Unthreaded #21

No discussion of CO2 measurements, thermodynamics, theory of radiation, etc. please – other than to identify interesting references – and something more than the title is usually helpful. How hard can that be? If anyone can identify a clear exposition of how 2xCO2 leads to 2.5 deg C, please do so. (I’m not taking any position on the matter, I’m just trying to identify the best possible exposition. )


662 Comments

  1. Scott-in-WA
    Posted Sep 29, 2007 at 8:46 AM | Permalink

    No discussion of CO2 measurements, thermodynamics, theory of radiation, etc. please – other than to identify interesting references – and something more than the title is usually helpful. How hard can that be?

    Can someone point me to a reference that discusses actual field experiments conducted to determine the emissivity behavior of C02 in the atmosphere?

    If anyone can identify a clear exposition of how 2xCO2 leads to 2.5 deg C, please do so. (I’m not taking any position on the matter, I’m just trying to identify the best possible exposition. )

    I’m coming to believe such an explanation does not exist, and that creating one is a daunting task which would require considerable forethought and planning to construct.

  2. fFreddy
    Posted Sep 29, 2007 at 8:57 AM | Permalink

    Does anyone know what has happened to Anthony Watts’ site ? It seems to have been down for a few days.

  3. Russ
    Posted Sep 29, 2007 at 9:23 AM | Permalink

    Re:2 fFreddy

    Antony was moving his site to a different service, but it was up this morning. He warned readers it might be down from time to time.

  4. Bruce
    Posted Sep 29, 2007 at 9:42 AM | Permalink

    CO2 Did not cause the end of the last ice age.

    Carbon dioxide did not cause the end of the last ice age, a new study in Science suggests, contrary to past inferences from ice core records.
    “There has been this continual reference to the correspondence between CO2 and climate change as reflected in ice core records as justification for the role of CO2 in climate change,” said USC geologist Lowell Stott, lead author of the study, slated for advance online publication Sept. 27 in Science Express.

    “You can no longer argue that CO2 alone caused the end of the ice ages.”

    Deep-sea temperatures warmed about 1,300 years before the tropical surface ocean and well before the rise in atmospheric CO2, the study found. The finding suggests the rise in greenhouse gas was likely a result of warming and may have accelerated the meltdown – but was not its main cause.

  5. Posted Sep 29, 2007 at 10:24 AM | Permalink

    Steve McIntyre,

    I’ve not found references for doubling CO2 = 2.5 K/(W/m^2) in the Internet. Perhaps it is a figure implied by someone at RC or wherever and then dispersed out like a gospel? There are some authors of books on Climate Physics who have made some approximations to the cipher, but the chapters from those books are extremely succinct and defective on formulas and explanations. As I’ve told you before, I know how they got the number, but the magnitudes introduced to the formula have to be twisted to get the desired results.

  6. Posted Sep 29, 2007 at 10:48 AM | Permalink

    Steve McIntyre,

    Please, consider the next links and tell me if they’re useful for your objective. All of them were googled:

    http://physicsforums.com/archive/index.php/t-174215.html

    http://www.iop.org/EJ/article/1748-9326/2/1/014001/erl7_1_014001.html

    http://www.atmos.washington.edu/2006Q1/211/Week3revisedX6.pdf

    http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v440/n7087/full/nature04679.html

    Thank you!

  7. Posted Sep 29, 2007 at 10:50 AM | Permalink

    Sorry, the last link doesn’t work. Try the next:

    http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v440/n7087/full/nature04679.html

  8. Scott-in-WA
    Posted Sep 29, 2007 at 10:52 AM | Permalink

    Nasif, to your knowledge, has experimental research been conducted to determine the actual emissive behavior of C02 as it resides in the atmosphere?

    If such research has not previously been conducted, how would it be performed, and with which tools and techniques?

  9. Posted Sep 29, 2007 at 10:57 AM | Permalink

    Re 5:

    Real Climate has been taking Stephen Schwartz to task on it for some time now, starting with

    http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/08/friday-roundup-2/

    which refers to other estimates to refute Schwartz.

    What’s also interesting is the Gavin’s change of tone in referring to Schwartz since the above…

  10. Steve McIntyre
    Posted Sep 29, 2007 at 11:01 AM | Permalink

    #9. The issue is not finding other estimates to dispute Schwartz. Schwartz is at least an attempt to derive a sensitivity and I’m thinking about posting on it. But Schwartz is not an exposition of mainstream theory. Now the fact that Schwartz does not cite any study deriving 2.5 deg C is at least a form of evidence that a comparable study doesn’t exist. Some of the statistical criticisms of Schwartz BTW seem fair enough to me – the only problem that I have is that the criticisms apply equally to IPCC and are totally inconsistent with Mann’s prior work.

    Nasif, please don’t send me references to something that is simply posted on the internet saying what Modtran output is. I know what Modtran output is and that is only one small facet of the problem. Also I’m not interested in something on the internet; I’m interested in a proper peer-reviewed exposition. Also please at least try to read the article – I’m not interested in one more report of a range of model outputs. I know what the model outputs are. I’m looking for a detailed exposition and argument – something that’s as detailed or more detailed as Schwartz and that Gavin Schmidt would agree with.

  11. fFreddy
    Posted Sep 29, 2007 at 11:09 AM | Permalink

    #3,Russ,thank you

  12. Mark T
    Posted Sep 29, 2007 at 11:28 AM | Permalink

    It is my opinion, Steve, that your open question regarding the theoretical foundation of the CO2 sensitivity is itself the “audit” you desire. That none seems to exist is very damning considering this is an assumption in nearly every alarmist propaganda piece. Step 1: prove assumptions. Oops, can’t.

    Mark

  13. Allan Ames
    Posted Sep 29, 2007 at 12:21 PM | Permalink

    Are you rejecting the 1980 Wang-Stone one D radiative convective model?

  14. Paul G M
    Posted Sep 29, 2007 at 12:45 PM | Permalink

    Completely off-thread but fun.

    This article appeared in today’s FT magazine in what is supposed to be a “science section”

    “As if the prospect of

    tempestuous climate change and rising sea levels were no bad enough, global warming is also likely to trigger geological changes in the earth’s crust – leading to more volcanic activity and earthquakes.

    Bill McGuire, head of the Benfield Hazard Research Centre at University College London, gives this dire warning on the basis of a link between geological activity and global warming in prehistoric times. Two effects stimulate movements in the crust as ice sheets retreat. Dormant volcanoes and quiescent fault zones become more active as the weight of overlying ice decreases. Recent seismic activity in south-west Alaska may be due to the unloading as the region’s glaciers retreat.

    At the same time, rising sea levels increase the geological loading around the continental margins. McGuire’s research suggests that even a relatively small sea level rise would trigger a detectable increase in geological activity, as the extra weight of water squeezes liquid magma up and out of the crust.”

    Benfield is a leading reinsurance broker and this is the kind of advice they might be giving to insurance companies.

    Regards

    Paul

  15. Steve McIntyre
    Posted Sep 29, 2007 at 12:52 PM | Permalink

    Please stop posting links to known “skeptic” positions or with your own bright ideas on why the effect is impossible. Wang-Stone is fine but try to find something relevant that is more recent than 1980.

  16. Dennis Wingo
    Posted Sep 29, 2007 at 12:55 PM | Permalink

    Hey Steve

    What about in the negative? I would be more than happy to scan the appropriate pages from the graduate textbook, “The Quantum Theory of Light” by Loudon, page 81-90.

    There are two crucial equations that govern how the partial pressure of CO2 and any increases or decreases, effect absorption and emission of radiation. send an email to me at wingod at earthlink.net and I will scan them and send them to you.

    The most interesting thing to me is that both of the crucial equations (collision or pressure broadening, and doppler broadening) are temperature dependent to the square root power, making them a feedback and not a forcing mechanism.

    The explanation on realclimate.org is just wrong.

  17. Scott-in-WA
    Posted Sep 29, 2007 at 1:30 PM | Permalink

    Well gee…. Gunnar’s last post has just disappeared.

    In response to his disappeared post, which essentially said that Steve M’s quest for a good expository explanation as to how 2xC02 leads of 2.5 C warming is a hopeless cause due to fundamental scientific and technical issues, I had this to say:

    This month’s issue of National Geographic contains a foldout chart which purports to illustrate how C02 global warming operates — graphically illustrating the material inputs, the energy inputs, and the mechanisms by which GHG-driven warming occurs.

    Using NG’s simplistic graphical illustration as a starting point, how hard is it for someone (or for some group of people) to describe in concise but appropriate detail the processes by which these mechanisms operate — doing so using a coherent, integrated writing style and approach? How hard is it to connect the dots well enough to adequately describe how 2.5C follows from 2xC02?

    In my opinion, it is a very difficult and demanding task to do this, but not impossible by any means.

    I’m not thinking that such a document could be 100% successful in proving beyond a doubt that 2xC02 yields 2.5 C. I’m thinking that if obtaining a greater understanding of AGW theory and AGW issues is the objective, taking a stab at creating such a document would be a highly useful exercise from a number of perspectives.

  18. Dennis Wingo
    Posted Sep 29, 2007 at 1:33 PM | Permalink

    Full Reference

    Loudon, Rodney, The Quantum Theory of Light, Oxford University Press, Walton Street, Oxford ox2 6dp, 1978, ISBN 0 19 851130 2, page 81-90

    I also have a fairly extensive library that incorporates many of the studies of the atmosphere done by the USAF from the 1940s to 60s concerning the infrared band as these studies were done in order to characterize the atmosphere to improve the design of infrared heat seeking missiles. I even have a very nice book on CO2 measurements from China from 1939 where very detailed spectrographic measurements were made.

    I obtained these books in a sale from the US Army in the late 90s, when a contractor left town. The Redstone Science & Information Center has a really nice collection still there today.

  19. VG
    Posted Sep 29, 2007 at 1:37 PM | Permalink

    New study on Hockey stick. Hope not off topic (remove if so). Questions previous findings and supports Steve M

    http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2007/09/25/questioning-20th-century-warmth/

  20. Larry
    Posted Sep 29, 2007 at 1:51 PM | Permalink

    Guys, I think the question about 2.5C is rhetorical. I think Steve’s pretty well determined that there’s zip, zero, nada out there in the way of rigorous, from-the-ground-up peer-reviewed literature that produces that number.

    Think of it more as an open wager offer to the 2.5 club.

  21. Steve McIntyre
    Posted Sep 29, 2007 at 1:59 PM | Permalink

    #20. I’ve never said anything like that. Why would you say such a thing? I’ve said repeatedly that, even though Mann et al are shameless promoters, that doesn’t mean that there isn’t an issue. I’d like to see a clear exposition and suggested to Mike Mac Cracken in the scoping of AR4 that there was a real need for one and that IPCC should do it. They decided otherwise.

  22. Larry
    Posted Sep 29, 2007 at 2:05 PM | Permalink

    As far as calculating climate sensitivity goes, the IPCC definition of climate sensitivity is the gross effect; i.e. including feedback. That means that to truly build it up from the ground, you not only have to do all of the greenhouse physics (which Shaviv and others have done, and I suspect that even Hansen isn’t too far off the mark), but you have to have a good model for feedback. AFAIK, there is no good model of feedback, though Hansen would disagree. It kind of depends on what you mean by “good”.

    The other approach, used by Schwartz, it to make empirical inferences. That, necessarily, will include feedback. If we’re ever going to settle this issue, I believe that something else, that corroborates the Schwartz outcome empirically, is going to be necessary.

    Even then, Hansen implies that feedback is variable (i.e. “tipping points”), and thus CS is variable. That’s a whole other issue, but if you believe in tipping points, you have to believe that feedback (and CS) increase with temperature.

    We’re not going to settle this one any time soon.

  23. Larry
    Posted Sep 29, 2007 at 2:12 PM | Permalink

    21, sorry, that’s what I read between the lines. If they published a range, I took that to mean that there was no direct derivation of that specific number.

    I think it’s pretty clear how they would go about calculating CS (as I just said in 22), and the reason why it’s not spelled out explicitly anywhere is that there are a few chasms that are simply too big to jump in the logical chain needed to produce a number with that level of precision. I (falsely) assumed that you had arrived at that conclusion.

  24. Murray Duffin
    Posted Sep 29, 2007 at 2:22 PM | Permalink

    You have probably seen this http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/What_Watt.html , but it’s still the best thing I havev seen on 2xCO2 forcing. Murray

  25. anon @nasa
    Posted Sep 29, 2007 at 2:30 PM | Permalink

    look at charts 37-42
    http://www.sipes-houston.org/Presentations/Climate%20Change.pdf

  26. Steve McIntyre
    Posted Sep 29, 2007 at 2:48 PM | Permalink

    #24, 23. HOw many times do I have so say this – I’ve seen the “skeptic” arguments; my interest is in mainstream arguments. Please do not post the “skeptic” links as though they are a mainstream exposition. I don’t want power point presentations on the internet either as a reference. They have their place, but I want the best quality exposition. Something that is at least as detailed as Raamanathan in the 1970s.

    #22. I know what the definitions say; I’m asking for a good expositions. I’m not looking to “settle” things; I’m looking for a proper exposition. And I don’t want to chit-chat with people about their opinions on this until there are good reference materials.

  27. Jan Fishar
    Posted Sep 29, 2007 at 2:57 PM | Permalink

    Steve McIntyre,

    you are asking for something that apparently does not exist. In their recent article (not peer reviewed) Gerlich and Tscheuchner claim that:

    until today the “atmospheric greenhouse effect” does not appear in any fundamental work of thermodynamics, in any fundamental work of physical kinetics, in any fundamental work of radiation theory (p.44)
    On page 93 they conclude: The point discussed here was to answer the question, whether the supposed atmospheric effect has a physical basis. This is not the case. In summary, there is no atmospheric greenhouse effect, in particular CO2-greenhouse effect, in theoretical physics and engineering thermodynamics.

    Jan Fishar

  28. Steve McIntyre
    Posted Sep 29, 2007 at 3:47 PM | Permalink

    #27. Again I do not want “skeptic” articles cited on this topic. I know that literature. I do not want to discuss Gerlich on this site. I am not interested in expositions why the effect is impossible – it isn’t. Can people simply STOP posting “skeptic” references on this. This site is devoted to auditing and verification of articles being relied on by IPCC for policy purposes. The skeptic literature is not relied on, so I’m not interested in hosting discussions of it. Period.

  29. Posted Sep 29, 2007 at 5:23 PM | Permalink

    This site is devoted to auditing and verification of articles being relied on by IPCC for policy purposes.

    Doesn’t the IPCC itself cite the articles it relies on ?
    If you want to audit the IPCC you need to audit the material they mention and not just anything that may exist.

  30. Dave Dardinger
    Posted Sep 29, 2007 at 5:38 PM | Permalink

    While I’m not sure what Steve M’s ultimate goal is, here’s what it’s leading to, IMO. He’s very careful to pick areas he can be sure of, unlike too many here. But precisely because of this, he can’t be attacked directly, and this is what leads to obsfucation and ad hom attacks on the part of his opponents. This is where he draws his power from, not ‘moral’righteousness but factual integrity. A lot of skeptics are generally right, but their tendency to accept, even if only provisionally, arguments which can ultimately be shown to be invalid. It’s aggraviting at times that Steve won’t allow some sorts of discussion, but ultimately it’s the only way he has to be sure he’s not embroiled in a damaging situation.

    Frankly I was surprised he allowed the TOBS discussion to go on since I was pretty sure I’d seen explainations of it which showed something of the sort was necessary, but it has turned out pretty well as people were able to show by direct ‘experiment’ that a TOBS correction is necessary and I think most everyone here is now up to speed on how it works. Which isn’t to say that the particular TOBS corrections which have been made are correct, but they can’t be dismissed out of hand.

    Getting back to my main point, I think Steve is creating a new sort of science strategy. Instead of formal publication (including peer review) followed by discussion in the wider community, we could have informal publication followed by community discussion followed by formal ratification of a concensus (or at least a concensus by a particular community) position.

    Right now the old-school proposition is that once we have the formal publication, a position is fixed and can only be attacked by a new publication. However if it can be shown that there are typically flaws in a published position, then it may be eventually decided it’s preferable to throw a tentative position open to analysis and only later make a revised position settled science. At first the sort of thing we’re seeing discussed in this thread may be what we get, but ultimately I suspect things will be rather different.

    I think that the easy of comment and of storage of intermediate results will cause there to be tiered analysis and several iterations of the prime article followed by final publication of the whole thing. Thus at tier 1 there may be comments by colleagues who have published in the same field. Tier 2 might be scientists in a similar field, etc. Down in tier 10 we could have teenage girls (sorry Kristin)commenting on the colors used in the graphics and the scientific equilivent of the fellow who used to go around holding the John 3:16 sign at ball games. The point is that nobody could be accused of not being able to get in a word (except perhaps telemarketers… I suppose there’d have to be some sort of limits).

    Frankly I think this sort of future-science would be superior to the present situation.

  31. Steve McIntyre
    Posted Sep 29, 2007 at 5:53 PM | Permalink

    #222. Dave, actually in economics, as Sinan has observed, people walk working papers around for some time before they are finalized into publication. None of this embargo stuff.

  32. DocMartyn
    Posted Sep 29, 2007 at 6:17 PM | Permalink

    A slightly expanded version of the New Science report on the cause of the end of the last Ice-Age

    Science Magazine: Carbon Dioxide Did Not End The Last Ice Age

    Posted by Paul, at 04:50 PM

    Published Online September 27, 2007
    Science DOI: 10.1126/science.1143791

    Southern Hemisphere and Deep-Sea Warming Led Deglacial Atmospheric CO2 Rise and Tropical Warming

    Lowell Stott 1*, Axel Timmermann 2, Robert Thunell 3

    1 Department of Earth Sciences, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
    2 IPRC, SOEST, University of Hawaii, 2525 Correa Road, HI 96822, USA.
    3 Department of Geological Sciences, University of South Carolina, Columbia, SC 29208, USA.

    Establishing what caused Earth’s largest climatic changes in the past requires a precise knowledge of both the forcing and the regional responses. Here we establish the chronology of high and low latitude climate change at the last glacial termination by 14C dating benthic and planktonic foraminiferal stable isotope and Mg/Ca records from a marine core collected in the western tropical Pacific. Deep sea temperatures warmed by ~2C between 19 and 17 ka B.P. (thousand years before present), leading the rise in atmospheric CO2 and tropical surface ocean warming by ~1000 years. The cause of this deglacial deep water warming does not lie within the tropics, nor can its early onset between 19-17 ka B.P. be attributed to CO2 forcing. Increasing austral spring insolation combined with sea-ice albedo feedbacks appear to be key factors responsible for this warming.

    Extract:

    Deep-sea temperatures rose 1,300 years before atmospheric CO2, ruling out the greenhouse gas as driver of meltdown, says study in Science. Carbon dioxide did not cause the end of the last ice age, a new study in Science suggests, contrary to past inferences from ice core records. “There has been this continual reference to the correspondence between CO2 and climate change as reflected in ice core records as justification for the role of CO2 in climate change,” said USC geologist Lowell Stott, lead author of the study, slated for advance online publication Sept. 27 in Science Express. “You can no longer argue that CO2 alone caused the end of the ice ages.”

    Deep-sea temperatures warmed about 1,300 years before the tropical surface ocean and well before the rise in atmospheric CO2, the study found.

    The finding suggests the rise in greenhouse gas was likely a result of warming and may have accelerated the meltdown – but was not its main cause. The study does not question the fact that CO2 plays a key role in climate. I don’t want anyone to leave thinking that this is evidence that CO2 doesn’t affect climate,” Stott cautioned. “It does, but the important point is that CO2 is not the beginning and end of climate change.” While an increase in atmospheric CO2 and the end of the ice ages occurred at roughly the same time, scientists have debated whether CO2 caused the warming or was released later by an already warming sea. The best estimate from other studies of when CO2 began to rise is no earlier than 18,000 years ago. Yet this study shows that the deep sea, which reflects oceanic temperature trends, started warming about 19,000 years ago.

    “What this means is that a lot of energy went into the ocean long before the rise in atmospheric CO2,” Stott said.

    But where did this energy come from” Evidence pointed southward. Water’s salinity and temperature are properties that can be used to trace its origin – and the warming deep water appeared to come from the Antarctic Ocean, the scientists wrote. This water then was transported northward over 1,000 years via well-known deep-sea currents, a conclusion supported by carbon-dating evidence. In addition, the researchers noted that deep-sea temperature increases coincided with the retreat of Antarctic sea ice, both occurring 19,000 years ago, before the northern hemisphere’s ice retreat began.
    Finally, Stott and colleagues found a correlation between melting Antarctic sea ice and increased springtime solar radiation over Antarctica, suggesting this might be the energy source. As the sun pumped in heat, the warming accelerated because of sea-ice albedo feedbacks, in which retreating ice exposes ocean water that reflects less light and absorbs more heat, much like a dark T-shirt on a hot day.

    “The climate dynamic is much more complex than simply saying that CO2 rises and the temperature warms,” Stott said. The complexities “have to be understood in order to appreciate how the climate system has changed in the past and how it will change in the future.”
    ————————————————————————————————–

    The lag between temperature and CO2 is about 1000 years, as opposed the 800 years from the Vostock ice core series.

  33. Larry
    Posted Sep 29, 2007 at 6:22 PM | Permalink

    28, seriously, it might help in a number of ways if you formalized a short mission statement like that, and placed it in the banner of the website. I think there’s a lot of mission confusion here, just because the mission isn’t obvious.

  34. John F. Pittman
    Posted Sep 29, 2007 at 6:47 PM | Permalink

    #222 I would disagree with

    A lot of skeptics are generally right, but their tendency to accept, even if only provisionally, arguments which can ultimately be shown to be invalid.

    http://data.climateaudit.org/pdf/others/07142006_Wegman_Report.pdf

    In what way is this argument valid?

    tendency to accept, even if only provisionally, arguments which can ultimately be shown to be invalid

    That Steve has shown (Steve, I know that this is not exactly what MM said) that the AGW (per Mann) is flawed (refuse to say it is A, since I dont know), by your 222 post, means those who oppose it are flawed? Here we have one of the most prestigious statisticians (Wegman) pointing out that AGW (I know, I know that it is much more complicated compared to such simple statements by myself and Dave Dardinger) by way of Mann (until recently, the most prestidigous AGW proponent) claiming recent temperatures to be the greatest in 10K years, is most decidedly incorrect. What is this tendency that you, Dave, allude to? The tendancy to want to be correct?

    Can you provide examples to support the following statement you made??

    It’s aggraviting at times that Steve won’t allow some sorts of discussion, but ultimately it’s the only way he has to be sure he’s not embroiled in a damaging situation.

    I count 6 straw man arguments here, but I am an engineer, so sometimes I just approximate (actually, I am conservative, there are actually 10 assumed conditions in this statment by my count).

    You said:

    Getting back to my main point, I think Steve is creating a new sort of science strategy. Instead of formal publication (including peer review) followed by discussion in the wider community, we could have informal publication followed by community discussion followed by formal ratification of a concensus (or at least a concensus by a particular community) position.

    If this is what it takes to have an honest discussion rather than the “computer ate my homework” (in more than several threads on this blog), then I am all for it. We have seen in http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=2105 that there is not a new strategy by Steve at all, just an old, old request to be treated honestly and openly.

    You said:

    Right now the old-school proposition is that once we have the formal publication, a position is fixed and can only be attacked by a new publication. However if it can be shown that there are typically flaws in a published position, then it may be eventually decided it’s preferable to throw a tentative position open to analysis and only later make a revised position settled science. At first the sort of thing we’re seeing discussed in this thread may be what we get, but ultimately I suspect things will be rather different.

    BTW consensus is a stacked deck…read Rule 10 of IPCC.http://www.ipcc.ch/about/procd.htm

    But ultimately I ask #222 does it matter if truth is written on a blog, in a book, in a peer-reveiwed article, in a Congressional hearing? If it is the truth, is it not the truth? If Steve has come up with a way that the public does not have to wait (especially since I can tell you that I have been invited Fw:

    Climate Registry Presentation

    to a stakeholder’s meeting for CO2, and the AGW proponents are not awaiting placidly as your comment suggests (or do we get rejected because we wait patiently, as you suggest, while the politicians make plans and then present fait accompli), why should we wait?) The persons wanting to charge $100/ton CO2 ( my company pays about $40/ton for hazardous waste..CO2 is known to be a FERTILIZER by tomatoe growers and potheads…go figure)http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/politics/blog/2007/08/dingells_energy_plan_would_hik.html

    An invatation to the CO2 dance:
    Fw: Climate Registry Presentation
    Renee Baecker
    Division of Air Planning, Development & Outreach
    Bureau of Air Quality
    Phone: (803) 898-4132
    Fax: (803) 898-4487

    E-mail: baeckerr@dhec.sc.gov

    Perhaps you have some excellent suggestions that I should take to this meeting??? A few, just ok, suggestions would be welcome!

  35. Posted Sep 29, 2007 at 7:09 PM | Permalink

    Calling all swift-boaters: Hansen has two new screeds:

    http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/

  36. John F. Pittman
    Posted Sep 29, 2007 at 7:12 PM | Permalink

    #30 DocMartyn This suggests that Schwartz http://motls.blogspot.com/2007/08/stephen-schwartz-brookhaven-climate.html may be closer to the actual numbers than other models/studies predict…Yes?? He assumed that CO2 sensitivity for short term was about 3 to 5 years.

    The lag between temperature and CO2 is about 1000 years, as opposed the 800 years from the Vostock ice core series

    Obviously, if the long term is 1000 years, a short term assumption of about 3 to 5 years is not so bad. I think 1000/3 = 333 or about 2×10^2 (66% typical distribution assumption) to 1 is not bad even for geologists and paleoclimatologists.

  37. Dave Dardinger
    Posted Sep 29, 2007 at 7:47 PM | Permalink

    re: #227,

    Sorry about that sentence you quoted first. I’d meant to add another clause, but got ahead of myself and didn’t finish it. It should be:

    A lot of skeptics are generally right, but their tendency to accept, even if only provisionally, arguments which can ultimately be shown to be invalid make them easy targets for those more interested in scoring points than in the truth.

    As for the Wegman report, insofar as I can follow it well, I think it’s 100% correct. But I’m not sure what you’re getting at, so I’ll let it pass.

    It seems you’ve misconstrued what I said from meaning that a lot of skeptics accept bogus arguments as well as good ones into that anything a skeptic accepts is bogus. Look, I’m on your side (I think) and Steve M’s side. But if a skeptic, who’s normally cautious about arguments, starts supporting a new finding just because it’s favorable to his positions, he (or she) can end up with egg on his face and that’s what Steve M tries to avoid by making sure he’s properly up on the subject at hand.

  38. John F. Pittman
    Posted Sep 29, 2007 at 8:58 PM | Permalink

    #228 What is the differnce of scoring points than stating the truth? You said

    Sorry about that sentence you quoted first. I’d meant to add another clause, but got ahead of myself and didn’t finish it. It should be:

    A lot of skeptics are generally right, but their tendency to accept, even if only provisionally, arguments which can ultimately be shown to be invalid make them easy targets for those more interested in scoring points than in the truth.

    As for the Wegman report, insofar as I can follow it well, I think it’s 100% correct. But I’m not sure what you’re getting at, so I’ll let it pass.

    Was it acnowkledged, (did) Wegman report actually, trash Mann, Briffa, divergence with foxtails(??)

    House Committee on Energy and Commerce Testimony July 27, 2006

    The Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) debate is not about a paradigm shift or even about a basic theory. No one is arguing that CO2 does not absorb IR or that burning fossil fuel does not add CO2 to the atmosphere. In essence the AGW debate is about whether increasing CO2 by a few hundredths of one percent of the atmosphere will have catastrophic consequences on global climate. AGW proponents claim scientific certainty that it will and cite as proof a 0.6 degree C increase in average global temperature over the past century, a putative increase in extreme weather events and predictions of ongoing future warming based on computer models of global climate. Skeptics find significant uncertainty in the amount, causes and consequences of any warming and in the accuracy of the models. They point to major doubts regarding the amount and cause of recent warming, past extremes that equal or exceed recent ones, benefits of CO2 enrichment plus numerous simplifications, guesses and omissions in the models as well as wide discrepancies between them.

    August 07, 2006
    Why We Argue Over AGW: Walter Starck

    READ THIS

    3 Sylvain says:

    September 24th, 2007 at 11:27 am
    I’m starting to be very affraid of how climate science will be viewed in the future. The flagrant disregard of the scientific method, plus the bullying is sure to be used one day to teach the dark ages of science.

    4 Don Keiller says:

    September 24th, 2007 at 11:47 am
    This is unbelievable. I have sometimes been on the receiving end of critical questions from reviewers and sometimes have been a critical reviewer myself. In either case specific criticisms require specific and informative answers. As Steve notes Juckes’ replies fall into neither category. In this case a reputable journal would not publish, or send to a third reviewer.
    But as Steve has often said: “Hey this is Climate Science!”

    P.S. you didn’t really believe that Mann and his cronies would agree, forgive, or forget what Steve did to their precious Hockey stick. This is the start of their (proxy) fightback.

  39. Anthony Watts
    Posted Sep 29, 2007 at 9:26 PM | Permalink

    Perhaps the modeling treats CO2 much like banks treat compound interest, but with a much higher “interest rate” than you might normally see in banking.

  40. Dave Dardinger
    Posted Sep 29, 2007 at 10:08 PM | Permalink

    re: #230 John P,

    I’m sure you have some point in this message, but the confused b-quotes make it impossible for me to figure out what’s what.

  41. Posted Sep 29, 2007 at 11:36 PM | Permalink

    John F. Pittman says:
    September 29th, 2007 at 7:12 pm,

    Roy Spencer, coming at it from a different angle says that the dominant lag is about 4 to 6 years.

  42. David
    Posted Sep 30, 2007 at 12:15 AM | Permalink

    #31: If Steve McIntyre allows the site to read like a political site or a “skeptic” wacky fringe site, then people will not take the site or its auditing seriously. The name of the site is “Climate Audit,” which is in itself a very short mission statement. That said:

    #32: Shouldn’t it be a breach of ethics for a scientist to be an activist? How is this different than a reporter being an activist? It just seems like a conflict of interest.

  43. Posted Sep 30, 2007 at 12:29 AM | Permalink

    Does anybody have a PDF of Möller, F. J. Geophysical Research Letters 1963 ?

