cooling?

    Nasif is saying there is no CO2 effect. Unless someone can show me how a continuum IR absorption develops as it does from water polymers, and not just broadening, I think it is true that there is no CO2 “radiative forcing”. For SM (95) so long as the absorption lines are discrete, there will be holes in the IR spectrum, and the radiative coupling will be diminished (to zero) beyond just a simple albedo effect. There is no way for the CO2 to interact with the radiation field. But CO2 could be excited by collisions, and radiate heat, thereby enhancing cooling.

    Has anyone EXPERIMENTALLY demonstrated increased heat absorption with
    increasing CO2 in a relevant range of quantities? I bet they have not.

  98. ALLAN AMES
    Posted Jun 6, 2007 at 1:50 PM | Permalink

    RE 91 Nasif

    I would very much to know how the IPCC generates its numbers. When I want to achieve a particular outcome I insert a line in the code that makes the output what I want it to be. It is much easier if you write the programs, and impossible to detect if you have enough lines of code to obscure what is really going on. (Do you detect that I distrust computer models that I cannot interact with?)

  99. Steve Sadlov
    Posted Jun 6, 2007 at 2:35 PM | Permalink

    RE: #96 – To do the experiment right you’d have to, as one among many rules, somehow have descreasing density toward the top of the test chamber. At the first approximation, it’s a well mixed gas within a spheroidal-shell-shaped volume enclosing an IR radiating “grey body” sphere responding to diurnal ingress of the full solar spectrum. But in reality, the spheroidal shell has pressure of all its contained gasses decreasing with radius including CO2. Also, in reality, at any particular instant, the CO2 is not really well mixed, and is, instead, of a highly complex distribution of concentration as a result of highly uneven distribution and output of sources. Further complicating things is the fact that the weather and stratification within the troposphere can result in the two extremes of inversion trapped CO2 and rapidly dispersed CO2. It would be one heck of an experiment to really look at CO2′s interactions with IR in an atmospherically meaningly experimental design.

  100. Steve Sadlov
    Posted Jun 6, 2007 at 2:36 PM | Permalink

    Sorry, make that a grey body spheroid, not a true sphere.

  101. jae
    Posted Jun 6, 2007 at 3:10 PM | Permalink

    96, 98: Why couldn’t you simply evacuate a chamber and introduce known amounts of CO2, heat the chamber with an IR source (inside the chamber), and study the effects of CO2 concentration on equilibrium temperature? If the CO2 is absorbing and re-emitting energy, the amount of IR (temperature) in the chamber should increase with increasing CO2 concentration. I don’t see why you need to replicate Earth to study whether CO2 exerts a greenhouse effect at various concentrations. (There’s probably some elementary thing wrong with my logic here, since it’s too simple).

  102. richardT
    Posted Jun 6, 2007 at 3:17 PM | Permalink

    #72

    If the affects of increased CO2 are irreversable, to use Hansen’s own words, how the heck did the earth ever recover from the many times in the past when CO2 was an order of magnitude and more higher than it is today?

    The effects are fully reversible, wait a few hundred thousand years and everything will return to an equilibrium. But these long timescales are not exactly relevant for policy formulation. Over the next decades to centuries, relevant timescales for policy, the effect are irreversible.

  103. richardT
    Posted Jun 6, 2007 at 3:30 PM | Permalink

    #99
    And don’t forget to account for the turbulence caused by butterflies.

  104. Posted Jun 6, 2007 at 4:15 PM | Permalink

    re 97:
    Has anyone EXPERIMENTALLY demonstrated increased heat absorption with
    increasing CO2 in a relevant range of quantities? I bet they have not.

    John Tyndall, 1872, Contributions to Molecular Physics in the Domain of Radiant Heat. A Series of Memoirs published in the ‘Philosophical Transactions’ and ‘Philosophical Magazine,’ with Additions. London: Longmans Green and Co, p1-65

  105. jae
    Posted Jun 6, 2007 at 4:21 PM | Permalink

    102: Could you tell me just what types of policies are going to make any difference, anyway? Especially if China and India do not have similar policies. Do you think we can cut CO2 emissions enough to do any good and still have a decent standard of living? And can you tell me why C02 emissions FOLLOWED temperature changes by about 800 years in the past? And can you explain what caused the Roman Warm Period, Medieval Warm Period, Little Ice Age, Holocene Maximum, etc.? And why it did not take “a few hundred thousand years” to “recover” from these pertubations?

  106. Ken Fritsch
    Posted Jun 6, 2007 at 5:16 PM | Permalink

    Re: #101

    96, 98: Why couldn’t you simply evacuate a chamber and introduce known amounts of CO2, heat the chamber with an IR source (inside the chamber), and study the effects of CO2 concentration on equilibrium temperature? If the CO2 is absorbing and re-emitting energy, the amount of IR (temperature) in the chamber should increase with increasing CO2 concentration. I don’t see why you need to replicate Earth to study whether CO2 exerts a greenhouse effect at various concentrations. (There’s probably some elementary thing wrong with my logic here, since it’s too simple).

    As a former practicing chemist, I have thought about this situation over time also. I am sure that the absorption and emission coefficients of all the components of the atmoshere have been measured under laboratory condition (and not determined by solving the quantum mechanic wave equations as someone implied at this blog a while back). I would think, however, the problem lies with all the potential sources of radiations and re-radiations, i.e. the spectrum, and than having several absorbing species “competing” to absorb the radiation. Not only that but the fact that the absorption and radiation change over time and space and with concentrations of species leads to some real complications, although, I do not see why these different conditions could not be laboratory replicated.

    I would like to see someone give a simplified discussion of the all these complications — and preferably not a GCM model builder.

    As a young working chemist, I once attempted to simultaneously determine the concentrations of several dyes in solution by selecting the appropriate absorption bands and calculating the concentrations by solving several simultaneous equations. I attempted it using an IBM computer with 8K worth of memory (and punch cards, of course) and quickly found the folly of my ways.

    To really date myself, I can remember using NaCl blocks to hold samples for IR absorption measurement after mulling solid samples in oil that did not absorb in the wave numbers of interest. We also periodically had to polish the NaCl blocks with mineral oil and an abrasive material. Is anyone else here old enough to remember these things?

  107. jae
    Posted Jun 6, 2007 at 5:19 PM | Permalink

    Is anyone else here old enough to remember these things?

    Yes.

  108. Steve Milesworthy
    Posted Jun 6, 2007 at 5:27 PM | Permalink

    #70 #102
    1.5-4.5C warming this century does not count as a “runaway” effect – don’t think any scientists are predicting Venus conditions till the year 1 billion AD.

    The few hundred thousand years presumably relates to the time it takes for evolution to re-evolve a new set of diverse animals (or the time to wash out the CO2?). Arguably the earth is only now recovering from the Holocene maximum and the following few thousand years of stable warm climate – it allowed us to build civilisations, and now we’re getting rid of ourselves :-)

  109. Steve Sadlov
    Posted Jun 6, 2007 at 5:30 PM | Permalink

    I vaguely recall this issue with an FTIR system we had at one of me earlier employers.

  110. Steve Sadlov
    Posted Jun 6, 2007 at 5:33 PM | Permalink

    RE: #108 – Yes, this belief that we are able to overcome the innate cyclic interglacial-glacial with 500 or so PPM CO2 is what drives the intense passion of the AGWers. But what if you’re wrong? What if we won’t overcome it, and, the biggest thing we have to worry about is the return of the glacial? Or even, for that matter, another LIA. Which would kill more people, another MWP (or even a super MWP) or another LIA?

  111. Steve McIntyre
    Posted Jun 6, 2007 at 5:55 PM | Permalink

    #96.

    Simplifying a lot, radiation from well-saturated infrared bands will not escape the earth unless emitted from a particular height in the atmosphere. Add more greenhouse gas, and this height increases slightly. But the higher level is colder, and therefore radiates less energy. To get back into radiation balance, the earth needs to warm up enough to warm that slightly higher and colder layer to the same temperature as the previous layer.

    This is a reasonable summary of Houghton’s exposition of how AGW works. One of the remarkable defects of the four IPCC reports is that they lack any exposition of the basic infrared. I suggested to Mike MacCracken that the present AR include such an exposition long before the structure was set in stone, but they didn’t bother. There is no exposition in any of the IPCC reports of this sort of “elementary” issue, of great interest to anyone trying to educate themselves.

    One issue that bothers me about the higher-the colder argument (and I’ll think about putting up a thread for this) is that in the stratosphere, it gets warmer with height and much of the CO2 emission to space in the “big bands” is at the tropopause or stratosphere so that the the higher-the colder argument doesn’t apply to this portion.

    Another thing that I don’t understand is: what if there was warming in the upper atmosphere so that it kept pace with increasing altitude of CO2 radiation to space. That’s mathematically possible, although I don’t know about the physics. If that happened, why couldn’t one have a situation where the effect of additional CO2 was substantially contained to changes at altitude – real enough changes, but not necessarily consequential. They argue that the lapse rate is inflexible, something that relates also to water vapor feedbacks. An article was suggested in a thread a while back by a young prof from Arizona who was involved with the Mass-EPA case and maybe someone can refresh this thread with that reference.

  112. Richard Sharpe
    Posted Jun 6, 2007 at 7:58 PM | Permalink

    Steve Milesworthy, #108 says:

    The few hundred thousand years presumably relates to the time it takes for evolution to re-evolve a new set of diverse animals (or the time to wash out the CO2?). Arguably the earth is only now recovering from the Holocene maximum and the following few thousand years of stable warm climate – it allowed us to build civilisations, and now we’re getting rid of ourselves :-)

    It is my understanding that this is wrong. The Holocene Optimum was a good time for most homo sapiens bands and there was no need for them to develop civilizations to survive.

    It was the problems caused when things went bad after the Holocene Optimum that tipped us towards developing civilization.

  113. Posted Jun 6, 2007 at 8:13 PM | Permalink

    # 111

    Steve McIntyre,

    If that happened, why couldn’t one have a situation where the effect of additional CO2 was substantially contained to changes at altitude – real enough changes, but not necessarily consequential.

    There is another problem with altitude: As we diminish the pressure, the emissivity of CO2 also diminishes, but logarithmically. This could interfere with the transfer of heat to the layers of the upper atmosphere. I think this is the reason by which the middle and upper troposphere are colder than the lower troposphere.

    # 92

    Jae,

    The simple and straight things make the calculi appallingly correct. I’m sure the IPCC experts know all about this, but I think that they cannot disclose it because the AGW irrefutable hypothesis would collapse for ever. The value 73136 ppmv makes a 6.7%, which fits more with the atmospheric concentration of steam at a given time, when the surface of oceans gets warmer or when there is mist over a certain area, than to the tropospheric CO2 density.

    I know that the algorithm is pretty simple, but I posted it here (the algorithm) for you can test it. You’ll find that it is awfully correct.

    # 98

    Allan Ames

    Me either. I also trust in facts.

  114. Stan Palmer
    Posted Jun 6, 2007 at 10:13 PM | Permalink

    Global warming causes fewer hurricanes — Swedish paper reported in The Times

    http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article1896266.ece

  115. Posted Jun 6, 2007 at 10:55 PM | Permalink

    # 70

    Bob Weber,

    I agree. There were times in the past of Earth when the tropospheric CO2 was > 2050 ppmv, for example, in the Permian (some 290 million years ago) and in the Paleocene (about 65 million years ago). In the Eocene, 50 million years ago, the density of CO2 was over 3000 ppmv, and we were already on Earth, but without oil, fire, cars, etc.

  116. SidViscous
    Posted Jun 7, 2007 at 12:27 AM | Permalink

    #66

    David. Your graph obviously has the surface temperatures for 2000-2006. Do you have a chart that adds that to the tail of the 20th century temperatures. I’ve not seen a surface temp graph that extends past 2000.

    Thanks

  117. DeWitt Payne
    Posted Jun 7, 2007 at 3:09 AM | Permalink

    #111

    If RC really wanted to do something useful to educate rather than proselytize the masses, they would construct a general FAQ on Physical Meteorology and Climatology. There was a really good FAQ for the USENET newsgroup discussing Robert Jordan’s Wheel of Time series that could provide a model of how to do it right. You could hyperlink each chapter with more detail and math so it would be possible for anyone to gain something. Where the understanding is poor, all sides should be represented with their best arguments. I’m not holding my breath waiting for this to happen.

    As far as the temperature of the stratosphere, my current understanding is that at the tropopause upwelling longwave radiation essentialy decouples and is no longer absorbed because of the low concentration of absorbers at that altitude and above. There is also no significant convection so the lower stratosphere is isothermal. The upper stratosphere warms with altitude because of absorption of shortwave UV by oxygen and ozone, I think.

    I’m also entirely unconvinced that the lapse rate is constant under all scenarios. If it were, then the upper troposphere couldn’t possibly warm faster than the surface and lower troposphere. It also isn’t constant with latitude because humidity has a major effect on lapse rate.

  118. John Baltutis
    Posted Jun 7, 2007 at 3:23 AM | Permalink

    Just noted this at JunkScience:

    UK Scientists Change Weather Measures, World Warms

    Wherein, climate scientist Richard Graham stated:

    For the first time, weather scientists are generating a new 30-year average, calculated using 15 years of historic data and 15 years of predicted future temperatures

    And, in 2012, 100% model outputs.

    I.e., 50% questionable measurements and 50% model outputs. Now, they’re half-way there. In 2010, I predict that they’ll use 25% so-called historical data and 75% model outputs.

  119. John Baltutis
    Posted Jun 7, 2007 at 3:26 AM | Permalink

    Ooops! #118 Cut & Paste error.

    That should read

    I.e., 50% questionable measurements and 50% model outputs. Now, they’re half-way there. In 2010, I predict that they’ll use 25% so-called historical data and 75% model outputs. And, in 2012, 100% model outputs.

  120. Steve Milesworthy
    Posted Jun 7, 2007 at 3:56 AM | Permalink

    #117

    In Soden and Held’s 2006 survey of climate models, most of the models show the lapse rate changing essentially to produce a negative feedback on surface temperature changes. Isn’t that why there is an issue with comparison with satellites?

    http://ams.allenpress.com/perlserv/?request=get-abstract&doi=10.1175%2FJCLI3799.1

  121. S. Hales
    Posted Jun 7, 2007 at 4:17 AM | Permalink

    #118 Just wondering how that article would read if you substituted economists for climatologists. :)

    #117 The troposphere warms by convection and conduction the stratosphere warms by conduction except the lapse rate is inverse to the troposphere. The tropopause is the point of thermal equilibrium between the two and seems that this point would vary in height given a change in the GWP of the atmosphere as would the lapse rate by definition. A constant lapse rate seems unlikely to me.

  122. David Smith
    Posted Jun 7, 2007 at 5:09 AM | Permalink

    Re #116 Sid, I use Steven Milloy’s webage ( here ) for up to date temperature information. Most of the links go to the digital data.

    May, 2007 satellite-derived measurements from UAH are in, and show ongoing cooling since the El Nino peak back in January. La Nina is expected to start soon ( next one to three months) which would further crank down the global temp.

  123. MarkW
    Posted Jun 7, 2007 at 5:28 AM | Permalink

    #95,

    Read the article, not just the headline. The head of NASA has apologized for the furor he caused, but he hasn’t changed his opinnion.

  124. MarkW
    Posted Jun 7, 2007 at 5:30 AM | Permalink

    If the width of the IR band shrinks as pressure and temperature decrease, wouldn’t that also decrease the total amount of energy that CO2 is capable of blocking?

  125. MarkW
    Posted Jun 7, 2007 at 5:33 AM | Permalink

    It takes hundreds of thousands of years for effects to reverse? Why has this particular rule never been invoked before?
    It only took a few decades for the warming of the MWP to reverse. Other warming periods in the past have also reversed themselves much more quickly.

    I also notice that it is very permissable for AGW proponents to say things that are grossly innaccurate, but designed to scare. But AGW critics have to be spot on perfect in everything they say, otherwise they are to be ignored.

  126. DeWitt Payne
    Posted Jun 7, 2007 at 5:38 AM | Permalink

    #120, 121

    In my understanding, the structure of the troposphere beyond the mixed boundary layer is determined on average by the thermodynamics of adiabatic (no heat lost to or gained from the surroundings because the thermal conductivity of air is pretty low) expansion. In dry air, this lapse rate is constant with altitude with a value of about -10 C/km. In this case, potential temperature, the temperature of a packet of air returned from a given altitude adiabatically to the surface, is constant. Add water and the lapse rate decreases and varies with altitude until the water vapor content decreases to a negligeable value because enthalpy is controlled by the water content which decreases with actual temperature not potential temperature. The potential temperature along a moist adiabat remains constant if the condensed water doesn’t fall to the ground. Also at high specific humidity it takes more energy to increase the temperature because the heat capacity of water vapor is much higher than dry air. A decrease in lapse rate with temperature would make the temperature increase more rapidly with altitude in the troposphere rather. This should be more obvious in the tropics because the temperature and humidity are higher. Possible explanations for why this isn’t being observed are errors in the temperature measurement of the troposphere, at the surface and decrease in relative humidity or some combination.

    What bothers me about the Held and Soden paper (well the abstract, haven’t read the whole paper) is that all the models surveyed had clouds as positive feedback elements.

  127. Steve Milesworthy
    Posted Jun 7, 2007 at 6:14 AM | Permalink

    #124

    What is relevant is not the amount of absorption, but the change in the amount of absorption.

    Broadened overlapping bands that are fully saturated will be proportionately less affected by an increase in concentration than narrow, none-overlapping bands. The centre of the narrow band will be fully saturated, but the sides of the band will not be. Double the amount of the gas, and these side-bands become more saturated. The narrower the saturated part, the more important the side band is.

    I’ve found out that GCM schemes are parameterised due to computation cost. But they are validated against more precise formulations.

    I would also like to find a high-level description of all of this.

  128. MarkW
    Posted Jun 7, 2007 at 6:19 AM | Permalink

    If the total amount possible is less, then the total change possible is also less.

    If the GCM’s have been validated against formulas, why do they do such a tremendously bad job of predicting past climate?

  129. Spence_UK
    Posted Jun 7, 2007 at 7:10 AM | Permalink

    Re #114

    I came across this as well, looks interesting. It doesn’t say global warming will result in fewer hurricanes though! They say nothing on this topic, but what they do say is that the recent hurricane activity in the atlantic basin is pretty ordinary in historical terms. The paper is in Nature (here) and has not received a great deal of press attention (no surprise there then). I haven’t read the original paper because I don’t have a nature sub.

    Given the discussion of Curry, Webster etc. on this site it might be interesting to have a post on this at some point, Steve? If it does get any traction amongst sceptics, I wonder how quickly the RealClimate folks et al will embrace auditing?

  130. Steve Milesworthy
    Posted Jun 7, 2007 at 7:26 AM | Permalink

    #128
    Yes, but it’s the proportional change, not the total change that is relevant.

    If 99.9% of photons over a particular broad absorption line are absorbed in a given distance at sea-level, a doubling of GHG makes little difference (it increases to 99.9999%). Higher up in the atmosphere, if this line occupies, say, only 10% of the band then only 10% of the spectrum is fully absorbed in a given distance. Say the other 90% of the spectrum has a 50% chance of being absorbed by the side-bands of the line – then a total of 55% of photons are absorbed. If you double the amount of gas, then 75% of these “sideband” photons are absorbed (or a total of 77.5).

    I should have said that I’ve found out that GCM radiation schemes are parameterised due to computation cost. But even a perfect GCM will not simulate paleo-climates perfectly, because the initial state (ocean currents, ice cover, plant distribution etc) isn’t known sufficiently accurately.

  131. Steve Milesworthy
    Posted Jun 7, 2007 at 7:41 AM | Permalink

    “Coral luminescence” is used as a proxy for vertical wind sheer |Vz|

    luminescence intensity in corals reflects the degree of terrestrial runoff, which is controlled by the amount of precipitation. Decreased precipitation in the northeastern Caribbean during the hurricane season is associated with increased trade-wind speed and high |Vz| over the MDR [Main Development Region]

    Summary is:

    Our results suggest that the frequency of major hurricanes since 1995 is not unusual, indicating that increases in SST during the past 270 years have been offset by increased |Vz|, which suppresses major hurricanes. A more rapid warming of the atmosphere relative to the ocean could have caused the anomalous calm period between the 1970s and 1990s. Air temperatures near the level of the trade-wind inversion (1.5 km) as well as 10 m air temperatures during the past 50 and 100 years, respectively, averaged over the Caribbean (see Supplementary Information), have risen faster than SSTs, indicating an enhanced stability of the lower atmosphere and a strengthening of the trade-wind inversion that reduces the influence of thermodynamic energy from a warmer ocean. This physical mechanism leads to enhanced subsidence, trade-wind strength and |Vz| in the MDR. The reconstructed |Vz| series may indicate that this trend has occurred over a longer period.

    The future possibility of lower |Vz| combined with increased SSTs in the MDR (Figs 3 and 4) may result in longer storm lifetimes and more moist enthalpy to power developing tropical cyclones, causing higher hurricane frequencies and greater storm intensities.

  132. DeWitt Payne
    Posted Jun 7, 2007 at 7:50 AM | Permalink

    #130

    I think increasing ghg concentration near the surface may still make a difference in the temperature gradient even if the band is saturated because what causes greenhouse warming, I think, is the delay in how long it takes long wave IR to exit to space based on how many times it’s absorbed and emitted before it escapes. If there’s no absorption, there’s no greenhouse because an IR photon emitted at the surface escapes directly to space. If it’s absorbed and not immediately re-emitted, the absorber gains energy which is transmitted by collision to the local atmosphere until the temperature is high enough that the absorbers radiate sufficiently through collisional excitation to balance incoming with outgoing energy. Higher ghg concentration should reduce an IR photon’s mean free path even if the bands are saturated, I think.

    I do remember a post with a link to an article about radiation codes in some models being off by as much as 60 W/sq.m., yet still producing temperature data that looked correct. Shows what tuning can accomplish.

  133. Bob Meyer
    Posted Jun 7, 2007 at 8:08 AM | Permalink

    Re: 125

    Mark W said:

    It takes hundreds of thousands of years for effects to reverse? Why has this particular rule never been invoked before?
    It only took a few decades for the warming of the MWP to reverse. Other warming periods in the past have also reversed themselves much more quickly.

    It seems that the AGW advocates have picked up on the “tipping point” idea. It goes “We have but a few moments left to act then we reach the point of no return when the planet becomes an inferno that will boil the blood in your veins”. It’s kind of like the 2:OO AM infomercial that says “act now, supplies are limited and you may never see this low price again” combined with a little “fire and brimstone” eschatology. The “tipping point” is just part of the AGW sales pitch.

    Is there any science behind it? I find it hard to believe that such a point could exist and yet we haven’t reached it before due to natural variations in temperature.

    Re: 56 Steve – Al Gore could give a whole new meaning to the phrase “The Iceman Cometh”.