  44. Geoff Sherrington
    Posted Sep 30, 2007 at 12:44 AM | Permalink

    Steve,

    I heard you plea for a mainstream article some time back and I have not found one. I keep looking as I follow related topics, but I cannot report success. This could well be amongst the most critical subjects that you audit. CA readers would do a big service by finding the paper you seek.

  45. Posted Sep 30, 2007 at 1:03 AM | Permalink

    Geoff, I think the Möller, F. J. 1963 paper might be it. It is cited in just about every paper that speaks of CO2 doubling. I’ve found many that are relevant, but it appears the Möller paper has first order genesis of the climate sensitivity to CO2.

    I’ve found some really interesting and contradictory claims on CO2 sensitivity. I’ll write up what I have thus far tomorrow.

  46. rafa
    Posted Sep 30, 2007 at 1:04 AM | Permalink

    Try

    1.- An Observationally Based Estimate of the Climate Sensitivity
    Journal of Climate
    Article: pp. 3117–3121
    M. Gregorya, R. J. Stoufferb, S. C. B. Raperc, P. A. Stottd, and N. A. Raynerd

    2.-Ramaswamy, V., and Coauthors, 2001: Radiative forcing of climate
    change. Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis, J. T.
    Houghton et al., Eds., Cambridge University Press, 349–416.

    best

  47. Posted Sep 30, 2007 at 1:21 AM | Permalink

    Massive earthquake 7.4 reported off of South Island of New Zealand. Probably all that warming in Wellington

  48. John F. Pittman
    Posted Sep 30, 2007 at 6:29 AM | Permalink

    LOL, I didn’t realize I had messed up the block quotes. Thanks, it confused me, too! My point was two fold. 1. The Wegman report caused (or should have caused) a major revision in the accepted thinking about our ability to compare the present warming trend with past warming trends. Yet, we find that many who express similar concerns after Wegman run into some difficulty. 2. It appears that AGW crowd are trying to score points more so than trying to relate the truth.

  49. Posted Sep 30, 2007 at 7:10 AM | Permalink

    So let me see if I get this: if the climate gets warmer it will cause earthquakes. The quakes will be caused by more pressure in the seas and less pressure on the land.

    A 1 ft. change in sea level would be about .5 psi change in pressure. At 200 ft depth that would mean going from aprox. 100 psi to 100.5 psi. At 1,000 ft that would mean a change from about 500 psi to 500.5 psi. Catastrophic.

  50. Posted Sep 30, 2007 at 7:50 AM | Permalink

    It looks like Antarctic sea ice extent indeed set a record ( link to graph ) this month, according to Cryosphere Today. CT had previously announce a new record but later they reported their algorithm was slightly in error and it was not a record after all.

    This new Southern Hemisphere record is, of course, a candidate for similar revision.

  51. Dave Dardinger
    Posted Sep 30, 2007 at 7:52 AM | Permalink

    re: #232

    Since I agree with both your points I guess there’s nothing else to be said.

  52. Dan White
    Posted Sep 30, 2007 at 8:27 AM | Permalink

    Re #43

    Is this a measure of the ice extent only over the ocean, or the total surface
    area of Antarctic ice? Either way I guess it says the same thing, but if it is
    only a measure of ice over the water, then it makes me wonder what percentage of
    the total that the famous Ross ice shelf makes up? It can’t be much if it pretty
    much disappeared, yet the total ice extent is greater now (or is the Ross ice back now?).
    Also, does thickness of the ice affect what conclusions you might otherwise make by
    a measure of surface area alone??? Interesting info!

  53. Kenneth Fritsch
    Posted Sep 30, 2007 at 8:32 AM | Permalink

    Re: #228

    But if a skeptic, who’s normally cautious about arguments, starts supporting a new finding just because it’s favorable to his positions, he (or she) can end up with egg on his face and that’s what Steve M tries to avoid by making sure he’s properly up on the subject at hand.

    Dave, I am not making this comment from the cheering section, but I think you have put your finger directly on the blog counterpart of the uneasiness, that should be, if it is not in actuality, experienced by academicians acknowledging the holes in the peer-review process. I think your reference above is to the partisan skeptic and not one who is skeptical in the general case. Nonetheless, the partisan skeptic, no matter his POV, who appears to rather indiscriminately embrace the theories opposing those to which he is skeptical, I think, are drawn to blogs that deal with controversial issues. They can create an uneasiness (embarrassment might be too strong in this case and that for the peer-reviewed process) for those attempting to analyze all issues. They create a hole in the blogging process and like the peer-review case require another layer of a filtering process. In the blog case, I do think, that what needs to be filtered is more apparent than that in the peer-review case.

    While, like the peer-reviewed literature, this blog hole may be difficult to overcome and should not detract from the overall benefits of the processes, it should be acknowledge and not ignored as business as usual. Nothing is written that says the peer-review process or blogging will not change and make corrections for closing these holes. My bet would be that those changes will take a significantly longer time to see in the case of peer-review.

  54. Posted Sep 30, 2007 at 9:21 AM | Permalink

    Re #52 It’s a measure of sea ice, not land ice. The Cryosphere Today website is here . Also, I wrote “extent” but CT actually estimates ice area, which is not quite the same as extent.

    Here’s an interesting map ( link ). It reports anomalously warm air temperature over Antarctica and much of the nearby ocean over the last six months, according to NOAA. The last six months have been the “freeze” season, so the reported warm temperatures don’t seem to go with the record ice. I imagine it’s a complicated situation, with variables such as ocean currents and wind patterns playing a role, but the report of high temperatures isn’t what’s normally associated with growth in ice coverage.

  55. aurbo
    Posted Sep 30, 2007 at 9:23 AM | Permalink

    [snip - sorry, please try to identify mainstream expositions not "skeptic" ones]

  56. aurbo
    Posted Sep 30, 2007 at 9:31 AM | Permalink

    Re#54:

    Anomalously warm temperatures during the winter season on Anarctica are still more than cold enough to acrete ice. In fact, if the above normal temps are accompanied by above normal moisture, this would also add to precipitation possiblities (snow) in this normally desert environment. Also, the increase and decrease in sea ice is more a function of SSTs than air temps.

  57. Posted Sep 30, 2007 at 9:38 AM | Permalink

    First of all, the article Steve McIntyre is looking for must contain an experimental and mathematicalprocedure that gives a value to Fo, that is, the relation among emissivity of carbon dioxide, emissivity of surface, geometry of the surface and the layer of carbon dioxide, and the energy emitted by the surface that is intercepted by the carbon dioxide. It’s not possible to find an article that includes the complete procedures because the magnitudes assigned to Fo would be highly speculative.

  58. Mhaze
    Posted Sep 30, 2007 at 9:42 AM | Permalink

    If anyone can identify a clear exposition of how 2xCO2 leads to 2.5 deg C, please do so.

    Another way to look at this which may be more useful would be to enumerate mainstream articles that indicate how 2xCO2 leads to any temperature increase, and note where in that list there may be conspicuous gaps.

    Is there a big gap in published literature in the 2-3C range? How about 1.5 – 2.0C? How about 1.0 – 1.5C? Etc.

    This approach would have the advantage of showing the breadth of work in the area, the methods and reasonings leading to the conclusions, and the lack of conclusions relating to the 2.5C question. Apparently asking for the published articles asserting a 2.5C increase produces nothing….

  59. Bob Koss
    Posted Sep 30, 2007 at 9:46 AM | Permalink

    If anyone here is using Excel 2007 you may wish to read this link.
    It seems there is a calculation bug.

  60. Scott-in-WA
    Posted Sep 30, 2007 at 10:07 AM | Permalink

    #46

    I find these papers to be interesting reading. However, as an engineer who has written engineering feasibility studies for various government and private-sector organizations, I am used to seeing a progression of logic starting at Point A and traveling to Point B, with appropriate side trips only as necessary to illuminate those details which have to be illuminated to directly support the logic, and to make the logic “whole”, so to speak, to the target audience.

    When the engineering feasibility analysis is covering something such as a proposed uranium mining operation or a proposed nuclear waste treatment/disposal plant, the process of creating the feasibility analysis is relatively straightforward, even if the details are highly voluminous and must be aggregated and simplified withiin the discussion in order for the main points to be understandable to the target audience, many of whom are not engineers. The detail which supports the discussion must be readily available to those who need to examine it, and the discussion must also point out any issues that exist with the supporting information.

    In other words, I suspect that these two references don’t fit the bill as a Point A to Point B explanation of how 2xC02 leads to 2.5 degrees C. (Assuming that is what Steve M actually wants.)

    In reading these two papers, I am also intrigued by the extent to which estimates and assumptions are built upon other estimates and other assumptions which are in turn built upon other further estimates and other further assumptions.

    In the world of engineering, we are allowed to do this to some extent. But there also has to be hard data from real-world experience — field experiments, field testing, previous experience with similar processes or process equipment — to directly support the assumptions which underly the estimates, especially those which have the greatest impact on the technical and economic feasibility of the project.

    In that vein, I make this observation: One, among several, of the crucial “reality check” forms of information needed to support 2xC02 yields 2.5C is the actual spectral absoption/emissivity behavior of GHG’s as they reside in the atmosphere, which implies (in my mind) that these properties must be measured directly in their native environment.

    In other words, I pick a cubic meter of the atmosphere, I go directly to that cubic meter of atmosphere, I determine the composition of the gases within it, and I perform testing of some kind on that very same cubic meter of atmosphere to determine what its spectral performance behavior actually is. I repeat this testing in as many locations within the atmosphere as I deem necessary to adequately support my data quality objectives, which have been formulated knowing that at some point, the data I gather will be supporting various types of scientific and technical analysis.

    Has the kind of field testing and field observation work needed to directly measure the actual spectral absoption/emissivity behavior of GHG’s as they reside in the atmosphere been conducted? If so, can anyone point me to reports which discuss the results of these field observations and which describes how they were conducted?

  61. Posted Sep 30, 2007 at 11:09 AM | Permalink

    Re59 Thanks Bob. Thats a bug in Excel 2007, not previous versions. Most anybody I know of, including me, after trying Excel 2007 or any office 2007 product has uninstalled it and put back office 2002 or 2003.

    IMO, Office 2007 is FUBAR, just like Vista.

  62. Posted Sep 30, 2007 at 11:56 AM | Permalink

    #59:
    The bug with Excel 2007 is a display bug. The calculations are fine.
    Numbers that are *extremely* close to 65535 or 65536 display as 100000. The underlying value is correct, but Excel displays it incorrectly.

    Of the 9.214*10^18 possible floating point numbers in Excel, this bug affects 12.

    More here:

    http://blogs.msdn.com/excel/archive/2007/09/25/calculation-issue-update.aspx

  63. Posted Sep 30, 2007 at 11:57 AM | Permalink

    Somewhat OT
    Anthony,

    IMO neither Office 2007 nor Vista is FUBAR. They both work better for me than previous versions. I could bring up an aphorism about anecdotes and data now, but I think I’ll settle for this one: “Do not make vast conclusions from half-vast data.”

    The issue in Excel 2007 is a number to text conversion issue associated with the change of file format to an xml based format. The underlying 64 bit double precision IEEE number math retains its expected properties and results. One of these is the expected side effect of recent operating system handling of the IA FPU floating point control word that such that the IA FPU 80 bit internal processing isn’t done generally.

    If you follow the link in #59 you will note that there are 12 IEEE 64 bit floating point numbers that have the display issue. All FPU calculations have been, are, and will be approximate as long as FPU calculations are done in limited precision binary. Computer users should never forget this.

  64. Posted Sep 30, 2007 at 11:58 AM | Permalink

    Hi Steve,

    Here’s a rather dated reference, but is this the kind of thing you’re looking for? I’m trying to come up with the right keywords for a search on the

    http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abstract_service.html

    abstract search site. Found this one from 1982

    Authors: Cess, R. D.
    Affiliation: AA(State Univ. of New York, Stony Brook.)
    Publication: In NASA. Langley Research Center Earth Radiation Science Seminars p 28-44 (SEE N82-33320 23-93)
    Publication Date: 08/1982
    Category: Space Radiation
    Origin: STI
    NASA/STI Keywords: ATMOSPHERIC COMPOSITION, CARBON DIOXIDE CONCENTRATION, CLIMATE, EARTH SURFACE, PLANETARY TEMPERATURE, ATMOSPHERIC CHEMISTRY, CLIMATE CHANGE, CLOUD COVER, EARTH RADIATION BUDGET EXPERIMENT, LONG TERM EFFECTS, SOLAR RADIATION, TEMPERATURE EFFECTS
    Bibliographic Code: 1982eras.nasa…28C
    Abstract As a consequence of fossil fuel burning, the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide has increased from 314 ppm in 1958, when detailed measurements of this quantity began, to a present value of 335 ppm; and it is estimated that during the next century, the CO2 concentration will double relative to its assumed preindustrial value of 290 ppm. Since CO2 is an infrared-active gas, increases in its atmospheric concentration would lead to a larger infrared opacity for the atmospheric which, by normal logic, would result in a warmer Earth. A number of modeling endeavors suggest a 2 to 4 C increase in global mean surface temperature with doubling of the CO2 concentration. But such estimates of CO2-induced warming are highly uncertain because of a lack of knowledge of climate feedback mechanisms. Interactive influences upon the solar and infrared opacities of the Earth-atmosphere system can either amplify or damp a climate-forcing mechanism such as increasing CO2. Climate feedback mechanisms discussed include climate sensitivity, cloudiness-radiation feedback, climate change predictions, and interactive atmospheric chemistry.

  65. rafa
    Posted Sep 30, 2007 at 12:00 PM | Permalink

    Re #60, this the closest I know. As you say most are assumptions built upon other assumptions. I am afraid if we follow the chain backwards we will end in Raamanathan in the 1970s. I understand Steve’s request. To the best of my knowlege I do not think such paper exists in the terms asked by Steve (mainstream, refereed, etc). I suspect why it doesn’t exist but I do not want to disturb the thread not being strictly on topic. As Steve I remain intrigued too in order to know the real physics supporting 2xCO2=2.5º or more . Best

  66. Bob Koss
    Posted Sep 30, 2007 at 12:07 PM | Permalink

    I don’t use Excel at all. Came across the item and just figured with all the spreadsheet users around here someone might appreciate a headsup. I here Vista is so bad, complaints have caused MS to extend the time period for selling XP. :)

  67. DocMartyn
    Posted Sep 30, 2007 at 12:15 PM | Permalink

    A better reference from R. D. Cess appears in this Science Article. I can’t have a look until tomorrow to see if this is where the 2xCO2 claim is made.

    Science 19 November 1993:
    Vol. 262. no. 5137, pp. 1252 – 1255
    DOI: 10.1126/science.262.5137.1252

    Uncertainties in Carbon Dioxide Radiative Forcing in Atmospheric General Circulation Models
    R. D. Cess 1, M.-H. Zhang 1, G. L. Potter 2, H. W. Barker 3, R. A. Colman 4, D. A. Dazlich 5, A. D. Del Genio 6, M. Esch 7, J. R. Fraser 4, V. Galin 8, W. L. Gates 2, J. J. Hack 9, W. J. Ingram 10, J. T. Kiehl 9, A. A. Lacis 6, H. Le Treut 11, Z.-X. Li 11, X.-Z. Liang 12, J.-F. Mahfouf 13, B. J. McAvaney 4, V. P. Meleshko 14, J.-J. Morcrette 15, D. A. Randall 5, E. Roeckner 7, J.-F. Royer 13, A. P. Sokolov 14, P. V. Sporyshev 14, K. E. Taylor 2, W.-C. Wang 12, and R. T. Wetherald 16

    1 Institute for Terrestrial and Planetary Atmospheres, Marine Sciences Research Center, State University of New York, Stony Brook, NY 11794
    2 Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore, CA 94550
    3 Canadian Climate Centre, Downsview, Ontario, Canada M3H 5T4
    4 Bureau of Meteorology Research Centre, G.P.O. Box 1298K, Melbourne, 3001 Victoria, Australia
    5 Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO 80523
    6 National Aeronautics and Space Administration Goddard Institute for Space Studies, 2880 Broadway, New York, NY 10025
    7 Max Planck Institute for Meteorology, Bundesstrasse 55, D2000, Hamburg 13, Germany
    8 Department of Numerical Mathematics, Russian Academy of Sciences, 32A Leninsky Prospect, Moscow, 117334, Russia
    9 National Center for Atmospheric Research, Boulder, CO 80307
    10 Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research, Meteorological Office, London Road, Bracknell, Berkshire RG12 2SY, United Kingdom
    11 Laboratoire de Météorologie Dynamique, 24 Rue Lhomond, 75231 Paris Cedex 05, France
    12 Atmospheric Sciences Research Center, State University of New York, Albany, NY 12205
    13 Direction de la Météorologie Nationale, Centre National de Recherches Météorologiques, 42 Avenue Coriolis, 31057 Toulouse Cedex, France
    14 Voeikov Main Geophysical Observatory, 7 Karbisheva Street, 194018 St. Petersburg, Russia
    15 European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts, Reading, Berkshire RG29AX, United Kingdom
    16 Princeton University, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory, Post Office Box 308, Princeton, NJ 08540

    Global warming caused by an increase in the concentrations of greenhouse gases, is the direct result of greenhouse gas—induced radiative forcing. When a doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide is considered, this forcing differed substantially among 15 atmospheric general circulation models. Although there are several potential causes, the largest contributor was the carbon dioxide radiation parameterizations of the models.

  68. Dennis Wingo
    Posted Sep 30, 2007 at 1:03 PM | Permalink

    In other words, I pick a cubic meter of the atmosphere, I go directly to that cubic meter of atmosphere, I determine the composition of the gases within it, and I perform testing of some kind on that very same cubic meter of atmosphere to determine what its spectral performance behavior actually is. I repeat this testing in as many locations within the atmosphere as I deem necessary to adequately support my data quality objectives, which have been formulated knowing that at some point, the data I gather will be supporting various types of scientific and technical analysis.

    Has the kind of field testing and field observation work needed to directly measure the actual spectral absoption/emissivity behavior of GHG’s as they reside in the atmosphere been conducted? If so, can anyone point me to reports which discuss the results of these field observations and which describes how they were conducted?

    Scott # 60

    There was an extensive set of studies done in the 50’s by the USAF to characterize the troposphere and lower stratosphere for all major IR absorbing gasses. This was the foundation of the work to develop the Sidewinder and other IR seeking air to air and surface to air missiles. That is why, if you look back through the data, that you will see 35,000 feet as a measurement altitude. That is the altitude that the B-29’s flew that carried the spectrographs that did the measuring. I have some of this data that I got through a library purchase from Thiokol.

    Second, if you follow the reference that I made in #18 here, you will find the equations that cover the fundamental quantum mechanics of absorption and emission of gasses covering the ultraviolet to mid IR bands. As far back as the 50’s, equipment was sensitive enough, and selective enough, to discern all of the individual absorption and emission spectra for CO2, H20, N2O, CH4, and O3, which covers 99.5% of all IR absorption.

  69. Larry
    Posted Sep 30, 2007 at 1:07 PM | Permalink

    60, it would be really nice to be able to dot all of the “i”s and cross all of the “t”s in the radiation model as you suggest, but once you’ve done that you’re nowhere close to finished. You not only have to consider the way the absorption and emission vary with altitude due to changes in composition, temperature, and pressure, but you also have to figure how convection enters the picture, and essentially bypasses the greenhouse. Then once you’ve done that, you have to do something a bit better than handwaving to arrive at the feedback.

    Someone please prove me wrong, but I don’t think we have the understanding to do that with enough accuracy to have any confidence in. I believe that’s where we are, and that’s where we’re going to be for the foreseeable future. And I believe that for one simple reason: with as much research money on the table as there is, if it were possible to calculate that number from the ground up with good confidence, someone would have done it already.

  70. Posted Sep 30, 2007 at 1:13 PM | Permalink

    Kenneth Fritsch says:
    September 30th, 2007 at 8:32 am,

    It is always a matter of signal to noise. Take searching the ‘net. You can make a general search and get a million hits. You can narrow the search and get 5. As you narrow the search your chances of missing something important increases. OTOH no one has time to look through a million items to make sure nothing important is missed.

    The same goes for blog comments.

    On my blog I get so few comments – 5 to 10 a day on average – that letting anyone say anything is not a problem. If I started getting hundreds I’d probably put a little effort in guiding the conversation.

  71. Craig Loehle
    Posted Sep 30, 2007 at 1:20 PM | Permalink

    HELP NEEDED: I am looking for references to the warming calculated for the globe or the United States for the past 100 years, and how it was calculated (as linear trend? last value minus first? with smoothed or raw data?). I have the TAR but the 4th isn’t out yet that I can find. Either post here or email me
    craigloehl at aol.com

    thanks.

  72. paminator
    Posted Sep 30, 2007 at 2:38 PM | Permalink

    Someone a few days ago was wondering who was paying the bills for realclimate.org bandwidth. The whois information for the url registration is as follows:

    Domain ID:D105219760-LROR
    Domain Name:REALCLIMATE.ORG
    Created On:19-Nov-2004 16:39:03 UTC
    Last Updated On:30-Oct-2005 21:10:46 UTC
    Expiration Date:19-Nov-2007 16:39:03 UTC
    Sponsoring Registrar:eNom, Inc. (R39-LROR)
    Status:OK
    Registrant ID:B133AE74B8066012
    Registrant Name:Betsy Ensley
    Registrant Organization:Environmental Media Services
    Registrant Street1:1320 18th St, NW
    Registrant Street2:5th Floor
    Registrant Street3:
    Registrant City:Washington
    Registrant State/Province:DC
    Registrant Postal Code:20036
    Registrant Country:US
    Registrant Phone:+1.2024636670

    I smell a smelly smell of something that smells smelly.

  73. Posted Sep 30, 2007 at 2:39 PM | Permalink

    I too was hoping that perhaps New Zealand could have been used as a good test scenario for temperatures and Hansen’s adjustments. A small country with a likelehood of much good raw data and it would seem an opportunity to pressure NIWA to release it’s codes. Are we forgotten or is this just a pause in the effort.

  74. Posted Sep 30, 2007 at 2:45 PM | Permalink

    Here is an interesting website that shows the current status of the Antarctic “ozone hole”. The graphs don’t automatically update – you have to click on them to get the latest version.

  75. Posted Sep 30, 2007 at 2:53 PM | Permalink

    Google Environmental Media Services. It IS very interesting. Perhaps some here are already aware of all this but if not go see.

  76. Larry
    Posted Sep 30, 2007 at 3:13 PM | Permalink

    72, 75, I’m not going to wax political, but go to wikipedia, look up EMS, and follow some links. They’re about 2 degrees of separation from the Hungarian buzillionaire of political orientation that I won’t mention who’s been funding all kinds of other activity that I won’t mention.

  77. steven mosher
    Posted Sep 30, 2007 at 3:20 PM | Permalink

    re 72..

    Ya, we been down this road before. Funny when I attempted to post at RC and use Betsy Ensleys name
    the post got trash binned.

    So they know who she is. Fenton Too.

  78. DeWitt Payne
    Posted Sep 30, 2007 at 3:22 PM | Permalink

    As far as radiation transfer models in GCM’s here’s a quote from Petty, Grant W., A First Course in Atmospheric Radiation, Second Edition (paperback), 2006, p143.

    One of the chief concerns of the climate scientists today is that, by adding carbon dioxide and other “greenhouse gases” that are transparent to shortwave radiation but strongly absorb longwave radiation, humankind is inexorably increasing the value of alw and thereby shifting the radiative equilibrium of the globe to warmer temperatures.

    Of course, a far more elaborate computer model of the earth and atmosphere, one that incorporates fluid motions, cloud and water vapor feedbacks and other complex processes is required in order to study this problem in any detail. The most sophisticated such models are called general circulation models (GCMs) and are the best tools we have today for understanding climate and climate change. Even now, however, a fully comprehensive treatment of radiation and other physical processes remains too complex a problem for the most powerful computers to tackle for the entire atmosphere at once. GCMs therefore continue to rely on grossly simplified representations of some of these processes, with the attendant risk of error in the models’ predictions. Finding ways to improve the accuracy of radiative and other physical parameterizations within the constraints of the available computing power is a major focus of current research in atmospheric science.

    alw is the absorptivity of the atmosphere for thermal IR in a simple, single layer atmosphere model.

    At least this explains how the models can get radiative transfer wrong. It’s just not possible to do line-by-line radiation calculations for every grid box and every time increment. It’s not even possible, apparently, to use moderate bandwith code like MODTRAN.

  79. Follow the Money
    Posted Sep 30, 2007 at 3:27 PM | Permalink

    #64, Leon

    A number of modeling endeavors suggest a 2 to 4 C increase in global mean surface temperature with doubling of the CO2 concentration.

    This 1994 source:

    http://books.google.com/books?id=KAhiZKa8HmQC&pg=PA16&dq=co2+temperature+emissive+2.5&sig=eg_H4ZpLemDk6f15L4g5FZJIjQc

    states that the 1990 IPCC Report estimated the effect of doubling

    ..would be likely to be between 1.5 and 4.5C, with the best estimate 2.5C.

    Thoughts:

    1. Perhaps the 1990 Report will have the citations to appropriate scientific studies or “modeling endeavors” supporting the 2.5C theory, which later Reports assumed as true without citation.

    2. Why the expansion of 2-4C to 1.5-4.5C? Perhaps the 1990 IPCC Report discusses papers other than the 1982 one about “modeling endeavors.”

    3. Why is 2.5C the “best estimate”?

  80. Larry
    Posted Sep 30, 2007 at 3:39 PM | Permalink

    72, 77, if EMS wants to fund a site that’s out-of-the-closet alarmist, that’s fine. I don’t think that anyone finds it unusual or suspicious that the Greenpeace website takes alarmist advocacy positions. We all know who they are, and what they’re about.

    What I object to is the way they are a stealth alarmist site masquerading as a scientific site. I challenge anyone to find anything on the main page or under any of the tabs that identifies realclimate as a site that supports one side of a controversial issue. They pretend that they are an objective science site, representing the scientific consensus. That’s dishonest and deceitful.

  81. steven mosher
    Posted Sep 30, 2007 at 4:17 PM | Permalink

    63. Charles. When I checked your blog and clicked on the “about page” I saw two things.
    On the left it says you are 48. On the right it says you are 47.

    http://cdquarles.wordpress.com/about/

    I am wondering, does the center of your blog span a date time line such that your birthday
    has happened in one time zone and not the other. Or did you use excell 2007 to calculate your
    age?

    WAAAAA

  82. steven mosher
    Posted Sep 30, 2007 at 4:39 PM | Permalink

    RE 72.

    That doesnt say who pays for the bandwidth that is merely the registrant.
    Have you got their IP? find the server location.

  83. steven mosher
    Posted Sep 30, 2007 at 4:54 PM | Permalink

    RE 72.

    http://www.ems.org/

    The registrant of Realclimate.org is Enviromental media services.

    The realclimate server is located at 2403 Sidney St Suite 510 Pittsburg PA.
    The ems server is located in the same place.

    question, EMS owns the URL; the servers are co located, who pays the bills?

  84. Larry
    Posted Sep 30, 2007 at 4:58 PM | Permalink

    81, I think the point is that it’s not being paid Jim H. or Gavin, or any of the other ops, or they would have registered it in their name. In fact, it’s probable that the sequence was more like EMS decided to set this up, and contacted the GISS crew for the operational side. Again, it’s not that there’s anything inherently sleazy about that in itself, but to then pretend to be a science site is sleazy.

    If any of the “jester” sites were registered to Exxonmobil or some coal association, you know it would be considered a scandal of major proportions, and would be used to claim that the sites are intrinsically compromised.

  85. steven mosher
    Posted Sep 30, 2007 at 6:38 PM | Permalink

    RE 84. Yes, EMS came up with the idea started the site invited the scientists. I have zero issue
    with this since I could give rats butt about motives. Share your data and methods and your motives
    become moot. Still, I find it funny that the RC folks deny ANY connection whatsoever.

  86. PaddikJ
    Posted Sep 30, 2007 at 7:33 PM | Permalink

    Back to basics with an ignorant question, if I may: Where does this 2xCO2 = +2.5DC come from? I wish I’d kept a log for the last 18 months or so – my rather vague recollection is that current estimates of climate sensitivity range from about +1.5DC to +5DC for doubled CO2.

    Someone did assert over at Climate Science – in August, I think – that 2xC02 = 4w/m2 was completely non-controversial. Has that ever been examined here at CA?

    It would be really handy if a knowledgeable someone were to graph guesses of CO2 climate sens. from, say, 1970 to the present.

  87. PaddikJ
    Posted Sep 30, 2007 at 7:45 PM | Permalink

    steven mosher says on September 30th, 2007 at 6:38 pm, ca #85:

    Yes, EMS came up with the idea started the site invited the scientists.

    Thought I’d read somewhere in CA’s voluminous archives that RC was started specifically by MM to defend the Hockey Stick.

    Documented history, anyone?

  88. Posted Sep 30, 2007 at 9:21 PM | Permalink

    re 86

    the 4 w/m2 comes from realclimate.org

    “Climate sensitivity
    Filed under:
    Glossary
    — gavin @ 11:11 AM – ()
    “Climate sensitivity is a measure of the equilibrium global surface air temperature change for a particular forcing. It is usually given as a °C change per W/m2 forcing. A standard experiment to determine this value in a climate model is to look at the doubled CO2 climate, and so equivalently, the climate sensitivity is sometimes given as the warming for doubled CO2 (i.e. from 280 ppm to 560 ppm). The forcing from doubled CO2 is around 4 W/m2 and so a sensitivity of 3°C for a doubling, is equivalent to a sensitivity of 0.75 °C/W/m2. “

  89. aurbo
    Posted Sep 30, 2007 at 11:25 PM | Permalink

    Re the sources and funding for CA, a prior poster suggested doing a google on Environmental Media Services which will provide numerous sources of interesting information, including the closely related management of Fenton Communications. It’s a good place to start for satisfying one’s curiosity. Apparently RC’s funding materialized out of thin (but CO2 polluted) air.

    Another interesting site from an independent third party commenting on the funding relationships can be found here. The bottom line here is hypocrisy.

  90. aurbo
    Posted Oct 1, 2007 at 12:16 AM | Permalink

    RE #74:

    Another site for real-time ozone hole graphs that I use regularly is here.