  134. Jan Pompe
    Posted Jun 7, 2007 at 8:21 AM | Permalink

    #101 jae

    CERN is build CLOUD

    http://public.web.cern.ch/public/Content/Chapters/Spotlight/SpotlightCloud-en.html

    should be interesting.

    I want one.

  135. Posted Jun 7, 2007 at 9:45 AM | Permalink

    # 132

    DeWitt Payne,

    Then, how could we explain that the middle and upper tropospheric layers are colder than the lower layer? CO2, the main greenhouse gas has a capability to retain or store only 0.0051 W; however, the energy that causes the change of temperature of the lower tropospheric layer is almost 19 W. Obviously, the cause is not the dry air.

  136. Steve Milesworthy
    Posted Jun 7, 2007 at 10:28 AM | Permalink

    #135
    Are you under the misapprehension that the energy absorbed by a greenhouse gas molecule stays in the greenhouse gas molecule? More realistically, the warmed molecule collides with a non-greenhouse gas molecule (N2, O2, Argon) and passes on some of its energy, and so is ready to absorb another infrared photon.

  137. jae
    Posted Jun 7, 2007 at 10:35 AM | Permalink

    125:

    I also notice that it is very permissable for AGW proponents to say things that are grossly innaccurate, but designed to scare. But AGW critics have to be spot on perfect in everything they say, otherwise they are to be ignored.

    This is what is really frustrating when dealing with zealots in our society. They are allowed (by the media and the uninformed public) to make unbelievably irresponsible and incorrect statements, with barely any reprecussions. Think Gore and Hansen here. But let an oil company make one incorrect statement, and it is considered a travesty worthy of the gallows.

  138. jae
    Posted Jun 7, 2007 at 10:42 AM | Permalink

    135, 136: I go back to my question about why it is hotter in July by 3-4 degrees C (average daily temperatures) at low altitudes in the Desert Southwest than it is in the extremely humid Southeast. The greenhouse gases in the Southeast (mainly water vapor) absorb much more heat, but that does not translate into higher temperatures. Perhaps the greenhouse gases also tend to transmit heat to space faster.

  139. Steve Sadlov
    Posted Jun 7, 2007 at 10:44 AM | Permalink

    RE: #124 – That’s why I started to and continue to challenge hard core AGWers regarding the “blanket” model of CO2. Other than in cases where an inversion traps CO2 somewhere between 0 and a few thousand feet, it is not a blanket. It is a diminishing-with-altitude absolute number of molecules. You cannot model CO2 IR reradiation with a blanket of CO2. Apples and oranges.

  140. Posted Jun 7, 2007 at 10:50 AM | Permalink

    Steve Milesworthy,

    Nope, what I’m saying is that the upper layers of the troposphere has a higher transmitivity than the lower layer. Do you know the formula to get this misapprehension? If don’t, I can tell you what is it.

  141. Steve Sadlov
    Posted Jun 7, 2007 at 10:52 AM | Permalink

    RE: #138 – Overall thermal resistance of every compound and element in the atmosphere undoubtedly factors into the realized thermal profile.

  142. MarkW
    Posted Jun 7, 2007 at 10:59 AM | Permalink

    Pardon a layman’s question.

    I thought thermal energy had to do with the vibration of molecules, and absorbtion of photon’s caused an electron to be raised from a low energy shell to a higher energy shell.

    How do the two concepts map to each other?

  143. Steve Milesworthy
    Posted Jun 7, 2007 at 11:14 AM | Permalink

    Nasif, your post in #77 seems to be talking about a one-off injection of infrared into a parcel of air, and the amount of heating it would cause.

    But we’re really talking about an equilibrium state where the amount of IR in matches the amount of IR out. All the GHG argument is saying is that the extra CO2 slows down the amount of IR out until the atmosphere has warmed up a bit. The heat capacity of the atmosphere is not relevant for that sort of analysis.

    Assume that the heat absorbed by the current mass of CO2 is 0.0096 calories and that m(Cp) of CO2 is 0.291 (0.00069 x 421.13 cal). Dividing 0.0096 by 0.291 the change of temperature is 0.033 K. Now we will double the volumetric mass of CO2 to 0.00138 Kg/m^3. The heat absorbed must decrease by the saturation of the absorption bands, but we will concede the same value of 0.0096. We will assume the same thing for the Cp, which would increase as the density increases. The product m(Cp) is 0.5812. Now divide 0.0096 by 0.5812 and the change of temperature will be 0.017 K.

    You can calculate the change of temperature taking into account the decrease of the heat absorbed and the increase of the carbon dioxide specific heat (Cp) as the density of CO2 increases.

  144. jae
    Posted Jun 7, 2007 at 11:14 AM | Permalink

    142: As I recall, it depends upon the wavelength of the photon. IR produces the stretching, bending and rotational motions; shorter wavelengths interact with the electrons.

  145. jae
    Posted Jun 7, 2007 at 11:34 AM | Permalink

    143:

    But we’re really talking about an equilibrium state where the amount of IR in matches the amount of IR out. All the GHG argument is saying is that the extra CO2 slows down the amount of IR out until the atmosphere has warmed up a bit. The heat capacity of the atmosphere is not relevant for that sort of analysis.

    I think this is a good point. What bugs me is that there is also an ongoing attempt to establish equilibrium between the air and the surface. It seems to me that the AGW theory, with all the supposed water vapor feedback, is saying that it is possible for the air to become warmer than the surface, thus warming the surface some more. I don’t think this can happen. In the desert, the surface is far hotter than the air; in the tropics there is a near equilibrium. If I add a greenhouse gas to the desert (rainstorm), I add heat to the air via higher humidity/entropy, and perhaps I retain more heat in the air (less diurnal variation), but I don’t increase the temperature. It seems to me that here is something fundamentally wrong with the idea that adding greenhouse gases increases the temperature. They just add more entropy to the air.

  146. Steve Milesworthy
    Posted Jun 7, 2007 at 12:04 PM | Permalink

    Jae,

    The surface of a desert is hotter during the day because of absorption of solar radiation. By the morning, the surface will be colder. I think if you added a dollop of stable humid air onto your desert during the night it wouldn’t get as cold quite as quick. Of course once day comes, convection will destabilise your air – you’ll get a rainstorm which will remove the water and you’re back to square one.

    If the GW theories are right such that relative humidity remains constant with warming, then warming increases levels of water vapour. There is a one-off amount of energy required to raise the average level of water vapour, but after that, the extra energy is available to heat the air as before.

  147. jae
    Posted Jun 7, 2007 at 12:37 PM | Permalink

    146: I agree with what you said. Water vapor (and CO2) help retain heat, but how do they RAISE THE TEMPERATURE? The sun raises the temperature and the GHGs help retain heat. It seems to me that that’s all they do and that they don’t ADD heat (temp). If they added heat, it would be hotter in July in Memphis than in Dagget, CA; but the reverse is true. IOW, I think the only positive forcing is from the Sun. And that’s why I think the sun will ultimately be shown to be responsible for all or nearly all of the climate changes.

  148. jae
    Posted Jun 7, 2007 at 1:01 PM | Permalink

    I think the AGW crowd is using the wrong metric. They should be using enthalpy, rather than temperature. The air does not heat the air. The Sun heats the air and surface! Of course the increased enthalpy can have consequences…

  149. Steve Sadlov
    Posted Jun 7, 2007 at 1:25 PM | Permalink

    RE: #148 – I agree. Temperature is a secondary not primary measure regarding energy flux balances.

  150. John A
    Posted Jun 7, 2007 at 2:28 PM | Permalink

    World climate predictors right only half the time

    “The open admission by a climate scientist of the New Zealand National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research (NIWA), Dr Jim Renwick, that his organisation achieves only 50 per cent accuracy in its climate forecasts, and that this is as good as any other forecaster around the world, should be a wake-up call for world political leaders,” said Rear Admiral Jack Welch, chairman of the New Zealand Climate Science Coalition.

    Yesterday the coalition published an analysis of seasonal climate predictions by NIWA over the past five years which found that the overall accuracy of the predictions was just 48 per cent.

    Defending the Niwa record, Dr Renwick said his organisation was doing as well as any other weather forecaster around the world. He was quoted by the country’s leading newspaper, the New Zealand Herald as saying: “Climate prediction is hard, half of the variability in the climate system is not predictable, so we don’t expect to do terrifically well.” Later on New Zealand radio, Dr Renwick said: “The weather is not predictable beyond a week or two.”

    More on Warwick Hughes’ blog

  151. jae
    Posted Jun 7, 2007 at 2:41 PM | Permalink

    150: LOL. I remember telling a meterologist friend of mine that I could do better than the weatherman by flipping a coin. He laughed and said, “no you can’t, because we are right 51% of the time.” Perhaps I was right.

  152. Steve Milesworthy
    Posted Jun 7, 2007 at 2:46 PM | Permalink

    #147
    If you retain more heat by absorbing at a higher rate than you emit energy, you have more energy in the system. That energy can expresse itself as more heat, or higher humidity, or more wind.

    One way to reestablish the balance is to start radiating more heat into space. The only way of doing that is to raise the temperature of the layers of atmosphere that emit into space – as far as I’m aware, radiation is dependent on temperature not enthalpy. Most scientists can’t see how upper layers can warm without some proportionate rise in the surface temperature, and without, probably, changing the climate.

    Alternatively, scientist such as Lindzen propose (not altogether successfully as yet) that there is a particular feedback in which the tropical tropopause dries out because higher SSTs cause more rain. So rather than raising the temperature of the upper layers, in effect it lowers the IR opacity of the tropical tropopause by reducing the water vapour here, so that the warmer lower layers can emit into space.

    A third way, obviously, is to find another feedback that causes less sun to be absorbed by the earth. Some clouds do that, but other clouds have the annoying effect of adding to the greenhouse effect.

  153. Posted Jun 7, 2007 at 2:51 PM | Permalink

    # 146, # 147

    Jae, Steve,

    What kind of desert are you talking about? There are high preassure deserts (example, Kalahari), rainshadow deserts (example, Great Basin desert) and fog deserts (example, Atacama desert). The climate conditions at each kind of desert are driven differently from one kind of desert to another.

    I consider that so the absorptivity and emissivity as the transmissivity and reflectivity of the GHG are very important for demonstrating that the energy account is in equilibrium. The fact that the upper layers of the troposphere have a higher value of transmissivity than the layer immediately above the surface explains the dilemma and destroys the argument of a heat storehouse brandished by the AGWists. The heat absorbed by air causes the temperature of air raises; thus I wrote in BioCab’s site, if we do not apply heat to the pot, the fababeans never will cook. If the Sun had not anomalies in its activity, the Earth’s temperature would not have anomalies.

    The AGWists argument affirm that the heat emitted by the lower troposphere is transferred to the higher layers of the troposphere and that from there it is “re-radiated” to the surface (the “blanket effect”); I agree on Jae’s argument that the heat cannot be transferred from the air (a colder system) to the surface (a warmer system). What I’m trying to explain is that the middle and upper layers of the troposphere have a transmissivity higher than the lower layer, and then the heat is transferred to the stratosphere and from there to the outer space almost without being absorbed in the middle and upper tropospheric layers. I think that we could not explain the thermal equilibrium without considering the thermal properties of matter.

    Like an extra data, the pressure of the air layers at 18000 ft of height is of 0.5 atm. To this height, the air transmissivity is 0.93, which means that most of the heat radiated (not “re-radiated”) from the surface is dispersed THROUGH those air layers. Now, if the layers above 32.81 ft in altitude are colder than the layer below 32.81 ft in altitude, and the Earth surface is warmer than the tropospheric layer up to 32.81 ft in altitude from the surface, where the heat from the tropospheric layer below 32.81 ft in altitude would be transferred to? By the law of Entropy that Jae refers to, the heat will be dispersed towards the systems with a larger set of available microstates, to be precise, towards the coldest air layers. Since those colder and upper layers are not efficient to absorb heat, then the heat simply disperses towards the deep space and the gravity field, which are the hugest heat sinks.

  154. jae
    Posted Jun 7, 2007 at 3:30 PM | Permalink

    if we do not apply heat to the pot, the fababeans never will cook. If the Sun had not anomalies in its activity, the Earth’s temperature would not have anomalies.

    I now see what you mean.

  155. Steve Milesworthy
    Posted Jun 7, 2007 at 3:32 PM | Permalink

    #154
    The fababeans will cook quicker when you put a lid on the pan because the only way of losing heat is to get hotter and produce more steam.

    Each parcel of air emits heat radiation in all directions equally (up, down, sideways) according to the 4th power of its temperature. There is nothing in the laws of thermodynamics that state that a cold object cannot emit radiation towards a hot object. Thermodynamics only requires that the hot object is emitting more than it is receiving from the cold object.

    Essentially then, each layer of the atmosphere is emitting radiation, and half of it is going towards the sky, and half towards the earth. A given photon may make it as far as the earth, or as far as space, or it may be absorbed by another layer. The probability of absorption is dependent on the distance it has to travel (to earth or space) and the amount of greenhouse gases (ignoring aerosols, clouds etc. for now).

    Photons from higher layers, have more chance of getting to space (and thus cooling the earth), but increase the greenhouse gases and the probability drops slightly resulting in a reduction of the rate of photons getting to space. To increase the rate, you have to warm the layer.

  156. jae
    Posted Jun 7, 2007 at 3:50 PM | Permalink

    To increase the rate, you have to warm the layer.

    Which is what the Sun does. Since we are talking T^4 here, the amount of heat radiated by the cooler object is insignificant, compared to the amount emitted by the warmer object. If you insulate a heated object, you can slow the rate of heat loss, but you cannot make the object hotter. Again, why is Atlanta cooler than Dagget, when Atlanta has all that insulation?

  157. DeWitt Payne
    Posted Jun 7, 2007 at 4:02 PM | Permalink

    #135

    Look up adiabatic expansion and potential temperature. That’s why the temperature in the troposphere decreases with altitude. The temperature would decrease with altitude even if there were no IR absorber/emitters to cause a greenhouse effect. The temperature gradient is also critical to the greenhouse effect. Here’s a link to some notes on Physical Meteorology:

    http://maths.ucd.ie/met/msc/PhysMet/PhysMetLectNotes.pdf

    When you have read and understood those notes, plus maybe a refresher course in spectroscopy since you clearly don’t understand the concept of band saturation, ask me again. Sorry to sound like RC here, but we clearly don’t have some basic concepts in common.

  158. DeWitt Payne
    Posted Jun 7, 2007 at 4:07 PM | Permalink

    #157

    jae, the surface is heated by short wave radiation from the sun which isn’t absorbed by ghg’s. Atlanta may be cooler in temperature than Dagget, but I bet the enthalpy of the air in Atlanta is higher, probably a lot higher. I’ll have more to say on this subject when I get back home.

  159. jae
    Posted Jun 7, 2007 at 4:13 PM | Permalink

    159: Yes the ENTHALPY is much higher, due to storage of heat by all that water. But the AGWers are conflating this with TEMPERATURE. Somehow, the increased enthalpy is not being translated into increased temperature.

  160. Steve Milesworthy
    Posted Jun 7, 2007 at 4:17 PM | Permalink

    #157

    Why is August 21st usually hotter than April 21st? Being two months either side of the June 21st summer solstice both days get the same amount of sun, so by your reasoning, shouldn’t they be the same temperature?

  161. Reference
    Posted Jun 7, 2007 at 4:18 PM | Permalink

    Dirty snow may warm Arctic as much as greenhouse gases

    The study appears this week in the Journal of Geophysical Research.

    Dirty snow has had a significant impact on climate warming since the Industrial Revolution. In the past 200 years, the Earth has warmed about .8 degree Celsius. Zender, graduate student Mark Flanner, and their colleagues calculated that dirty snow caused the Earth’s temperature to rise .1 to .15 degree, or up to 19 percent of the total warming.

  162. DeWitt Payne
    Posted Jun 7, 2007 at 4:25 PM | Permalink

    #160

    I think that’s because most people haven’t taken a Physical Chemistry or other good thermodynamics course and don’t understand enthalpy (I’m not altogether convinced that people who have taken and passed a thermo course understand enthalpy either, myself included). So everybody thinks temperature is a good metric for global warming. It isn’t, as Roger Pielke, Sr. has pointed out many times. It’s possible to raise the average temperature of the planet without changing the overall heat content by transferring heat from the tropics to the poles. The temperature in the tropics would drop a small amount while the poles would go up a lot.

  163. jae
    Posted Jun 7, 2007 at 4:43 PM | Permalink

    161: Of course, heat accumulates. What’s the point?

    163: I took the course, but it’s been a loooooong time ago.

  164. David Smith
    Posted Jun 7, 2007 at 4:46 PM | Permalink

    Odd article of the week ( link ).

  165. Posted Jun 7, 2007 at 4:51 PM | Permalink

    # 155

    Steve Milesworthy,

    The fababeans will cook quicker when you put a lid on the pan because the only way of losing heat is to get hotter and produce more steam.

    And the pan will get hotter without a source of heat? Wow! I want one of those!

    Each parcel of air emits heat radiation in all directions equally (up, down, sideways) according to the 4th power of its temperature.

    Air emits heat radiation in all directions, but not equally. The constant of proportionality for natural systems is not the same for layers facing up than for layers facing down. The factor of correction also is different if comparing layers facing up with layers facing up. The horizontal heat transfer by convection is not equal to the vertical heat transfer by convection because the first is limited by the molecular displacements.

    # 158

    DeWitt Payne,

    Thank you so much by the link. Did you write it? It’s very interesting, it says the same than I, but in more simple words. What does RC mean? Remember that my English is not as fluent as the heat is.

    The temperature would decrease with altitude even if there were no IR absorber/emitters to cause a greenhouse effect.

    Is this a puzzle or what? How could you increase-decrease the temperature if there is not a medium that absorbs-emits heat? Basic thermodynamics.

  166. Posted Jun 7, 2007 at 5:00 PM | Permalink

    I don’t like to be crude with honorable people who I don’t know and I don’t like to be insulted by people that I don’t know. I have been insulted by people who I have no idea who they are, and I want to say goodbye on the best possible way. Thanks by reading my notes.

  167. James Erlandson
    Posted Jun 7, 2007 at 7:01 PM | Permalink

    Re 165 David Smith:
    The article was noted in OpinionJournal.

    We were wondering just how much global temperatures went up between 2005 and 2006, so we checked with NASA. It turns out the average global temperature actually declined by 0.09 degrees centigrade. Maybe the cats had to go into heat to keep warm.

  168. Steve Sadlov
    Posted Jun 7, 2007 at 7:18 PM | Permalink

    RE: #153 – Although the northwesternmost portions of the deserts of the southwestern US are highly rainshadow enhanced, the overarching cause of desert conditions over the entire region is indeed high pressure, like the Sahara. The reason the North American version is so much small is due to the generall narrow width of Mexico and the nearness of the Gulf of Mexico allowing Easterly waves and Monsoons to mitigate the dryness along the desert’s eastern and southern reaches. The area of Northwestern Mexico and adjacent parts of the US is not very affected by that compared with the areas closuer to the Gulf. Some parts of SE California and Baja California get less than 1 in of average precip per year. They are utterly dominated by the persistent Pacific High and semi persistent one which forms over the 4 corners region during the Spring and Summer.

  169. Posted Jun 7, 2007 at 8:14 PM | Permalink

    # 155
    [snip - Nasef - I have a local rule that I don't want people discussing entropy and thermodynamics on this blog. I realize that you're a new poster and the reasons are because of old events. But I've found that most such discussion produces more heat than light and wish to discourage it here. Sorry about that.., Steve]

  170. David Smith
    Posted Jun 7, 2007 at 8:27 PM | Permalink

    Re #168 James, I checked the wintertime temperatures of the contiguous US, which is the key feline amor season. From 2005 to 2006, the US wintertime temperature rose by 0.17F, which according to the article triggered a 30% increase in kittens.

    But, from 2006 to 2007 the US wintertime temperature fell by 2.06F, which is a decline more than 10 times greater than the 2005-2006 warming. This surely triggered a collapse in the cat population in major American cities, perhaps an extinction event.

    Re #114, #129 Good finds, thanks for sharing. I’ll put the article into my to-read pile for when we get back from holiday.

    Way off-topic, for any fans of the US Philadelphia Phillies (baseball), one of my cousins was drafted by the Phillies today (first round). We’re happy for him. Good kid, a scrapper and hard worker.

  171. Jaye
    Posted Jun 7, 2007 at 8:39 PM | Permalink

    Hope he makes the show.

  172. Bob Koss
    Posted Jun 7, 2007 at 8:57 PM | Permalink

    Here are a couple graphs for some US cities showing dew point and temperature. Orlando is extremely oppressive about 8 months a year. I don’t show Miami, but it’s even worse by about two degrees.
    At least for these places the dewpoint has dropped in the past couple years. Could that have some significance?
    Wikipedia on dew point

    Humans tend to react with discomfort to high dew points. Those accustomed to continental climates often begin to feel uncomfortable when the dew point reaches between 15 and 20 °C (59 to 68 °F). Most inhabitants of these areas will consider dew points above 21 °C (70 °F) to be oppressive.

    Coordinates:
    Amarillo 35.22n -101.7w elev. 1093m
    Charlotte 35.22n -80.95w elev. 221.9m
    Knoxville 35.82n -83.98w elev. 293.2m
    Montgomery 32.3n -86.4w elev. 61.6m
    Las Vegas 30.08n -115.15w elev. 648.3m
    Orlando 28.55n -81.33w elev. 32m
    Phoenix 33.43n -112.02w elev. 338.9m

  173. jae
    Posted Jun 7, 2007 at 9:06 PM | Permalink

    170: OK, Steve, but that is patently biased and unfair.

  174. jae
    Posted Jun 7, 2007 at 9:07 PM | Permalink

    Steve M. The whole AGW thing is pure thermodynamics. If you ignore this, this site suffers bigtime.

  175. Posted Jun 7, 2007 at 9:21 PM | Permalink

    # 169

    Steve Sadlov,

    Yes, Steve, I agree, but the patterns are not the same from one kind of desert to another. That makes the differences on pluvial precipitation patterns, humidity, prevalent temperatures, etc.

    For example, a high pressure desert climate depends on (or of?) the patterns of the winds that cause permanent zones of high and low pressures; for example, Equatorial hot and humid winds that ascend, get colder, discharge their humidity and go toward the poles descending -by a higher density- on tropical latitudes -between 15° and 30°; a rainshadow desert climate is modified by geological features (such as mountains) that force the wind upwards when it strikes on them (on the mountains); a fog desert climate is modified by cold oceanic currents that run from the poles to the tropics along the western coastlines.

  176. Posted Jun 7, 2007 at 9:43 PM | Permalink

    # 170

    Sorry, Steve. I worked as much in the translation of that message that my brain is still expelling smoke (without ghg). But it’s ok; rules are rules. Jae is right, if we are talking about heat transfer… well, rules are rules.

  177. SidViscous
    Posted Jun 7, 2007 at 9:59 PM | Permalink

    Dave thans

    Was going to post they kitten article in re-payment but you beat me to it.

  178. Philip B
    Posted Jun 7, 2007 at 10:16 PM | Permalink

    My jaw dropped when I read this.

    For the first time, (UK) weather scientists are generating a new 30-year average, calculated using 15 years of historic data and 15 years of predicted future temperatures, Graham said.

    Future temperatures are calculated using a forecasting system introduced this year and give a far more accurate picture of how individual summers compare over a long-term period.

    http://www.planetark.com/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/42461/story.htm

  179. Posted Jun 7, 2007 at 10:35 PM | Permalink

    # 166

    To myself,

    The factor of correction also is different if comparing layers facing up with layers facing up.

    It must say: “The factor of correction also is different if comparing layers facing up with layers facing down“.

  180. Steve McIntyre
    Posted Jun 7, 2007 at 11:15 PM | Permalink

    #175, 176. Sorry about that. My experience has been that the discussions have tended to be unproductive. But maybe it’s time to re-visit that. Anyone bear with the request for now.

  181. K
    Posted Jun 8, 2007 at 12:18 AM | Permalink

    #179. The actual intent probably drifted as Reuters prepared this story.

    I think they are saying that plsnners of all sorts will find it simpler and more accurate to use the new scheme.

    But it does sound marvelous to have a method which has already proved accurate for the decades ahead.

  182. Andrey Levin
    Posted Jun 8, 2007 at 2:26 AM | Permalink

    Re#181

    Steve M.: Just make “Thermodynamics’ cul-de-sac” trend.

  183. MarkW
    Posted Jun 8, 2007 at 6:28 AM | Permalink

    Something about the concept of a flamewar over thermodynamics seems oddly appropriate.

  184. ALLAN AMES
    Posted Jun 8, 2007 at 8:59 AM | Permalink

    My posting in 73 was occasioned by a wish to find an easy model to describe the dependence of surface temperature on CO2 — trying to help jae. I started using all the published lecture notes on the web, and was eventually led to HITRAN which shows all gasses as narrow line spectra, as they should be. (Rremember the emission spectra from low pressure discharge tubes in intro. physics?) This left me with the strong belief that CO2 at pp thousand concentrations and atmospheric pressure still has relatively narrow lines, which, as Nasif Nahle remids us, are fully thermally saturated anyway. More to the point, it seems to me that any amount of CO2 (not pressure or concentration broadened too greatly) will freely transmit the majority of 300K radiation imposed on it.

    I have been wondering if the various climate models might just be using wavelength band averages, which of necessity would treat CO2 as grey, getting increasingly black (or increasingly scattering in the thermally populated bands) with higher CO2. If so, the model dependence on CO2 concentration could be way off, because the less spectral broadening there is, the more rapid the saturation with concentration.

    What I wondered in this blog is (stated differently), is there a mechanism for cross coupling the narrow lines to justify the grey “band” assumption as distinct from the black and white “line” assumption?

    From watching the traffic on the blog, I think that band saturated CO2 probably is a good scatterer, and the scattering probably gets greater as the bandwidth increases.

    104 (Erren): Could you describe the experiment please? My library card got cancelled when I left employment, but I note that your reference preceeds Planck’s Theory of Heat Radiation.

    106 (Fritch) Can you help sort out the absorption-scattering-wavelength thing? I am really bothered by this because all the introductory literature describes the phenomena as broad band absorption, not lines, and not scattering, and I don’t see how this is possible. All this matters for describing the effect of CO2 concentration on radiation transport, does it not?

    111 (McIntyre) If the lines are narrow, can’t you get substantial radiation loss and cooling by radiating heat acquired by collision? I don’t know a lot about IR, but in the visible, radiation is red shifted enough that the radiating species do not absorb ‘€” flouresent plastics for example. Can you point me to some web based Houghton or other references? I hypothesize that around half of all heat will pass through 500 (+/-) ppmv CO2, though the rest may get scattered recursively.

    111 and 113 (Nahle) The warming with height issue is interesting, and may be providing a clue to what is happening at lower levels. Parenthetically, are there not different types of temperature when there are no longer black bodies, but partial equilibria between differentially populated species? (I have no idea what I just said) I am pretty sure the whole concept of temperature unravels when you are talking about low energy level density with little cross coupling. We could have high velocity atoms consistent with one temperature, having vibrational properties of a lower temperature ‘€” for CO2 and water, at least.

    117-132 (Payne) Please, what is the coupling mechanism that de-couples at higher altitude? If it is just concentration, I assert that IR will be transmitted between major line clusters.

    132 (Payne) and 135 (Nahle) As for scattering, what if not all wavelengths get scattered equally? Temperature change with distance or altitude, perhaps?

    124 (MarkW) 127 (Milesworthy) From intro quantum ‘€” interaction of coupled oscillators ‘€” the more transition dipoles you stick into a quantum phase space the more broadening you get, and the more you can exchange energy between coupled members. Aside from this (or other) qualitative notion does anyone have any numbers on the height and width of the bands?

    139 (Sadlov) Absolutely right. Do we have a better model? Do we know if CO2 is uniformly distributed, or does it sink to the bottom?

    148 (jae) Absolutely right. One needs temperature-moisture-pressure to find enthalpy, not just temperature.

    165 (Smith) The cats are trying to escape the global warming induced surge in coyotes.

    To all, thank you. (I vote for a thread on thermodynamics.)

  185. MarkW
    Posted Jun 8, 2007 at 9:24 AM | Permalink

    If CO2 is such an all powerfull warming agent, wouldn’t the fact that cities have much higher CO2 concentrations than do surrounding rural areas (after all, cities are where most of the CO2 is being produced) result in cities have a much higher CO2 induced AGW?

    If increasing the entire world to 380ppb of CO2 is going to result in entire world warming by 3 to 10 degrees C, (depending on which model you decide to believe (worship?)), wouldn’t the fact that many cities clock in at 500 to 1000 ppb CO2 already result in an easily measureable increase in their temperature? And shouldn’t this increase be adjusted out of the urban data?

  186. richardT
    Posted Jun 8, 2007 at 10:13 AM | Permalink

    #186
    Much of the 3-10C warming will come from feedbacks like albedo changes as ice melts and forests spread north. These are regional changes, that will give regional to hemispheric warming, not city-scale anomalies.

  187. jae
    Posted Jun 8, 2007 at 10:22 AM | Permalink

    187: Err, how about the supposed water vapor feedback?

  188. Posted Jun 8, 2007 at 10:53 AM | Permalink

    Apologies if this has been mentioned before but, according to RSS, May 2007 was the 2nd coldest month since 2000. The SH and both polar regions (!) actually showed a negative anomaly.

    Considering that RSS measurements were used to finally “reconcile” the divergent surface/satellite records, they may have to convoke another council. In the last years there’s hardly been a month where both RSS and UHA didn’t show much less warming than the GISS and HAD surface records.

    Apart from this, the surface/satellite divergence in the tropics continues unabated and, according to the very UK Met-Office website (myth 3), AGW theory requires more warming aloft than on the surface in the tropics. Precisely the contrary of what’s being observed.

    Still, whenever you mention the satellite records to a warmer, they immediately point you to the usual sites and links, in the firm believe that the issue is long-solved in their favor.

  189. Posted Jun 8, 2007 at 10:55 AM | Permalink

    # 187

    RichardT,

    In each exhalation, a human being expels a volume of air which composition is 5% carbon dioxide. To get the equivalence in mg/m^3 units, we have to use the next formula:

    mg/m^3 = ppmv (12.187) (MW) / 273.15 K (+ ΔT °C of body temperature)

    How much ppmv are contained by the 5% of CO2 in the composition of the air into the lungs before the next exhalation?

    5% of CO2 in lungs air = 54419 ppmv.

    How many kg of CO2 are equivalent to 54419 ppmv in 2.7 liters of air before being exhalated?

    54419 ppmv of CO2 = 0.086 Kg of CO2

    Fortunately, the heat emitted by CO2 is not absorbed by CO2 and the CO2 internal energy plus the product of its Partial Pressure and Volume is not released like… heat. Otherwise… we would be toasted from the inside.

  190. David Smith
    Posted Jun 8, 2007 at 11:29 AM | Permalink

    RE #189 Mikel, the winds in the Pacific are finally starting to support a transition from ENSO-neutral to La Nina, which should further cool the tropics and the globe this year. Also of interest is the amount of cool subsurface water in the tropical Atlantic (see the maps at the bottom here and here ).

    The tropical Hadley-Walker circulation is the “furnace” which heats the mid- and high-latitudes. As that furnace weakens the more-polar regions will trend cooler this year.

  191. richardT
    Posted Jun 8, 2007 at 11:55 AM | Permalink

    #190
    What’s this got to do with the price of fish?

  192. MarkW
    Posted Jun 8, 2007 at 12:00 PM | Permalink

    #187,

    1) You need to get the story straight. Ice and forests are tiny feedbacks compared to water being evaporated by the warmer temperatures.
    2) Cities are not exactly deserts. If they get warmer, more water should evaporate.
    3) The only ice that has melted recently is in the arctic (most of that due to dirty snow and the PDO finishing up a warm phase).

  193. jae
    Posted Jun 8, 2007 at 12:12 PM | Permalink

    190, Nasif:

    Fortunately, the heat emitted by CO2 is not absorbed by CO2 and the CO2 internal energy plus the product of its Partial Pressure and Volume is not released like… heat. Otherwise… we would be toasted from the inside.

    ???. Are you referring to the equation: T = PV/nR?

  194. jae
    Posted Jun 8, 2007 at 12:13 PM | Permalink

    193: Hmm, Solar minimum, lots of clouds…Too bad the CO2 can’t overcome these things.

  195. Stan Palmer
    Posted Jun 8, 2007 at 12:56 PM | Permalink

    There is an intereting juxitiposition of stories in the Times of London today

    Firstly, the times reports that AGW is the big story in the US now:

    http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/bronwen_maddox/article1901634.ece

    However reality intrudes with this story:

    http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article1906926.ece

    Media hysteria as Paris Hilton faces justice

    This contains the following passage:

    News channels abandoned all coverage of the G8 summit, before reluctantly tearing themselves away from the live coverage of Hilton’s front door to report, briefly, that America’s top general had resigned. And now back to the “breaking news” on Paris Hilton, where an excited TV reporter was pointing out the expensive homes of nearby celebrities such as Rod Stewart and Britney Spears, adding: “Some of the houses date back to the 1920s!”

    AGW at the G8 is the big story on a slow news day. Then something really important happens and all the channels cover it.

    This shows the depth of the AGW hysteria. it is of the same ilk as the Paris Hilton story but not as intense. Maybe Al Gore should walk around without underwear.

  196. MarkW
    Posted Jun 8, 2007 at 1:19 PM | Permalink

    #196,

    Now there’s a mental image i do NOT need.

  197. Steve Sadlov
    Posted Jun 8, 2007 at 1:37 PM | Permalink

    RE: #176 – Let’s say we flattened out all the mountains in the Western USA. The desert zone would change very little in extent, in fact, it might actually expand. Why? Because much of the rainfall near the West Coast is orographic. One mnemonic that is useful here are rainfall amounts at the immediate coastline in areas where there are no mountains right along the coast: San Francisco – 20 in / yr, Monterey – 17 in / yr, Santa Maria – 13 in / yr, San Diego – 9 in / yr. Taking the 10 in average annual precip line, and factoring in the persistent Pacific High and semi persistent Highs over north central Mexico and the 4 corners region, one can then imagine that the 10 in contour, in my flat version of the US West, would start somewhere around Los Angeles, run in a slow arc up to somewhere around Salt Lake City, then arc back down to a point near the Rio Grande mouth, arcing into the middle of Mexico, then arcing out into the Pacific somewhere around Mazatlan. A mini Sahara. So, while many assume that the rainshadow effect is the main driver of aridity in the SW US, it’s simply not so. Even without the topography, most of the US SW would be a desert.

  198. Steve Sadlov
    Posted Jun 8, 2007 at 1:40 PM | Permalink

    Also, the rainfall in all the mountain areas of the US SW inland zone is primarily orographic. Islands of moisture in the midst of the Sahara Mini Me.

  199. Joe Ellebracht
    Posted Jun 8, 2007 at 5:02 PM | Permalink

    Orographic

    Related to, or caused by, physical geography (such as mountains or sloping terrain).

  200. Posted Jun 8, 2007 at 5:50 PM | Permalink

    # 192

    richardT,

    What’s this got to do with the price of fish?

    I hope it would not increase…

  201. Posted Jun 8, 2007 at 5:52 PM | Permalink

    # 194

    Jae,

    Yes, have you made the calculi? The result would be very interesting.

  202. Posted Jun 8, 2007 at 6:09 PM | Permalink

    # 198

    Steve Sadlov,

    Yes, you’re right, but the basin is not flat. Besides, as Joe Ellebracht says in # 200, we have also to take into account the Grand Canyon, the western coastline, even the La Nià±a oscillation, etc. In my opinion, if the causes are different for each class of desert climate, it is more possible that the results are different. I am not talking about the microstates that could modify the conditions in a given moment, which could be ok for a local forecast, but about the macroscopic variables. I’m sure you’ll agree.

    In the case of the fog in the Sahara desert the system that causes it is different also.

  203. Posted Jun 8, 2007 at 7:49 PM | Permalink

    Oops! Sorry, richardT… I twisted the posts. My post # 190 was not for you. Sorry.

  204. David Smith
    Posted Jun 8, 2007 at 8:44 PM | Permalink

    For those who may have missed it last summer, the link to live webcam shots from the North Pole is here . NOAA has had technical difficulties this year and the camera has been giving only intermittent shots, but still you can watch the ice melt and refreeze as the summer progresses.

    It gets very sloshy in July, with temperatures reaching around 10C (50F). Also, it is usually cloudy, with the cloud color an eerie pink at times.

  205. John Baltutis
    Posted Jun 8, 2007 at 10:19 PM | Permalink

    John A.

    Attempted to post a link to the Exponential Growth in Physical Systems #2 thread WRT to the Jacob Ystrom, Heinz-Otto Kreiss 3D incompressible Navier-Stokes paper, but something in it is getting caught by the spam blocker. I had no problem posting a few minutes ago to The Vose and Karl Response to Davey and Pielke 2005 thread. Could you take a look.

  206. Andrey Levin
    Posted Jun 9, 2007 at 3:06 AM | Permalink

    Re#195

    Personally to Stan Palmer (hot, but not climate):

  207. Filippo Turturici
    Posted Jun 9, 2007 at 3:24 AM | Permalink

    I would ask you all for a matter.
    Does anyone know why land temperatures continue to stay at high levels or even to grow, while sea temperatures are slowly decreasing in last years?
    It may seem odd, but the T growth of just 30% of World surface is enough to mantain World T stable in last years, despite 70% of World surface (the seas) is mainly cooling – to give you an example just of last two months, World TT (at least for NCDC and GISS) mantain very high despite Nino was replaced by Nina, or N Atlantic TT fell well below their normal values for large part of this area.

    On North Atlantic temperatures: they really suddenly dropped in last weeks off south-east USA coast (they are now about 2°C below average), while they have been very low off Canadian coast since months; in the same time, temperatures are dropping even near to Europe.
    Someone here is really afraid that Gulf Current is shutting down (a very strong Labrador current for months, followed by such drop just in the “spine” of the Current, which seems to be enlarging toward east); and an Italian web meteorologist and climatologist wrote a week ago, just before this larger alarm, that the Current was slowing down sensibly and then we are about to see (from how he told it, it seems to be even for the next months and not only years) a major European climate cooling, overall during winter months.

  208. Filippo Turturici
    Posted Jun 9, 2007 at 3:28 AM | Permalink

    SST anomalies:
    http://weather.unisys.com/surface/sst_anom.gif

    Italian article (in Italian):
    http://www.meteogelo.com/editoriali-luca-romaldini/la-corrente-del-golfo-e-in-crisiraffreddamento-europeo-prossimo-alla-realizzazione/

  209. T J Olson
    Posted Jun 9, 2007 at 4:15 AM | Permalink

    Re David Smit & Steve Sadlov’s notices of La Nina earlier in this edition of “Unthreaded,” I have bit of not-so cold water for you.

    Local papers (Summit [County] Daily, Wednesday June 6th) report that Karl Wolters, a NOAA (Boulder) climatologist frequently quoted locally on seasonal weather patterns, says the incipient La Nina is now negligible.

    Earlier predictions called for a shift to La Nià±a conditions this spring, with cooler than average ocean temperatures in the eastern Pacific. That pattern often brings a hot and dry spring and summer to western Colorado. But the latest forecast models show little movement toward La Nià±a, Wolter said. “We’re sort of getting to the end of the period where you can get into a rapid onset (of La Nià±a),” Wolter said.

    Now, is this purely a local matter? Or regionally significant? Or nationally/continentally consequental? And what’s further in store? I’ll await your further weigh-ins! Thanks.’€¨

  210. T J Olson
    Posted Jun 9, 2007 at 4:32 AM | Permalink

    PS I cast aonther vote in favor of a thermodynamics thread – VERY useful to those of us with weak and/or old physics backgrounds! I particularly like the idea that the thread(s) can later be edited into a link-rich FAQ for future reference. I’m sure one (or more) of us will volunteer for this task.

    I am reminded that advancment in science sometimes depends upon a dedicated (and noble) amatuerism: British 19th century science and the later 20th century IT revolutions in the US come to mind as important examples. Surely it was Steve’s time to be recognized, I thought, last year. No, not yet, not quite – but perhaps not far off, it will be.

  211. T J Olson
    Posted Jun 9, 2007 at 4:36 AM | Permalink

    re 210
    That’s “Klaus” Wolters, not “Karl.” Me bad.

  212. T J Olson
    Posted Jun 9, 2007 at 5:07 AM | Permalink

    Although there are several parts to fully answer Filippo (#208), one is this: shutting down of the thermohaline driven currents that warm Europe is more a problem of historical reputation (first made by Benjamin Franklin), than a real scientific problem. The alleged source of Europe’s Mild Current isn’t threatened because its source is atmostpheric (and thus driven by the earth’s rotation), not ocean currents:

    The notion that the Gulf Stream is responsible for keeping Europe anomalously warm turns out to be a myth, says this University of Washington trained oceanographer.

    “Average January [Ocean] Temperatures”

    He concludes:
    from what specialists have long known, I would expect that any slowdown in thermohaline circulation would have a noticeable but not catastrophic effect on [Europes] climate. The temperature difference between Europe and Labrador should remain. Temperatures will not drop to ice-age levels, not even to the levels of the Little Ice Age, the relatively cold period that Europe suffered a few centuries ago. The North Atlantic will not freeze over, and English Channel ferries will not have to plow their way through sea ice. A slowdown in thermohaline circulation should bring on a cooling tendency of at most a few degrees across the North Atlantic’€”one that would most likely be overwhelmed by the warming caused by rising concentrations of greenhouse gases.

    I thought some climatologist also opined on this issue last year, dismissing it – Roger Pielke, Sr, pehaps?

  213. Steve McIntyre
    Posted Jun 9, 2007 at 5:45 AM | Permalink

    #208. How the major temperature indices (HadCRU especially) go from raw measurements to their final index is a bit of a mystery. HadCRU has so far refused to even identify the land stations, although Willis’ FOI is making some progress on that. The SSTs may be even more complicated.

  214. David Smith
    Posted Jun 9, 2007 at 6:39 AM | Permalink

    RE #210 TJ, two sources which provide copious comments on the current ENSO situation are here and here

    Two things to check:

    - on the first link, check the yellow graph (SOI index) in the middle of the webpage. If it’s above the midline, the winds support La Nina. As it indicates (June 9), the winds are just now switching into a La Nina favorable state.

    - on the second link, check slide 28, which shows the computer model forecasts (they have some skill over the short term). These continue to show a transition to La Nina.

    I suspect that the person was slightly misquoted. The models continue to show La Nina onset but the current wind conditions have not supported it until very recently.

    A quick-and-dirty check of current surface condtions is here . Click on the map for a closeup and check the below-normal vs above-noraml regions. Currently (June 9) the regions about balance (= neutral).

    In the broader picture, two interesting things rae

    - the globe has cooled noticeably, as least according to the satellites, despite the lack of a La Nina
    - the Warm Pool appears to be cooling in many regions ( not shown here)

    Final note: slide 10 on the second link (NOAA ESNO update) shows upper-ocean heat content in the Pacific equatorial region. Note the cooling. The provides support for la Nina, if and when the winds cooperate.

    For now, we watch the winds, as indicated by that yellow chart.

  215. jae
    Posted Jun 9, 2007 at 6:48 AM | Permalink

    202: Nasif, Steve M does not want discussions of thermodynamics here at this time. Can you suggest another blog where we can discuss this?

  216. John Lang
    Posted Jun 9, 2007 at 6:53 AM | Permalink

    To #189 Mikel, the RSS lower troposphere measurements have a simple linear regression trend of 0.002C per decade over the past ten years (starting in June 1997 when the really big El Nino event of 1997-98 started).

    So, I think we can say there has been NO warming trend over the past decade. 0.0002C per year is NO warming in my mind.

    I also think the satellite measurements show us the El Nino – La Nina pattern has much more impact on global temperatures than the climate modelers are willing to admit. The record 1997-98 El Nino gives us record temperatures – the 2007 La Nina gives us steadily declining temperatures throughout 1997 so far.