    An irony regarding this feature is that at the 20th anniversary of the Montreal Protocol there was considerable self-congratulatory rhetoric as to how their quick action to ban CFCs saved the planet from unrestrained UV damage by solving and correcting the ozone hole problem. The trouble is that nobody mentioned that the largest recorded “ozone hole” on record was last year…2006!.

  91. Posted Oct 1, 2007 at 1:39 AM | Permalink

    Fenton also handles PR for MoveOn of the recent “General Betray Us” ad.

  92. Louis Hissink
    Posted Oct 1, 2007 at 3:43 AM | Permalink

    Steve,

    I just reran one of the added features on the Swindle DVD I just received in which Richard Lindzen stated that calculating the sensitivity is somewhat simple – holding everything constant and just doubling CO2 results in 1 Kelvin increase in temperature.

    He then stated that climate models estimate it from 1.5 to 5 with the most conservative (?) being 2.5 Kelvin. (The code to simulate climate to compute sensitivity is another thing and maybe beyond CA for the moment and a good reason why there is so little published data on the computation – who is going to release the code for a climate simulation so the critics can peer it)!

    So maybe Andre or someone could workout just what Lindzen based his 2xCO2 ==> 1 Kelvin on, or, maybe someone here who knows him can ask him :-)

  93. Hoi Polloi
    Posted Oct 1, 2007 at 4:09 AM | Permalink

    An interesting site…

    http://www.activistcash.com/organization_overview.cfm/oid/225

    Fenton Communications’ for-profit and foundation clients put massive amounts of cash into Tides, and enjoy a healthy tax write-off for their trouble. Tides turns around and makes huge “grants” to Fenton’s nonprofit clients, including the Environmental Working Group, Natural Resources Defense Council, and SeaWeb (just to name a few). Tides also funds EMS, which David Fenton uses as a mouthpiece in order to promote fear campaigns which benefit his other for-profit clients. EMS makes good use of the “experts” who haunt the halls of Fenton’s nonprofit clients. Tides pays everyone’s salary, and even sends the odd half million dollars to Fenton Communication for its trouble.”

  94. Posted Oct 1, 2007 at 6:19 AM | Permalink

    Any one read about how the billionaire behind some of the Fenton stuff shut down a gold mining operation in Europe as environmentally unsound? Said billionaire is an investor in other gold mining ventures elsewhere.

    Since Mr. McIntyre is into mining I thought it might be of some interest.

    Environmentalism for fun and profit.

  95. welikerocks
    Posted Oct 1, 2007 at 6:42 AM | Permalink

    Re: 79 and on ..

    I don’t know if this helps anything but I found these papers with early dates of publication (BHT-Before Hockey Team) and they have interesting titles :

    Smithsonian/NASA ADS Physics Abstract Service
    Title:
    Uncertainties in Carbon Dioxide Radiative Forcing in Atmospheric General Circulation Models
    Authors:
    Cess, R. D.; Zhang, M.-H.; Potter, G. L.; Barker, H. W.; Colman, R. A.; Dazlich, D. A.; del Genio, A. D.; Esch, M.; Fraser, J. R.; Galin, V.; Gates, W. L.; Hack, J. J.; Ingram, W. J.; Kiehl, J. T.; Lacis, A. A.; Le Treut, H.; Li, Z.-X.; Liang, X.-Z.; Mahfouf, J.-F.; McAvaney, B. J.; Meleshko, V. P.; Morcrette, J.-J.; Randall, D. A.; Roeckner, E.; Royer, J.-F.; Sokolov, A. P.; Sporyshev, P. V.; Taylor, K. E.; Wang, W.-C.; Wetherald, R. T.
    Publication:
    Science, Volume 262, Issue 5137, pp. 1252-1255
    Publication Date: 11/1993
    Origin:
    JSTOR
    Bibliographic Code:
    1993Sci…262.1252C

    Abstract

    Global warming, caused by an increase in the concentrations of greenhouse gases, is the direct result of greenhouse gas-induced radiative forcing. When a doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide is considered, this forcing differed substantially among 15 atmospheric general circulation models. Although there are several potential causes, the largest contributor was the carbon dioxide radiation parameterizations of the models.

    link

    And another one here:

    Nature 350, 573 – 577 (18 April 1991); doi:10.1038/350573a0
    Inadequacy of effective CO2 as a proxy in simulating the greenhouse effect of other radiatively active gases

    Wei-Chyung Wang, Michael P. Dudek, Xin-Zhong Liang & J. T. Kiehl*

    Atmospheric Sciences Research Center, State University of New York, Albany, New York 12005, USA
    *National Center for Atmospheric Research, Boulder, Colorado 80307, USA

    The use of an ‘effective’ CO2 concentration to simulate the combined greenhouse effect of CO2 and the trace gases CH4, N2O, CFC-11 and CFC-12 is open to question, because the radiative-forcing behaviour of CO2 is very different from that of these other gases. Model simulations show that different radiative forcing can lead to quite different climatic effects. The thermal infrared opacity of these trace gases therefore needs to be explicitly accounted for when attempting to predict the climate response to increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases.

    link

  96. PaddikJ
    Posted Oct 1, 2007 at 8:39 AM | Permalink

    Re: 88;

    Climate sensitivity is a measure of the equilibrium global surface air temperature change for a particular forcing. It is usually given as a °C change per W/m2 forcing. A standard experiment to determine this value in a climate model is to look at the doubled CO2 climate, and so equivalently, the climate sensitivity is sometimes given as the warming for doubled CO2 (i.e. from 280 ppm to 560 ppm). The forcing from doubled CO2 is around 4 W/m2 and so a sensitivity of 3°C for a doubling, is equivalent to a sensitivity of 0.75 °C/W/m2.

    Did a “Real Scientist” really write that dizzy-making bit of circular reasoning? I reallly must visit RC more often.

  97. Larry
    Posted Oct 1, 2007 at 8:53 AM | Permalink

    96, come to think of it, that is a little bassackward, isn’t it?

  98. Posted Oct 1, 2007 at 9:38 AM | Permalink

    re 96

    It’s in the glossary on realclimate.org so it’s an accepted definition and not subject to debate…

  99. Larry
    Posted Oct 1, 2007 at 10:06 AM | Permalink

    98, I don’t see a glossary anywhere there. It’s kind of a moot point anyway, the point of 96 wasn’t definitions, it was starting with the conclusion and working backward to the supporting arguments.

  100. Posted Oct 1, 2007 at 10:31 AM | Permalink

    # 86, # 88

    PaddikJ, Leon Palmer,

    A climate sensitivity of 4 W/m^2 would give a change of temperature of 7.4 °C. Is it another flawed magnitude?

  101. Al
    Posted Oct 1, 2007 at 10:34 AM | Permalink

    With methane, doubling output does _not_ lead to a doubling of atmospheric methane.

    Are articles and speculation about the same sort of possibility for carbon dioxide verboten too?

    That is, in the formulation (2xCO2 -> 2.5 C), is the ‘2xCO2′ talking about 2x _output_, or 2x _observed_ _atmospheric_ _carbon_ _dioxide_?

    Because the Bristlecone Pine itself points out why they aren’t the same thing.

  102. MarkW
    Posted Oct 1, 2007 at 10:47 AM | Permalink

    I seem to recall from my high school chemistry, that chemical reactions speed up as temperatures go up. Doubling for every 10C sticks in my mind.

    As the atmosphere warms, wouldn’t methane break down into CO2 and water that much faster?

  103. JerryB
    Posted Oct 1, 2007 at 11:39 AM | Permalink

    GHCN adjusted temperatures came up in another thread and led me to compile the
    following:

    The following does not include any comparisons with the “raw” numbers.

    Summary of differences between GHCN V2 adjusted monthly mean temperatures
    when multiple means are contained in GHCN for the same “location”:

    3 location/months have loMean/hiMean differences of 19.x deg C
    2 location/months have loMean/hiMean differences of 17.x deg C
    3 location/months have loMean/hiMean differences of 15.x deg C
    4 location/months have loMean/hiMean differences of 13.x deg C
    6 location/months have loMean/hiMean differences of 12.x deg C
    12 location/months have loMean/hiMean differences of 11.x deg C
    54 location/months have loMean/hiMean differences of 10.x deg C
    52 location/months have loMean/hiMean differences of 9.x deg C
    66 location/months have loMean/hiMean differences of 8.x deg C
    160 location/months have loMean/hiMean differences of 7.x deg C
    239 location/months have loMean/hiMean differences of 6.x deg C
    844 location/months have loMean/hiMean differences of 5.x deg C
    2309 location/months have loMean/hiMean differences of 4.x deg C
    7913 location/months have loMean/hiMean differences of 3.x deg C
    29424 location/months have loMean/hiMean differences of 2.x deg C
    134348 location/months have loMean/hiMean differences of 1.x deg C

    Since each such difference comprises at lease a pair of location/month
    means, the above comprise almost 20 per cent of the location/months for
    which multiple means are contained in the GHCN adjusted mean file. The
    program did not count any differences less than 1.0 C.

    Of the 420476 location/years in the GHCN adjusted mean file, 153525, or
    about 36 per cent, are of multiple means for given locations.

  104. Posted Oct 1, 2007 at 11:41 AM | Permalink

    Re 99

    The words about glossary are Gavin’s, I tracked back to this from his “Plus ca change….” blog, following his links to this quote, and his asserting it was in a realclimate.org glossary term … where that glossary is, I haven’t a clue.

    I have yet to find on realclimate or elsewhere an experimental determination of the value, it seems to drop out of the GCM code, and then there’s some attempt to match it against historical data, which is scanty at best (see the “Plus ca change blog on realclimate.org).

    But I am continuing to research.

  105. Gunnar
    Posted Oct 1, 2007 at 11:50 AM | Permalink

    >> In response to his disappeared post, which essentially said that Steve M’s quest for a good expository explanation as to how 2xC02 leads of 2.5 C warming is a hopeless cause due to fundamental scientific and technical issues, I had this to say: … How hard is it to connect the dots well enough to adequately describe how 2.5C follows from 2xC02?

    Well, it’s not a scientific question. For example, my car gets 28 mpg. Is it possible for anyone to derive that result from scientific first principles?

  106. Bob Koss
    Posted Oct 1, 2007 at 12:10 PM | Permalink

    Leon Palmer,

    This seems to be the RC glossary. link

  107. Stephen Richards
    Posted Oct 1, 2007 at 12:17 PM | Permalink

    Hi all

    Can someone help me here, I suspect it ought to be Steve Mc if you have the time.

    There is a huge amount of material coming from this site and a large proportion of it very very significant. My question is “where is it all leading”. Steve…. you have a final objective /target in mind, of that I’m sure, but what does it look like? What will the end product be?

    It should not be something on atmospheric physics nor CO² nor climate sensitivity so what will it be? If we all know it would make it easier to keep your blog on target and may even help us get you there quicker.

  108. Stephen Richards
    Posted Oct 1, 2007 at 12:23 PM | Permalink

    Gunnar

    “Is it possible to derive that from first principles”.

    In my estimation, yes, but it is complicated. Basic physics initially, Calorific value of fuel, viscocity of engine oil and then friction, efficiency of exhaustion of burned gases, tyre pressure, road friction, break binding, bearing friction, etc. Complicated and usually done empirically as at Daytona or formula 1. Empirical measurement would then bring us full circle to Hansen adjustments, NOAA instruments etc

  109. Gunnar
    Posted Oct 1, 2007 at 12:25 PM | Permalink

    >> My question is “where is it all leading”.

    I don’t think that Steve has a goal in mind. Before he retired, Steve worked for investors, auditing claims made by mine operators. Unwilling to simply relax and watch the Maple Leafs fail to win yet another Stanley Cup, Steve is auditing the statistical methods in various AGW papers, mostly those papers written by specific prominent authors. This blog exists to help him do that.

  110. Stephen Richards
    Posted Oct 1, 2007 at 12:33 PM | Permalink

    Gunnar

    I have to say that it would be a waste of some brillant, incisive work if Steve ends up with “I knew they had fiddled the stats” and that after several years of work. There is huge potential in the blog already. I simply do not have the expertise or the brain power for that matter, to do anything significant but there are plenty of respondants here who have.

  111. Gunnar
    Posted Oct 1, 2007 at 12:36 PM | Permalink

    >> In my estimation, yes, but it is complicated. Basic physics initially, Calorific value of fuel, viscocity of engine oil and then friction, efficiency of exhaustion of burned gases, tyre pressure, road friction, break binding, bearing friction, etc

    You apparently missed the point, since you didn’t mention anything about the sizes and shapes of engine parts. All the first principles are the same for a Hummer as for a Mini Cooper.

    Nor do you mention manufacturing tolerances. There are two cars of the same make and model. Once gets 26, but mine gets 28. Can you derive from first principles why mine gets 28, and not 26?

    My point? MPG is a sensitivity, and thus is more related to the object in question, and is not a basic scientific law, derivable from other laws.

  112. Gunnar
    Posted Oct 1, 2007 at 12:48 PM | Permalink

    >> some brillant, incisive work if Steve ends up with “I knew they had fiddled the stats”

    I agree that Steve is smart, and there are many smart people here. However, I don’t agree that it’s correct to belittle the stated goal. It’s like my kids saying “I don’t like baseball, because it’s stupid and pointless, just hitting a ball and running around”. I tell them, “all sports are stupid if analyzed from that point of view”. Similarly, Steve has expertise, and he uses it to audit some claims that no one else is willing to audit. It gives him something useful to do, and the value of this effort is hard to quantify, but it would seem to be quite high. Of course, a lot more could be done, but maybe it’s better to concentrate on one thing, and do it well.

  113. Sam Urbinto
    Posted Oct 1, 2007 at 12:52 PM | Permalink

    Larry, why is the post cursed?

  114. Steve McIntyre
    Posted Oct 1, 2007 at 1:32 PM | Permalink

    #112. The questions – what am I trying to do in climate science? and what I am I trying to accomplish with the blog”? are different questions and I’m not sure that I know the answer to either one.

    In terms of making a definable academic contribution, my best bet would undoubtedly be to focus on the proxies and the properties of multivariate methods, and to finish off the many leads in this area. That would lead in a very different direction than actually trying to understand whether doubled CO2 is a problem or not.

    While people may complain that I’m not finishing things as academic articles, the blog acts as a diary for my thoughts. I’ve always kept in the back of my mind that the blog entries will serve as good notes to shape more formal submissions to journals. To some extent, they are like seminar presentations.

    In practical terms, there is a very large audience at the blog now, and I’m reluctant to dissipate that audience for articles in an academic journal that will be read by not very many people. HAving said that, I realize that journals are an important form of communication; I rely on them and recognize their importance; so while I may express dissatisfaction in particular cases about how they handle things, this in no way means that I deprecate their importance or suggest that blogs displace them.

    However people should also recognize that I’ve been placed in a very unusual situation where the criticism of my journal articles has come almost entirely from blog postings, primarily realclimate, but you know the others. Wahl and Ammann 2007 (published about a month ago) is the first journal response of the MAnnians; Juckes will be another. Climate scientists who have arrived at opinions that our criticism doesn’t “matter” have done so not on the basis of published journal articles, but on the basis of blog and internet postings.

  115. Stephen Richards
    Posted Oct 1, 2007 at 2:07 PM | Permalink

    Sorry Gunnar

    Belittle wasn’t in it. That would be arrogant of me and arrogance is not me. However, as usual Steve has hit the point fair and square. My only point is that blogs are a very specific comms channel and are frequented by a ‘familly’ of most often like minded people interspersed by the ‘hors-famille’ people usually of polar opposite opinion. In a sense that’s what make blogs work. Fortunately, Steve’s blog has so clearly demonstrated, whilst the blog channel is enclosed there is a small leakage of information through the walls of the channel (Radio 4) and those leaks from this site are becoming ever more obvious. Even here in France we are seeing more and more references to Steve’s work. Therfore, my concerns is that the clamour for more formal communication will inevitably become noisier and that Steve and his repondants might just have a strategy for managing these future demands. Conversation closes here, i think or Steve will rightly snip me.

  116. SteveSadlov
    Posted Oct 1, 2007 at 2:14 PM | Permalink

    RE: #72, 75. 76, etc. It’s old news. They are a front for the Natural Resources Defense Council. Is anyone surprised? Nothing surprises me any more.

  117. SteveSadlov
    Posted Oct 1, 2007 at 2:19 PM | Permalink

    Now back to our regularly schedule programming …..

    The early onset of Fall, and now, hints of appoaching climatic Winter, proceed apace, on the West Coast. This is especially true north of about 38 N. Up in the 40s N, Summer is distant memory, for what little it was even worth. One of the rainiest Summers in quite awhile in Pac NW.

    The weather folkloric signs of a bad winter are unmistakeable all up and down the coast. Early fall colors, bird migration patterns, behavior of game animal, fruit harvests, etc.

    Minimally, it suggests a classic moderate La Nina pattern. I’d give a 50/50 probability that Wash, Ore and Nor Cal will experience the wet version of La Nina (the dry version would mean only Wash getting soaked). Could get cold again just like last winter. Brace yourselves for those energy bills.

  118. jae
    Posted Oct 1, 2007 at 2:27 PM | Permalink

    117: Yeah, I went hunting in So.OR this weekend and waded through 6 inches of snow at about 5,500 ft. elevation. It was only 10 F at sunrise Saturday morning. I would estimate that we are at least 3 weeks earlier into this kind of cold weather.

  119. jae
    Posted Oct 1, 2007 at 2:36 PM | Permalink

    92:

    I just reran one of the added features on the Swindle DVD I just received in which Richard Lindzen stated that calculating the sensitivity is somewhat simple – holding everything constant and just doubling CO2 results in 1 Kelvin increase in temperature.

    He then stated that climate models estimate it from 1.5 to 5 with the most conservative (?) being 2.5 Kelvin. (The code to simulate climate to compute sensitivity is another thing and maybe beyond CA for the moment and a good reason why there is so little published data on the computation – who is going to release the code for a climate simulation so the critics can peer it)!

    Hmm, every time I point out the fact that the 2.5 C comes from climate models alone, I get snipped.

  120. jae
    Posted Oct 1, 2007 at 2:46 PM | Permalink

    69: Amen!

  121. Posted Oct 1, 2007 at 3:05 PM | Permalink

    Steve McIntyre,

    I desagree with you. This blog, although you have not realized yet, is a panel of expertises on several disciplines of the human knowledge. As far as I’ve seen your blog, there are philosphers, mathematicians, engineers, scientists and poets here. The arguments, opinions and academic knowledge spilled here will have the value that you want to give to them, depending, of course, of your capacity to recognize the merits of other people who have been writing here, including me. Everything we say here, from the most idiot comment to the wisest calculation, forms a multidisciplinary work that is bringing order to the so already disturbed climate science.

    The Best

  122. Andy L
    Posted Oct 1, 2007 at 3:06 PM | Permalink

    It seems that most of the expositions of CO2 sensitivity are derived from GCM & AOCGCM experiments. This is unappealing to me (and probably to many here); like trying to derive the period of a pendulum from a computer-based mechanical simulation.

    An Observationally Based Estimate of the Climate Sensitivity (Journal of Climate, M. Gregorya, et. al.), cited above (#46), seems to give a fairly clear exposition with detailed enumeration of assumptions. It appears that the paper considers models only as a mechanism for producing reasonable bounds and sanity checking.

    Looking at articles citing this one, I mostly see ensemble studies, rather than direct improvements in the assumptions or estimates.

  123. M. Jeff
    Posted Oct 1, 2007 at 3:33 PM | Permalink

    October 1st, 2007 at 3:05 pm, Nasif Nahle says:

    … Everything we say here, from the most idiot comment to the wisest calculation, forms a multidisciplinary work that is bringing order to the so already disturbed climate science. …

    I agree wholeheartedly. Hopefully, if I qualify myself as having co-authored six peer reviewed publications in the field of analytical chemistry and as having been part of the peer review process on numerous occasions, I will not be consigned to the idiot category. However, my work was trivial in importance as compared to the non-peer reviewed work being conducted here by many brilliant individuals.

  124. Follow the Money
    Posted Oct 1, 2007 at 3:40 PM | Permalink

    “where is it all leading”

    Omaha.

    The victory of the scientific method over post-normal science.

    Disneyworld.

    Most likely, a period of quiescence until a few years into the upcoming cooling cycle when climate science begins to proffer increasingly alarmist forecasts about the cooling coupled with pleas for increased funding. Enron/S&L/JunkBond/Carbon Trading alumni will invent a way to monetize something that might have something to do with a part of the cooling and hire Al Gore to con the Europeans into a trading scheme — selling it to Americans will be difficult as they are more savvy about scams bearing the fingerprint of their own culture.

    Then when warming returns…

  125. John Lang
    Posted Oct 1, 2007 at 3:40 PM | Permalink

    To SteveSadlov #117 – the current SST map shows that the mild/moderate La Nina pattern is over and we are now into a very significant La Nina event.

    There are even a few small anomaly areas which are 4C below normal levels. The La Nina area now extends almost all the way across the Pacific. A cold winter is coming.

    The October 1st map is here.

  126. Larry
    Posted Oct 1, 2007 at 3:57 PM | Permalink

    124 –

    selling it to Americans will be difficult as they are more savvy about scams bearing the fingerprint of their own culture.

    Ahem. The biggest manipulator in this whole game is Hungarian. Just watch. He’s going to win big if the US gets saddled with carbon caps.

    Having said that, I have noticed the peculiarity of a global movement that is strongest in Europe being driven primarily by a small clique of scientist/activists at the US space agency, and most actively opposed by Canadians. There is a little more going on here than meets the eye.

  127. Sam Urbinto
    Posted Oct 1, 2007 at 4:22 PM | Permalink

    Ha, they’ve page protected global warming at wikipedia, over the eternal arguement of how to phrase that a few scientists “oppose” the consensus (disregarding the fact that not everyone involved in “climate science” is a scientist). And they’re doing a delete discussion over the list of scientists who oppose, I think.

    What’s funny is one of the (I guess) more high powered editors, one who claims to have been one of the original writers, included this in a comment on the talk page:

    “…directly or indirectly supported by the oil industry and ipso facto have no credibility…”

    Well, it was the talk page, but….

  128. jae
    Posted Oct 1, 2007 at 4:38 PM | Permalink

    As some of you know, I am intrigued by the fact that the average July temperatures in the desert Southwest (Dagget, CA, Phoenix, AZ, Tucson, AZ, etc.) are about 3 degrees C hotter than they are in the humid Southeast at similar latitudes and altitudes (Miami, Atlanta, etc.). If there is such a thing as a positive water vapor feedback, then why is it not hotter in the soggy Southeast? I think I have finally figured out the interactions between insolation and humidity.

    I analyzed 30-year average July and December data for insolation, temperature, and absolute humidity at 143 locations in the US, including Hawaii, Puerto Rico, Alaska, and Guam from this source.

    In HOT months, temperature depends upon both the amount of solar insolation that reaches the surface AND the amount of water vapor in the air. However, there is really no true water vapor “feedback,” since the solar insolation is either absorbed by water vapor or by the surface. In other words, a given average daily temperature, say 25 C, can be reached either through high solar insolation (Phoenix) at the surface with minimal water vapor OR through minimal solar insolation and high humidity (Atlanta). It is the combination of solar insolation and humidity that is important. This can be shown by comparing the following plots shown in the first Workbook here:

    A fairly weak correlation (R2 = 0..12) is observed between average July insolation vs. temperature (See Fig. 1).

    A better, but fairly weak correlation (R2 = 0.37) is observed between average July absolute humidity and temperature (See Figure 2). (If the very hot Southwest locations, Daggett, CA, Phoenix, AZ, and Las Vegas, NV are omitted the correlation increases to 0.47).

    A fairly high correlation R = 0.62) is observed between the product of average insolation and absolute humidity and temperature (See Figure 3). If the 3 very hot Southwest locations are omitted, the correlation improves to 0.72).

    It appears that it is the combination of insolation that reaches the surface and humidity that is important, relative to temperature. It does not seem to make a difference, as far as ambient temperature is concerned, if the insolation (heat) is absorbed by the surface OR by water vapor; and water vapor does not enhance this storage. In fact, the hot Southwest locations mentioned above store much more heat in July than the moist locations, and therefore, screw the correlations up.

    In COLD months, however, temperature appears to be related very closely to only the amount of water vapor present:

    The correlation between average December insolation and temperature is rather poor ( R2 = 0.38). See Figure 4.

    However, the correlation between average December absolute humidity and temperature is very high (R2 = 0.96). See Figure 5.

    The correlation between the product of insolation and humidity and temperature is also very high (R2 = 0.93), but the inclusion of insolation does not help the correlation.

    Notice also, that, whereas the relationships in July are linear, the relationships are strongly curvilinear in December. So, we see no interaction between insolation and humidity in the winter months, only a relationship that shows that humidity is a function of temperature (DUH).

    Another way to demonstrate these effects is to compare selected “dry” and “wet” locations that are at similar elevations and latitudes (so that solar insolation is constant). This is done in the second spreadsheet, where I have compared 13 paired locations. In most cases, the “dry” location has a higher average July temperature. In the Southeast, however, humidity becomes as important as solar insolation, and the trend is actually reversed. However, if both humidity and insolation are combined, a correlation coefficient of 0.38 is achieved. This improves to 0.81, if the Southwest locations, Daggett, CA and Phoenix, AZ are excluded. These comparisons again show that both the surface and the water vapor can retain heat equally well.

    Of course, in Guam and Puerto Rico, nothing changes much…

    There is no water vapor “feedback,” IMHO.

  129. Follow the Money
    Posted Oct 1, 2007 at 4:56 PM | Permalink

    Larry, #126

    I don’t see how your comments are responsive to my #124, but anyway I’ve never read anything that Soros (I assume you mean him, not Sandor) is involved with carbon markets. The matters are much bigger than he, for example the British Government is banking on new exchanges under their control.

    Maybe in the USA news cycles it’s a “clique” of NASA scientists but again, it’s much bigger than that. Monckton says the IPCC is nearly wholly funded by the British government. Which segues to my earlier post about the 1990 IPCC Report…

    I avered above the 1990 IPCC Report (AR1) might reveal by footnote cite of otherwise the specific papers or modelings that source the 2.5C assumption. Couldn’t find it on the web, and the IPCC’s publications page indicates no online access for any of its pre-1995 publications at the IPCC home. Notably, the page indicates that the “Summary for Poliicymakers” for AR1 and AR2 was prepared with the “UK Meteorological Office”. If you think there are problems with NASA…

    For those interested in IPCC politics…here’s a commentary on the 1990 Report that sounds remarkably identical to the criticisms of the pending IPCC draft Report, and the NAS proxy side-step report of late–particularly, the way the summaries are political projects which craftily mischaracterize what is in the body of the scientific findings.

    http://www.sepp.org/Archive/controv/ipcccont/Item02.htm

  130. Byron
    Posted Oct 1, 2007 at 6:13 PM | Permalink

    Follow the Money says:
    October 1st, 2007 at 4:56 pm

    I’ve never read anything that Soros (I assume you mean him, not Sandor) is involved with carbon markets. The matters are much bigger than he, for example the British Government is banking on new exchanges under their control.

    The money is there. Google SOROS HANSEN the google SOROS BRAZIL and you will see 720K going into propaganda and 1B going into sugar cane/ethanol investments while pulling strings on the US traffic laws.
    Naturally he’s not the only one.

  131. John_L
    Posted Oct 1, 2007 at 6:17 PM | Permalink

    Not sure you’ll get a great explanation of how but some indirect evidence for:

    http://droyer.web.wesleyan.edu/climate_sensitivity.pdf

    http://www.amath.washington.edu/research/articles/Tung/journals/solar-jgr.pdf

    http://www.amath.washington.edu/research/articles/Tung/journals/GRL-solar-07.pdf (you might read this first for context on above)

  132. aurbo
    Posted Oct 1, 2007 at 6:25 PM | Permalink

    Re #128

    The problem with this analysis is that insolation isn’t the only source of heat at a given surface location. Other considerations include advection and convection. In the case of advection, the classic explanation for hot deserts in the lee of mountain ranges is based on the difference between adiabatic cooling on the upslope side of the range and adiabatic heating on the downside. If the source of the airmass was originally moist, the rate of cooling with a rising parcel of air is about 10 degs C per km until saturation is reached and then drops to between 4 and 9 degs C per km as condensing water in the rising parcel adds its latent heat to partially offset the dry adiabatic cooling The saturated adiabatic lapse rate varies with the mixing ratio which is temperature dependent…higher for warmer saturated air and lower with colder saturated air. Much of this moisture is lost through condensation and precipitation on the upslope side so that when the air descends on the lee side of the mountain, the process is purely dry adiabatic as no change in moisture occurs within the air parcel. Thus the air temperature rises more on the way down than it cooled on the way up. When the air parcel reaches the same level on the lee side that it started at on the upslope side it is considerably warmer than it was where it started. No insolation is necessarally involved in this process. However, the dry airmass does promote clear skies and hence increased insolation which allows more radiant energy to reach and heat the ground and elevate the surface air temperatures by conduction and the lowest levels in the atmosphere by convection.

    So higher desert temperatures have a lot to do with where the airmass originated and the effect of an intervening mountain range.

  133. Follow the Money
    Posted Oct 1, 2007 at 6:40 PM | Permalink

    The money is there. Google SOROS HANSEN the google SOROS BRAZIL and you will see 720K going into propaganda…

    Yes, I was alerted to that…nonsense when you look at the data. The $720,000 was support for some free speech/media group. Soros funds a lot of things like that. One of the things that group addressed was Hansen’s claims his views were being stifled. That’s it. Then right wing radio/web sites mixed it up. (FYI non-Americans: Soros is/was a funder of left-wing groups of infantile-adult type)

    …and 1B going into sugar cane/ethanol investments while pulling strings on the US traffic laws. Naturally he’s not the only one.

    Sounds like Soros’ is following George W. Bush’s lead. Remember his recent visit with Lula? One hardly needs “global warming” to spur bio-fuels investments, especially in Brazil.

  134. jae
    Posted Oct 1, 2007 at 7:49 PM | Permalink

    134, Aurbo: Thanks, but I think all these factors are subsumed in the analysis. I’m not just talking about deserts, but about the total “umbrella” effects throughout the USA. Why do you dwell on the deserts?