  217. Filippo Turturici
    Posted Jun 9, 2007 at 7:05 AM | Permalink

    #213: I think that these climatologists should better study La Palice…of course European climate is warmer because winds are mainly westerly: they pass over a mild ocean! If they pass over a cooler ocean, then temperatures would drop by some degree – as they say, we are far from catastrophic scenarios, but I do not know who (outside movies or newspapers) called for UK to have the same climate of Newfoundland. And look just at that map: mild temperatures reach northern areas in Atlantic than in Pacific – but do they know that Norway has always been free by ice sea, or they think that seeing an ice sheet still far north than Scotland but reaching Hammerfest would be normal?
    Their opinion is really odd: e.g. they predict a few degrees cooling but not reaching Little Ice Age levels: I would really like to ask them if they know that LIA was not a real ice age as they suggest, and that frost on English coast was still very rare (maybe they misunderstand river freezing with sea freezing – but what climatologist or oceanographer would do it? – or that they think that ice on some Northern Sea coast can be only a LIA event – so winter 2003 came directly from LIA?). A few degrees cooling on a continental average is just the Little Ice Age values, maybe a bit less or even more cooling (we should indeed find how many few degrees).
    Sorry, but I find this position not only odd but also offensive: dismissing Gulf Current is simply a non-sense – as saying that Atlantic will freeze to England, or using such a non-sense phrase to dismiss possible changes.
    I say once more: in Europe, winter arctic ice sheets exist only at Svalbard, something like 80°N; in Newfoundland, it reaches the same latitudes of Northern France; we are talking about winter temperature differences of 10-15°C at the same latitude and at the same sea level, not of few degrees. This is the effect of Gulf Current: slowing it down would not mean that we will have the same climate of Eastern Canada, but it could still bring sensible changes to what we are used, even if Arctic winter sea ice would not block UK, because countries like Northern Norway or Iceland could see much more ice than usual, or we could see the Baltic to freeze to Denmark usually (and not just once or twice a decade), or bigger and longer cold snaps to North-Western Europe (UK climate is so mild during winter that places far south but east, like Northern Italy, or Romanian coast, are some degree colder – also, e.g. the coast of Vancouver is colder).
    We are talking of just some degree, not “The day after tomorrow”: but, Europe warmed just by 1°C in 30 years on continental average – and I repeat once more, no one talked about Siberian scenarios in real discussions on Gulf Current slow-down, at least not here in Italy.
    I think this position is just an opinion to support serrist-like theories: our World will surely warm more everytime and everywhere, and nothing else is possible, not even just local cooling. As they try to dismiss Medieval Warm Period, as they try to demonstrate that temperature is always rising even when it is not, as they try to demonstrate that we live in the coldest periods of last millennia or even millions years (had to read even this and by supposed “scientists”), they now try to demonstrate that climate does not depends from seas, it is rather absurd.

  218. Paul Linsay
    Posted Jun 9, 2007 at 7:11 AM | Permalink

    #219, John

    I also think the satellite measurements show us the El Nino – La Nina pattern has much more impact on global temperatures than the climate modelers are willing to admit.

    and that the oceans heat the atmosphere and not vice versa.

  219. David Smith
    Posted Jun 9, 2007 at 7:52 AM | Permalink

    Final post for a while:

    The sum of the current (June 9) Arctic sea ice anomaly plus the Antarctic anomaly is zero. In other words, global sea ice extent, at the moment, is at the 1979-2000 mean.

    By the way, I’m becoming (like Steve Sadlov) increasingly curious about the reported sea ice extent data. Technology and methodology have changed a number of times over the satellite era. Apparently, the practice has been to overlap-and-graft methods, which can be quite difficult, especially when analyzing for small changes. It’s a topic to explore later this summer.

  220. Ron Cram
    Posted Jun 9, 2007 at 8:54 AM | Permalink

    re: 87

    David,
    I used the two images you provided on Wikipedia and was quickly informed the titles show one image was annual and the other was Jan through May.

    But I know these kinds of adjustments have happened. I just need different images.

  221. Posted Jun 9, 2007 at 9:50 AM | Permalink

    # 216

    Jae, I don’t know another blog besides this one. I’ve participated here just because a friend called my attention on CA. Please, tell me if you find another blog where we can talk about this topic.

  222. beng
    Posted Jun 9, 2007 at 10:02 AM | Permalink

    RE 186: MarkW

    wouldn’t the fact that many cities clock in at 500 to 1000 ppb CO2 already result in an easily measureable increase in their temperature? And shouldn’t this increase be adjusted out of the urban data?

    I think the important CO2 concentration is around the height of the tropopause – the boundary between troposhere & stratosphere. CO2 deeper down in the atmosphere isn’t so important and its radiational effects overwhelmed by water vapor.

  223. ALLAN AMES
    Posted Jun 9, 2007 at 10:49 AM | Permalink

    re:any AGW discussion: Water is the only green house gas on Planet Earth. CO2 and CH4 are not a greenhouse gases.

    CAers, if Steve permits, please get ready to tell me where I am wrong — if we can agree on the physics we can put some serious holes in the AGW hypothesis.

    Water has continuum bands in the IR. The existence of these bands means that within a coupled group of water molecules heat energy can be exchanged and delivered to the point in the system where energy density is lowest. Optically and thermally this makes water vapor something like a solid, a low viscosity carbon gray if you like.

    Near room temperature, and temperature is a big issue, the IR bands of individual molecules are all saturated. For the 2300/cm CO2 lines, the population ration is ~e^10, so at room temperature all isolated molecules are essentially incapable of further interaction except maybe for some small scattering.

    Atoms which are not part of a band structure are forced to hold their energy until they collide with a cooler molecule, or re-radiate their energy within their allowed energy levels. . Coupled molecules can move energy to the few remaining unexcited molecules, and dump energy into the few that have been deexcited, and so have different saturation characteristics than isolated molecules. That CO2 and CH4 have lines in the IR means nothing if these lines do not form heat conduction bands.

    Because we do not often get to think about both excited state and band theory at the same time, I need to tell a story. A co-worker of mine once set up a very interesting experiment. Using a structurally rigid and therefore efficiently fluorescing dye, at concentrations high enough for broadening, he irradiated just below the crossover energy. We were surprised to find that the fluorescence spectrum was exactly normal even though we were irradiating well below the average fluorescence energy, much less the maximum. On irradiation, the system had selected a “hot” molecule and excited it. After excitation and fluorescence the hot molecule had been eliminated, and the system, on average, showed slight cooling by actual measurement. What a mind blower. I understand these were electronic, not vibrational couplings, but much of the quantum mechanics stays the same. I will look forward to the discussion. Nasif: thanks for the encouragement.

  224. Posted Jun 9, 2007 at 11:04 AM | Permalink

    # 224

    Allan Ames,

    That’s real science, Allan. Besides, we have to add the amount of IR that each substance can absorb. No more than 40 W for CO2 and more than 350 W for water. It’s a biiig difference.

  225. David Archibald
    Posted Jun 9, 2007 at 4:15 PM | Permalink

    Re 215, is there any way of finding out what cloud cover has been doing this year, in that it may be associated with this cooling?

  226. MarkR
    Posted Jun 9, 2007 at 5:34 PM | Permalink

    Allan Ames. You might like the Exponential Growth in Physical Systems #2 thread.

  227. MarkR
    Posted Jun 9, 2007 at 5:41 PM | Permalink

    SteveM

    I know you don’t like off the chosen topics postings on CO2 and thermodynamics etc, but wouldn’t it at least be worth having designated threads for these topics akin to the Exponential Growth one, or at least another recognised location. Some brilliant posts are being made on these topics and at the moment they are being lost, because there is no focus for them.

  228. Peter Lloyd
    Posted Jun 9, 2007 at 5:45 PM | Permalink

    re: ongoing CO2/IR absorption debate

    I’ve thought myself round and round in circles on this subject for several years now. For a start, I can’t understand why it’s not a central issue at IPCC with a committee dedicated to it – it is the central issue, after all.

    I have a question which shows my ignorance but what the hell – just illuminate me.

    Contributions to this thread so far show that CO2 IR absorbance bands are fully saturated at comparatively low ppmv -

  229. Peter Lloyd
    Posted Jun 9, 2007 at 6:49 PM | Permalink

    Something’s gone wrong – only half my post appeared! Try again -

    re: ongoing CO2/IR absorption debate

    I’ve thought myself round and round in circles on this subject for several years now. For a start, I can’t understand why it’s not given priority at IPCC with a committee dedicated to it – it is the central issue, after all.

    I have a question which shows my ignorance but what the hell – just illuminate me.

    Contributions to this thread so far show that CO2 IR absorbance bands are fully saturated at comparatively low ppmv -

  230. Peter Lloyd
    Posted Jun 9, 2007 at 6:52 PM | Permalink

    I give up! Can’t get whole post to load.

  231. jae
    Posted Jun 9, 2007 at 10:28 PM | Permalink

    228 says:

    I know you don’t like off the chosen topics postings on CO2 and thermodynamics etc, but wouldn’t it at least be worth having designated threads for these topics akin to the Exponential Growth one, or at least another recognised location. Some brilliant posts are being made on these topics and at the moment they are being lost, because there is no focus for them.

    There is a void here, Steve. You could fill it.

  232. jae
    Posted Jun 9, 2007 at 10:40 PM | Permalink

    232, cont. One of the weird things about AR4 is, as far as I know, it does not provide a physical basis (at least in any detail) for the idea that man-made GHGs can warm thte planet. Steve M. sees that and asked IPCC for an elucidation of this critical part of the “theory.” But, then, he will not allow this subject to be discussed here, because it involves “thermodynamics.” IPCC evidently ignored Steve M’s request. Why? Could it be that the theory defies some important physical laws? (I am not allowed to discuss “thermodynamics” here, so I can’t talk about these laws). But I have to say that the idea that the atmosphere can heat the surface is simply laughable.

  233. Posted Jun 9, 2007 at 10:54 PM | Permalink

    Steve McIntyre, please, if you allow a bit of thermodynamics in the unthreaded 12, I could promise you that I won’t touch quantum mechanics. I think no one here will touch it.

  234. Steve McIntyre
    Posted Jun 10, 2007 at 12:02 AM | Permalink

    #233. that’s a valid point. let me think about a couple of posts to structure things. I’ve got some notes but it may be a week or two. Please lay off a little in the mean time.

  235. Richard Sharpe
    Posted Jun 10, 2007 at 1:51 AM | Permalink

    Dirty Snow From Pollution Heating Up Arctic

  236. STAFFAN LINDSTRÖM
    Posted Jun 10, 2007 at 2:56 AM | Permalink

    #218

    Filippo!
    Qustione: What do you mean by”Baltic freezes to Denmark
    once or twice a decade”??? Actually It never happened
    during the 20th century TTBOMK not even during WW2
    winters there was always some open water south of
    Gotland!!??

  237. Willis Eschenbach
    Posted Jun 10, 2007 at 3:52 AM | Permalink

    Peter, per your post, I suspect the problem is the “less than” symbol, which the server interprets as the start of an HTML tag and goes off the rails.

    I think you can use & l t (without the spaces), let me try … 2 &lt 3 …

    w.

  238. Willis Eschenbach
    Posted Jun 10, 2007 at 3:53 AM | Permalink

    No joy, showed up properly in preview but not in the post. Maybe with “Tex” tags

    2 $latex

  239. Willis Eschenbach
    Posted Jun 10, 2007 at 3:53 AM | Permalink

    Nope, lost again.

    w.

  240. Nicholas
    Posted Jun 10, 2007 at 4:54 AM | Permalink

    Willis, you have to put a semicolon on the end of those entities… like & l t ; (<) & g t ; (>) & a m p ; (&)

    The preview lies.. it allows & g t but HTML is more strict.

  241. Andrey Levin
    Posted Jun 10, 2007 at 4:56 AM | Permalink

    Re#236

    I clearly remember 30-year old articles from Russian newspapers reporting “new victory of human mind” over “dark forces of nature”. Couple of experiments indicated that spraying carbon particles (grinded coal or charcoal) over river’s ice in Siberia lead to earlier ice melt and about 7-10 days earlier start of navigation season on Great Siberian Rivers flowing into Arctic Ocean. It was vastly beneficial to supply of materielle for major oil production regions of Western Siberia.

  242. KevinUK
    Posted Jun 10, 2007 at 5:06 AM | Permalink

    228, 229 etc Steve M

    Do you remember when Martin Juckes refused to discuss quantum mechanics (which at some point would have involved statistical thermodynamics also) with me? If you remember I wanted to know if he had gone to the trouble to discuss the enhanced greenhouse effect with his particle physics colleagues at RAL. Evidently he hadn’t and it’s a pity that he refused this debate as I think it would have revealed a great deal about how much ‘real’ physics atmospheric physicists like Martin Juckes know (not at lot IMO). In particular I wanted to get to the fundamental physics that (does not) underpins the modellers claims of positive water vapour feedback as it is the blatent mis-use of this aspect of physics within the GCMs that underpins the alarmist ‘tipping point’ predictions of 2 degC to 10 degC increase in mean global surface temperature that worries the politicians so much.

    Regards

    KevinUK

  243. Peter Lloyd
    Posted Jun 10, 2007 at 6:50 AM | Permalink

    re: Willis 239/241

    Willis – thanks for your very considerate attempts to sort out my problem….but it’s deeper than that – I’m just plain dumb.

    No time to post now but will put my question later this evening.

  244. ALLAN AMES
    Posted Jun 10, 2007 at 8:44 AM | Permalink

    re 227 MarkR

    Thank you for the acknowledgement. There are too many issues to keep track of. Let’s see what trouble we can get into in Systems,2.

  245. Posted Jun 10, 2007 at 2:03 PM | Permalink

    From where did the idea that water vapor “helps” the CO2 to absorb heat come? It sounds like a living being helping another species to achieve its goal, like comensalism or symbiosis. Does steam is a charitable soul or something?

  246. richardT
    Posted Jun 10, 2007 at 2:52 PM | Permalink

    #246
    It’s a positive feedback. Nothing mysterious.
    More CO2 gives higher temperatures, so the atmosphere can hold more water vapour, which leads to a further rise in temperature.

  247. ALLAN AMES
    Posted Jun 10, 2007 at 2:56 PM | Permalink

    re 246 Nasif Nahle
    Just groping for an answer, my quantum chemistry program (MOPAC) tells me the the reaction CO2 + H2O is favored by enthalpy, though unfavored by entropy except at oceanic pressures, so there may be some transient intermediates (that might even have their own IR contributions toward band formation or participation in the water bands). They would not live long but they might speed progress toward equilibrium. Then again, this may be irrelevant or even wrong.

  248. JohnM.
    Posted Jun 10, 2007 at 3:15 PM | Permalink

    I doubt it is that simple #247 as temperature has been reasonably stable on the geological timescale even when there has been much more CO2 in the atmosphere than there is at present. More clouds increasing the Earth’s albedo and reflecting away a greater portion of incident sunlight resulting in a surface temperature cooling effect is probably the safety mechanism that prevents runaway increases in temperatures based on the positive feedback you describe.

    In general it’s good to see this question being discussed on here as it runs much more to the core of the science on which AGW is based than Mann and his infamous hockey stick, which in many ways is a bit of a red herring. Here is some basic background material to help people get a more balanced picture than can be obtained by simply reading this thread:-

    http://www.answers.com/topic/greenhouse-effect

  249. richardT
    Posted Jun 10, 2007 at 3:43 PM | Permalink

    #249
    There was rain forest in the Arctic during the Eocene, and tundra in northern France at the last glacial maximum. Does this really counts as “reasonably stable”?

  250. KevinUK
    Posted Jun 10, 2007 at 4:05 PM | Permalink

    #247 richardT

    So because the mean global surface temperature increases (as a result of a higher concentration of CO2 – NOT!) the atmosphere can hold more water vapour? Please justify this claim on the basis of fundamental physics please. Remember that its not the water vapour concentration at the surface that matters (from an AGW positive feedback point of view) but what happens at the boundary between our atmosphere and space. Now whats the concentration of water vapour at this layer?

    KevinUK

  251. Posted Jun 10, 2007 at 4:18 PM | Permalink

    # 249

    John,

    I visited Answer.com, but it has some basic “errors” that I cannot attribute to an oversimplification of the concept. For example, the definition No. 1 says, “…that allow incoming sunlight to pass through but absorb heat radiated back from the earth’s surface.” This is not a correct systematic description of the greenhouse effect, but a biased description.

    Then it says, “The ability of a planetary atmosphere to inhibit heat loss from the planet’s surface, thereby enhancing the surface warming that is produced by the absorption of solar radiation.” It’s not a inhibition, but a delay. And here we go again with the paradox of the violation of the second… It’s another biased argument.

    After that, Answers.com says, “Also, the atmosphere must be opaque at thermal wavelengths to prevent thermal radiation emitted by the ground from escaping directly to space. The principle is similar to a thermal blanket, which also limits heat loss by conduction and convection.” There is not any “thermal blanket” effect in the atmosphere and heat transfer by conduction and convection is not limited by any plastic or glass layer in the atmosphere that impeded the conduction and convection. Besides, heat is lost by the transmissivity of the thermodynamic system, not by conduction and convection. It is an inexact and tendencious information.

    In one of the links from Answers.com (http://www.realtruth.org/articles/443-gwrfa.html?gclid=CLjXz5rJ0owCFQi9VAodMRJttQ) it is affirmed that “Hurricanes are becoming more numerous and more intense, and sea levels are rising.”, and they pointed it like a fact. Simply, it’s not true.

  252. richardT
    Posted Jun 10, 2007 at 4:18 PM | Permalink

    #251
    I’m a palaeoecologist. Am I really supposed to know all the details about the fundamental physics?

  253. John Baltutis
    Posted Jun 10, 2007 at 4:18 PM | Permalink

    Re: #206

    The SysAdmin’s released my post from the spam filter. See #210 in Exponential Growth in Physical Systems #2.

  254. Steve McIntyre
    Posted Jun 10, 2007 at 4:27 PM | Permalink

    #249. JohnM , I did a post on an article seeking to explain the very long-term stability of earth’s climate here, also invoking clouds as a feedback stabliizer: http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=711

  255. Posted Jun 10, 2007 at 4:29 PM | Permalink

    # 249

    It may be an article from the IPCC. I don’t trust IPCC “assessments” because these are not based on empirical data, but on assumptions (for example, the reports begin with an “it is likely that…”).

  256. Posted Jun 10, 2007 at 4:34 PM | Permalink

    # 253

    Richard, as a Paleoecologist you are supposed to know fundamental physics; however, all the details are supposed to be known by a Physicist.

  257. Steve McIntyre
    Posted Jun 10, 2007 at 4:43 PM | Permalink

    #250. Richard, in the sense that the earth hasn’t become either a Venus hothouse or a Mars icehouse, yes, it is “reasonably stable”. My understanding of GCM capability (per Huybers) is that GCMs tend to be able to get into an ice age or out of an ice age, but not both.

  258. JohnM.
    Posted Jun 10, 2007 at 6:09 PM | Permalink

    #252

    Nasif,

    I wouldn’t get too worked up about all the details. The wikipedia entry does at least state, “A more realistic picture taking into account the convective and latent heat fluxes is somewhat more complex. But the following simple model captures the essence….” to make the reader aware that what they are getting is the simplified version. Some very distinguished people are highly concerned about AGW right now and I think that url provides a good explanation for the core scientific reasons behind that in a manner seldom seen in media reports, which usually tend to fixate on the most alarming available model prediction. Discerning readers will probably interpret sentences like the one I’ve quoted above as a possible source of doubt that may well be worth investigating further.

  259. Bob Weber
    Posted Jun 11, 2007 at 1:38 AM | Permalink

    Sherwood and Craig Idso have written a through critique of James Hansen’s 26 April 2007 testimony made to a House of Representitives committee on “Dangererous Human-Made Interference with Climate”. Link is
    http://www.co2science.org/scripts/CO2ScienceB2C/education/reports/hansen/hansencritique.jsp

    Bob

  260. Steve Milesworthy
    Posted Jun 11, 2007 at 5:52 AM | Permalink

    #251 KevinUK
    It’s not the atmosphere-space boundary that is of concern, it’s the “boundary” between lots of greenhouse gases and no greenhouse gases that is important. If the increase in CO2 concentration, and any subsequent increase in water vapour, causes this “boundary” to increase in height, then the temperature of that boundary has to increase to bring the earth back into radiation balance. (“boundary” is in quotes because it relates to optical depth. Optical depth is frequency dependent as well as being a slightly fuzzy concept given that it measures the exponential drop-off of the proportion of radiation that escapes from the atmosphere as you go deeper into the atmosphere).

    #all
    It’s probably easier to split the argument into levels. I suggest 3 levels provide the basis of the argument: 1) Do greenhouse gases behave the way the physicists say they do? 2) Do increases in greenhouse gases cause more warming? 3) Does warming cause significant net positive feedbacks related to increases in water vapour and/or changes in clouds?

    Otherwise it gets confusing because people use a disbelief in 1 or 2 to refute arguments about 3, or a disbelief in 3 can be misinterpreted as a disbelief in 1 or 2.

  261. Steve Milesworthy
    Posted Jun 11, 2007 at 6:07 AM | Permalink

    #255
    While interesting, this posting referred to a paper that used a very simple model to deliberately search for plausible mechanisms for maintaining a stable temperature.

    #258
    Slightly related, the big models are too slow for full paleo reconstructions (they run at a few model-years per day so a glacial cycle will take decades to run).

  262. Peter Lloyd
    Posted Jun 11, 2007 at 6:21 AM | Permalink

    re: ongoing CO2/IR absorption debate.

    I’ve thought myself round and round in circles on this subject for several years now. For a start, I can’t understand why it’s not given priority at IPCC with a committee dedicated to it – it is the central issue, after all.

    I have a question which shows my ignorance but what the hell – just illuminate me.

    CO2 IR absorbance bands are few and narrow – one at 2.6 to 2.8 micrometers, another at 4.1 to 4.5 – and therefore CO2 is a comparatively poor heat transfer agent, as chemical engineers well know. There is less than 0.04% CO2 in the atmosphere. Solar radiation includes huge amounts of IR energy between 1 and 15 micrometers. The self-evident fact that a huge amount of IR is available at Earth’s surface for further heating, after passing through the entire atmosphere, shows conclusively that ALL atmospheric IR absorbers must be fully saturated. Being fully saturated, they are not capable of absorbing any outgoing re-radiated IR. Therefore the greenhouse gas effect does not operate – during daytime.

    At nightime, however, the greenhouse argument comes in to play – the IR energy radiating from heated surface, oceans and atmosphere radiates away to space. But this re-radiated heat is at a much lower temperature (longer wavelengths) than solar IR and can not be absorbed by CO2. Only water vapour, and possibly some minor organic gasses, have IR absorbance bands at these long wavelengths. So, while the greenhouse effect indeed operates at nightime, CO2 can take no part in it.

    So the entire CO2 greenhouse gas argument is a red herring. None of this is clever science – it’s all high school level.

    My question is – where have I gone wrong?

  263. Steve Milesworthy
    Posted Jun 11, 2007 at 6:59 AM | Permalink

    #263 Peter Lloyd
    There is an important band at 15 microns. See here for a plot of IR absorption of CO2 and water vapour in a clear tropical sky:

    http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Study/Iris/

    If you accept this plot, it is clear that CO2 does have a role to play, since in this type of sky it is saturated where water vapour is not.

    What is important is changes in absorption of outgoing IR rather than incoming solar IR. This is dependent on the earth’s temperature which is not to different between night and day. Most of the earth’s emissions are centred around 10-30 microns, and hence the important 15 micron CO2 band.

  264. Steve Milesworthy
    Posted Jun 11, 2007 at 7:26 AM | Permalink

    Graph by Robert Simmon, based on model data from the NASA GSFC Laboratory for Atmospheres

  265. Hans Erren
    Posted Jun 11, 2007 at 7:40 AM | Permalink

    re 263:

    …shows conclusively that ALL atmospheric IR absorbers must be fully saturated.
    My question is – where have I gone wrong?

    The CO2 spectrum is not saturated!

  266. Joe B
    Posted Jun 11, 2007 at 7:45 AM | Permalink

    Devastating critique of AGW by Alexander Cockburn

    Article

    What makes it so interesting is that Cockburn is far-left

  267. Hans Erren
    Posted Jun 11, 2007 at 7:47 AM | Permalink

    The CO2 spectrum is not saturated!
    proof:
    If the CO2 spectrum were saturated we could not see the surface using infrared sensors.

  268. Steve McIntyre
    Posted Jun 11, 2007 at 7:55 AM | Permalink

    #266. I’ll start a thread for CO2/IR issues later this week if you can hold your horses.

    Hans Erren is exactly right; the CO2 spectrum is not saturated and this line of skeptic argument is a complete red herring. IF one wants to argue that the impact of CO@ is over-estimated, I think that you have to examine (1) whether water vapor/cloud-CO2 overlaps can attenuate the direct IR impact of additional CO2 ; (2) the water vapor multiplier effect; or (3) whether changes in lapse rate could mitigate the effect e.g. by warming at the tropopause offsetting the higher-the colder.

  269. Gerald Machnee
    Posted Jun 11, 2007 at 8:09 AM | Permalink

    Re #263 – Does not longwave radiation take place day and night? The difference is that during the day shortwave radiation causes a net gain in heating at the surface and there is a net loss at night as there is no shortwave incoming radiation.

  270. Paul Linsay
    Posted Jun 11, 2007 at 8:46 AM | Permalink

    #268. Hans, the atmosphere is nearly transparent in the LWIR between 8 and 13 um, except for the ozone notch at 9 um. Neither H2O or CO2 have any absorption there. You should check the wavelength used to make the picture. The extra CO2 absorption above 16 um in your plot competes with H20 which makes the atmosphere at 16 um and longer nearly opaque. The only place the extra CO2 matters is at the 13.5 um edge.

  271. Posted Jun 11, 2007 at 9:12 AM | Permalink

    # 264 to # 271

    Well, in my humble opinion, perhaps this could help. It is a fragment of one of my articles published by BioCab (I have not written down the link to my article by deference to this forum):

    Total absorbed by the surface: 356.15 W/m^2 (you can check it out from NASA’s site)
    Emitted by the surface to space: 181.64 W/m^2
    Stored by the surface: 174.51 W/m^2
    Absorbed by air from the surface: 19.55 W/m^2
    Absorbed by water vapor from the surface: 130.89 W/m^2
    Transferred by conduction to land and oceans: 24.07 W/m^2

    In the dry air (Please, note that dry air does not exist in nature. It is considered here to consider a feedback with steam):

    Total absorbed by the dry air: 25.07 W/m^2
    Absorbed by dry air from the surface: 19.55 W/m^2
    Absorbed by dry air from clouds and water vapor: 5.52 W/m^2

    Stored by the dry air (by gaseous phase): 5.85 W/m^2
    Emitted directly to space: 2.2 W/m^2
    Transferred to water vapor: 14.66 W/m^2
    Transferred to colder systems on the surface (averaged absorptivity = 0.1206): 2.36 W/m^2

    In water vapor:

    Total absorbed by water vapor: 243.35 W/m^2
    Absorbed from the Sun: 97.8 Watts/m^2
    Absorbed from the surface: 130.89 W/m^2
    Absorbed from atmosphere: 14.66 W/m^2

    Emitted to space from water vapor: 182.513 W/m^2
    Stored by water vapor (by gaseous phase): 14.53 W/m^2
    Transferred to colder systems on the surface: 44.503 W/m^2
    Transferred to air: 1.804 W/m^2

  272. Posted Jun 11, 2007 at 9:26 AM | Permalink

    From # 264 to # 272

    There is a very important amount of heat taken by clouds that is emitted to deep space through condensation (when water vapor gets colder and form droplets, dew, raindrops, hail and snow). The system “water vapor” can act like an enhancer under certain conditions and can mitigate the effect through other physical processes related to phase changes and conversions of energy.

  273. Peter Lloyd
    Posted Jun 11, 2007 at 9:31 AM | Permalink

    re: 264/5

    But that is my point – the interaction between CO2 and outgoing IR radiation is NOT important, relatively, since:

    1. It only occurs at night.
    2. At wavelengths of 15-30 microns the re-radiated energy level is very low – it is barely what we understand as heat. An emitter has to be at a higher energy level than an absorber for energy transfer to occur.
    3. Since the amount of CO2 is only 0.04%, the amount of re-radiated 15 micron energy absorbed by CO2 at night is insignificant compared with the daytime total saturation of ALL atmospheric IR absorbers, plus ALL the IR energy at all wavelengths stored by solid surfaces and oceans.
    4. There is no evidence, as far as I know, that the broad 15 micron CO2 IR absorbance band is saturated with outgoing radiation at night.
    5. What nocturnal greenhouse effect occurs is almost entirely due to water vapour which absorbs IR very well at 5 to 7 microns and partially over a very broad range from 13 microns down.
    For these reasons, I cannot see how it can be said that changes in absorption of outgoing IR by CO2 are what is important, rather than TOTAL absorbed incoming solar IR. Absorption of energy from incoming daytime solar IR is orders of magnitude more important!

    By the way, I am not in a position just now to challenge the graph shown in 265, but it doesn’t look like any CO2 IR transmittance/absorbance plot I have seen. The old Perkin Elmer IR spectrometer manuals showed a CO2 curve practically flat from 5 micrometers down to about 12.5, the beginning of the shoulder of the 15 micrometer 100% absorbance broad band. The text under the graph says that it comes from “model data” – that disturbs me!!

    The CO2 greenhouse gas effect just does not exist. It is a modellers’ construct.

  274. Steve Milesworthy
    Posted Jun 11, 2007 at 10:03 AM | Permalink

    #274 Peter Lloyd
    1. and 2. Check out black body radiation on wikipedia. A warm body will emit radiation both during the day and at night. A body of the temperature of the earth’s surface will emit most of its radiation centred around about 10nm.
    3. The low proportion of CO2 is a red herring. It’s the thermal emission from the whole atmosphere that is important. The CO2 acts as a radiator – absorbing the energy and warming the molecules around it.
    4. Are we talking at cross-purposes here. Saturation, meaning all the IR is absorbed, vs saturation meaning all the CO2 has absorbed a 15 micron photon (so can’t absorb any more).
    5. Conservation of energy! The earth must emit about the same amount of energy as it absorbs. The amount of IR it emits is approximately equal to the amount of solar energy it absorbs (in all wavelengths)

    At a guess the Perkin Elmer plot was done under more ideal conditions. Lower temperature and/or pressure, either of which would make the line narrower. Of course if the line were less broad, the effect of the sidebands could be stronger.

  275. Mark T.
    Posted Jun 11, 2007 at 10:08 AM | Permalink

    Hans Erren is exactly right; the CO2 spectrum is not saturated and this line of skeptic argument is a complete red herring.

    I don’t think the more scientific “skeptic” arguments about CO2 are that it is totally saturated. However, it can never be completely saturated, at least not in any realistic situation. I agree that saying “it is completely saturated” is a bad tactic.

    Hans said:

    If the CO2 spectrum were saturated we could not see the surface using infrared sensors.

    Yes and no. Given that it cannot be completely saturated, you’ll always be able to extract the returns with sufficient processing. The mere indication that you can detect certain wavelengths, as is evident in your plot, does not provide any information about the actual loss due to the atmosphere unless you know how much processing goes into generating the graph.

    As an example, I’m working a radar problem now in which my “returns” are often 40 dB below the noise floor in a 1 MHz bandwidth (sometimes lower). Translated, that means if I have a 1 MHz bandwidth in my receiver, which equates to a noise floor of about -114 dBm (dB relative to one milliwatt), I simply need to process the data long enough to raise the returns above the noise floor to a point at which I’m reasonably certain I’m getting a hit, and not spurious noise. For the ground, which is fairly non-fluctuating, 13 dB SNR provides a 90% probability of detection with a 1e-6 probability of a false alarm (i.e., spurious), which would require 53 dB of gain for a -154 dBm signal. Essentially that means I have to integrate for about 0.2 seconds (~3 dB gain per bandwidth halving) to detect a signal with 99.9999% certainty it is not noise.

    Mark

  276. Posted Jun 11, 2007 at 10:28 AM | Permalink

    # 276

    Mark T,

    However, it can never be completely saturated, at least not in any realistic situation. I agree that saying “it is completely saturated” is a bad tactic.

    Are you suggesting, by a chance, that the CO2 can absorb more than 40 W in real nature, and through the whole infrarred spectrum? Perhaps you are referring to monochromatic electromagnetic radiation?

  277. Peter Lloyd
    Posted Jun 11, 2007 at 10:32 AM | Permalink

    Hans Erren/266:

    You show an absorbance curve showing that CO2 absorbs 100% of IR radiation at 15 microns.

    This neither proves nor disproves whether this waveband is fully saturated by the 0.038% CO2 in the atmosphere. In one way, it re-inforces my view, since it clearly shows that however much CO2 there is, (obviously, above a limiting minimum), once a waveband is saturated the gas can’t absorb more energy.

    More important in this context are the two 100% IR absorbance narrow peaks at around 2.7 and 4.3 microns – the much shorter wavelengths mean much more energy is absorbed than at 15 microns.

    I maintain that the huge amount of IR energy available at Earth’s surface, after the solar IR has passed through the entire atmosphere, shows that all atmospheric IR absorbers must be fully saturated.

    re: 268-

    Your IR photo of the Earth was certainly taken through one of the many IR windows in Earth’s atmosphere, within which no atmospheric IR absorbers exist and the atmosphere is transparent at those wavelengths. That does not show that other wavelengths are not fully saturated and totally opaque.

  278. Steve Sadlov
    Posted Jun 11, 2007 at 10:34 AM | Permalink

    RE: #252 – The so called “Greenhouse Effect” is a manifestation of having the wrong boundary value problem. The boundaries of the overall system are the surface and for the purposes of this exercise, the Ionosphere/Thermosphere-Exosphere interface. There are also subsystem boundaries such as the Tropopause, bottom of the Mesosphere, etc. By modeling the gas and plasma behaviors and engergetics at each interface, it might be possible to come up with a real thermal model, something far better than the primative, overly simplified “Greenhouse Effect.” There is much work to do and time may be short.

  279. Peter Lloyd
    Posted Jun 11, 2007 at 10:35 AM | Permalink

    Steve: re 269 -

    Can you cite some evidence for the claim that CO2 IR absorbance bands are not saturated? Arguable, maybe, but hardly a red herring!

  280. Posted Jun 11, 2007 at 10:36 AM | Permalink

    # 265

    Steve Milesworthy,

    Please, could you provide for us the units at “y” -or “z“- coordinates?

  281. Steve Sadlov
    Posted Jun 11, 2007 at 10:36 AM | Permalink

    Comment about forum behavior – the server keeps losing my username and email address info, even though my session has not ended. I keep having Kind-Captcha repeatedly invoked. Something appears to be wrong in terms of whatever database keeps temporary session info for each user connection. Maybe cookies are not happening, or maybe the database is simply flakey.

  282. Mark T.
    Posted Jun 11, 2007 at 10:57 AM | Permalink

    Are you suggesting, by a chance, that the CO2 can absorb more than 40 W in real nature, and through the whole infrarred spectrum? Perhaps you are referring to monochromatic electromagnetic radiation?

    No, I’m saying that there will always be some leakage of IR no matter how much CO2 is in the atmosphere. As you increase the CO2, you will approach the maximum level of absorption asymptotically. The level at which CO2 absorption is “completely saturated” (or close to it) is probably well past the point of toxicity to humans anyway.

    Mark

  283. Posted Jun 11, 2007 at 10:57 AM | Permalink

    # 279

    Steve Sadlov,

    But it seems that the oversimplification of the notions was made to baffle more than to shed light on the technical jargon.

  284. Posted Jun 11, 2007 at 11:11 AM | Permalink

    # 283

    Mark T,

    But CO2 is not toxic to humans at any level. It is just not O2. Before an exhalation, we keep around 54419 ppmv into lungs. 54419 ppmv of CO2 = 0.086 Kg of CO2. It is evident that although the carbon dioxide cannot sustain human life, it is not toxic for human beings. The higher level that humans can tolerate, if there is less than 15% of Oxygen, is 5000 ppmv.

  285. Steve Milesworthy
    Posted Jun 11, 2007 at 11:21 AM | Permalink

    #281
    Nasif – sorry, didn’t notice that the units got chopped off. The axis on the left is absorption, and goes from 0-100%.

  286. Posted Jun 11, 2007 at 11:28 AM | Permalink

    # 286

    Steve Milesworthy,

    Thank you, Steve. Then it means that CO2 behaves like a black body at that wavelenght, absorbing about 32 W. Right?

  287. Mark T.
    Posted Jun 11, 2007 at 11:30 AM | Permalink

    The higher level that humans can tolerate, if there is less than 15% of Oxygen, is 5000 ppmv.

    I think you missed my point.

    Mark

  288. Posted Jun 11, 2007 at 11:36 AM | Permalink

    #288

    Mark T.,

    Perhaps. Please, could you explain then the phrase “probably well past the point of toxicity to humans anyway.”?

  289. Posted Jun 11, 2007 at 11:47 AM | Permalink

    # 283

    Mark T. wrote:

    I’m saying that there will always be some leakage of IR no matter how much CO2 is in the atmosphere. As you increase the CO2, you will approach the maximum level of absorption asymptotically. The level at which CO2 absorption is “completely saturated”

    Yes, it would be like a holed barrel. But as well as you cannot put more water to a barrel over its capacity of containment, in the same way you cannot put more heat to carbon dioxide over its limit of saturation/absorption. This is the reason of those thermal constants of all kind of matter. For example the transmitivity, which maximum value for CO2 under the current conditions is 0.84 (today June 11, 2007, at 17 UT).

  290. Posted Jun 11, 2007 at 11:49 AM | Permalink

    # 290,

    To myself, it is “transmissivity”.

  291. jae
    Posted Jun 11, 2007 at 11:50 AM | Permalink

    269: Please put this in your post.

  292. Steve Sadlov
    Posted Jun 11, 2007 at 11:50 AM | Permalink

    Weather, not climate (but, weather as a manifestation of ENSO, PDO, longer period oscillations…). The jet stream continues to persist in the pattern that’s been in place for at least a couple of weeks now. It it striking the Pacific NW straight on, from the Aleutians. From there, is angles slightly southward of east, to the Plains, and from there, turns slightly right and exits out over the Atlantic. Fronts arising over the Pacific or even Asia are hitting the Pac NW as lows with occluded fronts – after reaching land, the lows deepen. For the Pac NW, it is quite possible that there will really be no dry period of more than 3 – 4 days all summer. Normally, you all would get at least a couple of two week dry periods mid summer. The rest of the country with the lone exception of the California and western most Nevada, appear to be in for rain, rain and more rain. If you are in the Great Plains, my prayers and thoughts go out to you, this too shall pass. Rain outs on the 4th of July are highly likely in a number of places.

  293. Steve Milesworthy
    Posted Jun 11, 2007 at 11:51 AM | Permalink

    #287 Nasif,

    The CO2 absorbs the radiation. The energy is redistributed among the O2 and N2 by collisions between the molecules. Then the atmosphere (not just the CO2) emits radiation according to its temperature (approx black body).

  294. MarkW
    Posted Jun 11, 2007 at 11:54 AM | Permalink

    http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview?id=197162

    When CO2 gets about around 15,000 ppm, bad things start happening to humans.

  295. Posted Jun 11, 2007 at 11:57 AM | Permalink

    # 295

    MarkW,

    Yeah, with water also.

  296. Posted Jun 11, 2007 at 12:09 PM | Permalink

    # 295

    MarkW,

    Hypercapnia, what is it? Well, hypercapnia means an increase in the frequency of inhalation-exhalation cycles motivated by scarcity of Oxygen in a given environment saturated by CO2. It is not due to a toxicity of the gas, but by the scarcity of Oxygen. You can experience hypercapnia when your blood cannot exchange CO2 by Oxygen at the respiratoty bronchial alveoles. That is what I said in # 285. Water makes the same, that is suffocates. Perhaps water is toxic?

  297. bernie
    Posted Jun 11, 2007 at 12:17 PM | Permalink

    On another thread Dan pointed to Denver as having the coldest June on record. Seems Denver is not a poster child for AGW but that has not stopped AGW advocates.

    Irony of ironies in Denver: No recent warm years and yet plan aimed at curbing AGW is about to be rolled out.

    All 3 stories appear on Drudge

  298. Posted Jun 11, 2007 at 12:23 PM | Permalink

    Read this extract from Answers.com:

    “very high concentrations of atmospheric CO2 can produce a state of hypercapnia, or an excessive amount of CO2 in the blood, which typically results in acidosis, a serious and sometimes fatal condition characterized in
    humans by headache, nausea and visual disturbances.”

    If the concentration of oxygen is 21%, nothing would happen. However, the description above (headache, nausea and visual disturbances) is not the result of an intoxication, but of a suffocation. Carbon Monoxide is toxic, carbon dioxide is not toxic, it simply does not sustain animals’ life.

  299. Mark T.
    Posted Jun 11, 2007 at 12:28 PM | Permalink

    The point was that even at very high concentrations, CO2 will not be a “brick wall” that stops all IR from passing into space. Certainly there is a practical limit at which _most_ IR will be trapped.

    The “toxicity” comment was simply a mention to give relative numbers for when the CO2 itself will kill humans, yet IR will still be getting through to space. Above 5% in the atmosphere will cause hypercapnia, above 7%-10% unconsciousness pretty quickly, at least according to the wiki.

    Mark

  300. Posted Jun 11, 2007 at 12:49 PM | Permalink

    # 300

    Mark T.,

    Yes, but if the oxygen concentrations are very low. Hypercapnia refers only to an impossibility of the animal bodies to get rid of the CO2 from blood. It could happen even if the atmospheric COs was zero. Just stop your breathing and you’ll go into a hypercapnia condition. It has no relation with toxicity, but with lesser intechange of gases through the mucous membrane of lungs.

  301. Posted Jun 11, 2007 at 12:52 PM | Permalink

    # 300

    Mark T.,

    The point was that even at very high concentrations, CO2 will not be a “brick wall” that stops all IR from passing into space. Certainly there is a practical limit at which _most_ IR will be trapped.

    Yes, that’s the point I missed with which I agree, but I was distracted by the “toxicity”. My apologies.

  302. Mark T.
    Posted Jun 11, 2007 at 1:31 PM | Permalink

    A perfect example of how even people that are in general agreement can wander off topic inadvertently into the inconsequential aspects of a discussion. :)

    Mark

  303. Mark T.
    Posted Jun 11, 2007 at 1:35 PM | Permalink

    On another thread Dan pointed to Denver as having the coldest June on record. Seems Denver is not a poster child for AGW but that has not stopped AGW advocates.

    Until this weekend, it has been reasonably cool in the Springs as well. It has finally warmed to early summer temps, however, and not a moment too soon. The camping trip this past weekend would have been rough had it stayed cold (we were at about 9500 feet, just above Woodland Park). Pike’s Peak still has a fair amount of snow on it (probably 50% snow coverage from an eyeball inspection), which hasn’t been the case for the previous four summers.

    Irony of ironies in Denver: No recent warm years and yet plan aimed at curbing AGW is about to be rolled out.

    Denver will in turn force its policies on the rest of the state in an attempt to “save” us all. Great.

    Mark

  304. Posted Jun 11, 2007 at 1:52 PM | Permalink

    # 303

    Mark T., I would say, “A typical example…”

  305. John Lang
    Posted Jun 11, 2007 at 2:55 PM | Permalink

    Sea Surface Temperatures for last week have come in and it looks to me like an official La Nina event will have to be called now.

    http://www.cdc.noaa.gov/map/images/sst/sst.anom.gif

    Lower troposphere temperatures have fallen by 0.35C since this La Nina started in mid-January. To put 0.35C into perspective, that is half of the warming which has occured since 1900.

  306. Mark T.
    Posted Jun 11, 2007 at 3:53 PM | Permalink

    There’s some hidden humor in that follow-up, Nasif, but yes, I agree. :)

    Mark

  307. Steve Sadlov
    Posted Jun 11, 2007 at 3:58 PM | Permalink

    RE: #306 – I don’t want to alarm anyone (and never want to be called an alarmist). That having been written, I do find some things alarming. What you just wrote is highly alarming. I am concerned about a perfect storm, of sorts, whereby negative ENSO, negative PDO, and solar cycles constructively interfere. There could be even more to it than that. Any unbiased accounting of climate history, to the extent we can know it or even make educated guesses about it, will reveal that rapid changes appear to have been many. We are in a, relatively speaking, warm mode at present. Here are all these folks out there concerned about rapid change in the warm direction. That is highly illogical. We are in a warm mode now. Any further change in the warm direction could end up being overshoot …. just before the transition to a cold state. Hopefully, the worst case scenario is another LIA. I don’t want to think about anything worse than that.

  308. Richard Sharpe
    Posted Jun 11, 2007 at 4:15 PM | Permalink

    Re: 308 …

    RE: #306 – I don’t want to alarm anyone (and never want to be called an alarmist). That having been written, I do find some things alarming. What you just wrote is highly alarming. I am concerned about a perfect storm, of sorts, whereby negative ENSO, negative PDO, and solar cycles constructively interfere. There could be even more to it than that. Any unbiased accounting of climate history, to the extent we can know it or even make educated guesses about it, will reveal that rapid changes appear to have been many. We are in a, relatively speaking, warm mode at present. Here are all these folks out there concerned about rapid change in the warm direction. That is highly illogical. We are in a warm mode now. Any further change in the warm direction could end up being overshoot …. just before the transition to a cold state. Hopefully, the worst case scenario is another LIA. I don’t want to think about anything worse than that.

    But surely, Steve, there’s nothing to worry about. We just have to put a tax on any activity that is not pumping enough CO2 into the atmosphere.

  309. Joe Ellebracht
    Posted Jun 11, 2007 at 4:18 PM | Permalink

    re 308
    11 year solar cycles, ENSO, PDO. Longer range weather, not climate, or no?

  310. Joe Ellebracht
    Posted Jun 11, 2007 at 4:23 PM | Permalink

    Although economics are off topic, I thought this story might be of some interest.

    Florida, the US state where I live, is growing fast, and is projected by the US Census Bureau to grow in population by 79.5% by 2030 from the 2000 census count. (Yes, seems perhaps a bit precise, but that is further off topic.)

    The local power monopoly wanted to build a coal fired electricity generating plant. Mostly they have gas fired plants, but were ordered by the state to diversify their fuel sources after the Katrina storm disrupted fuel access. The Florida political regulatory body turned down the application for the new coal plant on economic grounds, not under current conditions, but because they expected the US Congress to start charging for carbon emissions. Since this is a political body, the official explanation can be considered with “medium confidence” to be subterfuge, but it is at least an indication of what story is considered plausible.