  135. Giovanni A
    Posted Oct 1, 2007 at 8:23 PM | Permalink

    Steve McIntyre
    with reference to your initial request, check

    http://www.bgu.ac.il/~georg/envphys.pdf

    Lecture Notes on Physics of the Environment (by
    Georgy I. Burde)
    It covers the arguments of global warming in 37 page with math at the partial differential equations level. It’s 37 years since I received my MS in Physics, but at that time this would have been a second semester sophmore/junior level course for non physicist ( or math)

  136. Pat Keating
    Posted Oct 1, 2007 at 8:55 PM | Permalink

    #128
    It is my understanding (based on a piece by the leading physicist Freeman Dyson) that even the deserts have enough water-vapor in the atmosphere above to give plenty of greenhouse effect. According to him, you have to go to the poles to find air dry enough for CO2 to be a more-important GHG.

    Question: Has anyone established the level (concentration x distance) at which IR absorption is essentially complete?

  137. Pat Keating
    Posted Oct 1, 2007 at 8:59 PM | Permalink

    #136
    Let me restate that question:
    Question: Has anyone established the level (concentration x distance) at which IR absorption by water vapor is essentially complete?

  138. Larry
    Posted Oct 1, 2007 at 9:20 PM | Permalink

    136, That’s like asking how high you go before there’s no more atmosphere. It’s doesn’t work that way. It’s logarithmic. It tapers off forever, but never reaches completion.

    That, and the fact that reemission happens, so even if a photon is captured, it’s not always forever.

  139. Steve McIntyre
    Posted Oct 1, 2007 at 10:32 PM | Permalink

    People interested in an explanation of AGW might take a look at Gavin SChmidt’s post in Dec 2004 – a post that Gavin recently described as his “worst post”..

  140. Posted Oct 1, 2007 at 11:20 PM | Permalink

    Australia to get hotter!!!!!!!!!!

    Email a Friend | Printable View | Have Your Say
    MICHELE MOSSOP/AFR
    HOT FUTURE: A report on Australia’s future climate has estimated that some inland areas could be up to 5 degrees hotter by the end of the century.

    Related Links
    • Subscribe to Archivestuff
    • Have your say

    Australians are facing a barren future, with predictions of rising temperatures, less rainfall and more frequent droughts, according to a report released today.

    Sydney could face an annual temperature rise of up to 4.3 degrees by 2070, and a tripling of the number of days a year when the thermometer soars above 35 degrees, if global greenhouse gas emissions are not cut steeply, the report said.

    Melbourne faces temperature rises of up to 3.8 degrees by 2070 and the number of days over 35 degrees may rise from 9 to 25 days.

    The most detailed and up-to-date predictions on how climate change will affect Australia, released today by CSIRO and the bureau of meteorology, also provide a grim outlook for the nation’s water supplies, which are already under severe stress.

    More droughts, fires, and severe weather events, and less rain and snow across the country are on the horizon, according to the report.

    Its findings, released at the Greenhouse 2007 conference in Sydney this morning, include projections of up to 20 per cent more drought months over most of Australia by 2030.

    By 2070 this could rise to 40 per cent more drought months in eastern Australia and 80 per cent more in south western Australia.

    The report also spells out the impact that human activity has already had on Australia’s climate.

    A warming of 0.9 degrees since 1950 and an increase in hot nights have been mostly due to greenhouse gas emissions, it concludes.

    These higher temperatures have “exacerbated” the effects of drought and led to a decline in snow cover, including a 40 per cent reduction in snow depth in Spring in the Snowy Mountains in the past 45 years.

    Weather patterns and ocean currents have changed, reducing rainfall to south-west Australia and leading to a warming of waters off the east coast of Tasmania that is occurring at triple the global rate of ocean warming.

    “The message is that global warming is real, humans are very likely to be causing it and that it is very likely that there will be changes in the global climate system in the centuries to come larger than those seen in the recent past,” the report says.

    It is based on conclusions of the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, released earlier this year, and climate research conducted on the Australian region since the last CSIRO projections were released in 2001.

    Co-ordinator of the CSIRO’s climate change science programme, Paul Holper, said improvements in computer modelling of climate meant the new projections were more accurate than the last ones, which warned national temperatures could rise as much as 6 degrees by 2070.

    “Over the past five or six years we have learnt so much more about the atmosphere and the oceans, and our ability to use super computers to simulate climate has improved immensely,” he told ABC Radio.

    Nationally, temperatures will rise by about 1 degree by 2030, and rainfall will decline by up to 5 per cent, according to the report.

    The impact of human activity beyond that will depend on how quickly greenhouse gas emissions are reduced, with worst-case scenarios including a 5-degree warming and a 30 per cent reduction in annual rainfall by 2070.

    If carbon dioxide levels can be stabilised at 550 parts per million, however, the temperature rise in Australia could be kept to about 1.8 degrees by 2070, and rainfall decline to about 7.5 per cent.

  141. aurbo
    Posted Oct 2, 2007 at 12:22 AM | Permalink

    Re #134:

    I was using deserts to describe the worst case of heating caused principally by advection into the downwind valleys east of higher terrain where there is enough moisture in the air coming upslope to produce condensation and precipitation. The same effect works to a lesser but significant extent in the relatively desert free areas along the East Coast east of the US where the prevailing westerly winds come across the modest elevations of the Appalachians.

    The reason water vapor is really the key “greenhouse gas” is because it utilizes more than one mechanism to bring warmer temps into the middle and upper troposphere. Aside from the radiative effects which also presumably occur with CO2, there is a more important mechanism involving the change of state, a phenomenon which does not occur with CO2 except in the stratosphere in the Antarctic and occasionally the Arctic regions when temperatures drop below -78.5 degs C, the temperature at which CO2 sublimates into a solid. (Although the term sublimation pertains to the conversion of both solid directly to gas and its reverse…gas directly to solid, some people call the latter process deposition).

    Water vapor transports heat vertically by carrying water vapor produced by evaporation at the surface upwards through the lower troposphere (H2O is lighter than air and hence positively buoyant). The latent heat stored in the water vapor is released at and above the condensation level completing a process that effectively carries heat energy from the surface into the troposphere. This process is also active in the saturated adiabatic process described in my earlier post (#132) on adiabatic heating and cooling.

    The capability of water vapor to be a physical conveyor of heat from the surface upwards into the atmosphere, thanks to its physical properties which allow for it to undergo changes of state at atmospheric temperatures, makes it far and away the most effective atmospheric constituent for transporting surface heat into the atmosphere..

  142. Hans Erren
    Posted Oct 2, 2007 at 1:09 AM | Permalink

    Where is the “Hansen in France” thread gone?

  143. Hoi Polloi
    Posted Oct 2, 2007 at 2:57 AM | Permalink

    Hansen answer to the 720K Soros gift:

    The latest swift-boating (unless there is a new one among seven unanswered calls on my cell) is the whacko claim that I received $720,000.00 from George Soros. Here is the real deal, with the order of things as well as I can remember without wasting even more time digging into papers and records.

    Sometime after giving a potentially provocative interview to Sixty Minutes, but before it aired, I tried to get legal advice on my rights of free speech. I made two or three attempts to contact people at Freedom Forum, who I had given permission to use a quote (something like “in my thirty-some years in the government, I have never seen anything like the present restrictions on the flow of information from scientists to the public”) on their calendar. I wanted to know where I could get, preferably inexpensive, legal advice. Never got a reply.

    But then I received a call from the President of the Government Accountability Project (GAP) telling me that I had won the Ridenaur Award (including a moderate amount of cash — $10,000 I believe; the award is named for the guy who exposed the Viet Nam My Lai massacre), and offering pro bono legal advice. I agreed to accept the latter (temporarily), signing something to let them represent me (which had an escape clause that I later exercised).

    I started to get the feeling that there may be expectations (strings) coming with the award, and I was concerned that it may create the appearance that I had spoken out about government censorship for the sake of the $. So I called the President of GAP, asking how the nomination process worked and who made the selection. He mentioned that he either nominated or selected me. So I declined the award, but I continued to accept pro bono legal advice for a while.

    The principal thing that they provided was the attached letter to NASA. This letter shows me why scientists drive 1995 Hondas and lawyers drive Mercedes. I have a feeling that the reader of that letter had at least one extra gulp of coffee that morning.

    source: http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/distro_Lawlessness_070927.pdf

  144. Clothcap
    Posted Oct 2, 2007 at 3:24 AM | Permalink

    I don’t know if this is useful but this landmark article seems to be at the base of the recent information maze on co2 forcing.
    Earth’s Energy Imbalance: Confirmation and Implications

    http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/hansen_imbalance.pdf

    http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/308/5727/1431

    http://www.sciencemag.org SCIENCE VOL 308 3 JUNE 2005
    (Published under research articles)

    We investigate Earth_s energy balance via computations with the current global climate model of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS). The model and its simulated climatology have been documented (8), as has its response to a wide variety of climate forcing mechanisms (9). The climate model_s equilibrium sensitivity to doubled CO2 is 2.7-C (È2/3-C per W/m2) (10).

    A good fit of observed and modeled temperatures (Fig. 1) also could be attained with smaller forcing and larger climate sensitivity, or with the converse. If climate sensitivity were higher (and forcings smaller), the rate of ocean heat storage and warming ‘‘in the pipeline’’ or ‘‘committed’’ would be greater, e.g., models with a sensitivity of 4.2- to 4.5-C for doubled CO2 yield È1-C ‘‘committed’’ global warming (3, 4). Conversely, smaller sensitivity and larger forcing yield lesser committed warming and ocean heat storage.

    Smoke & mirrors. Hard to pin down. Good luck with the quest.
    Clothcap

  145. PeterS
    Posted Oct 2, 2007 at 5:06 AM | Permalink

    M. Simon #141

    A most excellent post. My own view is that man’s relationship with his own desire is the root of the AGW upheaval (after all, the ‘A’ in AGW ultimately stands for ‘Desire’). Historically, this relationship has always been a deeply ambivalent one and the glaring patterns evident in man’s frequent – and disastrous – crusades to outlaw his own desire are plain to see. It is as if man has a built in mechanism to frustrate himself… that is, to attempt to devalue and destroy what he has achieved as a means of giving himself something else to struggle for. Without fail, the extreme political and religious ideologies of the ‘something else’ ALWAYS have human desire placed right in their cross-hairs as the obstacle to reaching it.

    This is, of course, wildly off-topic. But it could be said that the project undertaken at this site is to meticulously sift through the supplied evidence – and clear the name of human desire. A project fraught with difficulties since climate science is largely being used (that is abused) as a means to an end. And it’s the huge anticipation of this end that makes all evidences pliable.

  146. Tom Vonk
    Posted Oct 2, 2007 at 6:49 AM | Permalink

    Steve McIntyre I know the answer on your original question .
    It is called quantum thermodynamics .
    However it has a rather fatal drawback – it doesn’t exist .
    Why ?

    Statistical thermodynamics proceeds from classical mechanics and classical definitions of pressure and temperature as being emerging parameters of a big amount of randomly moving particles .
    As for (semi)classical radiation theory it is actually quite simple – rule 1 everything is black body , rule 2 everything is in the Planck law (derived from Bose Einstein statistics) .
    Of an important note and one that is often forgotten is that a black body is necessarily isothermal – if it is not isothermal , then it is not a black body .
    Specifically the Earth or any planet for that matter are not a black bodies .

    Now your question must be reformulated to be more precise .
    What you ask is “Given a variation of radiative properties (emissivity , absorptivity) of a real gaz submitted to a given radiation what would be the variation of its temperature ?”

    Can the classical thermodynamics answer this question ?
    Clearly no because the considered gaz is neither a black body nor in equilibrium .

    As neither Einstein Bose statistics nor consequently the Planck’s law work , you have to construct the absorption/emission law for a specific non black body FLUID case .
    However this must necessarily be a quantum mechanical theory as you need to know how a given matter distribution interacts with a given electromagnetical field .
    It turns out to be a question of staggering complexity even in the simplest cases where no feedbacks and movements take place .

    What does all that boil down to ?
    That the indeed ONLY possible answer is “It is so because the computer model says so .”
    You may like it or not but you have to live with it – that’s the only answer you will get .
    Excuse me but I find it a very naive idea that there would be some “mainstream” physics and some “renegade” physics .
    Actually we all work with the same Navier Stokes , Schrödinger , Boltzmann etc .
    Of course there are differences among physicists – for instance a Gavin has not the brains to understand a tenth of what a Lubos Motl understands but they both use the same physics .

    Therefore what distinguishes strongly is only the stance to computerized numerical simulation .
    Some believe that computer produce meaningful results and you might call that stance “mainstream” and some believe that they don’t and you might call them “sceptics” .
    During the years I have read and written about climate physics , I have found that there is only one relevant question and that is “Can numerical simulations converge to real physical solutions and if yes , under what conditions ?”
    There are regrettably few people who are dedicated to such questions that are of paramount importance – Dan Hughes is one of them and his blog is one of the most relevant to the whole climate debate (question of climate sensibility included) .

  147. JerryB
    Posted Oct 2, 2007 at 6:54 AM | Permalink

    Re #143,

    Hans,

    See Steve McI’s comments in the Russian Bias thread.

  148. W Robichaud
    Posted Oct 2, 2007 at 7:46 AM | Permalink

    100 million for 4 years?

    http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/MediaAlerts/2007/2007092625668.html

  149. Posted Oct 2, 2007 at 7:52 AM | Permalink

    There cannot be a clear and simple derivation of a 2.5 degree C sensitivity, since the direct impact of the CO2 radiative forcing only results in less than 1 degree C of warming. Anything larger requires feedback amplification. The largest component of this is expected to be increased water vapor content in the atmosphere, enhancing the total greenhouse effect. Given the complexity of the climate system, models are required to quantify the total effect, however, they are not yet realisitic and accurate enough for the task. Since they must be validated on the higher quality recent data, they must be accurate to a fraction of the 0.8W/m^2 globally and annually averaged energy imbalance thought to be responsible for the recent warming. They are two or three orders of magnitude away from the required accuracy. Documented errors in cloud cover, surface albedo and artic cap melting are all larger than the attribution task at hand.

  150. Pat Keating
    Posted Oct 2, 2007 at 7:55 AM | Permalink

    138, that’s why I said “essentially”. Let me be more precise:
    Has anyone established the level (concentration x distance) at which IR absorption by water vapor has removed 99% of the IR over the band where the earth’s surface is emitting?

  151. Pat Keating
    Posted Oct 2, 2007 at 8:10 AM | Permalink

    152, I’m sure you are right. It’s one heck of a complex problem from first principles.

    I did a simple-minded estimate of the overall sensitivity which is not first-principles and bypasses those problems, but doesn’t address Steve’s question directly. It gave about 0.8C as the temperature rise from doubling total CO2, probably good to within a factor of 2.

  152. jae
    Posted Oct 2, 2007 at 9:56 AM | Permalink

    132, 136, 142: I guess I shouldn’t have mentioned deserts at all in my post at 128. The relationships that I show hold for all locations EXCEPT the deserts, very probably due to the factors that Aurbo explained. My point is that part of the solar insolation at a given location goes into heating the surface and part of it goes into evaporating moisture. If there is a lot of moisture (Southeast), more goes into evaporating moisture and less goes into heating the surface. The observed temperature is a measure of the solar energy that has been absorbed by both the water vapor (through evaporation and through radiation) and the heating of the surface by that fraction of the solar insolation that did not go into producing the water vapor. Therefore, the temperature at a given location is quite closely related to the product of the insolation and the absolute humidity. Also, at a given latitude and altitude, the temperature is generally higher when there is less water vapor in the air, presumeably due to the convective effects Aurbo explained. Hope this makes sense.

  153. SteveSadlov
    Posted Oct 2, 2007 at 9:57 AM | Permalink

    RE: #128 – For this CWA, the NWS office in Monterey tends to use two things as a forward looking proxy for temperature forecasts. Namely, 500Mb heights, and, the degree of subsidence. Higher heights plus subsidence equals heat. Lower heights plus either strong zonality or uplift equals cold. We are at the edge of the great SW desert, more or less, where it transitions to Pac NW. The SE corner of the CWA is true desert and very hot in the summer, the NW edge is more like S. Ore. What you’ll find is that the greater percentage of time that a particular part of the SW spends affected by high heights and strong subsidence, the more of a true desert environment it is. Here are my own observations regarding feedbacks and other energy flows. The combination of stronger insolation (due to fewer molecules of water to interdict the photons on the way in), subsidence, and high heights leads to hot daily highs, except during winter when synoptics bring in northerly to easterly flows (cP intrusion). But at night, those same things result in a wider diurnal swing than what is experienced in more humid (continental and subtropical) climate zones. However, except when there are summer – fall intrusions of cT from Mexico (monsoons), the general occurrence of either low to mid level clouds and well developed convective cloud structures is much less than say, the Mid South and Gulf Coast.

    Conversely, in the Mid South and Gulf Coast, insolation is lower due to interdiction of photons by water vapor. Also, there is more soil moisture and evapotranspiration. So, what solar energy does arrive, exerts work evaporating the ample water at and near ground level instead of exerting work moving the non hydrous gas molecules in the air around. At night, I will concede that all that moisture also impedes cooling. So, mid summer, in Dagget (which I believe is in the next CWA to the SE of this one), while the high may be 105 or 110, at night it drops down at least into the 70s if not the 60s. Interestingly, when you look at the impacts of a bazillion irrigated yards (Phoenix) or a bazillion swamp coolers (Baghdad, Iraq) you don’t get such a cool down at night, maybe only down into the upper 80s – low 90s! In the mid South and Gulf Coast, while the highs in mid summer through early fall would only be into the upper 80s to low 100s, at night, it never cools down all that much, certainly never down into the 60s. So, all that humidity impedes nighttime cooling. But, what you also have in the Mid South and Gulf Coast are significant occurrences of low to mid level clouds as well as convective cloud structures which result in downpours.

    Net of it is, the water available in the Mid South and Gulf Coast impedes insolation, consumes photonic work at and near the ground (evaporation and evaoptranspiration) and, in cases, results in highly energetic convective events. All of these are things that tend to cool, not warm. Yes, they are negative feedbacks.

  154. Gunnar
    Posted Oct 2, 2007 at 10:01 AM | Permalink

    >> that’s why I said “essentially”.

    The engineer and scientist were told that each step they took must be half of the previous step. When they got across the room, they would get 10 million dollars and a beautiful girl to spend it with.

    The scientist decided it was impossible and gave up. The engineer got close enough to kiss the girl, decided that he was “essentially” across the room, and lived happily ever after.

  155. Gunnar
    Posted Oct 2, 2007 at 10:12 AM | Permalink

    #153,

    This is absolutely correct, and completely absent from AGW radiative balance ideas. First law reduces to “radiative balance” only if work is zero and internal energy is constant. Neither of these two are true. Taking #153 further, warm air with water vapor rises high into the atmosphere and condenses, releasing heat, which then easily radiates into space. This is also not accounted for by radiative balance. Note that this form of heat transfer bypasses C02, making it much less important. That’s why AGW depends on the fictional “radiative balance”.

  156. SteveSadlov
    Posted Oct 2, 2007 at 10:12 AM | Permalink

    RE: #132 – While there are no absolutes, what you described tends to be more true in the true mid latitude arid climates north of about 40N, some of the intermountaine areas closer to the continental divide, as well as the high plains just east of the Rockies. Here in the SW, the main big thing is the Pacific High. It does two things for our weather. Firstly, during the summer months, when it is at its highest latitude, it shunts the jet stream to the north, and simply prevents mid latitude rain bearing weather from reaching the area. For example, even San Francisco, located directly on the coast, at 38N latitude, gets a mere 20 in / year (comparable with locations in Nebraska and the Texas Panhandle). Southward from there, other coastal locations get drier and drier – Monterey – 17 in / year, Santa Maria – 15 in / year, LA – 14 in / year, SD – 9 in / year. None of these are in any sort of rain shaddow. Climatologically, we see this effect in other places such as NW Africa, SW Africa, the area between the Atcama and central Chile, etc.

    The other impact of the Pacific High is that its extent and stability, combined with the general NWly flow in its NE quadrant, results in net annual synoptic subsidence. No mountains required.

    Now, of course, superimposed on all this, is indeed the courduroy of SWestern topography. So, as a result, as opposed to a rather monotonous arid landscape for hundreds of miles in every direction, we do have some upland “islands” of more humid country and lowland extremes of aridity in the valleys, especially the ones inland.

  157. Larry
    Posted Oct 2, 2007 at 10:16 AM | Permalink

    155, no, because the scientist was a climate scientist, and just walked across the room, and said that it’s close enough for climate science.

  158. Larry
    Posted Oct 2, 2007 at 10:23 AM | Permalink

    156, as Gavin described it in his “one-dimensional cartoon”, that’s correct. But he admits that it’s imperfect, although he seems to imply that it’s close.

    In reality, you have radiation and convection competing up to a certain point, and then more-or-less pure radiation the rest of the way out. And they don’t have a very good handle on the sizes and shapes and numbers and locations of the convective cells.

    That’s the simple radiation problem (a.k.a. “basic physics”) that you need to calculate the pre-feedback CS.

    So count me among those who don’t believe that this is tractable. The real question is, how close are their 3-dimensional cartoons (a.k.a. computer models)?

  159. SteveSadlov
    Posted Oct 2, 2007 at 10:28 AM | Permalink

    RE: #153 – A trap that I see most people falling into is to look only at the transport of sensible heat within the evaporation – condensation cycle. What gets missed are the following things:
    1) Low-mid level and large convective clouds reduce insolation
    2) Condensation is not precipitation
    3) In convective clouds, the role of electrostatic discharge
    4) The largest convective structures can transport heat into the stratosphere

  160. Gunnar
    Posted Oct 2, 2007 at 10:34 AM | Permalink

    >> 155, no, because the scientist was a climate scientist, and just walked across the room, and said that it’s close enough for climate science.

    LOL. Just ignored the rules, and figured the ends justified the means, eh?

  161. SteveSadlov
    Posted Oct 2, 2007 at 10:37 AM | Permalink

    It’s also interesting to note exceptions to the rule here in the SW. jae previously noted “except San Francisco.” That could be generalized as “except the areas closest to the beach / salt water.” The reason? A local effect – coastal low level clouds, which are a result of upwelling of very cold water (due to the California Current angling slightly offshore and literally sucking up abyssal water). These low clouds impede insolation sufficiently to greatly reduce day time highs in affected areas. They also at times result in minor drizzle / mist and even if not, tend to humidify the air underneath (not greatly, we’re talking 40 – 70% RH, versus the 10 – 30% RH that would be innate).

  162. Gunnar
    Posted Oct 2, 2007 at 10:43 AM | Permalink

    #160, #4, I would change to “transport large amounts of heat”

    Based on a link I previously provided,

    I would add #5) The real stratospheric lapse rate is not like the exaggerated one in the text book. The temp inversion is quite mild. With the daytime surface heating acting like a whip being jerked back and forth, there is no problem with heat transport out to space.

  163. jae
    Posted Oct 2, 2007 at 10:47 AM | Permalink

    162, SS: No, San Francisco is still weird, relative to other Pacific seaside locations. Weatherwise, too.

  164. Sam Urbinto
    Posted Oct 2, 2007 at 10:54 AM | Permalink

    Being surrounded on 3 sides by the bay and only a few miles wide will do that to you.

  165. jae
    Posted Oct 2, 2007 at 10:55 AM | Permalink

    Stated another way: insolation and absolute humidity explain 72 percent of the variation in average July temperatures, if you ignore the damn Southwest desert.

  166. Gunnar
    Posted Oct 2, 2007 at 11:01 AM | Permalink

    >> 3) In convective clouds, the role of electrostatic discharge

    SteveS, can you elaborate on this?

  167. Posted Oct 2, 2007 at 11:03 AM | Permalink

    ref 160, That would make a great exam question for climatologists; determine the negative feed back for above average tropical cyclone activity.

  168. MarkW
    Posted Oct 2, 2007 at 12:08 PM | Permalink

    #160,

    Even smaller convective systems can make it easier for heat to escape.
    Even small storms can reach heights of 15,000 to 20,000 feet.

    At 20,000 feet, you are above something like 1/4th to 1/3rd of the atmosphere.
    Now assuming that the GHGs are evenly distributed (not exactly, but not far from it) being abot 1/4th the atmosphere puts the heat above 1/4th of the GHGs.

  169. Larry
    Posted Oct 2, 2007 at 12:30 PM | Permalink

    169, it’s more than that. The percentage of the atmosphere above you is proportional to the pressure. At 18,000 ft. it’s 1/2:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_pressure#Altitude_atmospheric_pressure_variation

  170. SteveSadlov
    Posted Oct 2, 2007 at 1:26 PM | Permalink

    RE: #164 – The additional complication for SF (as well as a number of other microclimates I’ll mention below) is the fact that it is in a so called “fog gap” – a place in and on either side of a low spot in the coast range (in this case, the Golden Gate-Carquinez Straits gap), that allows for thermally induced onshore pressure gradients during the hot season. As a result, you get some pretty good winds pushing the stratus and cooled (by the upwelling) marine air inland where such gaps exist. Some other similar spots along the coast, which likely are not on the list of stations, are places like a section of coast between Bodega Bay and Point Reyes, an area in between Half Moon Bay and Pescadero, an area of desolate dunes between Pismo Beach and Santa Maria, and, Jalama Beach.

  171. SteveSadlov
    Posted Oct 2, 2007 at 1:29 PM | Permalink

    Also, what I’ve written only really holds true in the 30s N latitude. Further north, a different regime is in play (warmer water, due to less upwelling, more zonal flow at the synoptic level, etc). Also, by “coastal,” I mean truly coastal – exposed to the open Pacific, with no intervening land mass and no topography. By this definition, Portaland and Seattle are not coastal. Whereas, all the places I mentioned describing the effects of the Pacific High, are. All of them are on the beach. Even San Jose is not really coastal by this definition.

  172. SteveSadlov
    Posted Oct 2, 2007 at 1:33 PM | Permalink

    RE: #167 – ionization is a different type of energy dissipation than overt warming.

  173. SteveSadlov
    Posted Oct 2, 2007 at 1:47 PM | Permalink

    http://www.colutron.com/download_files/chap4.pdf

  174. SteveSadlov
    Posted Oct 2, 2007 at 2:03 PM | Permalink

    In much the same way that an ever increasing understanding of the energetics of the earth has led to greater and greater understanding of Earth dynamics and plate tectonics, a better understand of the energetics of the atmosphere will likely lead to much better GCMs.

  175. SteveSadlov
    Posted Oct 2, 2007 at 2:09 PM | Permalink

    The archetypal RC reader?

    # Denis Jonnes Says:
    2 October 2007 at 6:24 AM

    I came to this blog via the NY Times article on arctic melting. This came a day after an article
    plus video of falling water levels in the Great Lakes. We also know that large areas of the south,
    midwest, west and east of the U.S. are suffering drought, as is the Amazon river basin, large areas
    of Australia, as well as parts of Japan (Fukuoka city, in prefecture where I live,
    has just built its first de-salinization plant). China is building enormous canal/pipeline
    to transport water from south to water-starved Beijing and Shanghai areas.
    My question for the experts: re we in the middle of what appears to be a growing
    world wide drought? If so, where is the water going? Is it possible that planet will
    become so hot that water that evaporates will not cool sufficiently to fall as rain or snow?

    Denis Jonnes
    Washington D. C./Kitakyushu, Japan

  176. Posted Oct 2, 2007 at 2:16 PM | Permalink

    Steve, #176: Do you think it would help if we told her that the winter rains in Southern California in 04-05 were the most plentiful in over a hundred years?

    Naaaa. Not likely.

  177. jae
    Posted Oct 2, 2007 at 2:25 PM | Permalink

    172: SS: yes, I think you are right about SF. It has a very distinct location, relative to the land masses around it. Most other cities right on the coast have weather patterns that are much different than SF: North Bend, OR; Astoria, Or; Arcata, CA; Brookings, OR; Yachats, OR; Coos Bay, OR; Port Orford, OR; Westport, WA; Neah Bay, WA; etc. In my little “sensitivity” analysis, nearly all coastal cities except SF had a sensitivity of 0.05 degrees/watt m-2; but SF was 0.08.

  178. Gunnar
    Posted Oct 2, 2007 at 2:43 PM | Permalink

    >> growing world wide drought

    That anyone could believe this is more evidence that we’ve entered the age of anti-science

    >> so hot that water that evaporates will not cool sufficiently to rain

    Yea, that’s it, the upper troposphere (-40) has heated up to the point where water won’t condense. Wow, this kind of lack of critical thinking is scary.

    >> falling water levels in the Great Lakes

    Or maybe there’s a simpler reason.

  179. Larry
    Posted Oct 2, 2007 at 2:46 PM | Permalink

    179, careful. Astoria, OR is about 15 miles up the river, and not really “coastal” in microclimate. It’s really remarkable how much the microclimate changes as you go 5 miles inland. I don’t know about the other ones. The WA ones listed are coastal.

  180. tetris
    Posted Oct 2, 2007 at 2:56 PM | Permalink

    World-wide drought?
    We have 60% more rainwater [3000 Imp gallons] in our cisterns than same time last year. Temps in the Pacific NW have been well below the norm since last fall. Contrary to all GCMs, the UK, western France, Northern Germany, the Netherlands and Scandinavia had one of wettest and coldest summers on record. The drought in Australia broke earlier this year, and on it goes.
    But of course, why wouldn’t RC post the fears of an ill-informed individual when it serves their message?

  181. jae
    Posted Oct 2, 2007 at 3:07 PM | Permalink

    180: You are right about Astoria. Substitute Crescent City, CA. :}

  182. jae
    Posted Oct 2, 2007 at 3:10 PM | Permalink

    Hmm, thinking more about the December Humidity vs. Temperature plot referred to in 128. It appears that virtually all the solar energy is transferred to water vapor when it is cold, thus explaining the nearly perfect correlation between absolute humidity and temperature in December.

  183. krghou
    Posted Oct 2, 2007 at 3:11 PM | Permalink

    Reply to Lockwood and Fröhlich – The persistent role of the Sun in climate forcing

    URL if link doesn’t work

    http://www.spacecenter.dk/publications/scientific-report-series/Scient_No._3.pdf

  184. SteveSadlov
    Posted Oct 2, 2007 at 3:17 PM | Permalink

    jae – Just a note, all those coastal places mentioned are north of 40 deg north. Totally different regime than south of 40. Pacific High has much less impact north of 40. Also, as I mentioned, SF (and the various podunk places I listed) are at fog gaps. But the overarching message is, Pacific High equals North American version of Sahara (albeit modulated by varied topography and orographic miracles, making our Sahara more verdent). The vast arid zones east of semi persistent oceanic highs between 25 and 37 latitude have subsidence dominated synoptics, leading to compressive heating and very dry, high pressure air. The lack of RH leads to higher insolation, less energy devoted to evaporation and transporation, fewer overall low-mid and large convective clouds and therefore higher summertime temps than comparable humid subtropical latitudes.