    Confidence levels based upon
    Guidance Notes for Lead Authors of the
    IPCC Fourth Assessment Report on Addressing Uncertainties

    http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/Report/AR4_UncertaintyGuidanceNote.pdf

    Quantitatively calibrated levels of confidence.
    Terminology: Degree of confidence in being correct
    Very High confidence: At least 9 out of 10 chance of being correct
    High confidence: About 8 out of 10 chance
    Medium confidence: About 5 out of 10 chance
    Low confidence: About 2 out of 10 chance
    Very low confidence: Less than 1 out of 10 chance

  311. Peter Lloyd
    Posted Jun 11, 2007 at 4:40 PM | Permalink

    Steve Milesworthy – re 275:

    1/2 – What you say is of course absolutely correct. My contention is that the re-radiated IR is not absorbed by atmospheric CO2 in daytime because the relevant CO2 IR absorption bands are already saturated by incoming solar IR. Nor is it significantly absorbed at night because the 15 micron CO2 IR absorption band is at too long a wavelength and at too low an energy level to be significant in comparison with the huge energy transfers made in daytime.

    3 – No, low CO2 is not a red herring; it’s important because the rate of temperature rise (= rate of heat transfer) is controlled by the amount of CO2 present in a mixed gas system. Not the final temperature, which cannot be more than the temperature equivalent of the highest of the CO2 IR absorption bands (2.7 microns). Very low CO2 concentration = very slow rate of heat transfer.
    Of course you are also absolutely correct that thermal emission from the whole atmosphere is much more important – but that is my very point; a greenhouse gas CO2 effect plays no significant part.

    4 – I guess I use “saturation” in this context as meaning that all the IR absorption bands of CO2 in a given system have been raised to the energy level of the incident IR at the relevant frequencies and can absorb no more IR energy.

    5 – Undisputable. But my point is that a CO2 greenhouse effect plays no significant part in this process.

  312. klaus Brakebusch
    Posted Jun 11, 2007 at 5:21 PM | Permalink

    Another item – usually unmentioned – is: The IPCC assumes
    increasing consumption of fossil fuels, going somewhere up to
    120 – 130 megabarrels/day within the next 20 to 25 years.
    (raw numbers, didn’t find them again as I searched for them)

    That’s totally bejond reasonable:

    We are getting a little bit under 86 megabarrels/day for two years
    now, whilst the rig count nearly doubled in the last few years.

    rig count: http://www.bakerhughes.com/investor/rig/index.htm

    World Oil Supply: http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/ipsr/supply.html

    Unless invalidated in the next months/years (which I seriosly doubt) ,
    Peak-Oil isn’t something of the future, it was in 2005/2006 with
    nearly 85.5 megabarrels/day.

    With Ghawar(Saudi Arabia) and Cantarell(Mexico) dying, and
    Burgan(United Arabian Emirates), the three biggest oil fields are
    in – terminal – decline, and with 6 of th 8 biggest Producers
    (Saudi Arabia, Russia, US, Iran, China, Mexico, Norway, Venezuela)
    in decline, decreased CO2 output will be forced by decreasing supply.

  313. David Archibald
    Posted Jun 11, 2007 at 6:45 PM | Permalink

    Re 269, Mr McIntyre, the CO2 band isn’t saturated, but it is very nearly so. Let’s do the maths. The first 20 ppm is worth 15.3 watts per square metre. From 20 to 40 ppm is worth a further 3.1 watts. Before we go any further, let’s up the ante. Warmers talk in terms of a doubling of preindustrial CO2 as something dreadful. That would be 560 ppm. Let’s talk in terms of 1,000 ppm. Watts to 280 ppm is 26.7. Going to 1,000 ppm is a further 5.3 watts for a total CO2 effect to that level of 32 watts. What is the preindustrial wattage as a percentage of 1,000 ppm? It is 83.5%. So while it is strictly true that the CO2 band is not saturated, it is saturated as far as having any effect on life on this planet, in timeframes of less than hundreds of years. To convert watts to atmospheric temperature effect, I recommend the Idso figure of 0.1 degrees C per watt. For example, from 500 ppm CO2 to 600 ppm is worth 0.8 watts, which translates to a warming of 0.08 degress C. AGW is real, it is also minuscule. Throw in the plant growth effect and increased atmospheric CO2 is wholly beneficial. I recommend the MODTRANS site for anyone wanting to examine the logarithmic effect of CO2 saturation for themselves.

  314. Posted Jun 11, 2007 at 7:07 PM | Permalink

    # 314

    David Archibald,

    David, it would be better if you use the complete formula. Unfortunatelly, I promised to Steve to respect the rules of his forum. If you use the complete algorithm you’ll find that the effect of CO2 on the tropospheric temperature is almost negligible.

  315. Posted Jun 11, 2007 at 9:07 PM | Permalink

    re 313

    I agree the IPCC estimate will not be accurate.

    The modern world needs energy and fossil fuel is a major source. From a CO2 basis, it makes little difference if the fossil fuel is oil, tar sand, oil shale or coal. They key to which is used is really a combination of economics and technology. What that combination of fuel (carbon based and nuclear) and technology will be in 2050 is any ones guess

  316. Posted Jun 11, 2007 at 10:40 PM | Permalink

    # 316

    I wonder what the governments will do with all the petroleum that no longer will be used by being obsolete. Will they leave it behind, degrading in the depths?

  317. Steve McIntyre
    Posted Jun 11, 2007 at 10:46 PM | Permalink

    #314. I disagree with this analysis for a number of reasons. I encourage posters not to over-reach or jump to conclusions or assume that trivial errors have been made.

    The issue of CO2 saturation has been discussed at length in other forums and I don’t have the time to discuss it here. I just want to record that it is well understood that the main CO2 band is saturated in the center of the band and that that has nothing to do with the validity of AGW arguments.

  318. Posted Jun 11, 2007 at 11:37 PM | Permalink

    Astrophysicist Nir Shaviv has a new post on his blog called:

    The fine art of fitting elephants:
    http://www.sciencebits.com/FittingElephants

    I’m sure some of you will find it quite interesting!

  319. SidViscous
    Posted Jun 12, 2007 at 12:06 AM | Permalink

    David

    Can you give a link the MODTRANS site.

  320. Hans Erren
    Posted Jun 12, 2007 at 12:38 AM | Permalink

    re 320:
    It’s called modtran.
    http://geosci.uchicago.edu/~archer/cgimodels/radiation.html
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MODTRAN
    http://www.vs.afrl.af.mil/ProductLines/IR-Clutter/modtran4.aspx

  321. Hans Erren
    Posted Jun 12, 2007 at 1:03 AM | Permalink

    re 292:
    Heinz Hug only considered the 14-16 micron wavelengths, where CO2 is fully saturated over the atmospheric path.

  322. Hans Erren
    Posted Jun 12, 2007 at 1:15 AM | Permalink

    re 300:

    The point was that even at very high concentrations, CO2 will not be a “brick wall” that stops all IR from passing into space. Certainly there is a practical limit at which _most_ IR will be trapped.

    umm yes it will, at venus Co2 concentrations 10 meters is sufficient to even saturate the 10 micron band.

  323. MarkW
    Posted Jun 12, 2007 at 4:59 AM | Permalink

    toxicity

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toxicity

    Anything that has a negative affect on a body can be said to be toxic.

    So excessive CO2 is toxic, so is excessive water.

  324. SidViscous
    Posted Jun 12, 2007 at 7:31 AM | Permalink

    But CO2 doesn’t have a negative effect. Lack of Oxygen has the negative effect.

    Same could be said of nitrogen, increase the nitrogen component of the atmosphere and you will have the same effect. The problem isn’t too much nitrogen, which we breath loads of every day, it’s not enough oxygen.

  325. MarkW
    Posted Jun 12, 2007 at 7:42 AM | Permalink

    High levels of CO2 in the air make it more difficult for the lungs to expel the CO2 from the blood.

    The lungs perform two functions, take up O2, and expel CO2. The efficiency at which both processes take place is affected by the relative concentrations of both gasses in both the blood and in the air.

  326. Gaudenz Mischol
    Posted Jun 12, 2007 at 7:51 AM | Permalink

    Our respiration is driven not by a lack of oxygen but by the concentration of CO2 in the lungs.
    Normal concentration in exhaled air from lungs is around 3%, much higher than ambient air.
    If CO2 rises too high you will fell like suffocation, if you reduce the oxygen in inhaled air, you won’t get this feeling
    but you will just go to coma
    (basic physiolgy during my veterinary medicine studies)

  327. Steve McIntyre
    Posted Jun 12, 2007 at 8:17 AM | Permalink

    enough physiology discussion. do it elsewhere. Thx

  328. Mark T.
    Posted Jun 12, 2007 at 9:55 AM | Permalink

    umm yes it will, at venus Co2 concentrations 10 meters is sufficient to even saturate the 10 micron band.

    No, you can still look at Venus and see some IR being re-radiated. My point is that not all the energy in that band can be stopped, it is an asymptotic approach (you’ll note that I also mentioned that certainly “most” can be trapped). That’s how attenuations work, you have to get infinite attenuation (impossible) to completely remove some “signal,” whatever it may be. Saying that the band may be saturated only means that that CO2 has trapped all it can trap, too.

    Also, the context was “reasonable” situations, and Venus hardly counts as reasonable in comparison to the atmosphere of the earth.

    Mark

  329. Andrey Levin
    Posted Jun 12, 2007 at 10:51 AM | Permalink

    Ha!

    Ross McKitrick proposes Solomon’s solution to GW debate:

    “Suppose each country implements something called the T3 tax, whose U.S. dollar rate is set equal to 20 times the three-year moving average of the RSS and UAH estimates of the mean tropical tropospheric temperature anomaly, assessed per tonne of carbon dioxide, updated annually. Based on current data, the tax would be US$4.70 per ton, which is about the median mainstream carbon-dioxide-damage estimate from a major survey published in 2005 by economist Richard Tol. The tax would be implemented on all domestic carbon-dioxide emissions, all the revenues would be recycled into domestic income tax cuts to maintain fiscal neutrality, and there would be no cap on total emissions.

    The IPCC predicts a warming rate in the tropical troposphere of about double that at the surface, implying about 0.2C to 1.2C per decade in the tropical troposphere under greenhouse-forcing scenarios. That implies the tax will climb by $4 to $24 per tonne per decade, a much more aggressive schedule of emission fee increases than most current proposals. At the upper end of warming forecasts, the tax could reach $200 per tonne of CO2 by 2100, forcing major carbon-emission reductions and a global shift to non-carbon energy sources.

    Global-warming activists would like this. But so would skeptics, because they believe the models are exaggerating the warming forecasts. After all, the averaged UAH/ RSS tropical troposphere series went up only about 0.08C over the past decade, and has been going down since 2002. Some solar scientists even expect pronounced cooling to begin in a decade. If they are right, the T3 tax will fall below zero within two decades, turning into a subsidy for carbon emissions.”

    http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/financialpost/comment/story.html?id=d84e4100-44e4-4b96-940a-c7861a7e19ad&p=1

    Time to short oil futures?

  330. Posted Jun 12, 2007 at 10:59 AM | Permalink

    There are many variables to take into account for calculating the heat stored by a substance. There are limits in absortivity, emissivity, transmissivity, monochromatic saturation, specific heat, conductivity, heat transfer coefficient, density, etc. Heat is energy in movement, and there are fundamental laws that rule its movement. Heat is not a wild beast, after all. CO2 has not the ability of storing heat beyond those limits.

  331. MarkW
    Posted Jun 12, 2007 at 11:31 AM | Permalink

    #330,

    What about credits for the benefits of warmer temperature and CO2 fertilization?

  332. jae
    Posted Jun 12, 2007 at 11:41 AM | Permalink

    330: Now, THAT makes sense!

  333. Steve Milesworthy
    Posted Jun 12, 2007 at 11:44 AM | Permalink

    #330
    Couple of large volcanoes and budget deficits go through the roof! On the other hand, a strong El Nino drives the poor tax payer into poverty.

  334. Steve Sadlov
    Posted Jun 12, 2007 at 11:48 AM | Permalink

    RE: #334 – You seem to be admiting that volcanoes and ENSO are stronger forces than reputed “killer AGW.”

  335. MarkW
    Posted Jun 12, 2007 at 12:45 PM | Permalink

    Seems that aviation companies have discovered something that GCM modelers are still denying.

    ————————————-

    Rockwell Collins Conducting Global Weather Radar Tests ‘€” Rockwell Collins is conducting the third in a series of global flight tests of its airline market MultiScan radar that detects storms automatically, so geographical differences in storm behavior can be modeled in software.
    The major commitment by the Cedar Rapids, Iowa company, is putting the latest MultiScan radar in a BBJ temporarily equipped as a test bed over Iceland, Europe, Africa, South America and the Caribbean, as well as the North and South Atlantic. The 20-day trip runs June 2-22.
    The MultiScan automatic airborne weather radar was first released in 2002, and the company has learned from airlines since then that it needs to be adjusted to work optimally in different parts of the world. As it turns out, all thunderstorms are not created equal, and convective weather behaves very differently over the oceans near the equator than it does over Iowa or over the chilly waters of the North Atlantic. New algorithms developed on these flight tests will perfect the geographic smarts the automatic radar needs to provide the best performance regardless of the region it is in.
    The automatic radar was born when airlines started having problems keeping up with the constant need for weather radar training. They wanted the avionics company to create a more standardized tool. Now, the automatic radar is being perfected with data from global flight tests that will be compared to satellite weather data to create a model of storm behavior.
    For example, on the North Atlantic one flight uncovered a situation in which red and yellow storm cells were painted when the view out the cockpit showed clearly that the stratiform cloud deck was below the aircraft’s cruise altitude. This is the type of false alarm these tests are designed to find and eliminate for the latest upgrade to the MultiScan radar software.
    – Aviation Daily

  336. Jonathan Schafer
    Posted Jun 12, 2007 at 2:46 PM | Permalink

    Weather related

    Area forecast discussion
    National Weather Service Fort Worth Texas
    259 PM CDT Tuesday Jun 12 2007

    Discussion…
    upper trough now over Colorado will move east-southeast to Oklahoma by Thursday
    night. As it approaches the atmosphere over North Texas will begin to
    destabilize and probability of precipitation will increase. Models have been pretty
    consistent in cutting off the low and stalling it over the Red
    River through Sunday before it finally starts lifting out to the
    northeast by Monday morning. They are not too consistent on
    individual rain events though because they have a hard time
    initializing and advecting the weak disturbances that rotate
    around these upper lows and cause the precipitation events. Overall
    though…Thursday through Sunday will be a period of unsettled
    weather. Because the timing of any given precipitation event is
    difficult…I have left chance probability of precipitation for any six hour period…but
    it looks like most of North Texas should see one or more periods
    of rain some time before the weekend is up. We get a break on
    Monday but by next Tuesday we sit under northwest flow behind the
    upper low so have added slight chance for morning probability of precipitation due to
    nocturnal convective system that may catch the area after sunrise.

    Highly unusual for June in N TX. We don’t normally get a NW flow aloft at this time of year, and it looks like both this weekend and early next week it will happen again.

    Likley related to the post by Steve S earlier in this thread how the lows are following the jet stream directly over the NW, then turning right at the Rockies and coming into the central plains. If this does get cutoff like they prognosticate, it could lead to more decent rain for us. How quickly we’ve gone from Extreme Drought on the Palmer index to being on the wet side.

  337. Steve Sadlov
    Posted Jun 12, 2007 at 3:04 PM | Permalink

    RE: #337 – What’s amazing is that the Jet Stream is actually split right now. This is more something I’d expect during winter, off the West Coast but not over the Northern Rockies. One branch as you’ve noted is going into TX (then out over the Gulf!) before looping back up, essentially right along the Gulf Stream. The upper branch goes up into Northern Ontario then out over Hudson Bay, before doing something really amazing, taking such a hard right turn that it actually reenters the US near Niagara Falls traveling just west of south! As a result, there is a persistent trough along the Eastern Seaboard. Meanwhile, after the two branches rejoin over the East Coast, it then goes south of the Azores, and splits again with branches going into the Iberian peninsula and North Africa (!). Both of those branches are way farther south than would ever be expected 9 days before the Solstice. Maybe this is what’s going to be typical now that we are apparently back into negative PDO. Last time we had a negative PDO I was a kid. The depths of that one were before I was born.

  338. Steve Sadlov
    Posted Jun 12, 2007 at 3:08 PM | Permalink

    BTW – the “Dust Bowl II” of the 1950s was what I consider to be the most overt marker of the true depths of the last negative PDO.

  339. Craig Loehle
    Posted Jun 12, 2007 at 4:02 PM | Permalink

    “The Team” gift ideas!

    I have found the perfect gift– “Consensus” brand clothing! check it out at the mall

  340. Posted Jun 12, 2007 at 4:30 PM | Permalink

    # 339

    Steve Sadlov,

    Are you referring to this note? It’s not the climate change, but lack of prevision; and if they continue thinking that they can revert the climate change instead of facing it, we all will be in serious problems.

  341. Steve Sadlov
    Posted Jun 12, 2007 at 4:55 PM | Permalink

    RE: #341 – No, I was referring to the protracted drought during the 1950s which impacted many of the same areas the long drought of the 1920s affected.

  342. Posted Jun 12, 2007 at 7:36 PM | Permalink

    Nothing is more predictable than the media’s parroting of it’s own fictions and the terror of each competitor that it will be scooped by others, whether or not the story is true…. In the news game these days we don’t have the staff, time, interest, energy, literacy or minimal sense of responsibility to check our facts by any means except calling up whatever has been written by other hacks on the same subject and repeating it as gospel.

    - John le Carre, The Tailor of Panama

  343. T J Olson
    Posted Jun 13, 2007 at 2:34 AM | Permalink

    I have the opportunity to question NCAR’s Greg Holland next Tuesday evening, June 19th, in Boulder, Colorado.

    Since he’s speaking on the political implications of his new forthcoming paper, linked to and discussed on CA here, which argues – along with IPCCs 4AR – that the Atlantic Hurricane data correlates with natural and ACW influences, I’m re-reading both.

    But if anyone wants to bullet-point something I ought relate or ask, I’ll be happy to consider it. Off-hand, I’m most impressed with Tim Ball’s comments. Thanks.

  344. Steve Milesworthy
    Posted Jun 13, 2007 at 3:55 AM | Permalink

    #335 Steve Sadlov
    I’m amazed that you are claiming that the spikes and dips in the satellite and surface records are not related to the ENSO and volcano record with which they are well correlated. Is the sun to be blamed for everything?

  345. Hans Erren
    Posted Jun 13, 2007 at 4:29 AM | Permalink

    re 345 and 335:
    Check this multivariate analysis:

    Douglass, D.H. and B.D Clader, 2002, Climate sensitivity of the earth to solar irradiance,
    Geophys. Res Lett. vol 29, no. 16, 10.1029/2002GL015345

  346. Posted Jun 13, 2007 at 9:28 AM | Permalink

    Strange BPh. 55000 ppmv are not 3%, but 5%. Were the dogs toasted?!

    # 346

    Hans Erren,

    Very interesting! The graph on “Solar Irradiance Intensity” is a bit plane. The SI- I does not correspond to SI-I, but to the number of sunspots. Yesterday, the SI- I was 1369 W on Equatorial latitudes. The absolute total Solar Irradiance Intensity was about 3.84790e+26 W/m^2. The Earth’s surface absorbed about 349.2 W/m^2. Please, be careful on not confounding number of sunspots with solar irradiance intensity. If the values were 100% related, the Sun would emit O W when it had not a sunspot on its surface. The main SI is emitted from the Sun’s core.

  347. jae
    Posted Jun 13, 2007 at 9:34 AM | Permalink

    346: Hans, ?? aren’t they essentially correlating temperature with temperature (SST) here?

  348. george h.
    Posted Jun 13, 2007 at 10:46 AM | Permalink

    Another Gore myth bites the dust: http://uwnews.washington.edu/ni/article.asp?articleID=34106

  349. Steve Sadlov
    Posted Jun 13, 2007 at 11:04 AM | Permalink

    RE: #345 – Hey, don’t lie about what I wrote. I did not claim that the records fail to reflect ENSO and volcanoes. And that is the point. Where is the AGW signal? Show it to me and tell me its magnitude.

  350. Steve Sadlov
    Posted Jun 13, 2007 at 11:07 AM | Permalink

    RE: #349 – Hmmmm … I wonder if most (or even any) GCMs have a sublimation term?

  351. Steve Milesworthy
    Posted Jun 13, 2007 at 11:38 AM | Permalink

    Steve Sadlov, my ironic reply was in response to your comment:

    RE: #334 – You seem to be admiting that volcanoes and ENSO are stronger forces than reputed “killer AGW.”

    which makes some incorrect assumptions about the AGW case. The following link is as good as any in pointing out that only a radical degree of smoothing would iron out the effects of ENSO and volcanoes from the temperature record sufficiently to allow it to be used as a basis for important policy.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Satellite_Temperatures.png

    Anyway, this topic now has its own thread.

  352. Steve Sadlov
    Posted Jun 13, 2007 at 12:12 PM | Permalink

    RE: #352 – So on the T3 thread, you want to change to using stratospheric temps. You have essentially admitted that using the tropical troposphere is no good. This, as it turns out, is one (but not the only one) of the great “truths” reputedly predicted but now refuted. Indeed, let us measure the stratosphere for cooling. Let’s rock and roll.

  353. Steve Milesworthy
    Posted Jun 13, 2007 at 12:27 PM | Permalink

    #353
    If you can’t see the warming trend in the graph I posted, I suspect that your monitor has got a wobbly stand.

    Read the T3 thread for the context of the stratosphere comment. I obviously can’t do anything right in your eyes. I feel now that if I spelt a word wrong you’d use it as evidunce that the “AGW orthodoxy is broken because warmers can’t spell”.

  354. James Erlandson
    Posted Jun 13, 2007 at 12:58 PM | Permalink

    In theInternational Journal of Forecasting, J. Scott Armstrong writes:

    Authors should avoid tests of statistical significance; instead, they should report on effect sizes, confidence intervals, replications/extensions, and meta-analyses. Practitioners should ignore significance tests and journals should discourage them.

    Decision Science News comments, This is happy news for practitioners, researchers, and students. On the other hand, it might create anguish among faculty who teach people about statistical significance.

  355. Steve Sadlov
    Posted Jun 13, 2007 at 1:10 PM | Permalink

    RE: #354 – So, you think that Tropical Troposphere does have a warming signal unrelated to ENSO and volcanoes, and reflective of AGW after all? Well if that’s the case, you should have no qualms about T3 being tied to it then. Especially if some sort of rolling average, for example a 5 year rolling average, were used, to set the tax rate.

  356. Mark T.
    Posted Jun 13, 2007 at 2:32 PM | Permalink

    If you can’t see the warming trend in the graph I posted, I suspect that your monitor has got a wobbly stand.

    Actually, you can “see” that it clearly levels off in the last 5 years. Study up on the concepts of “trends” as well as “picking end points” and you’ll understand why this matters. In short, when multiple oscillations of different frequencies are present, an apparent trend can easily be nothing but a short term phenomena. A sine wave has a clear trend over the interval [0, pi/4], but over [0, pi] is has a trend of zero (as well as over multiple cycles).

    Mark

  357. Posted Jun 13, 2007 at 2:51 PM | Permalink

    # 346

    Hans Erren,

    I tell you again, the line of the Solar Irradiance Intensity is very short and it corresponds to the number of sunspots, not to the net SI-I. The SI-I increases with sunspots because these are generally associated with flares. However, the flares that the Sun erupts during the low part of a sunspots cycle send more energy to Earth because there are not many bubbles of electromagnetism that could deviate the particles (or nucleons) sent in the Solar Wind. Please, could you provide provide a graph that details the SI- I? I’d like to use it in my next debate (June 17). Thanks.

  358. Posted Jun 13, 2007 at 3:01 PM | Permalink

    # 355

    James Erlandson,

    Antiscience in the academy? :)

  359. Posted Jun 13, 2007 at 3:55 PM | Permalink

    re 358:
    Sorry I can’t help you, SI-I is new to me. Perhaps you could amend Douglass and Clader yourself?

  360. Posted Jun 13, 2007 at 6:34 PM | Permalink

    Thank you, Hans. I’ll try.

  361. Steve Milesworthy
    Posted Jun 13, 2007 at 6:41 PM | Permalink

    #357
    5 years of almost stable temperatures (albeit about 0.3C warmer than the preceding 3 years) Oh goody – AGW is a lie!

    Or which is better? A 5-year term of (lack of) oscillation, or 25 years of data.

  362. Mark T.
    Posted Jun 13, 2007 at 8:09 PM | Permalink

    #357
    5 years of almost stable temperatures (albeit about 0.3C warmer than the preceding 3 years) Oh goody – AGW is a lie!

    Boy, you sure favor logical fallacy over valid debate. Hyperbole, if you were wondering, not to mention the false attribution and strawman: I never said “AGW is a lie!”

    You’re the one that was commenting about a trend that you could see in only 25 years of temperatures, right? A trend, btw, that is completely different than the one plotted in your precious graphic if you only choose different start and end points. Apparently you did not take my advice and research the concepts.

    Or which is better? A 5-year term of (lack of) oscillation, or 25 years of data.

    Neither. The fact that you cling to the trend in that 25 year graphic, one that changes merely by shifting endpoints around by a decade or so, is evidence of why you don’t understand the problem with this statement.

    Mark

  363. Posted Jun 13, 2007 at 10:10 PM | Permalink

    # 362 # 363

    AGW is a lie. Data from nature and mathematics told me that… :)

    Colleague Steven McIntyre, I cannot do more than to stammer without thermodynamics!

  364. Steve McIntyre
    Posted Jun 13, 2007 at 10:21 PM | Permalink

    #364. At some point, I’ll open up a thread on this when I’m ready to monitor the discussion. I have a finite amount of time. There some other issues that I’m thinking about right now. The issues are important enough that I don’t want want the discussion to to be completely ad hoc. And I don’t want an unsupervised discussion of an important topic. If you want to engage on these topics with this audience, please wait until I’m ready.

  365. Steve Milesworthy
    Posted Jun 14, 2007 at 3:59 AM | Permalink

    Sorry Mark T. for showing frustration, but the trend is irrelevant and I shouldn’t have let it distract me.

    The point is that the large short-term impacts of ENSO, volcanoes and the like mean that the trend cannot accurately be determined, so I guess I agree with you, but I’m not the one arguing for it to be used to set a tax rate.

  366. Mark T.
    Posted Jun 14, 2007 at 9:42 AM | Permalink

    I agree, it is irrelevant. The idea about whether or not it should be used to set a tax rate, however, is almost facetious, but that seems intentional to me. Perhaps such an idea will point out to all those that _do not understand_ exactly how trivial short-term trends are. I.e., put your money where your mouth is (not you, in particular, just in general).

    Nasif, should you get your thermo discussion, I look forward to it. Unfortunately, I’ll not be much more than an observer. We’ll just say that wasn’t my favorite subject as an undergrad. I prefer the mathematics parts related to statistical and/or signal processing issues. :)

    Mark

  367. Steve Sadlov
    Posted Jun 14, 2007 at 10:48 AM | Permalink

    What could be so wrong with using the 5 year running average of T(tt) for setting the T3 tax rate? The longest El Nino or La Nina I am aware of has been 2-1/2 years. Heck, make it the 11 year running average for all I care. The longer the better.

  368. Richard Sharpe
    Posted Jun 14, 2007 at 11:06 AM | Permalink

    The latest PG&E radio and TV ads in CA say:

    Global warming is not just a fact, it’s a choice!

    They are trying to use an emotional appeal to get people to upgrade to a new water heater or whatever.

  369. Steve Sadlov
    Posted Jun 14, 2007 at 12:35 PM | Permalink

    RE: #369 – PG&E is a financial disaster. They recently emerged from bankruptcy and you can see why. They failed to invest in new capacity when it was afordable and got stuck in the downward spiral of relying solely on conservation to create headroom in the grid. The only thing that actually saved their arses was the brief spurt of small indy producers (typically small gas turbines) during the late 90s and early 00s brown out period. In fairness, all the do gooders investing in green power has led to lots of money sinks and tax loopholes known as windfarms – these also help marginally during the summer months. If people who live in still-normal places want to see into the future, assuming that the AGW hysteria continues to hold sway, look at the PG&E service area – this is your future.

  370. Michael Jankowski
    Posted Jun 14, 2007 at 1:17 PM | Permalink

    Global warming is not just a fact, it’s a choice!

    So why doesn’t PG&E choose only to provide power sources which are relatively GHG neutral?

  371. ALLAN AMES
    Posted Jun 14, 2007 at 2:19 PM | Permalink

    re CO2, Steve McIntyre and my 73, 185, and 224 blogs

    I am ready to talk about radiation transfer, the conditions for applicability of the Schwarzschild eqn. and its impact on modeling, but I will wait for the blog. In the meantime, please ponder on the difference between absorption lines and bands.

  372. Andrey Levin
    Posted Jun 15, 2007 at 10:50 AM | Permalink

    Re#370, Steve Sadlov:

    PG&E is not alone. Currently Ontario Hydro requested permission for rate hike “to recover costs for lost revenue and utility incentives due to very successful conservation programs in 2005 and 2006”:

    http://www.ccnmatthews.com/news/releases/show.jsp?action=showRelease&searchText=false&showText=all&actionFor=641623

    More troubles is on the way, while Ontario government a-la Germany is trying to close both nuclear and coal power plants.

    Meanwhile, BC Hydro is claiming that hydro recourses of the province is already tapped-off, and planning to increase wave and solar.

  373. Bob Koss
    Posted Jun 15, 2007 at 11:46 AM | Permalink

    Unthreaded getting a new page for the weekend?

  374. Posted Jun 15, 2007 at 7:49 PM | Permalink

    # 372

    Allan Ames,

    I agree. It’s important to know the difference between Absorption Lines and Absorption Bands. I would add the clarification of chemical saturation and thermal saturation.

  375. Posted Jun 15, 2007 at 7:53 PM | Permalink

    # 374

    Bob Koss

    Is this the reason to the laziness of my typos?

  376. ALLAN AMES
    Posted Jun 16, 2007 at 12:23 PM | Permalink

    re: 375, Nahle

    I agree. And there even more “saturations” to deal with.

    Does anyone know of any experimental test or verification of the Schuster’€”Schwarzschild eqn. in Earth atmospheres?

  377. Filippo Turturici
    Posted Jun 17, 2007 at 4:17 AM | Permalink

    A very curious thing.
    On the famous site “Cryosphere Today” we can see full sea ice data.
    They show in a precise graph that now Arctic sea ice area anomaly from average has gone slightly below -1million km^2 (let’s say -1,1/-1.2millions), from previous about -1million, very much.
    Then I liked to control it: we can do it very easy, since in the same site we can control all the regional anomalies in Arctic sea ice (there are a couple of areas out of data, Ohotsk Sea and St. Lawrence Gulf, but they are usually ice-free in June).
    So I made a simple addition: and the result was about -700/-750,000 km^2, very much but also very less the datum above.

  378. Posted Jun 17, 2007 at 2:07 PM | Permalink

    The July 2007 issue of Discover magazine has headline on the front cover:

    “Politically Incorrect: Is the Sun Causing Global Warming?”
    It refers to an interview with Henrik Svensmark, director of the Center for Sun-Climate Research in Copenhagen. Svensmark thinks the sun may be the real cause of global warming and he has published a book titled Chilling Stars: A New Theory of Climate Change. I don’t have a link yet, but I’ll post it as soon as it becomes available. The issue just hit the newsstands on Friday.

  379. John G. Bell
    Posted Jun 17, 2007 at 2:38 PM | Permalink

    Re # 379
    That interview is worth the newsstand price alone. No spin no filter. Discover lets Svensmark tell us his what he thinks. Nice job. They respect their audience.

  380. Mark T.
    Posted Jun 17, 2007 at 8:33 PM | Permalink

    I almost fell out of the chair when I saw the headline. I get Discover delivered, and have recently decided to cancel my subscription because I’m tired of their “toe the line” stance on anything even remotely political. This article blew me away.

    Mark

  381. SidViscous
    Posted Jun 17, 2007 at 11:24 PM | Permalink

    CLimate Change responsible for the conflict in Darfur now.

    http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=070616212708.ymevxrx6&show_article=1&catnum=0

  382. Filippo Turturici
    Posted Jun 18, 2007 at 3:00 AM | Permalink

    #379: http://spacecenter.dk/research/sun-climate/Projects/isac

  383. Posted Jun 18, 2007 at 11:55 AM | Permalink

    # 381

    Mark T.

    Please, tell me what do you mean by “blow me away”. Thank you.

  384. Mark T.
    Posted Jun 18, 2007 at 11:59 AM | Permalink

    Given Discover’s past coverage of GW, which has been decidedly “warmer” in its tone, I was surprised, nay shocked, at this article. Jaw-droppingly shocked, in fact. This is the first “denier” article I’ve read in Discover’s pages… to my recollection, the first ever.

    Mark

  385. Steve Sadlov
    Posted Jun 18, 2007 at 12:13 PM | Permalink

    Weather not climate ….. more than 50% of the land area of the Lower 48 has a forecast of rain today. And of course the media are showing sad images of flooding in the Southern Plains. These storms are of Siberian or Arctic origins. It’s as if the pattern which caused the hard late winter weather is either back in place of never left. If I were east of the Rockies I’d be seriously concerned about my 4th of July plans. If nothing changes pattern wise over the next two weeks, this will be a legendary year in terms of rain outs and in some cases, border line chilly conditions, for the 4th.

  386. jae
    Posted Jun 18, 2007 at 12:41 PM | Permalink

    Interesting article on soil moisture at the Idsos’ site. They conclude that increased CO2 INCREASES soil moisture, contrary to the AGW camp’s view that it decreases soil moisture.

  387. Mark T.
    Posted Jun 18, 2007 at 1:23 PM | Permalink

    We’ll be camping at 30-mile campground on the 4th, elevation 9300′, in SW CO. Last year it started raining on July 1 and, well, it hasn’t stopped since (certainly exaggerated for dramatic effect). Of course, they banned all fires that day as well, in supposed preparation for the partying on the 4th (that fireworks are already banned on National Forest grounds was apparently immaterial). We’re expecting a rainy week this year as well, though it has been wet enough leading up to the 4th that they should let us burn some wood this time, which will allow us to sit around the fire drinking and swapping 4-wheel and fishing stories from the day’s events.

    Mark

  388. ed
    Posted Jun 18, 2007 at 1:34 PM | Permalink

    surfacestations.org made drudgereport.com this morning.

    Looks like the resulting traffic took the site down.

  389. Steve Sadlov
    Posted Jun 18, 2007 at 2:03 PM | Permalink

    RE: #388 – The amount of rainfall/snowfall in the 4 corners region over the past year has been impressive. I suspect that at least in that region, “the Great Southwestern Drought” is essentially history at this point. The more recent “Great Southestern Drought” looks to be headed that way. Meanwhile, here on the Central Pacific Coast, we may be heading into a drought ourselves. Typical La Nina / Negative PDO. On the other hand, up in Washington and Northern Oregon, they are living up to their stereotype …. LOL ….

  390. jae
    Posted Jun 18, 2007 at 2:31 PM | Permalink

    Steve S: That’s not funny; my daughter and her family live by Seattle, and the weather has been mostly cold and miserable so far this summer.

  391. John A
    Posted Jun 18, 2007 at 2:58 PM | Permalink

    Kristen Byrnes on James Hansen

    Astronomer, physicist, mathematician, and “father of global warming.” James Hansen seems to have a busy life for someone from Iowa. But the real question seems to be is whether or not Hansen is too busy to realize what he is actually saying to the public.
    As Hansen attempts to seduce, exaggerate, and alarm the public, some people (like me) attempt to inform the public of the reality of global warming, its impacts, and now, the truth behind James Hansen.

    There’s more at the above link.

  392. Reference
    Posted Jun 18, 2007 at 4:00 PM | Permalink

    High price for load of hot air – Dr Bob Carter, Earth Sciences, James Cooke University, 18 June 2007

    The salient facts are these. First, the accepted global average temperature statistics used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change show that no ground-based warming has occurred since 1998. Oddly, this eight-year-long temperature stasis has occurred despite an increase over the same period of 15 parts per million (or 4 per cent) in atmospheric CO2.

    Second, lower atmosphere satellite-based temperature measurements, if corrected for non-greenhouse influences such as El Nino events and large volcanic eruptions, show little if any global warming since 1979, a period over which atmospheric CO2 has increased by 55 ppm (17 per cent).

  393. Jonathan Schafer
    Posted Jun 18, 2007 at 4:02 PM | Permalink

    #386

    Weather not climate ….. more than 50% of the land area of the Lower 48 has a forecast of rain today. And of course the media are showing sad images of flooding in the Southern Plains. These storms are of Siberian or Arctic origins. It’s as if the pattern which caused the hard late winter weather is either back in place of never left. If I were east of the Rockies I’d be seriously concerned about my 4th of July plans. If nothing changes pattern wise over the next two weeks, this will be a legendary year in terms of rain outs and in some cases, border line chilly conditions, for the 4th.

    Steve, I can attest to the severse flooding in N TX last night. I picked up my wife from the airport at 11:45 PM. Got home around 12:15 AM. Saw a fair amount of lightning so checked the radar. Lo and behlod, there was a pretty nasty looking storm just S of D/FW airport. Went to bed and woke up 1/2 hour later as the lightning was so bad, the thunder kept setting off the car alarm. Checked the weather sites and found out we were in a tornado warning (radar indicated). So the wife and dog went into the closet under the stairs while I kept tabs on the radar and the conditions outside. Winds were pretty bad and it was probably the worst lightning storm I’ve ever been in. Fortunately, no tornado occurred. But, in that 1 hour the storm was over us, it dropped between 4 and 8 inches of rain. Some areas received up to a foot of rain causing extensive flooding and unfortunately, two deaths. I-35 was closed near Gainesville (about 40 minutes N of us). In Haltom City, a trailer park suffered extreme damage when trailers where lifted off their foundations. At one point, the storm regisered 64dBz. And all this after receiving several inches of rain earlier in the day, along with rain 28 of the past 49 days. Since May 1, D/FW has recorded nearly 12 inches of rain, but that’s nothing compared to some areas around me. We’ve received probably closer to 24 inches at my house and some areas are pushing 30+.

    The cut-off low is finally being picked up by the trough over the middle of the country and rain chances are ending. But, with all the mosture in the ground, there’s a 20% pop chance of pulse t-storms in the afternoon each day for the rest of this week. Normally, by this time of year, the persistent H that sits over us during the summer would surpess this type of convection. But it hasn’t set up at all this year, due to the jet stream position and we’ve instead been sitting in NW flow aloft which aids in the development of these storms. From NWS,

    Toward end of 7-day forecast period…ridge retrogrades west…
    and will put North Texas in northwest flow. CPC 6-10day and 8-14day
    outlooks place North Texas in above normal precipitation zone

    This just doesn’t happen here in the summer. Latest forecast temps show a high on July 1 of 88 degrees. Also very rare to not be in the 90′s to hear 100 in July. Accuweather called for above average precip and below avg temps for us for the summer. So far, they are been spot on.

    At least the reservoirs and lakes are filled again, easing some of the watering restrictions.

  394. Nordic
    Posted Jun 18, 2007 at 5:03 PM | Permalink

    RE: 390, you might want to rethink that. We are looking at a fair to middling drought here. It is only the front range of Colorado, and parts of New Mexico that are sitting pretty. Lake Powell is still low, and not rising very well – the Colorado river in Colorado got some water this year, but the Green River watershed sucks. See here: http://www.drought.unl.edu/dm/monitor.html

    As part of my job I fight fires during the season. Our fuel moistures are very low for this time of year – we are just waiting for the first big lightning storm of the summer and it will be all hands on deck. If the lighning comes, as it typically does, with a frontal passage and associated southwest flow the fires will try to run from Cedar City all the way to Salt Lake.

  395. Barry B.
    Posted Jun 18, 2007 at 8:42 PM | Permalink

    RE: 387

    Thanks for the link jae.

    As anyone involved in crop production knows, soil moisture is one of the key components to bountiful harvests. Now we find out that it’s a big factor in regulating temperature, yet the alarmist’s AGW/crop productivity research never includes soil moisture in their equations. I wonder why?

  396. Posted Jun 18, 2007 at 9:00 PM | Permalink

    Barry B.

    Besides, the temperature of the first meter above a moistured soil drops by few degreees. AGWists cannot understand that one thing is what our bodies feel and another thing is what instruments “feel”.

  397. Jeff Norman
    Posted Jun 20, 2007 at 6:43 AM | Permalink

    I can’t find a link, but according to the broadcaster on Toronto radio this morning Environment Canada has issued its latest seasonal forecast. The summer is supposed to be warmer than usual but now it is also going to be wetter than usual. This is a change from the last one where it was going to be hotter and drier than usual.
    They also pointed out (in the context of warm temperatures) that:

    THERE HAVE BEEN SEVEN RECORD DAYS IN 2007

    This, I thought was something I could check out.

    Yes indeed there have been seven record high temperature days so far in 2007. But what does that look like? How many record whatever days should there be in a year?

    All things being equal, in a 69 year record I’d expect there to be 5.3 records per year. So it would seem that seven in the first six months could be unusual.

    But of course its weather. In 1969 there were nine record hot days. Seven of them occurred in May. Even with all these record days May 1969 in total was below average.

    What about those 2007 records?

    13.9°C Dec. 31, 1965
    9.2°C Jan. 1, 2007
    13.9°C Jan. 2, 1950

    12.0°C Jan. 4, 1993
    11.1°C Jan. 5, 2007
    13.9°C Jan. 6, 1946

    20.9°C Mar. 25, 2000
    20.3°C Mar. 26, 2007
    22.6°C Mar. 27, 1998

    29.4°C May. 7, 1939
    27.5°C May. 8, 2007
    30.1°C May. 9, 1979

    31.7°C May. 23, 1964
    31.0°C May. 24, 2007
    28.1°C May. 25, 2007
    30.6°C May. 26, 1944

    33.3°C Jun. 11, 1949
    32.4°C Jun. 12, 2007
    33.9°C Jun. 13, 1956

    Sure, all seven of those days in 2007 set new record highs for temperatures on those days, but all but the May 24 record looks pitiful in comparison to the days surrounding them.

    It annoys me that Environment Canada breathlessly presents these records without the context. One would almost suspect that they have some sort of agenda.

    BTW: 1949 remains on top with 18 record high days.

  398. Steve Milesworthy
    Posted Jun 20, 2007 at 7:10 AM | Permalink

    #387 Jae
    Interesting way of putting it. Are you suggesting that the likes of Gedney, Cox, Robock and other authors of the studies referenced in your link are not in the “AGW camp”? Alternatively, perhaps it isn’t true that climate scientists are only interested in bad news.

  399. Steve Sadlov
    Posted Jun 20, 2007 at 9:44 AM | Permalink

    RE: #393 – A theory. AGW is a term, and likely a non dominent term, in the overall global temperature equation. I agree with Pielke Sr. and set forth that it is, at most, 30% of the overall thermal control driver. Furthermore, it is highly likely that there is a non monotonic response function of the world climate system to both PP(CO2) and tropospheric temperature. Certain negative feedbacks may behave like non monotonic parasitic terms, similar to the reaction force of air against an aircraft, in that they increase logarithmically with increasing energy in the system. The system starts to reach a point of diminishing return and the realized temperature can only reach a certain level, then goes asymptotic. Meanwhile, the energy components which would have gone into raising the kinectics of the atmosphere’s molecules (and hence, temperature) are consumed instead by the parasitic terms. So, yes, increasing PP(CO2) is likely increasing the overall energy in the system but that energy increase has increased the temperature about all it’s going to do, and other energy dissipative processes are consuming any additional upward increments in total energy resulting from retardation of IR emissions due to GHGs.

  400. Steve Sadlov
    Posted Jun 20, 2007 at 9:55 AM | Permalink

    RE: #398 – Somewhat counterintuitively, in humid continental climates, especially at higher latitudes therein, it is easiest to break high records in winter, followed by spring, then fall and lastly summer. The RH content, and the persistence of the jet stream, mean that, in general, the “typical” winter day will be cold and damp, and the typical summer day warm and damp, with spring and fall being mixtures. There is immense inertia in a humid continental climate, which means that diurnal ranges are limited (only humid and wet dry tropical and certain maritime climates have lower diurnal ranges). Therefore, in winter, it only takes a minor outlier to set a new high record. Similar situation with spring although the diurnal range is higher than winter. But in spring, there are more opportunities for airmasses from the tropics reaching high latitudes, so the opportunities for high records are greater. Summer, of course, has the most opportunities for in situ direct heating as well as tropical air masses, however, given the thermal inertia it’s a bit tougher than spring to set a high record. Fall is similar to spring, in that there may be wild variations in air masses, however with the increasing southerly nature of arctic intrusions, cold records are easier to reach in fall than in spring.

  401. Jeff Norman
    Posted Jun 20, 2007 at 11:15 AM | Permalink

    Re:#401 Steve Sadlov,

    It is only easy to break a record if the thing you are measuring exceeds the previously recorded value. IIRC John Brignell has something to say about this.

    For a while I have been pondering if you could quantify the representativeness of a weather station’s record by looking at the daily record highs and/or lows.

    I find it interesting that three consecutive days have historical record highs and/or lows that are so very different. For example, look at this sequence.