  185. jae
    Posted Oct 2, 2007 at 3:19 PM | Permalink

    Capitalism at its best.

  186. jae
    Posted Oct 2, 2007 at 3:33 PM | Permalink

    184: Thanks for that link. This statement from it fits the milieu here well:

    When the response of the climate system to the solar
    cycle is apparent in the troposphere and ocean, but not
    in the global surface temperature, one can only wonder
    about the quality of the surface temperature record.

  187. SteveSadlov
    Posted Oct 2, 2007 at 3:43 PM | Permalink

    RE; #186 – I am an ongoing witness to this sort of thing. Corporations mirror overall demographics. Take a snap shot of the US in say, 1970, on the college campuses, fast forward 37 years, and those are the board rooms. Some board rooms are dominated by the far out clique (probably a slight majority of them), some by the ROTC / law abiding clique, (probably about 20%) and the remainder are a food fight in the dining hall. Sadly, the firm I support is definitely ….. (Tommy Chong)FAR…. OUT(/Tommy Chong).

  188. Robert in Calgary
    Posted Oct 2, 2007 at 4:17 PM | Permalink

    Re: 184

    I thought the Lockwood paper was “smelly” as soon as I saw the over the top cheerleading for it.

    I love their wry observation on the quality of surface temperatures.

  189. steven mosher
    Posted Oct 2, 2007 at 5:24 PM | Permalink

    RE 171. If sadlov ever tells you that he paddled out at Mavericks ITS THE BEER BONG TALKIN.

  190. Sam Urbinto
    Posted Oct 2, 2007 at 5:38 PM | Permalink

    It’s the magnetic field weakening and cosmic rays having more effect. The deep oceans are drawing off too much of the heat from the core, and the dynamo is slowing as the rock becomes more solid.

    We must start heating the oceans more to save the planet.

  191. John M.
    Posted Oct 2, 2007 at 5:44 PM | Permalink

    There cannot be a clear and simple derivation of a 2.5 degree C sensitivity, since the direct impact of the CO2 radiative forcing only results in less than 1 degree C of warming. Anything larger requires feedback amplification. The largest component of this is expected to be increased water vapor content in the atmosphere, enhancing the total greenhouse effect. Given the complexity of the climate system, models are required to quantify the total effect, however, they are not yet realisitic and accurate enough for the task. Since they must be validated on the higher quality recent data, they must be accurate to a fraction of the 0.8W/m^2 globally and annually averaged energy imbalance thought to be responsible for the recent warming. They are two or three orders of magnitude away from the required accuracy. Documented errors in cloud cover, surface albedo and artic cap melting are all larger than the attribution task at hand

    Sadly I suspect the powers that be here are well aware of that, #150, and the “clear exposition” posture taken recently is just a way to frame the debate in a manner that avoids people making the obvious inference that Hansen and co could actually still be right in big picture terms regardless of what they may or may not have got up to with data from Siberia or Wellington, New Zealand and with Mann’s hockey stick etc. Future generations, who are going to be seriously impacted by decisions made over the next few decades, deserve better from both sides of this argument.

  192. Follow the Money
    Posted Oct 2, 2007 at 5:55 PM | Permalink

    Steve asks:

    If anyone can identify a clear exposition of how 2xCO2 leads to 2.5 deg C, please do so.

    I believe I have an answer: because IPCC AR1 1990 (“Scientific Assessment) says so. From chapter 5 “Equilibrium Climate Change” p. 139,

    The evidence from modeling studies, from observations and from sensitivity analyses indicate that the sensitivity of global mean surface temperature to doubling CO2 is unlikely to lie outside the range 1.5 to 4.5C. There is no compelling evidence to suggest in what part of this range the correct value is most likely to lie. There is no particular virtue in choosing the middle of the range, and both the sensitivity analysis and the observational evidence neglecting factors other than the greenhouse effect, indicate that a value in the lower part of the range may be more likely. Most scientists declined to give a single number, but for the purpose of illustraing the IPCC Scenarios, a value of 2.5C is considered the “best guess” in the light of current knowledge. [orig. bold]

    “Observations” is reading thermometers. In the paragraph previous adjusting model sensitivities of expected warming with later observations is “fraught with uncertainty.”

    In chapter 2 is table 2.2, p. 52 “Expressions used to derive radiative forcing for past trends and future scenarios of greenhouse gas concentrations.” Eight trace gasses are listed. For CO2 the “Radiative Forcing Approximation Giving deltaF In Wm-2″ is “deltaF=6.31n (C/Co[o is subscript]) where C is CO2 om ppmv for C The actual relationships between forcing and concentration derived from models can be used to develop simple expressions (e.g., Wigley, 1987; Hansen et al 1988) which are then more easily used for a large number of calculations. Such simple expressions are used in this Section. The values adopted and their sources are given in Table 2.2. Values derived from Hansen et al. have been multiplied by 3.35 (Lacis, personal communication) to convert forcing as a temperature change to forcing as a change in net flux at the tropopause after allowing for stratospheric temperature change. These expressions should be considered as global mean forcings; they implicitly include the radiative effects of global mean cloud cover.

    As far as I can tell the only lab analysis (and I might be wrong about this one) in AR1 of forcing agents, that is, analyzing the gasses without inculding historical climate assumptions, feed backs and guesswork is a chart on p. 53 comparing the relative forcing of CO2 to other GHGs. The text says “Further information on the available spectroscopic data is given by Husson (1990).” In References the Husson paper is described “..(To be published)”

    I write the above here to 1. answer Steve’s question, 2. suggest that many of the questions encountered at this website in the nature of “why do they say that in AR3″ may be answered by resort to AR1 – which is not available on line as far as I can tell.

  193. Follow the Money
    Posted Oct 2, 2007 at 6:03 PM | Permalink

    My #193

    The sentences of the paragraph beginning with “The actual relationships” should have been indented. Change:

    “Text below the table 2.2 states:

    The actual relationships between forcing and concentration derived from models can be used to develop simple expressions (e.g., Wigley, 1987; Hansen et al 1988) which are then more easily used for a large number of calculations. Such simple expressions are used in this Section. The values adopted and their sources are given in Table 2.2. Values derived from Hansen et al. have been multiplied by 3.35 (Lacis, personal communication) to convert forcing as a temperature change to forcing as a change in net flux at the tropopause after allowing for stratospheric temperature change. These expressions should be considered as global mean forcings; they implicitly include the radiative effects of global mean cloud cover.

  194. Larry
    Posted Oct 2, 2007 at 6:11 PM | Permalink

    Sadly I suspect the powers that be here are well aware of that, #150, and the “clear exposition” posture taken recently is just a way to frame the debate in a manner that avoids people making the obvious inference that Hansen and co could actually still be right in big picture terms regardless of what they may or may not have got up to with data from Siberia or Wellington, New Zealand and with Mann’s hockey stick etc.

    Hopefully, since this is the unthreaded thread, I won’t get snipped for this, but what you’re saying is logically untenable. That is exactly the same intellectual contortion that Dan Rather got canned for. You can’t say the data is all wrong but the conclusion is right. There’s a word for that, but it I use it, I’ll definitely get snipped. But the word isn’t logic.

  195. John M.
    Posted Oct 2, 2007 at 6:28 PM | Permalink

    The problems with the historical temperature record data audited here do not relate directly to the question of what additional CO2 will do to the effective radiating level in the mid-troposphere, Larry #195.

  196. Larry
    Posted Oct 2, 2007 at 6:58 PM | Permalink

    Oh, really?

  197. Posted Oct 2, 2007 at 7:19 PM | Permalink

    Ref 196 I have to agree with 197. What confounds me is that the instrumental record can be used to confirm climatologist’s claims or refute claims by others. If the instrumental record might imply that the GCM’s may have a hitch in their giddy-up, that data does not apply “since the models do not use instrumental data.”

    Regional weather does not imply global climate impact? But regional proxies indicate global trends? The double speak is why I am following the story.

  198. John M.
    Posted Oct 2, 2007 at 7:25 PM | Permalink

    Climate is a complex question, Larry. What Mann et al have tried to demonstrate with their analysis of the historical climate record is that the atmospheric CO2 concentration is the only major factor in determining global mean temperature and that other factors like solar irradiance only play a minor role. Even if those other factors have been more significant in the past than the hockey stick would suggest, a doubling of atmospheric CO2 in the modern era could still lead to major problems over the next century or so.

  199. jae
    Posted Oct 2, 2007 at 7:29 PM | Permalink

    Regional weather does not imply global climate impact? But regional proxies indicate global trends? The double speak is why I am following the story.

    Me too! I’ve never encountered a “scientific” field with so much doublespeak. That has to make one skeptical.

  200. Larry
    Posted Oct 2, 2007 at 7:43 PM | Permalink

    Pssst! Don’t look now, but I think a guy named Steve McIntyre broke Mann’s hockey stick…

  201. Posted Oct 2, 2007 at 7:45 PM | Permalink

    The September 2007 global temperature estimate from NCEP/NOAA is in. This is a “flash report” of operational data and subject to revision, but it is useful as a rough estimate of monthly anomalies.

    September was the sixth warmest on record.

    A plot of NCEP/NOAA monthly ranks for the last twelve months is here . October and November 2006 was the 2’nd warmest, December 2006 was the warmest, and so forth.

    The drop in rankings is noticeable and should continue as the cool La Nina and apparent cool-phase PDO strengthen over the coming months.

  202. Posted Oct 2, 2007 at 7:51 PM | Permalink

    ref 199 That is another red flag for me. Solar influence was lost due to CO2 forcing? Northern Europe had a 1.5 to 3 degree temperature rise from ’87 to ’90 following an unusually high and short solar cycle during a reduce average hurricane cycle. A lag in the NAO does not seem unthinkable in that situation to me. Then I just fish for a living.

  203. Gunnar
    Posted Oct 2, 2007 at 8:04 PM | Permalink

    >> Oh, really?

    Larry, I agree with John M, at least with the limited point in 192. As I’ve said before, if 98 was hotter than 38, it doesn’t imply that AGW is correct. However, if 38 was hotter than 98, it doesn’t imply AGW is incorrect. If the AGWers are correct, the real GW could start in 2050.

    Your comparison with the Rather situation is both appropriate and inappropriate. It’s similar in that if someone has to lie, then there probably is no real case. However, one can distinguish between the AGW scientific proponents and the more fanatical political AGWers. The political side is making a desparate marketing pitch which is basically “it’s hot, let’s suspend freedom now”. For this, the counter argument “it’s not hot” may seem to be enough. However, a more robust argument must deal with AGW science more directly, not just the math behind the “it’s hotter”.

  204. Posted Oct 2, 2007 at 8:28 PM | Permalink

    John M. says:
    October 2nd, 2007 at 7:25 pm

    Climate is a complex question, Larry. What Mann et al have tried to demonstrate with their analysis of the historical climate record is that the atmospheric CO2 concentration is the only major factor in determining global mean temperature and that other factors like solar irradiance only play a minor role. Even if those other factors have been more significant in the past than the hockey stick would suggest, a doubling of atmospheric CO2 in the modern era could still lead to major problems over the next century or so.

    Kudzu will totally take over.

  205. aurbo
    Posted Oct 2, 2007 at 9:53 PM | Permalink

    Re #199:

    Adding to what John M says, in a weird way, Mann’s hockey-stick has little relevance to the model-derived forecasts of future climate temperatures. Its principal purpose was to eliminate cyclic temperature changes in the past so that such cycles could be eliminated as a predictor of climate. This leaves the forecasts up to the models and CO2 radiative forcing. It’s a safe way to promote disaster as neither models nor what we know of CO2’s radiative contributions can be rigorously verified at today’s state of the science. Metaphorically, its’ sort of like wiping out the police force so that the criminals can have a free reign.

    Re #186 and prior comments on the role of water vapor.

    Operational forecasters are well aware that record high temperatures are almost impossible to achieve if the dewpoint temperatures (a measure of absolute humidity) are high. As poster Jae correctly states, incoming solar energy is diverted to evaporating water both directly where there is standing water and moist topsoils, and indirectly by promoting evapotranspiration from flora (and even some fauna). Considerable energy is required to convert water to vapor (liquid heat of vaporization) which resides in the vapor as latent heat. This leaves a lot less energy to heat the ground, and by conduction the air at the surface. Keep in mind that latent heat is not sensible heat. No rise in sensible temperature of the water vapor has to occur. Some of the heat needed to facilitate evapotranspiration is removed from the liquid water where the energy is contained as sensible heat, and so the process of evapotranspiration results in cooling the water and surfaces from which it evaporates. This process will act until the water vapor in the air reaches an equilibrium for the particular temperature of the liquid water source, a measure which is defined as the saturation vapor pressure. Also, high moisture increases the chances for cloud formation which reduces further the solar energy reaching the ground.

    The significance of water as a means of transferring heat energy has also been recognized by weather observers for many years. For example, snow cover will diminish slowly under the advection of a warm, dry airmass. But, if the airmass at the same temperatures becomes saturated enough to produce fog (condensed water droplets) the rate of diminution of the snow cover increases dramatically.

    All of this describes the effect of water and its ability to transfer heat through changes of state as a major player in world climate.

  206. John M.
    Posted Oct 2, 2007 at 9:57 PM | Permalink

    This question is now so polarized and people have become so tribalistic over this issue that some posters have obviously immediately assumed that I must see Mann as being correct for having posted the above comments. I didn’t need this website to know that something was strange about Mann’s analysis. As a child in the 1970s back when an imminent new ice age was sometimes being mentioned as a possibility on the television, I could see skating ponds built during the LIA in the countryside around the village where I grew up that could hardly ever be used as it seldom ever got cold enough for the water to freeze sufficiently to safely use them. The severe winter of 1978 being a memorable exceptions. I could also see field patterns for cropland dating back to the MWP and Roman times at altitudes where there was only sheep pasture in the modern era. Dramatic historical natural climate changes were obvious in other words and everybody knew about it. Scientists were already seriously concerned about global warming by the late 80s and early 90s before Mann published his paper and Hansen started playing around with the historical temperature record. Showing they are possibly up to mischief in terms of the scientific method doesn’t change much in the big scheme of things in other words.

  207. Posted Oct 2, 2007 at 11:51 PM | Permalink

    Believe it or not, water vapor and other minor GHG are transferors of heat, not accumulators of heat… Heat cannot be stored because it is energy in transit. The water vapor and GHG current acts exactly like the oceanic currents. If it was so, we were scorching from millions of years ago. The things not considered are:

    1. CO2 balance concerns to emissivity-absorptivity. Both qualities are almost equal for carbon dioxide at its current density.
    2. Water vapor and hot air lift up to higher layers where the heat is transferred to the space.
    3. Doubling CO2 would cause a decrease of the temperature, not an increase: delta T = q / m (Cp). If m is higher, delta T will be lower.
    4. The formula derived from the Arrhenius algorithm to obtain the change of temperature contains three assumed magnitudes, which have not been derived from experimentation, but from models: delta T = (alpha) [Ln (CO2 x 2 / CO2 standard) / 4 (sigma) (Tbb)^3. I’m sorry, Steve, but I doubt any scientist in his/her five senses can have the courage of including this formula in an article for peer review. alpha is an assumed value that can be changed arbitrarily, CO2 standard has been established without taking into consideration the standard values determined by the IUPAC and other national institutions, Tbb cannot be introduced in the formula because Earth is not a blackbody (besides, there are three standard Temperatures).
    5. There are many things that you couldn’t find in the internet, for example the values of the emissivity-absorptivity of water vapor and other minor GHG. We have to read those values from books and tables written by scientists who obtained them from experimentation, i.e. 0.00092 is the emissivity of CO2 at its current Pp in the atmosphere. You cannot deduce it mathematically, but after you have made many measurements in your lab or from nature. That’s what Dr. Hottel did in 1959. What we’ve made in the present is to corroborate his data, which have resulted highly accurate.

  208. MarkW
    Posted Oct 3, 2007 at 5:23 AM | Permalink

    World wide drought, where did all the water go.

    I think it all fell on England this year.

  209. Pat Keating
    Posted Oct 3, 2007 at 7:13 AM | Permalink

    209; Nasif, can you provide reference(s) (preferable URLs, since papers are harder to get) for the data on CO2 and water-vapor absorptivity and emissivity?

  210. Larry
    Posted Oct 3, 2007 at 7:51 AM | Permalink

    204, That’s all true, but just because I can’t prove that there aren’t 100 invisible Klingons on my roof getting ready to attack me doesn’t mean that I should be concerned. This is basic philosophy/law school stuff that I think too many techy types miss.

  211. Scott-in-WA
    Posted Oct 3, 2007 at 8:01 AM | Permalink

    Nasif Nahle #57: First of all, the article Steve McIntyre is looking for must contain an experimental and mathematical procedure that gives a value to Fo, that is, the relation among emissivity of carbon dioxide, emissivity of surface, geometry of the surface and the layer of carbon dioxide, and the energy emitted by the surface that is intercepted by the carbon dioxide. It’s not possible to find an article that includes the complete procedures because the magnitudes assigned to Fo would be highly speculative.

    In performing engineering feasibility analysis for producing some product, some manufacturing process, or some mechanical device, we start by assessing the state of the current science and the current technology. A market survey for the proposed product or process must be done as well, one which determines if enough demand exists to cover the costs of designing, developing, and manufacturing the product — assuming it can be developed and marketed at an acceptable price. The engineering feasibility analysis has to integrate a range of information and data from various informational areas so as to determine whether further efforts at developing the product or process are worth pursuing.

    Rafa #60: …… I understand Steve’s request. To the best of my knowledge I do not think such paper exists in the terms asked by Steve (mainstream, refereed, etc). I suspect why it doesn’t exist ….

    Nasif, Leon, Doc, Larry, and Dewitt offer some commentary that fills in some of the blanks. These still remain up on the blog as I’m writing this response. So far, so good.

    Leon Palmer #64:…… (from abstract, paper by Cess, R. D.) …. A number of modeling endeavors suggest a 2 to 4 C increase in global mean surface temperature with doubling of the CO2 concentration. But such estimates of CO2-induced warming are highly uncertain because of a lack of knowledge of climate feedback mechanisms….

    DocMartyn #67:…… Global warming caused by an increase in the concentrations of greenhouse gases, is the direct result of greenhouse gas—induced radiative forcing. When a doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide is considered, this forcing differed substantially among 15 atmospheric general circulation models. Although there are several potential causes, the largest contributor was the carbon dioxide radiation parameterizations of the models.

    DeWitt Payne #78…..(Petty, Grant W) ….. Even now, however, a fully comprehensive treatment of radiation and other physical processes remains too complex a problem for the most powerful computers to tackle for the entire atmosphere at once. GCMs therefore continue to rely on grossly simplified representations of some of these processes, with the attendant risk of error in the models’ predictions. Finding ways to improve the accuracy of radiative and other physical parameterizations within the constraints of the available computing power is a major focus of current research in atmospheric science…….

    An examination of the current state of the art of climate modeling would certainly be a necessary element of the producing a paper such as SteveM apparently desires. Moreover, the analysis would have to analyze in some detail how the models should be employed to integrate underlying theory with real-world observations.

    Larry #69 …It would be really nice to be able to dot all of the “i”s and cross all of the “t”s in the radiation model as you suggest, but once you’ve done that you’re nowhere close to finished.

    No question about it. This is yet another reason why Steve’s paper, in the form he would like to see it, does not currently exist.

    You not only have to consider the way the absorption and emission vary with altitude due to changes in composition, temperature, and pressure, but you also have to figure how convection enters the picture, and essentially bypasses the greenhouse. Then once you’ve done that, you have to do something a bit better than handwaving to arrive at the feedback.

    That’s a pretty fair summation of the problem. An engineering feasibility analysis would have to cover this ground in some detail if it were to have any value in assessing whether 2.5 C warming is possible through 2xC02.

    Dennis Wingo #68: There was an extensive set of studies done in the 50’s by the USAF to characterize the troposphere and lower stratosphere for all major IR absorbing gasses….. if you look back through the data, that you will see 35,000 feet as a measurement altitude…… equations that cover the fundamental quantum mechanics of absorption and emission of gasses covering the ultraviolet to mid IR bands……. As far back as the 50’s, equipment was sensitive enough, and selective enough, to discern all of the individual absorption and emission spectra for CO2, H20, N2O, CH4, and O3, which covers 99.5% of all IR absorption

    See Larry’s comment #69 and my response. It appears that a foundation exists in past practice and in existing instrumentation technology for performing the kinds of additional field testing and field measurements that would likely be necessary to increase our confidence in our overall knowledge and understanding of real-world radiative processes, and potentially, the forcings and feedbacks which might be driven (or affected) by them.

    Gunnar #111: ….. Nor do you mention manufacturing tolerances. There are two cars of the same make and model. Once gets 26, but mine gets 28. Can you derive from first principles why mine gets 28, and not 26? . My point? MPG is a sensitivity, and thus is more related to the object in question, and is not a basic scientific law, derivable from other laws.

    We can estimate how a certain car with a certain engine might perform in the areas of acceleration and gas mileage, perhaps using complicated simulation models of one kind or another. But we don’t know for sure until we do field testing under real-world conditions using an appropriately designed testing methodology and appropriate test measurement instrumentation and equipment.

    An engineering feasibility analysis of how 2xC02 might be successfully employed to produce 2.5 C global warming would necessarily include a DQO process which would establish what kinds of further work must be done in the area of testing and measurement — not only for supporting a better understanding of radiative models in the atmosphere, but also for any other aspects of the feasibility analysis problem which require further real-world observation and testing to obtain supportable conclusions.

    Larry #69 Someone please prove me wrong, but I don’t think we have the understanding to do that with enough accuracy to have any confidence in. I believe that’s where we are, and that’s where we’re going to be for the foreseeable future. And I believe that for one simple reason: with as much research money on the table as there is, if it were possible to calculate that number from the ground up with good confidence, someone would have done it already.

    Just to recap what this topic is about, in previous posts on the ClimateAudit (CA) blog, Steve McIntyre notes the absence in the latest IPCC report of a clear expository explanation which demonstrates how a doubling of C02 concentration in the atmosphere results in a probable global warming of 2.5 degrees Centigrade.

    Moreover, so far as is known among regular participants of the CA blog, no such clear, well-structured expository explanation can be found anywhere in the AGW literature which covers the topic in the depth and precision one should expect of a modern, up to date treatment of the subject.

    The suggestion has been made that such an explanation could be written in the style of the engineering reports one commonly encounters in large civil or industrial projects undertaken by government or private industry, the theory being that an engineering report is more likely to be written with the clarity and the quality of analysis one should expect for so important a topic.

    In comparison with the politicians and the scientists who produced the latest IPCC report on GHG-driven global warming, engineers in most industrial organizations are held to a higher standard of accountability for the quality of their work, and in ways that politicians and scientists usually don’t have to deal with in the normal course of performing their jobs.

    For example, engineers suffer the threat of losing their jobs for producing inefficient, uneconomic, or unconstructable designs; and in more extreme cases, there is the additional threat of civil or criminal penalties for poor quality or unprofessional work which has the potential to cause harm to individuals or the public. This higher standard of accountability has a tendency to keep engineers, as one class of professionals in a scientifically-oriented society, comparatively more honest, both intellectually and morally, in the pursuit of their assigned tasks.

    Hence the appeal of employing the kind of systematic approach to performing a topical analysis that would typically underpin the production of an engineering report. In such a report, we would expect to see:

    — A strong and logically-sequenced topical organization within the body of the report;

    — Evidence of a rigorous, methodical approach to analyzing and presenting supporting information and conclusions;

    — Direct and logical traceability of conclusions to supporting data, information, and analyses;

    — The use of a Systems Engineering philosophy and approach in managing the product lifecycle phases employed in producing the report;

    — A professional approach to managing the collection, storage, and dissemination of the supporting data, information, and analyses;

    In the modern industrial world, engineers would typically apply their full range of talents — and their most disciplined modes of thinking — to the design, development, and production of highly sophisticated and highly complex electro-mechanical devices of one kind or another. To exploit the best of these talents and also to exploit the variety of disciplined procedures and processes engineers use to perform their work, I propose here that the paradigm of a “global warming machine” might be used to produce the kind of engineering analysis report Steve McIntyre desires.

    In one sense, we could almost view such a report as being a more thorough and disciplined treatment of the AGW topic than the IPCC report itself provides.

    What follows is a rough outline of a project plan for performing an Engineering Feasibility Analysis (EFA) covering the design, development, and production of a Greenhouse Gas Global Warming Machine (GHG-GWM), one which is capable of producing a minimum global warming of 2.5 degrees Centigrade.

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

    OUTLINE OF A PROJECT PLAN FOR:

    PERFORMANCE of an ENGINEERING FEASIBILITY ANALYSIS (EFA) covering the DESIGN, DEVELOPMENT, and PRODUCTION of a GREENHOUSE GAS GLOBAL WARMING MACHINE (GHG-GWM)

    The objective of the EFA is to assess the technical and economic feasibility of successfully creating an optimized “global warming machine”, one which is capable of producing a 2.5 Centigrade rise in global mean temperature through the efficient exploitation of commonly-available greenhouse gases and solar energy resources; and which utilizes a combination of man-made and naturally-occurring systems, subsystems, and components.

    In addition, the EFA will analyze what factors, issues, and potential difficulties might affect the successful design, development, production, and operation of such a “machine.” The project plan is divided into the following sections:

    Section (1): EFA Purpose / Scope Of Work
    Section (2): GHG-GWM General Performance Criteria
    Section (3): GHG-GWM General Design Criteria
    Section (4): General GHG-GWM Design Methodology
    Section (5): General GHG-GWM Development Methodology
    Section (6): General GHG-GWM Production Methodology
    Section (7): EFA General Quality Assurance Criteria
    Section (8): EFA Project Closeout, Disposition of Project Records
    Section (9): EFA Project Management and Staffing
    Section (10): EFA Production Schedule

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

    I’m now in the process of adding in the details of the EFA Project Plan. Remember, it is a plan for doing the engineering feasibility analysis, not the analysis itself.

    As everyone can probably surmise, just writing a plan for this project has turned out to be a much more difficult task that I originally thought. It will take another week (or so) of work before I can get the first draft of the plan posted.

  212. Tom Vonk
    Posted Oct 3, 2007 at 8:24 AM | Permalink

    #151

    Has anyone established the level (concentration x distance) at which IR absorption by water vapor has removed 99% of the IR over the band where the earth’s surface is emitting?

    My first reaction was to say that radiation transmission was investigated because it is actually easy and it has also been done with different gases .
    You take an infrared transparent cylinder with variable length and feed it with a gas of variable composition .
    You illuminate the front end with infrared and you measure what comes out on the rear end .

    But my first reaction was irrelevant to the problem we have in mind here – radiation behaviour of the real atmosphere .
    Indeed in the experiment described above both the convection and the change of state (if applicable) are suppressed .
    That’s why the gas in the cylinder heats too much what modifies both its absorptivity and emissivity .
    It is not at all that way in the atmosphere where convection heat transfer largely prevails in the low atmosphere , the quantum effects of infrared photon absorption/emission prevail in the high atmosphere and both compete in the middle .
    So no , to my knowledge nobody did that for the real atmosphere and I doubt that it is feasible experimentaly .

    Of course you can make a computer model and get the answer of the model .
    But that wouldn’t be precisely an experimental value , would it ?

  213. Larry
    Posted Oct 3, 2007 at 8:26 AM | Permalink

    Scott, we talked about this on another thread a few weeks ago, and also suggested that the reports should be signed by someone with a license, just because they have something to lose. I would think it would be appropriate for the UN or the US or EU government to go to a major international environmental consulting firm such as CH2M Hill, and have them prepare the report, and have it stamped by the principals preparing the report, and the engineer of record. They, in turn, could commission the scientific research.

    Such a company would be biased (after all, they are environmental consultants), but they would have liability hanging over their heads. And besides, they do have lots of experience preparing these kinds of reports. You would at least have something readable when you’re all done, and wouldn’t have to muddle through all of this Hansenesque goopityglop like we do now.

  214. Posted Oct 3, 2007 at 9:17 AM | Permalink

    # 211

    Pat Keating,

    That’s the problem, Pat. As I’ve said “There are many things that you couldn’t find in the internet, for example the values of the emissivity-absorptivity of water vapor and other minor GHG.”

    However, we can get them from books, for example Heat Transfer by Pitts and Sissom (pp. 309-311), Thermodynamics by Engel and Reid (pp. 2-10), Heat Transmission by Hoyt Hottel (pp. 153-160), etc.

  215. jae
    Posted Oct 3, 2007 at 9:25 AM | Permalink

    The USA courts can take a lesson from the Brits.

  216. jae
    Posted Oct 3, 2007 at 9:44 AM | Permalink

    213: Outstanding post. Great summary of the 2.5 C question, and good way to approach resolution. Now, if we could get someone with lotsa cash to fund such a study. Probably not Al Gore or George Sorros, though…

  217. DeWitt Payne
    Posted Oct 3, 2007 at 9:51 AM | Permalink

    Re: #209

    Nasif,

    Your figure of 0.00092 for the emissivity of CO2 at 375 ppm in the atmosphere is not correct. You ignore path length. I have posted a graph of the Hottel emissivities for CO2 at UKweatherworld on page 6 of the debate thread. Each curve of emissivity vs. temperature is associated with a mass path length, in atmosphere meters. So to select the correct curve, you have to multiply the partial pressure of CO2 by the path length in meters. An appropriate path length for the atmosphere as a whole would be on the order of 10 kilometers making the PCO2 L value equal to about 4. This is beyond the range of the chart. At a path length of 1 km, the P CO2 value is 0.37 and the corresponding emissivity would be between 0.1 and 0.2, more than two orders of magnitude higher than your figure. A copy of the original graph taken from Hottel, Heat Transfer, 1954 can be found here on page 10, but it’s in feet atmospheres and it’s not a very good copy. 0.37 atmosphere meters is equal to 1.23 feet atmospheres and not surprisingly, the emissivity comes out between 0.1 and 0.2. You, or anyone else interested can post their comments at the UKweatherworld forum topic linked above.

    The equivalent chart for water vapor and a correction chart for the water vapor/carbon dioxide overlap so the emissivities can be combined can also be found on the web if you look hard enough, in answer to #211. Water vapor is more complicated because the concentration is usually in some figure like mm of precipitatable water per unit length.

  218. jae
    Posted Oct 3, 2007 at 9:57 AM | Permalink

    Kudzu will totally take over.

    LOL. Yes, this could be the real danger of 2 x CO2!

  219. Posted Oct 3, 2007 at 10:12 AM | Permalink

    DeWitt Payne,

    Your graph is not for emissivity, but for transmissivity. Besides, the graph from Hottel refers to emissivity dependant of temperature and partial pressure. Your graph is not from Hottel.

  220. Posted Oct 3, 2007 at 10:25 AM | Permalink

    The whole thing is plain. Calculate the Pp of OCO at this moment, take a temperature of 500 R and go to the graphs from Hottel. At 1 atm of total pressure and a partial pressure of OCO, the emissivity of OCO is 0.00092.

  221. Posted Oct 3, 2007 at 10:39 AM | Permalink

    Test the emissivity of OCO (0.00092, or 0.001) through a well known formula:

    q = e(A)(sigma)(T^4)

    Then calculate the change of temperature caused by the energy transferred by OCO:

    delta T = q / m (Cp).

    Is your result credible or not?

    What would happen if you take the twisted emissivity magnitude of 0.1-0.2? The answer: We would have a change of temperature of 160.82 K for giving a total atmospheric temperature of 415.82 K (142.67 °C) ;)

  222. Posted Oct 3, 2007 at 10:44 AM | Permalink

    Dear Steve McIntyre et al.,

    I’m sorry for my last posts. I know it was a mistake. Erase them if you wish, I’ll understand.

  223. Gunnar
    Posted Oct 3, 2007 at 11:42 AM | Permalink

    >> We can estimate how a certain car with a certain engine might perform in the areas of acceleration and gas mileage, perhaps using complicated simulation models of one kind or another. But we don’t know for sure until we do field testing

    Which only confirms that my point is correct. MPG, like other sensitivities (including T/C02), is more related to the object in question, and is not a basic scientific law, derivable from other laws.

  224. Posted Oct 3, 2007 at 11:42 AM | Permalink

    The value 2.5 °C per 2CO2 has been obtained by multiplying the alpha value given by Arrhenius (5.35 W/m^2) by 2.5, that is 13.375 W/m^2. By applying the “new” alpha value to the derived formula,

    delta T = alpha (Ln 2 ppmv CO2)/4 (sigma) (Tbb)^3, the result will be:

    delta T = 13.375 W/m^2 (0.693) / 3.76 W/m^2*K = 9.269 (W/m^2)/3.76 (W/m^2) K = 2.47 K.

    Rounding the cipher, 2.5 °C.

    Twisted values: alpha and Tbb.

  225. Elsie
    Posted Oct 3, 2007 at 11:47 AM | Permalink

    “SteveMc and many others will undoubtedly be upset with me for this comment, as Hansen is upset about some of the other comments here.”

    Hansen has shown himself to be less than objective with his Usufruct/Jester outburst along with claiming free speech issues regarding being repremanded by mgt for his 50+ interviews prior to being squelched. Hansen is clearly a political advocate acting beyond his scientific status and as such opens himself to criticism and mockery. He should be audited as the AGW has moved well beyond random academic interest into the political/economic mainstream.

    (“Elsie” not chosen randomly – what about CH4?)

  226. Posted Oct 3, 2007 at 11:51 AM | Permalink

    Do you wish a delta T of 7 °C for a doubling of CO2? Multiply alpha by 7, 5.35 W/m^2 x 7 = 37.45 W/m^2 Then make a confusing formula like alpha = e/Ro (Cp) Fo that will provide you with the desired magnitude for alpha. Remember that Fo can be changed as you wish.

  227. Larry
    Posted Oct 3, 2007 at 12:10 PM | Permalink

    111, might I suggest that the whole “who’s upset with whom over what” discussion relocate to unthreaded? I don’t think it’s an unfruitful discussion, it just doesn’t belong here, and might be more fruitful over there.

  228. Gunnar
    Posted Oct 3, 2007 at 12:19 PM | Permalink

    >> 225, let’s be a little clearer about that.

    Larry, I somewhat agree with #228, but that not’s exactly the point I’m trying to make. There are two levels of abstraction:

    1) scientific laws, like F=ma or V=IR.

    and

    2) the performance of a certain complex audio amplifier, or the MPG that my particular car gets, or the sensitivity of Earth-atmos-2007 to a change in SI, or the sensitivity of Earth-atmos-2007 to a change in C02.

    I’m saying that these are two completely different levels of abstraction. In #1, we can usually derive the relationship from other known relationships, and this gives us confidence that the equation is true.

    In #2, the relationship in question is associated with the details of the particular system. The relationship is not derivable from other general scientific first principles. We can only test it.

  229. Gunnar
    Posted Oct 3, 2007 at 12:43 PM | Permalink

    >> But we are able to calculate these days that weren’t practical to calculate 20 or 30 years ago

    I’m not saying these things aren’t capable of being calculated, ie simulated. I’m saying that the conventional equation for T/C02 is just a guess or curve fit for a relationship which is essentially empirical in nature. “Standard C02 level” is a myth, and the equation wouldn’t be correct, if we doubled the amount of water on earth, or if we brought the C02 level up to 75%, and it wouldn’t be correct for any of the other billions of planets in the universe.

    In short, it’s not a scientific first principle (SFP), derivable from other SFPs. It’s like a MPG. Your mileage may vary.

  230. Gunnar
    Posted Oct 3, 2007 at 12:48 PM | Permalink

    And how do they do to get MPG? They measure it.

    We have 100+ years of temperature and C02 measurements (no proxies).

    Why isn’t someone running the numbers to plot dT/dC02?

  231. Larry
    Posted Oct 3, 2007 at 1:00 PM | Permalink

    Gunnar,

    I’m not saying these things aren’t capable of being calculated, ie simulated. I’m saying that the conventional equation for T/C02 is just a guess or curve fit for a relationship which is essentially empirical in nature.

    Kinda sorta. The logarithmic form is derived from quantum statistics. Arrhenius’ law is an integration of the Beer-Lambert law. But as is frequently the case with physical chemistry, the coefficients are determined empirically by a fit. So it’s not total empiricism, it’s a combination. It’s not a blind fit to a polynomial, or some other arbitrarily chosen form.

    The important point is that those kinds of relationships are reasonably known and reasonably accurate. That’s not technically “first principles”, but it doesn’t require any new study. That’s different from, for example, the convective effects, or the alleged feedback, which is either nebulous, or downright mysterious.

  232. DeWitt Payne
    Posted Oct 3, 2007 at 1:01 PM | Permalink

    Re: #221

    Nasif, scan the page you refer to and upload it to photobucket or some other service and post the image here or at UKweatherworld. Look closely at the chart and see if it says just PCO2 or PCO2L. I’m betting on the second.

    Otherwise, anyone who wants to can use the links provided in #219 and discover the truth. I don’t want to waste any more bandwidth than I have already by posting the actual graph here to prove my point.

  233. Larry
    Posted Oct 3, 2007 at 1:06 PM | Permalink

    233

    Why isn’t someone running the numbers to plot dT/dC02?

    Because, among other things, there are time dynamics. Go ahead and plot it. See what you end up with. No matter what you end up with, it won’t mean anything.

    That’s why this needs to be decomposed into it’s elements, as much as possible. The overall net effect won’t tell you diddly about what’s causing what.

  234. UK John
    Posted Oct 3, 2007 at 1:09 PM | Permalink

    One thing I have never quite understood, is that of all the products of combustion the consensus is that CO2 is the one that causes global warming/climate change.

    What about all the Giga tonnes of H2O that is sent into the atmosphere by combustion, isn’t this a greenhouse gas? or doesn’t it have some effect, even a negative shielding effect such as aircraft quatrails have.

  235. Elsie
    Posted Oct 3, 2007 at 1:19 PM | Permalink

    Clever nom de plume (unless it’s just an accident).

    Don’t have a cow, man. ;-)

    Still looking for a good verbal description of the math associated with “homogenization” and when and where it should be applied (as used by the PTB).

  236. Steve Sadlov
    Posted Oct 3, 2007 at 1:22 PM | Permalink

    RE: #81 – Let’s posit that AGW is indeed real. Let’s posit that somehow, after all the ringing works itself out of the system, the 2X CO2 leads to 2.5 Deg C or better. Is it right to conclude that warmer temperatures are only a cost and not a benefit? Especially when viewed over, say, 500 or 1000 years’ time? I have to say I’m with Lomborg on this one. Until someone presents me with conclusive evidence that AGW is net cost negative (not a model, but real evidence) then I will withhold judgment regarding whether or not AGW would really cost anything, over the long term.

  237. Steve Sadlov
    Posted Oct 3, 2007 at 1:25 PM | Permalink

    RE: #82 – Truly notable melting of long term contiential glaciers is not a proven outcome of AGW. It is the output of models. It could well be that AGW may actually result, long term, in a positive mass balance for continental ice. Some of the most extreme views, in the realm of counterintuitive futures due to extreme AGW scenarios, actually say it ends the interglacial.

  238. Posted Oct 3, 2007 at 1:30 PM | Permalink

    DeWitt Payne,

    See the tiny numbers above each line? It’s PpCO2

  239. Larry
    Posted Oct 3, 2007 at 1:31 PM | Permalink

    The concentration of H2O vapor in the air is essentially unrelated to the amount produced by combustion. The concentration is entirely determined by local meteorological conditions. Any additional that is produced ends up in the hydrosphere. And no, that won’t cause sea levels to rise measurably.

    The dynamics of CO2 are a little less clear. The rate at which it increases is only about half of the rate at which we’re producing it.

  240. David
    Posted Oct 3, 2007 at 1:31 PM | Permalink

    I propose that a new science is needed: One that studies the origins, data, tables, naming conventions, and algorithms used by the elusive climatus scientisticus (particularly the alarmisticus variety).

  241. Larry
    Posted Oct 3, 2007 at 1:38 PM | Permalink

    116, I’d like to continue this, but I know we’re all well off topic (which is why I’ll invite everyone over the unthreaded again). You’re asking the same question the IPCC was asked. Each report has a report from WG1, WG2, and WG3. You’re talking about the WG2 report (consequences). I think we can talk about the three questions separately (effect, consequences, and mitigation). But that’s a whole other audit. Right now, we’re still working on WG1.

  242. Elsie
    Posted Oct 3, 2007 at 1:41 PM | Permalink

    David says:
    October 3rd, 2007 at 1:31 pm

    I propose that a new science is needed: One that studies the origins, data, tables, naming conventions, and algorithms used by the elusive climatus scientisticus (particularly the alarmisticus variety).

    Sounds like Meta-Science to me. I’ve previously asked for guidance if I should apply to Columbia or to Oxford to obtain an advanced degree in same as it appears to the cutting edge discipline.

  243. DeWitt Payne
    Posted Oct 3, 2007 at 2:03 PM | Permalink

    Nasif,

    What are the units, atmosphere, atmosphere meter, atmosphere foot, atmosphere centimeter or atmosphere some other unit of length?

  244. Posted Oct 3, 2007 at 2:07 PM | Permalink

    DeWitt Payne,

    You wrote:

    “You ignore path length.”

    I think you’re a bit confused with the term PgasL. P is the partial pressure of the hemispherical gas system with radius L. You can make the conversion of Partial pressure in atm-ft to atm-m. The results found by Hottel are the effective emissivity of OCO. From those values we can compute for the total emittancy of OCO.

    Why not try the algorithm with your ciphers? ;)

  245. Posted Oct 3, 2007 at 2:33 PM | Permalink

    From the book on Heat Transmission, page 310:

    “the effective emissivity of a hemispherical gas system of radius L at a partial pressure P radiating to a black surface element located at the center of the hemispherical base.”

    That means a density of the gas putting a pressure P of x atm per feet under a total pressure of 1 atm per feet.

    For that case, it was OCO… What’s the partial pressure of the current density of atmospheric OCO? ;)

    Who thinks there are 18000 tons of air on my head?

  246. DougM
    Posted Oct 3, 2007 at 3:09 PM | Permalink

    Steve Sadlov could you provide me with some links to material that proposes global warming is necessary to end the current interglacial period. Thanks.

  247. steven mosher
    Posted Oct 3, 2007 at 3:10 PM | Permalink

    RE 107. MarkR. I think you are out of line. ( just sayin dude )

    Ok, maybe you are drawing with a fat crayon.
    JohnV has been very circumspect with his conclusions. ( imagine what I would have said assuming the results
    came out differently)

    He wrote the dang code. He published it. He is entitled to his publish his results anywhere
    anyhow without abuse from anyone. You don’t like his conclusions? DOWNLOAD THE CODE. READ IT. RUN IT. CHANGE IT.

    JohnV has been nothing but civil and professional with me because I actually use his stuff.
    So, I am losing patience with folks who refuse to pick up a hammer and pound some nails.
    ( Hey, I asked GAVIN to get OPEN TEMP, so I am not singling anyone out)

    It is one thing for me and JohnV ( clayton too) to wrangle over data. We are spending time in the
    box. JohnV more than most. I am getting exceedingly
    annoyed at people who havent looked at the code, run the code, tried to make sense of stuff.

    Dont make me go mosh pit on you

  248. Gunnar
    Posted Oct 3, 2007 at 3:11 PM | Permalink

    >> The logarithmic form is derived from quantum statistics. Arrhenius’ law is an integration of the Beer-Lambert law.

    Beer-Lambert: an empirical relationship that relates the absorption of light to the properties of the material through which the light is traveling.

    How can you integrate A = (alpha)lc and get temperature? Beers law seems to having nothing to do with temperature. Even if did, it could not possibly reflect the state variable Temp-earth-surface, which is subject to the thermodynamics of the particular system in question. From where in Beers law does C02-std come from?

    >> Because, among other things, there are time dynamics.

    So? me thinks thou dost protest too much. That’s not a valid objection.

    >> Go ahead and plot it. See what you end up with. No matter what you end up with, it won’t mean anything.

    You haven’t come close to making that case.

    >> That’s why this needs to be decomposed into it’s elements, as much as possible. The overall net effect won’t tell you diddly about what’s causing what.

    Yes, we’ll need to check for correlations with various possible factors, starting with C02, Solar, etc.

  249. DeWitt Payne
    Posted Oct 3, 2007 at 3:16 PM | Permalink

    Nasif,

    We should really take this somewhere else. I suggest UKweatherworld. However, until we get snipped…

    “radius L”. Yes, that’s exactly my point. So the emittance comes from a hemispherical volume of 4.19 m3 and is then spread over an area of 2 pi L2 or 6.28 m2. The graphs I linked to are for an infinite plane rather than a sphere. 0.00092 converts to 0.0058 on this graph and is a reasonable value for a mass path length of 0.000300 atm m. Now let’s increase the radius L to 2 meters. The volume increases by 8 and the area increases by 4. My calculation says that the emittance at constant temperature approximately doubles because you have 8 times as much carbon dioxide emitting to a surface area only 4 times as large. That should be almost exactly equivalent to doubling the partial pressure of carbon dioxide in a one meter hemisphere. What’s the emittance for a CO2 partial pressure of twice what you used to determine the 0.00092 emittance?

  250. DeWitt Payne
    Posted Oct 3, 2007 at 3:25 PM | Permalink

    Nasif,

    I posted before you clarified that your emittance was measured at the center of the hemisphere rather than at the surface, but the same logic applies. Double the radius or double the pressure, the result is the same, emittance increases. Btw, I said that there were 10 metric tons of air/m2 (101,300 Pa /9.8 m sec-2) not 18,000 tons on your head.

  251. Larry
    Posted Oct 3, 2007 at 3:49 PM | Permalink

    Gunnar, ‘Scuse me, Beer-Lambert is most certainly derivable from quantum statistics. But, just like Arrhenius, it involves fitted constants. And I left a step out; getting from energy flux to temperature (which I assume you know how to do). But if you integrate it over the thickness of the atmosphere, you will get a relationship between energy flux, and concentration.

  252. Willis Eschenbach
    Posted Oct 3, 2007 at 3:55 PM | Permalink

    YA GOTTA LOVE NATURE MAGAZINE …

    They just published a letter from Neville Nicholls in the August issue, lauding Sawyer’s “remarkable prediction” in 1972 of global warming. Nicholls said in part:

    He [Sawyer] concluded that the 25% increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide predicted to occur by 2000 corresponded to an increase of 0.6°C in world temperature.

    and finishes by saying

    Despite huge efforts, and advances in the science, the scientific consensus on the amount of global warming expected from increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations has changed little from that in Sawyer’s time.

    I wrote back a letter to Nature, saying in its entirety:

    SIR—Your letter from Neville Nicholls (Nature, Vol. 44:30, p992, Aug. 2007) concerning Sawyer’s 1972 prediction of temperature rise to the end of the century omits a critical fact. Sawyer’s prediction was for a rise in CO2 of 25% by the end of the century. Had that happened, his prediction would have been quite good. In fact, however, rather than the CO2 level increasing by 25% as Sawyer predicted, the Mauna Loa data shows a rise of only 13% from 1972 to 2000. As a result, Sawyer’s prediction was not very accurate.

    Nature has just responded to the letter, saying:

    Thank you for your letter which I regret we cannot offer to publish.

    Perhaps you would like to discuss the details directly with Dr Nicholls, whose letter is more concerned with the temperature rise predicted by Sawyer (0.6 degrees) which in fact agreed with the observed figure for the prediction period (0.5 degrees).

    TRANSLATION: He got the right answer (even though he used an incorrect prediction of CO2 growth and thus his formula must have been incorrect), so we don’t want to talk about it …

    The new version of science stumbles toward Bethlehem to be born, and despite my efforts to protest, I fear that all I can do is sit on the sidelines and laugh … beats crying, I guess.

    w.

  253. John Baltutis
    Posted Oct 3, 2007 at 3:58 PM | Permalink

    Re: #69

    …when they are treated as an engineering certainty and politicized policy implications and spending follow, well, that may be a problem.

    Not …well, that may be a problem, but that is the problem.

  254. Frank H. Scammell
    Posted Oct 3, 2007 at 4:03 PM | Permalink

    I was reading Junk Science, when this caught my eye( How Hot IS It?). [Wisconsin Energy Cooperative News posed the question to Watts and to Prof. Gavin Schmidt of the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) at Columbia University in New York. Schmidt has said this summer’s correction of the GISS’ previously published U.S. temperature averages for 2000-2006—lowering them by 0.15 Celsius—is insignificant. He told us adjustments are necessary in identifying long-term climate trends, because “we need information for as long back as possible] It would seem that most every thing is “insignificant”. Just what is significant ? only the model outputs substituted for real data ? I don’t understand, and suspect that is what is expected of me. Only the high priests !

  255. John Baltutis
    Posted Oct 3, 2007 at 4:15 PM | Permalink

    Re: #81
    John V. states:

    There are “trillions” of dollars at stake in both directions. If we do nothing and AGW is real, the costs will be huge. A comparison between the costs of reducing emissions (with no consideration for the benefits) and the cost of doing nothing (with no consideration for consequences) is hugely biased.

    I agree, but most comparisons only advocate reducing emissions. For a recent comparison (and, IMHO, an unbiased one) on those costs and benefits, I suggest perusing Bjorn Lomborg’s recent treatise, “Cool It.”

  256. Larry
    Posted Oct 3, 2007 at 4:16 PM | Permalink

    247, That parallels the Hansen scenarios. He got the right answer with the wrong scenario. And he doesn’t think that particular detail matters.

  257. Larry
    Posted Oct 3, 2007 at 4:20 PM | Permalink

    247, btw, do they not have a “letters to the editor” section? Why are they unable to offer to publish that? Inconvenient truth?

  258. brian
    Posted Oct 3, 2007 at 4:38 PM | Permalink

    It would be interesting to see CA do an analysis of costs for the various schemes thrown about by policymakers…that kind of analysis seems to me to be right up CA’s alley.

    Steve:
    I try to avoid discussions of policy as there are many other venues where you can do that.

  259. Larry
    Posted Oct 3, 2007 at 4:40 PM | Permalink

    Willis, if I’m not mistaken the 0.6 figure isn’t accurate for the 1972-2000 period, either. IIRC, that’s for the entire 20th century. The article may have been correct, if they qualified both figures as starting in 1900, but it seems like the editor was too lazy to even check.

    And FWIW, if 25% increase causes 0.6C, then a doubling will be 0.6*ln(2)/ln(1.25) = 1.86C, which is well below the “consensus” number of 2.5. That article was actually blasphemy.

  260. Posted Oct 3, 2007 at 4:41 PM | Permalink

    Ref 245, That comment just ruined it for me! I had a picture of a 12 foot radius Nasif head on a five foot frame. Just curious, wouldn’t the impact of the emissivity decrease significantly with increased altitude? There are a bunch of spheres interacting after all.

  261. Larry
    Posted Oct 3, 2007 at 5:09 PM | Permalink

    258, no. 1 lb coal = less than 1 lb C. if you make it 1 lb C, you get 44/12 = 3.66 lb CO2, and if you use C1H1 as the empirical formula for coal, you get 1/12 lb H, which results in 1/6(1+16) = 2.83 lb H2O.

    And it doesn’t matter if you emit H2O, it’ll just condense. The emission does not change the equilibrium concentration.

  262. Posted Oct 3, 2007 at 5:15 PM | Permalink

    ref 254, H2O has a different set of rules it follows. If the smoke stack discharges in to cold enough air the H20 condenses. Jets leave contrails (condensed water vapor) at fairly high altitude. The contrail persist for a fairly long period. So jets increase the albedo (negative forcing) while surface evaporation depends on the ambient temperature as to what if any forcing it may have.

    Water vapor is the climate change wild card. Because of its latent heat, it can transport bunches of energy. The warmer the air the more water vapor available to transport heat. If there is a thunderstorm, most of the heat is transferred to the higher atmosphere then radiated into space. If there is no storm, the clouds provide a nice blanket to hold the heat in. Natures little buffer system that deserts don’t enjoy.

  263. Larry
    Posted Oct 3, 2007 at 5:19 PM | Permalink

    270, correct, BUT, adding more doesn’t make it accumulate. That’s what distinguishes water vapor form every other gas in the atmosphere.

  264. Posted Oct 3, 2007 at 5:25 PM | Permalink

    Bjorn Lomborg is going to be on Book TV (CSpan-2) this weekend.

    Here’s the description of the program:

    In “Cool It,” Bjorn Lomborg argues that global warming is not a catastrophe but a problem. Mr. Lomborg provides scenarios and solutions to problems associated with global warming. He also discusses some of the issues he views as more of an immediate problem, like malaria, AIDS, and clean water supplies.

  265. jae
    Posted Oct 3, 2007 at 5:30 PM | Permalink

    If there is no storm, the clouds provide a nice blanket to hold the heat in. Natures little buffer system that deserts don’t enjoy.

    But the average temperature in the desert is still higher. The “buffer” for the deserts is the rocks/soil. True, there is more diurnal variation, but not higher AVERAGE temperature. See post 128.

  266. Posted Oct 3, 2007 at 5:39 PM | Permalink

    273 The buffer tends to reduce temperature extremes. Where I live in the Florida Keys the diurnal variation is rarely over 20 degrees F. It can be pretty humid here.

  267. Gunnar
    Posted Oct 3, 2007 at 5:49 PM | Permalink

    >> Beer-Lambert is most certainly derivable from quantum statistics.

    Never said it wasn’t

    >> I left a step out; getting from energy flux to temperature (which I assume you know how to do).

    There’s a lot I don’t know, and I love to learn. Please explain it to me. You cannot use Planck, since that predicts the radiation caused by atomic movements. You cannot plug radiation from a different source into that and solve for temp.

  268. DeWitt Payne
    Posted Oct 3, 2007 at 5:59 PM | Permalink

    Re: #265

    Just curious, wouldn’t the impact of the emissivity decrease significantly with increased altitude? There are a bunch of spheres interacting after all.

    Yes. There’s not much contribution to emission from CO2 above the tropopause, about 15 km. You can see this because the emission temperature of the band is about 220K. If you go high enough in the stratosphere where it starts warming again, you see an emission spike from the 15 micrometer line from CO2 in the stratosphere (no collisional broadening at that altitude) in the middle of the broad (relatively speaking) band emission from colder lower altitude. Ozone does the same thing at about 10 micrometers. Looking up from the surface, most CO2 emission comes from quite close, less than 100 m. There’s a really nice example of this posted by Hans E. at UKweatherworld in the Hans, Nasif debate thread in the Climate and Earth Sciences forum. It’s a spectrum taken in Alaska looking up during a temperature inversion (temperature increases with altitude). The CO2 emission clearly comes from a lower, colder altitude than the rest of the emission. Hans even included the temperature trace from a sounding taken at the same time. See the link in 219

    I didn’t mean to carry on about this, but Nasif’s emissivity number has been quite a puzzle for me. I’ve now solved it to my satisfaction, if not his. I’m like Steve M. in that regard. Puzzles fascinate me. We’re just not necessarily fascinated by the same types of puzzle.

  269. Larry
    Posted Oct 3, 2007 at 6:02 PM | Permalink

    Gunnar, this is one of the limitations of blogs. This is just too messy to type up here (even if the blog supported latex). Conceptually, the energy balance shouldn’t be hard to do. But it might, just as with other things, end up requiring empirically fitted constants.

    If your point is that it’s not strictly “first principles” that’s true. But it shouldn’t require completely new research, and a data table driven model, either. But as with all empirical correlations, it’s all subject to review and modification.

  270. Posted Oct 3, 2007 at 6:06 PM | Permalink

    # 265

    captdallas2,

    I had a picture of a 12 foot radius Nasif head on a five foot frame.

    Hah! ;)

    Just curious, wouldn’t the impact of the emissivity decrease significantly with increased altitude? There are a bunch of spheres interacting after all.

    You’re right, Dallas. The emissivity responds to many factors like density, temperature, adiabatic lost of energy, gravity, geometry of the system, etc. For example, the sphere immediately above ground could acquire a temperature 2-5 degrees higher than the temperature at 1.5 m above ground.

  271. DeWitt Payne
    Posted Oct 3, 2007 at 6:13 PM | Permalink

    I need to make one correction. The factor is 3.14 not 6.28 for a plane sensor at the center of a hemisphere compared to flux from a plane perpendicular to another plane sensor. Doubling the radius at the same partial pressure, however, is still exactly equivalent to doubling the partial pressure at the same radius. The sensor sees the same amount more CO2 in each case. That’s why the units are atmosphere times length.

  272. Posted Oct 3, 2007 at 6:35 PM | Permalink

    # 254

    DeWitt Payne,

    Now let’s increase the radius L to 2 meters. The volume increases by 8 and the area increases by 4.

    The partial pressure depends on the concentration of the gas, one could go up and up and up, but if the concentration of the gas decreases with altitude instead of increasing, the partial pressure would also decrease and so the emissivity would do. As long as the concentration of OCO is the same at any volume and altitude, let’s say for the troposphere below 6.21 mi of altitude, the emissivity of the gas will not increase.

  273. Steve Sadlov
    Posted Oct 3, 2007 at 6:41 PM | Permalink

    SHORTWAVE DROPPING SOUTH OFF THE QUEEN CHARLOTTE ISLANDS WILL
    CONTINUE TO DEEPEN THE TROUGH OVER THE WEST. H5 TEMPS ARE PROGGED TO
    DROP TO -28C…PROBABLY AS COLD AS IT GETS THIS TIME OF YR ALOFT AND
    TO 2C AT H85 THURSDAY NIGHT. THE ATMOSPHERE BECOMES VERY UNSTABLE…
    EVEN WITH THE LACK OF DEEP MOISTURE THERE IS THE CHANCE OF SHOWERS
    ACROSS THE DISTRICT…WITH THE HEAVIER SHOWERS OVER THE OCEAN. WITH
    THE UNSTABLE ATMOSPHERE…HAVE MENTIONED THUNDERSTORMS IN THE FCST.
    THE BEST DYNAMICS AND INSTABILITY MOVES TO THE EAST ON FRIDAY LEAVING
    THE DISTRICT WITH DIMINISHING SHOWERS. WITH ALL THE COLD AIR ALOFT…
    HAVE ALSO MENTIONED SMALL HAIL IN THE THURS NIGHT TIME PERIOD.

    CLEARING SKIES AND WARMER TEMPS ARE IN STORE FOR THE WEEKEND INTO
    EARLY NEXT WEEK WITH THE ONSET OF AN OFFSHORE FLOW. OVERNIGHT TEMPS
    WILL DROP INTO THE UPPER 30S AND 40S…HOWEVER FEEL THAT IT WILL BE
    WINDY ENOUGH TO PREVENT AN EARLY SEASON FROST.

    For the first time in my living memory, the finale of Fleet Week, a SF tradition going back to when we still had active Navy bases here, is threatened by wintry weather. Normally, for Fleet Week you worry about sunblock and staying hydrated. Not this year!

  274. Posted Oct 3, 2007 at 7:47 PM | Permalink

    ref 281, water vapor tends to increase the Tmin so it can increase temperature in the case of the global warming deal. The heat stored in water vapor has more of a stablilizing effect on temperatures by limiting or buffering the temperatures to a range dependent on the relative humidity (specific humidity in some lexicons).

    While mass stores energy, (asphalt,rocks and such) water has a specific heat of fusion and vaporization that increases its ability to transport heat energy (and release heat). Other ambient gases have similar properties, but the temperatures of and latent heat of phase changes are much less significant at the standard operating temperatures and pressures in our atmosphere.

    Water vapor can also be positively or negatively forcing, (a fine buffer property). Were it not for the unique properties of water vapor, determining the climate’s sensitivity to GHGs would be a cake walk. Water vapor is the climate change wild card. As temperatures warm, the air can hold more water vapor meaning more heat can be transported away from the surface of the earth or retained near the surface depending on local psychrometrics(sp)(how water vapor responds to conditions locally, it is charted based on temperature and pressure).

    Due to increases in water vapor in the atmosphere caused by warming, more storms are possible. Each storm reduces surface heat through increased albedo(cloud cover) and convection (anvil head thunder clouds). The impact of increased storm formation on global temperature is somewhat confirmed by the 1940 to 1960 cooling period. That happened to be a period of higher tropical cyclone activity in the Atlantic basin.

    So water vapor is the predominate green house gas, it just is multi-tasking.

  275. tetris
    Posted Oct 3, 2007 at 9:22 PM | Permalink

    Re: 263
    TO: SteveMc

    As I posted elsewhere on your site before you nuked my response to Brian’s inquiry [his posting subsequentially was moved to "unthreaded 21" without my comment], I repeat my comment:

    The first economic AGW/ACC fall-out calculations are in: [by UofCh and other groups]. Based on proposed cap and trade and other carbon tax schemes before the US Congress at present, by 2015 the cost to the US economy will be around US$3,000 per capita. This equates to an over US$1 trillion loss to the US economy p.a. going forward, with negative consequences compounding over time [think of this as compounded interest but negative..].

    MEMO to same:
    You may not like my postings from time to time, but I am one of your biggest supporters. That said, it’s time to cut bait or start fishing: you can not continue to play the somehow untouchable “auditor” of “questionable science”, etc., etc. and side-step/refuse to address the implications of the very important and highly questionable issues you are bringing to the surface on your site.

    Unless you open up a clearly defined, separate thread or a clearly defined “line item” sub site to CA to start to discuss the “policy” implications of the very issues, key questionable data and “conclusions” you have flagged in the context of “AGW/ACC” [like Anthony Watts did with "surfacestations.org"], no matter how good CA’s auditing qualities per se, it will fade into the margins. With CS gone, RC et. al. will be out there, unchallenged, and that would be most unfortunate, and dangerous, indeed.
    As you know, in a properly run business there is world of difference between a corporate accoutant/internal auditor and a VP Finance/CFO. I think it’s time you turned CA into the latter.

    PS: As a Canadian entre nous: the French have a rather poetic term for “getting lost in the details”: in the venacular: “enculer des mouches, pourquoi faire?”.
    cheers
    No offence intended.

  276. Steve McIntyre
    Posted Oct 3, 2007 at 9:34 PM | Permalink

    #281. It’s not that the policy issues are unimportant – they are important. It’s just that I want to keep a focus on scientific issues. There are lots of venues to discuss politics.

    Gunnar and Nasif, I’ve asked that people not discuss thermodynamics, your own theories of radiation etc.

  277. PaddikJ
    Posted Oct 3, 2007 at 9:40 PM | Permalink

    Now, if we could get someone with lotsa cash to fund such a study.

    That someone would be the US Congress. As in, a letter-writing campaign – indignant letters about how NASA appears to be playing fast and loose w/ the data, which don’t appear to be that good anyway, and it’s past time for a thorough audit of NASA’s/NOAA’s/etc’s means & methods by a qualified, private-sector, completely independent Engineering firm.

    While we’re at it, we should also demand legislation that any research done on the public dime is public property, per-i-od, and everything pertaining to such studies must be posted on government servers within some specified period.

    I think this would be a little less ambitious than a design study for a Global Warming Machine, and therefore might have a slim chance of approval. Trouble is, I have no idea how these things are done. Anyone know a publicist who would be willing to donate some effort?

  278. Tom Vonk
    Posted Oct 4, 2007 at 5:36 AM | Permalink

    # 273

    >> Beer-Lambert is most certainly derivable from quantum statistics.
    Never said it wasn’t

    You should have because it isn’t .
    Beer Lambert has nothing to do with quantum mechanics – it is only a way to say that “the more molecules there is , the more the radiation gets absorbed if it has a suitable frequency” .
    It takes 2 lines to derive it . 3 if one feels generous .
    However it has validity limits , one important being that the incident radiation must be monochromatic (the efficient cross section of the molecule that figures as a constant in Beer Lambert is function of the photon’s frequency ) .
    There are still people using Beer Lambert in the transmission of a black body radiation what is of course a non sense .
    Another obvious limitation is that the radiation has to be at equilibrium with the matter .
    As the real atmosphere doesn’t fulfill those conditions , Beer Lambert is of a limited use to understand what happens .

    DeWitt Payne # 274

    Statements like “Most CO2 emissions come from X” are confusing if not specified very carefully .
    For CO2 or any other gaz at high density and pressure so low altitudes the collisional terms are dominating and the gaz can be broadly described by Planck’s law .
    At low densities and pressures so high altitudes the radiative (quantum) terms are dominating and the gaz can’t be described by the Planck’s law .
    So if one asks about “origin of emissions” then the answer is different for overall infrared emission (translation+vibration+rotation) and for specific infrared emission (f.ex the vibrational bands like 4 or 15 µ) .
    As the low atmosphere radiates more or less “black body” like , there is a lot of infrared over a big range of frequencies while the high atmosphere radiates almost only in the vibrationnal bands .

    For those seriously interested in the radiation transfer , I’d suggest the following reference .
    Of course there is no warranty that once this model is coupled to convection , latent heat transfer etc , it makes a relevant description of a real atmosphere .
    But as far as pure radiation (steady state & no movement) is concerned and so far I can judge , the basic physics is right .

  279. Gunnar
    Posted Oct 4, 2007 at 6:44 AM | Permalink

    #275 >> Gunnar, this is one of the limitations of blogs.

    Larry, ok, I’ll have my blog working soon, can you write it up on paper and scan it in, so you can post it as an image?

    #280 >> So water vapor is the predominate green house gas

    captdallas2, excellent description. I think we can go further and say that the water cycle is the predominant regulator of earth atmospheric temperature.

    #281 >> I think it’s time you turned CA into the latter

    I think Steve is wise to stay focused on one thing, and on his strength.

    #282 >> Gunnar and Nasif, I’ve asked that people not discuss thermodynamics

    Understood, but I don’t think I was discussing TD. I think I was trying to illuminate the possibility that Arrhenius’s law can be derived from first principles, which is what you’ve been asking for.

    #285 >> because the correlation of CO2 (or dCO2) vs T (or dT) is poor over the period. With little empirical reason to say T = f(CO2) over the interval, dT/dCO2 is busy work.

    If so, then exactly my point. Since AGW claims that T = f(CO2), then wouldn’t it be useful for someone on either side of the argument to attempt a correlation, using actual measurements? Why does it seem like it’s just me that sees this as the heart of the matter? I guess I could break down, install R, and start fiddling, but that’s not my area. It should be a statistics expert.

    #286 >> You should have because it isn’t. Beer Lambert has nothing to do with quantum mechanics

    Ok, thank you for info. Your post is excellent. Can you elaborate on “radiation has to be at equilibrium with the matter”?

  280. jae
    Posted Oct 4, 2007 at 9:31 AM | Permalink

    Milloy just won’t leave poor Gore alone.

  281. Posted Oct 4, 2007 at 10:00 AM | Permalink

    John M said on another thread (I don’t want to clutter the other thread with OT debates)

    From what I’ve seen there are plenty of engineers on here who appear to have a bit of a chip on their shoulder about scientists in general. Gets a bit grating after a while. It stands to reason that putting together models of future global climate is not the same as designing a bridge, where the underlying physics involved is much better understood, and that as a result there will inherently be a lot more hand waving arguments and guesstimate based assumptions in the process but some people on here don’t seem to grasp that.

    What John M. doesn’t grasp is this: While guesstimates, hypotheses and partial models may be legitimate in science, when you pass to policy recommendations like rationing energy (Kyoto) you need to pass through an engineering phase. You need engineering type scrutiny of detail, validation and verification procedures. You need to have engineering type of confidence and certainty. You can do all the science you want, but policy recommendations can’t be based on guesstimates and hypotheses.

  282. MarkW
    Posted Oct 4, 2007 at 10:22 AM | Permalink

    #279,

    Short wave droppings???

    Can you use clorox to clean those up?

  283. Gunnar
    Posted Oct 4, 2007 at 11:06 AM | Permalink

    From what I’ve seen, there are plenty of alleged scientists who appear to have a bit of a chip on their shoulder about the scientific method in general, and the engineers who advocate it. Gets a bit grating after a while.

    Engineers never build anything based on science that has not been confirmed by the SM. It would be completely unethical. Lives are at stake.

    Politics is a science based on another science, Ethics. By advancing a claim that is not supported by the SM, political scientists are engaging in deception. Examples of a “faulty bridge” are the proposed US$3,000 per capita or the actual $466 on each utility bill in Norway. In Japan, law now prevents office buildings from setting the air conditioning below 82 degrees.

    I simply demand that AGW scientists uphold the same ethical standards that engineers do. Lives are at stake.

  284. John Baltutis
    Posted Oct 4, 2007 at 12:12 PM | Permalink

    Interesting article with attributions to Anthony Watts and http://www.surfacestations.org: “>How Hot IS It?

  285. John Baltutis
    Posted Oct 4, 2007 at 12:17 PM | Permalink

    Re: #290

    Link got fouled up. How Hot IS it? is at: http://www.wecnmagazine.com/2007issues/oct/oct07.html#1

  286. Sam Urbinto
    Posted Oct 4, 2007 at 1:45 PM | Permalink

    So did anyone ever figure out if it’s .00096 or .1? Or that it matters anyway?

    tetris, #206. I would say there is no conclusive and verifiable evidence that there actually is some sort of real, ongoing and extreme change in the stated dependent variable in the first place, not just a lack of proven causal relationship to the stated independent variable.

    But what if? If we take it for granted there is both a change in the temp and a causal relationship mainly from the CO2, then we have to show that the metric of “land surface temperatures” itself has any meaning. And even if “the mean global anomaly” in the sampled average measured temperatures was a specific thing to look at, you still have to show that the trendd will continue, and that 1 or 2 C is actually going to result. Then you have to travel a bit further and prove 1 or 2 C is harmful. Now you can start figuring out what to do about it. And then how to pay for it. Then all we have to do is implement it.

    But back to reality. Looking at some of Willis’ charts, and other information here and elsewhere, it doesn’t appear CO2 is even a major component (conveniently ignoring the other GHG and how they interact with water vapor and the oceans and the sun and the clouds and the wind and… And all with each other) in the first place. If that is the case, what effect it has is really meaningless in and of itself.

  287. Steve Sadlov
    Posted Oct 4, 2007 at 1:53 PM | Permalink

    OK, tried to post this on the CRN12 vs NOAA/NASA thread, but got a “comments closed” error. Voila:

    Forgive me if someone already mentioned it above, I do not have time to read every post in this thread. Let us not forget that during 2006, the Western US incurred a once-in-a-lifetime event. Namely, a triple barrel High, of the type that “normally” occurs during early to mid Fall, happened for over one week’s time during July. With the much higher insolation and sun angle of July, this resulted in record high temperatures in a number of locations out West. CONUS-wise, this Western spike was on top of somewhat higher than normal temps that summer back East. So, at least for the US, 2006 may well have been a very warm year.

  288. Steve Sadlov
    Posted Oct 4, 2007 at 2:15 PM | Permalink

    As a skier, I relish this, but otherwise I actually find this to be quite disturbing:

  289. Steve Sadlov
    Posted Oct 4, 2007 at 2:15 PM | Permalink

    As a skier, I relish this, but otherwise I actually find this to be quite disturbing:

    DISCUSSION…COLD POOL OF AIR EASTERN GULF OF ALASKA DEPICTED WELL
    INITIALLY BY MODELS. TROF ARRIVAL WITH ARRIVAL OVER CENTRAL COAST
    CWFA LATE THIS EVENING. SURFACE FRONT AND COLD AIR ADVECTION AT NORTH
    BAY AROUND 00Z AND MRY PENINSULA BY 04Z. DESPITE EARLY OCTOBER
    TIME…NUMERIC MODELS MAINTAIN FORECAST WINTER-LIKE H1000-500
    THICKNESS VALUES AT OR BELOW 540DM AT ITS LOWEST FRIDAY MORNING
    W NV/NORCAL WITH ASSOCIATED H5 TEMPS AT -28C. COLDEST AIR JUST
    NORTHEAST OF CENTRAL COAST FORECAST AREA WITH MODEL DISCREPANCIES ON
    LOCATION OF CENTER OF COLDEST AIR. GFS AND ECMWF PUTS THAT COLDEST
    AIR E CA/W NV FRIDAY MORNING WITH NAM TENDING TO HAVE COLDEST AIR W
    SIDE OF SIERNV. GIVEN CURRENT LOCATION OF LOW CENTER ALREADY AT
    WEST COAST AT NW VANCOUVER ISLAND LEAN TOWARD GFS/ECMWF SOLUTION
    PRIMARILY EAST OF SIERNV. NONETHELESS…ATMOSPHERE PROVIDED WINTER-
    TYPE SYSTEM ON THE HEELS OF LAST WEEKS COLD SYSTEM. FRIDAY
    AFTERNOON HIGH TEMPS 5 TO 10 DEGREES BELOW NORMAL.

    INITIAL WEATHER CONCERN IS FOR CONVECTION AND ATMOSPHERIC
    INSTABILITY ASSOCIATED WITH THE COLD LOW IN PROXIMITY TONIGHT AND
    FRIDAY. LAPSE RATES VERY STEEP WITH COLD AIR ALOFT AND NEGATIVE
    LIFTED INDICES. SOME ISOLATED THUNDER TONIGHT…ESPECIALLY
    NORTH BAY…AND WITH LIGHTER MOISTURE FIELD AND ONLY PARTIAL CLOUD
    COVER FRIDAY LIKELY TO RESULT IN CONTINUING T-STORM THREAT FRIDAY
    MORNING. ENVIRONMENT FRIDAY PROVIDING STRONG THERMAL GRADIENT AND
    POST-TROF GRADIENT EXPECTED TO BRING MODERATE NW WINDS TO CENTRAL
    COAST FORECAST AREA…AND STRONGER WINDS TO INLAND AND HIGHER
    ELEVATIONS OF CENTRAL CALIFORNIA.

    WITH THE GRADIENT WEAKENING BUT COLD AIR PRESENT…SATURDAY MORNING
    TO BE THE COLDEST SINCE LAST COLD SEASON. MODEL DEW POINTS FOR SANTA
    ROSA DROP TO 36F. WITH CLEARING SKIES AND GRADIENTS SLACKING OFF
    FRIDAY NIGHT…WIND-SHELTERED AND LOW-LYING INLAND AREAS OF
    FORECAST AREA WILL SLIP QUITE UNSEASONABLY TO ONLY SLIGHTLY ABOVE
    FREEZING TEMPERATURES. RESIDENTS WITH FROST SENSITIVE PLANTS AND
    PETS SHOULD MONITOR FORECASTS CLOSELY LEADING INTO SATURDAY MORNING
    FOR ANY UPDATES DRIVEN BY LOWER TEMPERATURES. WILL BE ADJUSTING ZONE
    FORECASTS TO BRING MID-30S TO COLDER LOW-LYING ZONES FOR SATURDAY
    MORNING AS WELL AS SLIPPING TEMPS SLIGHTLY LOWER SOME COASTAL
    LOCATIONS.

  290. Gunnar
    Posted Oct 4, 2007 at 2:20 PM | Permalink

    from ‘2006 and CRN1-2′, MrPete says >> I’ve seen statements alluding to even satellite measures being calibrated off the surface station measures.

    Yes, IR instrumentation needs to be calibrated in various ways. One of these is calibration with reliable surface based measurements. This does not require a large number of surface based measurements. Perhaps only a few over each major type of surface, oceans, land, etc. Therefore, the errors associated with the lower-48 focused surface networks are not translated to the satellite.

    The satellite data, unlike CRN1-2, is not subject to a 98% chance of missing the important data. That’s if we are generous and say that CRN1-2 represents 2%. It actually only represents the immediate areas around the 16 stations. A tiny, tiny fraction of the earth’s surface.

    I think I know some objections that folks may have, but perhaps they also sense that they are weak, so they don’t voice it. People might be thinking: it’s such a different data set, it’s a) already geographically averaged, and b) it doesn’t go back a 100 years, so we can’t make any arguments about whether 98 was hotter than 38, or vice versa. In short, the objection is that we shouldn’t connect two apparently disparate data sets. To this, I say, there is no problem connecting data from different types of instrumentation because:

    1) Even the surface data is from different types of measuring devices, since the thermometers from 1900 are not what is used in 2007.

    2) It’s done all the time, for example, graphs of C02 are created, connecting ice core C02 proxy data (average spacing of like 1400 years) with a minute by minute IR C02 measurement. There is even a geographic difference, ice cores from Antartica connected to Hawaii C02 measurement.

    3) It’s done all the time, for example, temperature reconstructions from various proxies are connected to thermometer data. Recall the hockey stick? Even in the counter hockey stick, no one said “it’s invalid, because the data measurement systems are dissimilar”.

    Therefore, I can see no logical reason not to take the best surface based data one can find, up to 1979, and attach the satellite data post 79.

    Andrey Levin says>> If we want to have accurate historic temperature data for a period longer that 28 years

    I think I’ve answered this invalid objection above.

    Andrey Levin says>> two data sets are highly correlated.

    Well, of course, they are highly correlated, they are trying to measure the same thing. That’s really not saying much. They do not yield the same conclusions however. The surface data set shows temperatures rising since 1998, and the satellite data shows falling temperatures. The point is that it borders on the insane to keep trying to analyze the surface system, when a better one is available. It’s like struggling for years to keep an old jalopy working, and then you get a brand new mercedes benz. Yet, out of some old demented habit, you still struggle to fix the old car. And not just for a hobby. You need to get your family somewhere important, and you say “I’ll get the old car fixed, and then we can go”.

    The claim is that we’re in the blade part of a hockey stick. In that case, satellite data should show that.

    re>> So we have an initial graph which almost completely leaves out a region

    Aaron, look at the whole graphic. It leaves out a whole lot more than that.

  291. Jan Pompe
    Posted Oct 4, 2007 at 2:26 PM | Permalink

    #289 Gunnar

    I simply demand that AGW scientists uphold the same ethical standards that engineers do.

    i couldn’t agree more

  292. Posted Oct 4, 2007 at 2:28 PM | Permalink

    # 292

    Sam Urbinto,

    Yes, I agree except for the importance of the figure 0.00092 vs. 0.1-0.2. If you take the real value, obtained by experimentation (0.00092) the change of temperature caused by the current density of CO2 is only 0.1 K. However, if you take the flawed ciphers, let’s say 0.1, the change of temperature caused by the current density of CO2 would be implausible, some 6.64 K. Sam, 0.1-0.2 are the ciphers used by many authors on AGW, and many dare to use figures near to bb emissivity, for example 0.6-0.9. The latter figures were used to predict a change of temperature near to 13 K in the 90s.

  293. Sam Urbinto
    Posted Oct 4, 2007 at 2:34 PM | Permalink

    6% of the land mass. Air temp is surface only. Satty’s for water.

    6% is the correct number if talking surface stations
    2% is the correct number if talking about surface stations and water

    Gunnar, you left off

    4) The methods for measuring air and water are different.

    Which is more support for your argument; why are we measuring seas with satellites and not the air? we should use the same method for both.

    And that is the point everyone needs to remember, the stations are only sampling the air, and that’s only a tiny point of air around the sensor…

  294. Gunnar
    Posted Oct 4, 2007 at 2:57 PM | Permalink

    Sam, I’m a little confused, but I think we agree.

    Lower 48 is 2% of earth’s surface. There is a buoy system that measures air temperatures in the ocean regions. Not many, but they are there.

    I agree with you that we should include ocean temperatures as well. The atmosphere is a small part. One can see that when you look at an image of earth from space. The atmos is such a thin layer. The reality backs up the perception: only .378% of the ocean mass.

    Your #4 is an excellent point.

  295. John M.
    Posted Oct 4, 2007 at 5:45 PM | Permalink

    Jacob says:
    October 4th, 2007 at 10:00 am

    What John M. doesn’t grasp is this: While guesstimates, hypotheses and partial models may be legitimate in science, when you pass to policy recommendations like rationing energy (Kyoto) you need to pass through an engineering phase. You need engineering type scrutiny of detail, validation and verification procedures. You need to have engineering type of confidence and certainty. You can do all the science you want, but policy recommendations can’t be based on guesstimates and hypotheses.

    The reality of the situation is that the physics involved is not well enough understood to have your “engineering phase”. Don’t you realize that scientists would be more than capable of providing that as well if it were? We are not talking about something like building a bridge here where the physics is well understood so it simply isn’t possible to provide your “engineering type of confidence and certainty”. How difficult can that be to understand?

  296. John M.
    Posted Oct 4, 2007 at 6:41 PM | Permalink

    What the science can do at this stage is form the basis for the prediction that there is going to be a temperature rise of between 1 and 5 degrees over the next century or so. Unfortunately, it can’t be used to predict for sure where within that range the future is going to lie but given the magnitude of the possible problems that could unfold many/most scientists and politicians feel that is sufficient to strongly recommend that GHG emissions are cut back drastically to minimize the risk of it being in the higher range. That’s the approximate state of play right now, anyway.

  297. DeWitt Payne
    Posted Oct 4, 2007 at 7:20 PM | Permalink

    Re: #296

    from ‘2006 and CRN1-2′, MrPete says >> I’ve seen statements alluding to even satellite measures being calibrated off the surface station measures.

    Yes, IR instrumentation needs to be calibrated in various ways. One of these is calibration with reliable surface based measurements. This does not require a large number of surface based measurements. Perhaps only a few over each major type of surface, oceans, land, etc. Therefore, the errors associated with the lower-48 focused surface networks are not translated to the satellite.

    From Petty, Grant W. A First Course in Atmospheric Radiation:

    In general, it takes far more variables to accurately describe an arbitrary temperature profile T(z) than there are channels on a typical satellite sounding unit. This means that you have fewer measurements than unknowns, and the retrieval problem is underdetermined (or ill-posed). The problem is therefore not just that of finding any temperature profile that is consistent with the measurements; the real problem is of choosing the most plausible one out of an infinity of physically admissible candidates.

    Because of the high degree of vertical overlap between adjacent weighting functions, the temperature information contained in each channel is not completely independent from that provided by the other channels. That is to say, if you have N channels, you don’t really have N independent pieces of information about your profile; you have something less than N, which makes the problem highlighted in the previous paragraph even worse than it appears at first glance.

    Because any measurement is inherently subject to some degree of random error , or noise, it is important to undertake the retrieval in such a way that these errors don’t have and excessive impact on the final retrieved profile.

    Because of the large vertical width of the individual weighting functions, a satellite’s view of the atmosphere’s temperature structure is necessarily very “blurred” — that is, it is impossible to resolve fine-scale vertical structure in the temperature profile. As a consequence, a great meany of the candidate profile solutions that would be physically consistent with the ovserved radiances exhibit wild oscillations that are completely inconsistent with any reasonable temperature structure of the atmosphere. Effectively weeding out these bad solutions while retaining the (potentially) good ones requires one to impose requirements on the “smoothness” of the retrieved profile or limits on the allowable magnitude of the departure from the “first guess” profile.

    So it’s not just calibrating the sensors, and they’re microwave (MSU, microwave sounding units looking at the edge of the strong oxygen absorption band near 60 GHz.) not IR, but you need independent measurements, specifically balloon soundings, to keep the process honest. This is not to say that satellite temperature data is useless, just that it too has significant problems. Here’s just one, there’s no guarantee that the process will converge to the same profile if the initial “best guess” is different. Gerald Browning referred to this in passing a while back.

  298. Anna Lang
    Posted Oct 4, 2007 at 8:12 PM | Permalink

    RE: #295

    Today The Weather Channel reported that Fairbanks, Alaska recorded its first snowfall of the season on October 3, 2007. Viewers were told this was the latest date for first snow in the past ten years. But, after a pause for a breath, the reporter noted this was not the latest date ever recorded for the first snowfall in Fairbanks. That was October 10, 1934.

  299. DeWitt Payne
    Posted Oct 4, 2007 at 8:18 PM | Permalink

    Re: #292

    So did anyone ever figure out if it’s .00096 or .1? Or that it matters anyway?

    Sam and everyone else,

    Whether the emissivity of CO2 is 0.00092 or greater than 0.1 depends on the path length chosen. I’ve explained that in my previous posts on the subject. You can make up your own mind. Please go to this thread at Climate and Earth Sciences Forum at UKweatherworld if you have more questions. This is absolutely my last post here on CO2 emissivity. I wish to thank Steve McIntyre for his forbearance in allowing this discussion.

  300. DougM
    Posted Oct 4, 2007 at 8:50 PM | Permalink

    jae, the link to your data source in 128 is not working. Also I cannot find your work on esnips.

  301. PaddikJ
    Posted Oct 4, 2007 at 11:00 PM | Permalink

    Willis Eschenbach says on October 3rd, 2007 at 3:55 pm, ca: 257:

    The new version of science stumbles toward Bethlehem to be born, and despite my efforts to protest, I fear that all I can do is sit on the sidelines and laugh … beats crying, I guess.

    No need for tears, or jeers. It’s just Nature – whadya’ expect?

  302. Willis Eschenbach
    Posted Oct 4, 2007 at 11:41 PM | Permalink

    Tetris, you say:

    The first economic AGW/ACC fall-out calculations are in: [by UofCh and other groups]. Based on proposed cap and trade and other carbon tax schemes before the US Congress at present, by 2015 the cost to the US economy will be around US$3,000 per capita. This equates to an over US$1 trillion loss to the US economy p.a. going forward, with negative consequences compounding over time [think of this as compounded interest but negative..].

    Do you have a citation for this estimate?

    w.

  303. Hans Erren
    Posted Oct 5, 2007 at 1:44 AM | Permalink

    re 306
    still waiting

  304. Posted Oct 5, 2007 at 2:42 AM | Permalink

    Why the arctic is melting for laymen:

    http://powerandcontrol.blogspot.com/2007/10/wind-power.html

    The referenced paper:

    http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2007/2007GL031138.shtml

    Sorry if this is OT but all the threads I could find on the subject were many months ago. It is possible I missed a more recent one.

  305. Tom Vonk
    Posted Oct 5, 2007 at 3:13 AM | Permalink

    #302

    What the science can do at this stage is form the basis for the prediction that there is going to be a temperature rise of between 1 and 5 degrees over the next century or so.

    How would you know ?
    If you substitute “IPCC” for “science” then it might hold with reservations .
    Whatever .
    Why do you think that statements like the above are helpful in any way to this discussion ?
    I can as well say that the science is saying that there will be between 0 and 1 asteroid/comet hitting the earth in the next couple of centuries or so .
    Will it send you scrambling and yelling for immediate trillions of spendings because it is an interval instead of a single number and preferably 0 ?

  306. Hoi Polloi
    Posted Oct 5, 2007 at 4:12 AM | Permalink

    From the Graudian: http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2007/oct/05/climatechange

    Climate change disaster is upon us, warns UN

    · Emergency relief chief calls for swift action
    · 12 out of 13 ‘flash’ appeals in 2007 related to weather

    A record number of floods, droughts and storms around the world this year amount to a climate change “mega disaster”, the United Nation’s emergency relief coordinator, Sir John Holmes, has warned.

    Sir John, a British diplomat who is also known as the UN’s under-secretary-general for humanitarian affairs, said dire predictions about the impact of global warming on humanity were already coming true.

    “We are seeing the effects of climate change. Any year can be a freak but the pattern looks pretty clear to be honest. That’s why we’re trying … to say, of course you’ve got to deal with mitigation of emissions, but this is here and now, this is with us already,” he said.

    As a measure of the worsening situation, Ocha, the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs – part of the UN secretariat that employs Sir John – has issued 13 emergency “flash” appeals so far this year. The number is three more than in 2005, which held the previous record.

    Two years ago only half the international disasters dealt with by Ocha had anything to do with the climate; this year all but one of the 13 emergency appeals is climate-related. “And 2007 is not finished. We will certainly have more by the end of the year, I fear,” added Sir John, who is in charge of channelling international relief efforts to disaster areas.

    More appeals were likely in the coming weeks, as floods hit west Africa. “All these events on their own didn’t have massive death tolls, but if you add all these little disasters together you get a mega disaster,” he said.

    The only one of this year’s emergency appeals not connected to the climate was an earthquake in Peru, in August. The others arose after an unprecedented string of catastrophic floods across much of Africa, south Asia and North Korea, and followed severe drought in southern Africa, Nicaragua’s category-five hurricane, and extreme climate conditions in Bolivia, which brought both drought and floods.

    The Ocha appeals represent the tip of an iceberg since they are launched only with the agreement of the affected country. India was badly affected by floods that hit the rest of the Asian region in July. But unlike its neighbour, Pakistan, India did not call on the UN for help.

    Ocha believes that 66 million people were made homeless or were otherwise affected across south Asia. The lives of several million more people were turned upside down across Africa. Sudan, Mozambique, Madagascar, Zambia and Uganda experienced disastrous floods, and Swaziland and Lesotho declared emergencies because of severe drought that reduced harvests by half.

    The latest appeal from Ocha was launched yesterday, to try to raise emergency relief funds for Ghana, where more than 400,000 people are reported to be homeless as a result of flooding. Appeals may also be started for Togo and Burkina Faso.

    “The flooding in Africa just now is the worst anyone can remember,” Sir John said, expressing frustration at how little media attention in the west was being devoted to what he terms creeping climatic catastrophe.

    Flooding is likely to be common for a warming planet, and climate change has a double effect – causing an increase in the frequency of storms, while higher atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide curb the ability of plants to draw groundwater.

    A climate-change summit is to be held in Bali in December, with the aim of agreeing the principles of a new international treaty to replace Kyoto, the accord that expires in 2012. But the talks face determined US opposition to mandatory emissions targets, and most climate negotiators doubt a real breakthrough can be achieved before the Bush government leaves office in 2009.

    Sir John argues that whatever is done on greenhouse gas emissions, money has to be spent now on mitigating the impact that climate change is already having. “You can’t actually stop disasters happening but you can do a lot to reduce their impact and reduce people’s vulnerability to them by making sure people don’t live on the coast or river plains, and that roads are raised and dams are in reasonable shape.”

    According to the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which is leading research on the issue, global warming will disrupt and potentially devastate the lives of billions of people.

    And, just as global warming starts to make itself felt, there are signs that “donor fatigue” has set in. Of about $338m (£166m) requested for Ocha’s 13 flash appeals this year, only $114m has so far come from donors.

    Keep the hysteria coming and the funds will never dry up…

  307. Tom Vonk
    Posted Oct 5, 2007 at 4:21 AM | Permalink

    #285

    Can you elaborate on “radiation has to be at equilibrium with the matter”?

    Yes .
    It’s valid for Beer Lambert derivation but for most statistics based derivations too .
    The first equation in Beer Lambert derivation is saying “what comes out is what came in
    minus what was absorbed and what is absorbed is proportional to the absorption section”
    That’s actually not true in the general case because in the general case it is “what comes out is what came in plus what was reemitted minus what was absorbed” .
    In equilibrium what is reemitted stands in constant proportion to what is absorbed so the second formulation is (mathematically) equivalent to the first and you get a log law for a monochromatic irradiation .
    In absence of equilibrium (f.ex a heating gas) absorption and reemission vary differently and the first formulation (leading to Beer Lambert) is invalid .

    On a particular note I notice that in my previous post I wanted to link to a reference but I somehow can’t get the right method to get links in a post .
    The link was http://handle.dtic.mil/100.2/ADA427001 .
    It is not an easy lecture , the results can be criticised and actually had been above specifically in #303 , but the basic physics are OK .

  308. Posted Oct 5, 2007 at 5:19 AM | Permalink

    Flooding is likely to be common for a warming planet, and climate change has a double effect – causing an increase in the frequency of storms, while higher atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide curb the ability of plants to draw groundwater.

    I’m told that if you cut or burn down the plants it is very difficult for them to draw ground water.

    Also note that any change in equilibrium can cause an increase in storms as the system works to establish a new equilibrium. At least according to Roy Spenser on the cooling side and IPCC for heating.

  309. Posted Oct 5, 2007 at 7:49 AM | Permalink

    310

    I thought you have given up:

    “As long as we don’t even agree on the scientific definitions, a debate is fruitless.”

    Keep waiting.

  310. Scott-in-WA
    Posted Oct 5, 2007 at 8:33 AM | Permalink

    Larry # 215 Scott, we talked about this on another thread a few weeks ago, and also suggested that the reports should be signed by someone with a license, just because they have something to lose. I would think it would be appropriate for the UN or the US or EU government to go to a major international environmental consulting firm such as CH2M Hill, and have them prepare the report, and have it stamped by the principals preparing the report, and the engineer of record. They, in turn, could commission the scientific research.

    My vision for the GHG-GWM Engineering Feasibility Analysis is that it adopts the paradigm of an engineering study as a means of efficiently exploring the scientific issues, doing so in a way which organizes the knowledge using a concise, well structured, and logical approach, with all relevant issues and information directly or indirectly available for consideration by all parties to the report.

    But the EFA, once it was written, would have no outside legal or civil standing. It’s value as a document would be enabled strictly through the quality of its analysis and through the rigor, transparency, and validity of the processes used to produce it.

    Recognize as well that a key underlying objective of the report is to demonstrate some practical means of producing 2.5C warming employing 2xC02 within real-world constraints; or, if the report determines this is not a likely possibility, to explain in logical detail why this isn’t practical.

    The process of producing the EFA report would be structured in such a way that if AGW skeptics want to make use of the report in highlighting their scientific issues, they must do so within the context of trying their honest best to prove 2xC02 does in fact yield 2.5C warming.

    Larry # 215 Such a company would be biased (after all, they are environmental consultants), but they would have liability hanging over their heads. And besides, they do have lots of experience preparing these kinds of reports. You would at least have something readable when you’re all done, and wouldn’t have to muddle through all of this Hansenesque goopityglop like we do now.

    The topic of AGW is too politically charged for any single private company or any single public organization to take on formal responsibility—or formally-assigned civil and legal accountability—for performing this kind of analysis.
    My vision for this report is that the set of paradigms now known as Open Source Science (OSSci) and Open Source Engineering (OSEng) would be used to produce the report, much in the same way the Open Source Software paradigm works today to produce valuable, versatile, and high quality software tools such as Linux and R.

    My proposed plan for the EFA calls for it to be managed by a volunteer Chief Engineer with assistance from a volunteer Chief Scientist. The project’s policies, procedures, and stated scope of work are determined and monitored by an EFA Project Steering Committee, also composed of volunteers.

    Who would make a good Chief Engineer? I don’t have an obvious candidate in mind right now, but someone from academia, from government, or from private industry with both technical and engineering management credentials would be necessary.

    As for Chief Scientist, I think Dr. Freeman Dyson would be the perfect role model, and probably the perfect choice.

    The EFA Project Steering Committee is composed of the Chief Engineer (who is also Project Manager), the Chief Scientist (who is also the Assistant Project Manager), three representatives from the engineering community, and three representatives from the scientific community.

    As a practical matter, everyone who works on the EFA project is a volunteer, although nothing would prevent private sector, public sector or academic organizations from encouraging and even subsidizing their own staff while they worked on the project.

    On a related topic, let’s recognize that Steve’s ClimateAudit blog has become—even if he didn’t intend it that way—an example of rudimentary but real-world Open Source Science in operation. As long as Steve chooses to keep this blog in operation, this is the direction it will head, even if he doesn’t necessarily want it to.

  311. steven mosher
    Posted Oct 5, 2007 at 8:43 AM | Permalink

    TAMINO has a nice post on two box models:

    http://tamino.wordpress.com/2007/10/03/two-boxes/#more-394

    Even though in the past I have given him grieef I found his explaination of a two box model very lucid and enlightening.

    When I looked at his hypothetical temperature chart above, noting the difference in rates of warming, the first thing that came to mind was this: Could one use the differential between atmosphere warming and ocean warming to estimate the ratio of time scales?

    Anyway, I decided to play a bit. So I got land Anomalies from:

    ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/anomalies/annual.land.90S.90N.df_1901-2000mean.dat

    And SST anomalies from:
    ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/anomalies/annual.ocean.90S.90N.df_1901-2000mean.dat

    And compared the two.

    Difference the two: the result is fascinating . A third order polynomial fits the result with an r2
    of .66. You can see the land leading the ocean, and then the ocean catches up, and then the land leads the ocean again.

  312. steven mosher
    Posted Oct 5, 2007 at 9:16 AM | Permalink

    Here is chart that sucks less.

  313. steven mosher
    Posted Oct 5, 2007 at 9:20 AM | Permalink

    318. Can O get a mulligan?

  314. Craig Loehle
    Posted Oct 5, 2007 at 9:23 AM | Permalink

    It seems to me that the discussions of derivation of CO2 forcing from first principles is missing the problem of boundary conditions. Let’s consider a pool table. If the table were perfectly flat and the balls perfectly round and you could hit them dead on, you could calculate the angles exactly to hit the ball and never miss. But you can’t. The imperfections in the table, ball and your shot mean that sometimes you miss. These imperfections are the boundary conditions that are often unknown. When we go the atmosphere, the bc completely overwhelm the physics. There is the problem of turbulent mixing of uprising air and horizontal wind, which occurs at all scales and is computationally intractable (solutions diverge almost immediately even if you think you have a detailed gridding). Same with ocean currents, activity on all scales. The physics of heat transfer (advection, convection, light scattering, etc) is taking place at the molecule scale up to big thunderhead and storm cells. All of these things must be approximated by grid scale representations. When you put all this together, you get a model that you could say works ok (or maybe you don’t think so), but you no longer have first principles physics in any sense of the word. This is why we can’t say that the output should be automatically trusted. So, how do we test it? We run the model and compare the output to…..something. But to create that something we also need to aggregate the data, make assumptions about solar activity, land use, initial conditions, etc etc (ie. create boundary conditions estimates). Some people think this was done well, some not. Two layers of simplification, plenty of wiggle room for disagreement. AGW supporters smooth over this by insisting they are right and should be trusted.

  315. jae
    Posted Oct 5, 2007 at 9:27 AM | Permalink

    WOW, trillions of $ for a 23 ppm CO2 reduction!

  316. steven mosher
    Posted Oct 5, 2007 at 9:33 AM | Permalink

    RE 320. Despite this planes fly. Turbulence is the work of the devil. It cannot be
    ignored. It cannot be calculated in it’s devilish detail. Still, planes fly.

  317. jae
    Posted Oct 5, 2007 at 9:37 AM | Permalink

    306, Doug M: Works for me, but you have to click on “climate” at the esnips link. Try this.

  318. steven mosher
    Posted Oct 5, 2007 at 9:45 AM | Permalink

    What my charts imply. As Tamino argues the Atmosphere ( actualy the land temp record) is going to
    be a first responder to the terror of C02. So, it changes on a 5yr time scale. The Ocean,
    he argues ( rightly I suspect) has a longer time constant ( more heat capacity).

    He draws two charts showing the difference in Temp betwen a system with a short time constant
    and a longer time constant. The air heats faster than water. YUP! so you have two time
    constants. Now, what the history of anomalies show is that the rate of change in T ON LAND
    exceeds the Rate of change of T in water. Duh.

    But, look what happens when the ocen catches up. It overshoots ( momentum) and the ocean continues to
    warm at its current rate, while the land starts to cool(why?). And then, the land starts to warm more rapidily
    than the water. As the ocean catches up in the future….

  319. Posted Oct 5, 2007 at 9:52 AM | Permalink

    steven mosher:
    I agreed with everything until “But, look what happens when the ocen catches up. It overshoots ( momentum)“. There’s no such thing as temperature change momentum. Temperature is proportional to energy. Temperature change is more like acceleration than speed. Acceleration does not continue without a force.

  320. Clayton B.
    Posted Oct 5, 2007 at 10:02 AM | Permalink

    324,325,

    Perhaps what Steven Mosher was trying to describe is…

    as soon as the ocean temperature almost catches up the air temperature has already begun it’s downward trend and now it appears to have overshot.

  321. Posted Oct 5, 2007 at 10:11 AM | Permalink

    #326:
    Fair enough. As a former mech engineer, I get picky about words like momentum and torque that are often used incorrectly.

  322. Mark T.
    Posted Oct 5, 2007 at 10:16 AM | Permalink

    as soon as the ocean temperature almost catches up the air temperature has already begun it’s downward trend and now it appears to have overshot.

    Which would imply lag, and not a surprise for a longer time-constant.

    Mark

  323. steven mosher
    Posted Oct 5, 2007 at 10:21 AM | Permalink

    RE326.

    What Clayton said. It looked like this ( visual math in the head) the rate of Temp change in the
    Ocean overtook the rate of temp change in the land. Momentum was prolly an inexact term. Then
    ( rate wise) the land temp velocity decreases, while the Ocean temp velocity increases.. Then, the land
    starts to accelerate again.

    When I did this chart I was expecting the typical noisy piece of inconsequential junk.

    Anyway, my sense ( after pielke) is that the best measure of GW is the SST. Ocean as big old capacitor
    and “natural” filter of high frequency noise ( like eruptions, microsite stuff etc etc etc) SO, I get
    the Long time constant of the Ocean. When I saw Taminos chart I thought? Has anyone looked at the delta?

    If the chart wre not so striking ( SUBJECTIVE) I would have just shrugged. I cross posted to Tamino.
    ( only fair he gave me the impetus but not the idea )

    Is this just an an oddity?

  324. Pat Keating
    Posted Oct 5, 2007 at 10:22 AM | Permalink

    324

    the ocean continues to
    warm at its current rate, while the land starts to cool(why?)

    Perhaps the higher ocean temperature is now producing more cloud (and solar reflection) and precipitation (and latent-heat cooling of the land).

  325. steven mosher
    Posted Oct 5, 2007 at 10:35 AM | Permalink

    RE326. One more thing.

    The chart shows this. The rate of change of T in the atmosphere excceds the rate of change of T
    in the water. This is non controversial. At some point ( from my chart at least 40 years ) the
    rates equalize. and then the rate of the ocean exceeds the rate in the atmosphere, and the land
    cools relative to the ocean, and then..

    Sorting out causes here would be fun.

  326. steven mosher
    Posted Oct 5, 2007 at 10:38 AM | Permalink

    RE 328. Yes, looked like a lag overshoot.

  327. Posted Oct 5, 2007 at 10:42 AM | Permalink

    # 325

    John V.,

    Of course there is temperature change momentum and has to be with change of V when a real gas moves towards a vacuum or another lesser dense volume. Delta U is dependant from V at a tiny scale. The measurements were made by William Thompson and James Prescott Joule through their famous experiment Joule-Thompson. However, as the densities of real gases in most real processes are not extraordinary high so the changes are extremely low the outcome dependant of V can be considered equal to zero. That is not the case if T is considered because the Earth is not a system secluded from the universe, so Delta U depends more on delta T than on delta V.

  328. Sam Urbinto
    Posted Oct 5, 2007 at 10:42 AM | Permalink

    Nasif #298: My point that if indeed, as the evidence seems to show, CO2 is not a major factor, it doesn’t matter what the answer is. As far as I know, both you and DeWitt are correct, but you’re not talking about the same thing the same way. The only thing I know is that CO2 (as measured in the air at Mauna Loa) is about +33% since 1880, and increased temps globally as a sampled mean anomaly of land and sea over the same time is +.7 C or so (if I take that as a percentage of ~14C, about 5%), but there are many other factors at play here. So it doesn’t matter if the temp change due to CO2 would be + 10 K or 0 K or -10 K in the absence of other factors. (Even if there’s a correlation, and even if the anomaly is a meaningful number.) (I am tempted to use “if it was” more so than “if it is”…)

    Gunnar #300: Yes, I think we agree also. I’m just saying that there’s more than one way to describe a great number of things, some things need to be further detailed to make sure everyone knows what the subject is and what we’re talking about. 2% of the Earth and 6% of the Earth are both correct, but they need to be qualified. “Of the surface” and “of the surface’s land area” give those numbers meaning. Other than that, they’re just two numbers.

    John M. #302: The basis for that 1-5 C rise in the next century is not “science”. It’s a blend of science, guesses and fiction.

    Included are anthropogenic emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), sulfur hexafluoride (SF6), hydrochlorofluorocarbons
    (HCFCs), chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), the aerosol precursor and the chemically active gases sulfur dioxide (SO2), carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen oxides (NOx), and non-methane volatile organic compounds (NMVOCs). Emissions are provided aggregated into four world regions and global totals. In the new scenarios no feedback effect of future climate change on emissions from biosphere and energy has been assumed.

    Future greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions are the product of very complex dynamic systems, determined by driving forces such as demographic development, socio-economic development,and technological change. Their future evolution is highly uncertain. Scenarios are alternative images of how the future might unfold and are an appropriate tool with which to analyse how driving forces may influence future emission outcomes and to assess the associated uncertainties. They assist in climate change analysis, including climate modeling and the assessment of impacts, adaptation, and mitigation. The possibility that any single emissions path will occur as described in scenarios is highly uncertain.

    Any scenario necessarily includes subjective elements and is open to various interpretations. Preferences for the scenarios presented here vary among users. No judgment is offered in this Report as to the preference for any of the scenarios and they are not assigned probabilities of occurrence, neither must they be interpreted as policy recommendations.

    Each storyline represents different demographic, social, economic, technological, and environmental
    developments, which may be viewed positively by some people and negatively by others.

    The scenarios are based on an extensive assessment of driving forces and emissions in the scenario literature, alternative modeling approaches, and an “open process”…

  329. Larry
    Posted Oct 5, 2007 at 10:47 AM | Permalink

    327, then you should be using the correct term “inertia” instead of “momentum”. Momentum refers to what’s conserved in collisions. Or alternatively, you could have used mechanical energy, which is conserved in harmonic oscillators.

    However I agree with your basic point. There’s no thermal inertia. There could be see-sawing of temperatures between two bodies (you can get transient heat transfer waves because of heat capacity), but there is no thermal inertia that causes temperature to continue to rise after the thermal gradient is removed.

  330. Posted Oct 5, 2007 at 10:48 AM | Permalink

    Oceans are liquid water, and then the situation is grim there because liquids and solids have very tiny changes of density, so delta U depends almost completely from T, not from V.

  331. Posted Oct 5, 2007 at 10:56 AM | Permalink

    #335 Larry:
    Absolutely right, thermal inertia is correct.
    I only used momentum to quote steven mosher.

  332. Posted Oct 5, 2007 at 11:03 AM | Permalink

    # 320

    Craig Loehle,

    I agree. I have been talking on the microstates that are difficult to know through our present measurement techniques and methodologies. Some weeks ago Allan Ames introduced me to the world of the non recognizable energies captured by bulbs of thermometers that really leave much on which we can think and investigate.

  333. Steve Sadlov
    Posted Oct 5, 2007 at 11:16 AM | Permalink

    I don’t trust the pre 1940s values depicted by Tamino. If I were to bet money on it, they are too low. Late 1800s way too low. Which brings me back to, what in tarnation is up with GISS/CRN12/you-name-it prior to the 1930s? It’s all mucked up, IMHO ….. I strongly suspect the depicted step up between 1915 and the early 20s is not real. Take the whole record prior to the early 20s, shift it upward to remove the completely artificial looking step up, and that is likely reality. YMMV ….

  334. Paul Linsay
    Posted Oct 5, 2007 at 11:30 AM | Permalink

    #339,

    Why not? The satellite temperature record shows the same kind of step around 1998-2000. Nonlinear systems do that you know.

  335. MarkW
    Posted Oct 5, 2007 at 12:09 PM | Permalink

    while higher atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide curb the ability of plants to draw groundwater.

    Man some guys will go to any length to put a negative spin on something.

    The fact that plants use water more efficiently as CO2 levels rise, is now officially classified as something to worry about.

  336. Gunnar
    Posted Oct 5, 2007 at 12:14 PM | Permalink

    >> Temperature is proportional to energy.

    And heat transfer is proportional to the delta T between the two elements.

    >> The only thing I know is that CO2 (as measured in the air at Mauna Loa) is about +33% since 1880

    That can’t be the only thing you know, since it’s not true. 315 in 1959, 380 in 2007, that’s 20% since 1959. Prior to that, the average was about 330.

    >> It overshoots ( momentum) and the ocean continues to warm at its current rate, while the land starts to cool(why?). And then, the land starts to warm more rapidily than the water.

    The land and ocean are not the only components in the system (crust, ocean, atmos, sun). The ocean is not one component (surface, deep, different oceans, polar, equatorial). I think Pat is right in #330, but I also think that what appears as inertia is really inertia. Intense solar activity heats the equatorial waters, and heats it deeply. Solar activity wanes, causing land cooling. However, the water heated at the equator takes a while to spread globally (water has inertia), making it appear like it’s still warming, when it’s actually an artifact of how we’re measuring it (surface only).

  337. SteveSadlov
    Posted Oct 5, 2007 at 12:24 PM | Permalink

    The 1998 – 2000 step is very different from the late teens one. Look at JohnV’s charts on the CRN12 thread(s). Apples and oranges. To be fair here, I am basing this on my gut instinct. I am an old fart who’s looked at lots of business performance and quality charts over the past 25 years. I just have a sense that something is not right about the late teens jump. Horse’ sense, not science.

  338. John Lang
    Posted Oct 5, 2007 at 12:28 PM | Permalink

    The Remote Sensing Systems (RSS) satellite temps for September are out.

    As expected with the strenthening La Nina, lower troposhere temps are down 0.101C in September from August – anomaly of +0.123C from the 1979 to 2007 average but down 0.778C from the 1998 El Nino peak.

    http://www.remss.com/msu/msu_data_description.html#msu_amsu_time_series

    http://www.remss.com/pub/msu/monthly_time_series/RSS_Monthly_MSU_AMSU_Channel_TLT_Anomalies_Land_and_Ocean_v03_0.txt

  339. Gunnar
    Posted Oct 5, 2007 at 12:32 PM | Permalink

    >> Why not? The satellite temperature record shows the same kind of step around 1998-2000. Nonlinear systems do that you know.

    Paul, I agree with you. I see no reason not to assume a significant solar input. For example, solar flares dwarf the earth in size. Since they spew in all directions, we usually don’t get a direct hit. But if we did, it would be a big energy input.

  340. SteveSadlov
    Posted Oct 5, 2007 at 12:37 PM | Permalink

    RE: #345 – look at JohnV’s charts with and without the shift I proposed.

  341. steven mosher
    Posted Oct 5, 2007 at 12:38 PM | Permalink

    RE 337. The term I had originally used in my post ( but changed like a dope) was Inertia.

    Now, People should talk about the chart in terms of the positive and negative forcings required
    to crate a responds like this from a dynamical system.

    specifically, what damped the system response in the 1920’s

  342. Posted Oct 5, 2007 at 12:47 PM | Permalink

    Snip… Hey! We’re disobeying the rules here… I’ll stop posting on CO2.

  343. Sam Urbinto
    Posted Oct 5, 2007 at 12:53 PM | Permalink

    You mentioned it before I could correct. That should have been measured in the air at that location and sampled in the ice cores at Law Dome since 1880, combined. (I am not much one for proxies, at least not long term ones, but although the linear trends diverge some between the two (air is trending higher and increasing, but a minor amount) the 1958-1978 figures for both are pretty much the same, so I’ll accept 1880-1958 ice as a fair indicator.)

    That said, let’s look at just 1959-2005

    CO2: 316 to 383 = 65 or 20.5%
    Anomaly trend: (taking “the temperature” to be 14C) .6 C (-.2 to +.4) or 4.3%

    And what does it mean? It means we went from 0 to +.5 on the GHCN-ERSST data set over 46 years. (There’s the first number, +100% CO2 = +25% temperature) lol

    Amazingly enough, 1985 to 2005 is also 0 to +.5 (trend of .45 C (+.05 to +.5) (3.2% of 14) and CO2 346 to 383, 37 or 10.6…. Let me run with this.

    Now of course, ’59 to ’85 has a trend of 0 and CO2 went up 30

    So now we know, 30 ppmv ’59 to ’85 caused a +.45 warming trend ’85 to ’05 due to the lag I just invented, excuse me, modeled, therefore, CO2 forcing is 150% or a 9.4% increase in CO2 caused a +.45 trend. So a 100% CO2 increase causes 4.5 C of warming. There, I doubled the doubling CO2 is 2.5 C figure! I hope everyone is satisfied with my logic here.
    :D

    (Now I just need to wrap that in a 100 page paper, confusingly written in doublespeak and passive voice, and with copious and difficult to follow calculations, and get it peer reviewed…)

  344. Sam Urbinto
    Posted Oct 5, 2007 at 12:59 PM | Permalink

    Well, almost doubled.

  345. Larry
    Posted Oct 5, 2007 at 1:08 PM | Permalink

    349, you forgot buzzwords. Nothing gets published without profuse buzzwords and TLAs*.

    *Three letter acronyms

  346. Sam Urbinto
    Posted Oct 5, 2007 at 1:10 PM | Permalink

    Sure, that GWS (Goes Without Saying)
    :)

  347. steven mosher
    Posted Oct 5, 2007 at 1:10 PM | Permalink

    RE 343. You talking about my charts?

    I read taminos thing on how the air heats fatser than the water. ( sethe link above ) or rather how
    we have two time constants in the reponse to a forcing. So, he showed a hypothetcial reponse for a
    5yr time scale ( the air) and a response for a 30 year time scale ( the ocean). ALL of this in
    the context of finalizing a critique of the “schwartz”

    So you have a quick rise component and a slow rise component and they ar coupled…

    Anyway. I looked at his charts and thought: Difference the anomaly of the land and the anomaly of the sea.

    This is different than chicken of the sea.

    Anyhow. That is what I did. I HAVE NEVER seen a chart that ( subjectively) had as much regularity
    as the result of that calculation.

    starting in 1880 you see the air warming more rapidily than than Sea. WHAT FORCED THAT? Then around
    1920 you see the Sea catch up in terms of warming rate ( of the land fall back.. IN RATE TERMS)

    THIS IMPLIES a damping, perhaps, or at least the reponse of a system that is statically stable.

    You see a perturbation, a response, an overshoot, an recovery of stability, and then another
    perturbation.

    Something like that

  348. Gunnar
    Posted Oct 5, 2007 at 1:13 PM | Permalink

    >> so I’ll accept 1880-1958 ice as a fair indicator

    Except that we have actual measurements from 1810 to 1959. Not sure if you just didn’t know that, or you are of the opinion that a questionable proxy, sampled about 16 times between 1810 and 1959, is more accurate than 90,000 accurate measurements.

  349. Craig Loehle
    Posted Oct 5, 2007 at 1:23 PM | Permalink

    re: 322
    Planes fly because they constantly adjust their controls. If you tried to program a plane’s controls in advance based on your data of the turbulence ahead, and then sent it off with no pilot and now way to change the controls, it would crash.

    Re: 319 Land-Sea: if land has a higher amplitude than sea, you will get the plot you got. That plot does not show lag. You need to lag the data to see that.

  350. Sam Urbinto
    Posted Oct 5, 2007 at 1:32 PM | Permalink

    I was not aware there was anything but the Law Dome figures from 1832 to Mauna Loa starting in 1959. I can only go on the fact they match up pretty well when they overlap.

    20 year smoothed 1832 to 1978 (yearly) and 75 year smoothed 1010 to 1975 (5 years) ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/icecore/antarctica/law/law_co2.txt

  351. DeWitt Payne
    Posted Oct 5, 2007 at 1:48 PM | Permalink

    Re: #313

    I think I linked to that reference in an earlier thread, but didn’t save a copy. Thanks.

  352. Andrey Levin
    Posted Oct 5, 2007 at 2:20 PM | Permalink

    Re:349, Sam Urbinto:

    This exactly kind of estimation I was trying to point out for a long time. But let’s move two steps further.

    About 20% increase in carbon from 1940 to present (BTW, it was calculated that 80% of antropogenic carbon was emitted since 1940).

    Temperature increase between two peaks of positive PDO of 1940s and 1990s: 0.4 C max (you can not measure it in % of Celsius). It is smaller if estimate it using balloon and satellite data, and for continental US it is close to zero. Any way, lets take 0.4 C. Almost half of it is attributed to other greenhouse gases (by Hansen, for example).

    In sum, max of 0.2 C temperature increase could be attributed to 20% increase in atmospheric carbon. Throw in logariphmic nature of greenhouse effect, and we are quite close to Idso’s empirical estimations of 0.4 C per carbon doubling.

    Too primitive to be true?

  353. Posted Oct 5, 2007 at 2:30 PM | Permalink

    Ref: 353 I have less confidence in the historical sea surface temperature measurements than I do in the air temperature measurements. Try a shorter time frame from 1980 to present using only the satellite data, sst, lst and tlt.

  354. Pat Keating
    Posted Oct 5, 2007 at 3:36 PM | Permalink

    Re 358
    How about this: The temperature swings for recent glaciation/deglaciation events are about 12C. Let’s take W = water-vapor level now. Take the water vapor level at full ice-age as very roughly 25% of W. Thus W is roughly equivalent to 16C. If CO2 has 5% of the effect of current water-vapor, then it accounts for about 0.8C. Doubling from current levels would cause another 0.8C, a little less doubling from earlier levels.

  355. EW
    Posted Oct 5, 2007 at 3:46 PM | Permalink

    This afternoon I tried to find out about the climate sensitivity of 2.5 C for doubling CO2. I’ve run various combinations of CO2, sensitivity and 2.5 through search in Web of Science and Scopus databases. The only relevant thing that emerged were papers about GCMs and their output from various runs. Which contained guesses about 1-3.5 C. I tried to go through references in some of these, but no reference about a single value was present. There was a paper about modelling Miocene warm epoch with various concns of CO2, but the models didn’t quite fit the paleontological and geological proxies, be it run with 300 ppm CO2 or 550 oom. Again, no mention of any constant between CO2 and temp.

  356. jae
    Posted Oct 5, 2007 at 4:00 PM | Permalink

    362: I’m not surprised. I’ve looked far and wide, also.

  357. Andrey Levin
    Posted Oct 5, 2007 at 4:04 PM | Permalink

    Re#361, Pat Keating:

    Great idea! I will toy around with this picture:

    http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1644060/posts

    And report the findings.

  358. SteveSadlov
    Posted Oct 5, 2007 at 4:07 PM | Permalink

    Sorry, I don’t recall which thread this came up on. Someone had been looking for papers and other sources regarding radically counterintuitive outcomes of worst case AGW effects. Whoever it was might find this to be of interest:

    http://icecap.us/images/uploads/Shrinkage_of_the_North_Polar_Ice_Cap_and_Pole.pdf

    I personally would not rule out something like this under even a moderate AGW effects scenario. Disclaimer – I am not saying that Art Bell / Whitley Strieber / Day After Tomorrow are plausible, but, a much longer term increase in continential glaciation in the NH cannot be ruled out either.

  359. SteveSadlov
    Posted Oct 5, 2007 at 4:15 PM | Permalink

    “Let There Be Light!”

    http://www.youtube.com/profile_play_list?user=ucberkeley

    (….. Go Bears! ……. )

  360. SteveSadlov
    Posted Oct 5, 2007 at 4:29 PM | Permalink

    RE: #364 – Record low CO2 concentration in the atmosphere may have preceded the Great Permian Extinction, during which 95% of all species may have gone extinct. We are dangerously near that previous low point in CO2. And here we are arguing about 2 X CO2. Are we barking up the wrong tree? The question needs to be asked. Perhaps humans’ role in nature is to liberate CO2 to prevent another extinction. Liberating CO2 would give a higher margin to the oxygen supply becuase it would spike living plant biomass. If we interfere with true nature, we may shoot ourselves in the foot. It’s like that movie, Premonition. You try to hard to “fix” the future and you end up screwing it up.

  361. John Lang
    Posted Oct 5, 2007 at 4:43 PM | Permalink

    Just wanted everyone to remember if you looking at temperatures going back to 1880, you have to keep in mind the Krakatoa volcanoe in 1883 which caused at least a 1C decline in temperatures between 1883 and 1885. In my neck of the woods, the majority of low temperature records are from 1883 and 1884.

  362. John Lang
    Posted Oct 5, 2007 at 5:13 PM | Permalink

    Further to my post above #344 regarding the RSS satellite temperature measurements, I note that the southern hemisphere temperature anomaly has actually gone negative versus the average.

    The September 2007 lower atmosphere temperature is actually about the same as the September 1979 measurement for the southern hemisphere.

    I guess this is consistent with the record southern hemisphere sea ice extent this year and the significant La Nina event which has developed.

    What it is not consistent with, however, is the global warming model. 28 years of no warming in the lower atmosphere (northern (+0.27C) and southern hemisphere (+0.04C)) points to a cyclical climate rather than a CO2 driven one or at least a very low 2XCO2 sensitivity one.

  363