    13.9°C Dec. 31, 1965
    9.2°C Jan. 1, 2007
    13.9°C Jan. 2, 1950

    We know that some day the 9.2°C on Jan. 1 will be replaced by something closer to the
    13.9°C on either side of it. The only thing that has to change is the length of time you keep recording the data.

    Can one say that the 9.2°C is representative of what the highest temperature could be on Jan. 1? Or is 13.9° more representative? If we agree that 13.9°C is more representative then we could say that we obviously have not measured the temperatures on Jan. 1 long enough to record a temperature that is representative of what the highest temperature could be.

    If that’s the case then can we say that the length of time that we have recorded temperature in this location is long enough to create a record that is representative of what the weather could be?

  402. jae
    Posted Jun 20, 2007 at 11:27 AM | Permalink

    399:

    Alternatively, perhaps it isn’t true that climate scientists are only interested in bad news.

    I think there are lots of good climate scientists. However, there seems to be a rather high proportion of “poor” ones (for the lack of a better word) associated with IPCC.

  403. Steve Sadlov
    Posted Jun 20, 2007 at 11:53 AM | Permalink

    RE: #402 – Hehehe …. this is just like quality control. Where does one set one’s warning and control limits so as to, on the one hand, protect the customer, while on the other hand, not crying wolf repeatedly …..

  404. Posted Jun 20, 2007 at 6:55 PM | Permalink

    Jae, Steve Milesworthy,

    There are not good or bad climatologists, there are just climatologists on the wrong (pseudoscientific) side by created intere$t$ that can be covered by the IPCC.

  405. David Smith
    Posted Jun 20, 2007 at 8:49 PM | Permalink

    Financial Post story on future solar activity

  406. Bob Koss
    Posted Jun 20, 2007 at 9:38 PM | Permalink

    Something on the lighter side.

    From America’s Finest News Source. The Onion.

  407. Posted Jun 20, 2007 at 11:26 PM | Permalink

    # 407

    Bob Koss,

    That was a cool idea! Hahaha…

  408. John Baltutis
    Posted Jun 21, 2007 at 12:31 AM | Permalink

    Re: #398

    Speaking of forecasts, see Global Warming: Forecasts by Scientists versus Scientific Forecasts (PDF file), June 19, 2007, wherein the authors conclude:

    Much research on forecasting has shown that experts’ predictions are not useful. Rather, policies should be based on forecasts from scientific forecasting methods.
    …We have been unable to identify any scientific forecasts to support global warming. Claims that the Earth will get warmer have no more credence than saying that it will get colder.

  409. Steve Milesworthy
    Posted Jun 21, 2007 at 4:15 AM | Permalink

    #405 Nasif
    So you’ll be glad to know that six of the authors of the papers referenced in the #387 link are IPCC contributors, including one who was a drafting author of the WG1 Summary for Policy makers.

  410. Posted Jun 21, 2007 at 9:15 AM | Permalink

    Vaclav Klaus answers 18 questions of Financial Times readers.

    http://motls.blogspot.com/2007/06/financial-times-klaus-answers.html

  411. Richard Sharpe
    Posted Jun 21, 2007 at 1:22 PM | Permalink

    I received my copy of The Chilling Stars in just two days after ordering it from Amazon.

  412. Steve Sadlov
    Posted Jun 21, 2007 at 2:20 PM | Permalink

    Another rapidly moving cold front coming straight down from Canada:

    000
    WFUS51 KBGM 211948
    TORBGM
    NYC109-212045-
    /O.NEW.KBGM.TO.W.0003.070621T1948Z-070621T2045Z/

    BULLETIN – EAS ACTIVATION REQUESTED
    TORNADO WARNING
    NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE BINGHAMTON NY
    348 PM EDT THU JUN 21 2007

    THE NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE IN BINGHAMTON HAS ISSUED A

    * TORNADO WARNING FOR…
    TOMPKINS COUNTY IN CENTRAL NEW YORK

    * UNTIL 445 PM EDT

    * AT 340 PM EDT…NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE DOPPLER RADAR INDICATED A
    SEVERE THUNDERSTORM CAPABLE OF PRODUCING A TORNADO 8 MILES NORTH OF
    TRUMANSBURG…OR 17 MILES NORTHWEST OF ITHACA…MOVING SOUTHEAST AT
    40 MPH.

    * THE TORNADO WILL BE NEAR…
    ITHACA TOMPKINS ARPT…LANSING…NORTHEAST ITHACA AND CAYUGA
    HEIGHTS BY 400 PM EDT…
    FREEVILLE AND EAST ITHACA BY 405 PM EDT…
    BESEMER BY 410 PM EDT…

    IF YOU ARE IN THE PATH OF THIS TORNADO…SEEK SHELTER IN A BASEMENT
    OR AN INTERIOR ROOM…AWAY FROM WINDOWS.

    PLEASE REPORT HAIL…OR DAMAGING WINDS TO THE NATIONAL WEATHER
    SERVICE BY CALLING TOLL FREE AT 1-877-633-6772…OR BY EMAIL AT
    BGM.STORMREPORT@NOAA.GOV.

    LAT…LON 4272 7661 4259 7677 4238 7643 4253 7627

    $$

    MSE

  413. Filippo Turturici
    Posted Jun 21, 2007 at 3:48 PM | Permalink

    Steve S., could you tell me how is it going this early American summer?
    I see reports of persistent heat waves on the Rocky Mountains northward to Alaska, but also unusual summer frost and snow in Quebec (with snow fallen just 100km from Montreal a couple of weeks ago, maybe it was since June 1816 when it actually snowed in Montreal that it did not happen – but, since my city too recorded a June snowfall [1793 or 1798] I feel it strange that Montreal never saw June snow since 1816).

    Europe is splitted in two too: cold fronts moving through UK to Spain, with unusual frosts in Scotland and autumn-like temperatures in Iberia, calling African hot air on the Mediterranean and the Balkans; Scandinavia and Russia had an early and very hot summer start, but now are under average and changeable weather.
    Between Monday and Tuesday, a cold north-western front should move toward Central Europe, bringing unusual conditions (for summer) southward to Italy (at least in the North of my country) with snow over 2000-2500m in the Alps, and probably chill temperatures at night (overall in Germany), while frosts will be possible in Ireland and Scotland – in the mean time, it seems that no unusual heat wave will move northward, while European Arctic temperatures seem to stay normal or even something below mean values.

  414. Steve Sadlov
    Posted Jun 21, 2007 at 4:17 PM | Permalink

    RE: #414 – In a nutshell, it has been very wet east of the Rockies for several weeks – even the SE US has finally gotten some relief from its multi year drought (but much more is needed). The Rockies had a late spring, I don’t know who told you otherwise – there was unprecedented late snow in a number of locations. West of the Rockies, an uneventful Spring with normal temperatures (and sub normal rainfall) in the SW, normal to below normal temps with excess rainfall in the NW. At this time, no obvious changes are in store to this pattern.

    Which is interesting because the famous media weathercaster Joe Bastardi has forecast a hot July with normal precipitation for the NE US, opposite what they have right now. He’s also forecasted a bad hurricane season. I think the possible mistake being made by many (including Joe) is an assumption that the apparent move to ENSO negative will be like past La Ninas. The last time the US experienced a La Nina during a negative PDO (which is now all but certain) was the late 1930s. Today’s forecasters were mostly not born yet or at very least, too young to remember the late 1930s. We are getting into unknown territory. I have little faith in the current orthodox forecasts for the next month and the next 90 days.

  415. tetris
    Posted Jun 21, 2007 at 4:43 PM | Permalink

    Re: 414 and 415
    The temperatures in the coastal and near coastal regions of British Columbia [NW Canada] have been well below normals since late last year [anywhere from 3-8 C], as evidenced by slow growth in the garden. Until early April precipitation was up significantly and the coast mountains [including Whistler] have seen record snow packs.

  416. Philip B
    Posted Jun 21, 2007 at 5:06 PM | Permalink

    Australia has also had a cold and wet start to winter.

    The max temperature anomaly map for the last 24 hours shows deep -ve temperature anomalies across large areas. Nowhere on the entire continent shows a +ve temperature anomaly. Highly unusual.

    http://www.bom.gov.au/cgi-bin/silo/temp_maps.cgi (Select Daily Max Temp Anomaly).

  417. Mark T.
    Posted Jun 21, 2007 at 5:30 PM | Permalink

    The Rockies had a late spring, I don’t know who told you otherwise – there was unprecedented late snow in a number of locations.

    It was still snowing in Summit County just a couple weeks ago. Perhaps Filippo was referring to the Canadian Rockies?

    Mark

  418. John Baltutis
    Posted Jun 21, 2007 at 6:27 PM | Permalink

    A new item:

    Read the sunspots.

  419. woodentop
    Posted Jun 21, 2007 at 6:37 PM | Permalink

    #417 – is the ‘proof of global warming’ heatwave/drought now over in Australia?

  420. Philip B
    Posted Jun 21, 2007 at 7:02 PM | Permalink

    Re: 420

    I’d say we are on track for the wettest winter in a long time.

    Rain is forecast for the next 7 days here in Perth, as far out as the daily forecast goes. Again, highly unusual, at least in recent years.

  421. David Smith
    Posted Jun 21, 2007 at 7:34 PM | Permalink

    The long-anticipated La Nina may be stirring to life. A La Nina needs favorable subsurface water conditions plus strong easterly surface winds to help upwell the cool water. So far, the winds have not been supportive.

    But, things appear to be changing. The current wind-and-surface temperature map is here . It shows mixed temperatures (on average, neutral) but the arrows, which show wind anomaly, now show anomalously easterly winds, which support upwelling of cool water.

    Supporting evidence is provided by the SOI (a measure of atmospheric pressure patterns and thus wind patterns), which is shown on the yellow plot midway down this page , which shows an upward move into La Nina territory.

    Persistence is the key, and we’ll simply have to wait to see if the winds persist. The computer models say they will.

    Subsurface temperatures are not as favorable as in past months, but the near-equator Pacific continues to run anomalously cool in its upper regions.

    Global temperatures have been cooling despite the absence of a La Nina. If this La Nina indeed forms, and combines with the apparent negative PDO pattern, 2007 will indeed be a year of cooling (except for those involving barbeque pits, sewage plants, jet exhaust, asphalt and trees).

  422. David Smith
    Posted Jun 21, 2007 at 8:00 PM | Permalink

    Steve Sadlov, you’ll need to watch the area of thunderstorms east of Florida for evidence of Chantal. It looks to me like it now (22 June) has some organization and the thunderstorms may, given some time, warm the central region. It would be a marginal system, of no consequence to anything but fish, but it would probably count as a tropical cyclone (#2 for 2007).

  423. Bernie
    Posted Jun 21, 2007 at 8:37 PM | Permalink

    I saw my first bristlecone pine in situ today at Bryce Canyon, So Utah – alas the oldest one looked dead. The younger ones looked healthy and did not seem to mind the temperature – close to 90F. If this location is typical, then I do not see how they are going to unravel the rings as proxies for temperature vs precipitation. Interesting somebody noted that the douglas pines are clustered close together to maximize the length of time snow melt is available for trees in this location. If this behavior suggests anything it is the primacy of precipitation in this particular location.

  424. Posted Jun 21, 2007 at 10:24 PM | Permalink

    The UK Met office has issued their first ever public Atlantic tropical storm forecast and it is significantly below the US forecasts. They are calling for 10 named storms for the remainder of 2007 which would be a total of 12 including the two already named.

    Link 1 – Met Office

    Link 2 – Weather Undgerground blog with more background

  425. Filippo Turturici
    Posted Jun 22, 2007 at 2:10 AM | Permalink

    #415 and #418: the fact was that, from Europe, we see from weather maps temperatures of 25-35°C at about 1500m/5000ft in all the states from Utah to California to Colorado to New Mexico etc. in these days, and it is very hot for us (African worst heat waves have 20-25°C at the same level), but maybe it is normal in the SW deserts: indeed, Salt Lake City at 35°C with 5% R.H. seems to me not so strange.
    But, for e.g. Alaska and Yukon, it seems a pretty warm summer until now – as pretty cold in East Canada, and not so hot nor dry in East USA.

    Here too, a famous TV meteorologist (the same man who stated that everyone who doubts AGW cannot be a scientist, and who now advertise air conditioning for a shops chain…) forecasted a very hot and very dry summer in May (a new summer 2003) but by the end of May to a couple of days ago it rained everyday here and it was not so hot (now it is hot, but it should not last tomorrow, and from Tuesday on it will not seem mid summer) – and I feel it amusing, not be sad, that when finally some hot day arrived (a month after their forecast of late May for early June…) he and his staff tell that they had for reason.

  426. Arvy
    Posted Jun 22, 2007 at 3:19 AM | Permalink

    #419 – Aciu (thank you) John Baltutis. The article is really interesting, however, controversial (there is no other way).

    #424 – Bernie, Bryce Canyon is not the best place for researching bristlecone pines. I suggest you to take a drive to GBNP in Eastern Nevada (it only takes 4-5 hrs. from Bryce). You will see a really harsh environment where ancient bristlecones are growing, and, I believe, your doubt the rings serve as reliable proxies for temperature vs precipitation is gone.

  427. Misidentify
    Posted Jun 22, 2007 at 4:32 AM | Permalink

    crosspatch wrote in #425:

    The UK Met office has issued their first ever public Atlantic tropical storm forecast and it is significantly below the US forecasts. They are calling for 10 named storms for the remainder of 2007 which would be a total of 12 including the two already named.

    It would be interesting to know how this forecast differs when the AGW assumptions are removed.

  428. Posted Jun 22, 2007 at 7:49 AM | Permalink

    A comment on the http://strongconservative.blogspot.com/2007/06/can-envrio-fundamentalists-make-up.html post provided a link to a fairly new (May 16, 2007) set of pages set up by newscientist: http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/dn11462

    It was designed “for those who are not sure what to believe” when it comes to 26 AWG “myths”

    I jsut thought you all would want to know that this site exists.
    John M Reynolds

  429. Joe B
    Posted Jun 22, 2007 at 8:23 AM | Permalink

    ON GLOBAL WARMING HERESY
    Special to the Cornwall Alliance, March 16, 2007
    By Richard S. Lindzen
    Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Sciences, Massachusetts Institute of Technology

    I am frequently asked to describe my experiences as a contrarian about global warming. I still find the request somewhat annoying, and in this piece I would like to explain why. For starters, to be a contrarian generally implies an automatic tendency to go against popular wisdom. That is not my position.

    What in the world does it really mean to be a contrarian’ on the issue of global warming? On an issue where virtually all popular depictions depend on long chains of uncertain connections, support for all these linkages would constitute more a religious faith than a scientific position. On the other hand, where the elements of the picture do deal with relatively basic issues, there is, in fact, little disagreement. Some examples may help clarify the situation.

    For instance, there is little argument that levels of C02 in the atmosphere have risen from 315 ppmv when we began systematic measurement in 1958 to about 380 ppmv today. There is also relatively little argument that preindustrial levels were about 280 ppmv. There is no disagreement that C02 is a gas with important absorption bands in the infrared.

    There is agreement that at the level of fractions of a degree, the earth’s global mean temperature is always varying, and there is widespread agreement (though with appreciably greater uncertainty) that over the past century there has been net warming of between 0.5 and 0.75C (depending on which analysis one uses). This warming has, as far as anyone can tell, been irregular, with warming between 1920 and 1940, modest cooling between about 1940 and the mid 70′s, warming between about 1976 and the early nineties, and little of either since.

    Even the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change acknowledges that greenhouse forcing is currently about three quarters of what one would expect from a doubling of C02, and yet we have seen much less warming at the surface than the models project – even with models that have oceans which are supposed to delay the response.

    Here the argument amounts to one between those like me, who think that the most likely reason for the discrepancy is that models are exaggerating the response, and those who think the models are correct, but that aerosols have cancelled much of the warming. However, even the IPCC acknowledges that our confidence in the aerosol cooling is low.

    Agreement goes even further: there is general agreement that the famous blanket’ picture of the greenhouse effect that Gore likes to present is, in fact, misleadingly wrong. Rather, the real greenhouse climate effect requires most warming to occur in the middle of the tropical troposphere (cooling at the surface is mainly by motion systems, with the heat deposited in the middle of the troposphere where it is then radiated to space), and as a recent report of the National Research Council notes, warming trends at this level in the tropics appears to actually be even smaller than at the surface.

    For me personally, I find that the low climate sensitivity is consistent with my research on cloud feedbacks and other matters, but when it comes to current research one doesn’t normally seek general agreement.

    So where is there significant disagreement?

    The main focus of disagreement has remained much the same since I first went public with my objections to catastrophic claims in 1988. (It is sobering to realize how long we have been told by environmental groups like the Union of Concerned Scientists that the end of the world as we know it is imminent due to global warming.) At that time, I felt confident, on the basis of my own research over the previous decade or more, that our knowledge didn’t warrant these claims.

    Given the long term nature of climate, it should not be surprising that there is little reason to change this position. Nevertheless, it has, since the 80′s, led to an important disagreement with some of my colleagues over whether our present limited knowledge warrants deep concern or not. I, personally, don’t think so, but I respect my colleagues’ right to feel otherwise.

    This difference is distinct from the issue of whether concern is tantamount to feeling that specific actions are warranted. Most of my colleagues would agree, for example, that Kyoto is merely symbolic with little potential for affecting climate. Some favor other approaches, but I think there is widespread acknowledgment that with presently known or anticipated technology there is little that one can do to significantly cut greenhouse gas levels, and even less that one can do to significantly reduce radiative forcing by greenhouse gases (which, in the case of C02, goes up much more slowly than the level of C02 itself).

    There are, of course, some who feel that warming concerns are a good excuse for implementing their pet energy policies. Here, I share with the late Roger Revelle (whom Gore points to as his mentor in this area) the view that current evidence does not warrant any drastic actions that cannot be justified independently of climate concerns.

    Given my views, I am happy to be at an institution like MIT. At least most people at MIT are sufficiently technically savvy to appreciate the arguments involved with this issue.

    In the world at large, the situation is certainly different. No scientific issue has likely ever been as politicized as this one.

    Global warming has for about 20 years been a major focus of environmental advocacy groups and their political allies. In the last two years, they have greatly expanded their efforts to spread alarm to the public at large, including elementary school children, who lack any ability to understand the issue and are apparently suffering an appreciable degree of anxiety.

    In any marketing effort, it is useful to offer the objects of the propaganda something that they value. In the present instance, they are offered at least two such benefits. First, they are given a sense of virtue: simply by changing light bulbs or (for the wealthier) buying a Prius or even by paying some outfit an indulgence to cancel their carbon footprint, they are made to feel that they are saving the world. Second, their intellectual insecurity when confronting such a complex issue is relieved by being told that all scientists agree with whatever propaganda they are fed. Under the circumstances, they are made to feel that in going along with the propaganda, they are displaying intelligence, and acquiring the right to consider anyone who does not as being either stupid or hopelessly corrupt.

    Thus, the existence of questions about the validity of the global warming alarmism threatens both their virtue and their intelligence, and it should not be surprising that the response to such threats can be emotionally intense.

    However, judging from my email, a great many people are beginning to resent being exploited in this manner. I fully expect that this latter group will eventually be vindicated, and that alarm over global warming will go the way of Y2K and the Club of Rome forecasts for hunger (not to mention the fears over global cooling of just 30 years ago).

  430. Earle Williams
    Posted Jun 22, 2007 at 8:49 AM | Permalink

    Re #430

    Joe B,

    It’s good to post a source when you copy something like this in total. Otherwise helpful souls will feel obliged to deride Steve McIntyre for encouraging copyright abuse.

    This little bit would be appropriate as a tag item to your post.

    Free use is granted for non-commercial purposes of all materials on this Website. Acknowledgement would be appreciated.

    http://www.sepp.org/

  431. Steve Sadlov
    Posted Jun 22, 2007 at 9:33 AM | Permalink

    RE: #423 – No, it would be #1.

  432. Steve Sadlov
    Posted Jun 22, 2007 at 10:09 AM | Permalink

    Evidence of La Nina and Negative PDO?

    THE 00Z AND 06Z GFS STILL CONTINUE TO BRING RAIN TO THE NORTH BAY BY
    THE END OF THE WEEK. IN FACT…THE MOS NUMBERS ARE IN THE 30-40%
    RANGE THURSDAY AND FRIDAY. TO GET A FEEL ON HOW RARE RAIN IS FOR THIS
    TIME OF YEAR…CLIMATOLOGY POPS ARE ONLY 2%! THE MOS TEMPS ARE ALSO
    IN THE 70S TO LOWER 80S. IF IT RAINED WITH A TEMPERATURE AROUND 80 IT
    WOULD FEEL MORE LIKE ALABAMA THAN CALIFORNIA. THE EURO IS NOT NEARLY
    AS DEEP WITH THE TROUGH…AND THE NCEP ENSEMBLE MEAN IS ALSO NOT AS
    DEEP. SO…HAVE NOT MENTIONED RAIN IN THE FCST…JUST SOME INCREASE
    IN CLOUDS THE END OF NEXT WEEK.

    Generally speaking, it is believed that the La Nina / Negative PDO combo should bring a persistent zonal jet to “the Pacific NW” and drought to “the Pacific Southwest.” Although, geographically speaking, WA and OR constitute the coastal states of the “NW” and California is part of the “SW,” from a standpoint of weather and climate, the part of California between 36 and 40 N is really transitional between the two. The above prog is just the sort of thing I would expect given the SST situation which appears to be coming on line.

  433. Mike Rankin
    Posted Jun 22, 2007 at 11:04 AM | Permalink

    I found a link on numberwatch to an interesting assessment of the IPCC climate forecasts:

    here

  434. David Smith
    Posted Jun 22, 2007 at 11:23 AM | Permalink

    Re #432 I think #2. “He who keeps score, wins!” :)

3 Trackbacks

  1. By Errors in IPCC climate science on Jun 7, 2007 at 3:41 PM

    Climate predictions “right only half the time”…

    From: Terry Dunleavy [terry.dunleavy@nzclimatescience.org.nz]
    The New Zealand Climate Science Coalition
    Media release (immediate) 7 June 2007
    World climate predictors right only half the time
    “The open admission by a climate…

  2. [...] on Unthreaded #12 by Comment on Unthreaded #12 by Jonathan … Comment on Unthreaded #12 by Comment on Unthreaded #12 by Jonathan …Comment on Unthreaded #12 by Jonathan Schafer Steve, I can attest to the severse flooding in N TX [...]

  3. [...] Comment on Unthreaded #12 by Comment on Unthreaded #12 by Jonathan … Comment on Unthreaded #12 by Jonathan Schafer Steve, I can attest to the severse flooding in N TX last night. I picked up my wife from the airport at 11:45 PM. Got home around 12:15 AM. Saw a fair amount of lightning so checked the … Read More… [...]

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 2,900 other followers

%d bloggers like this: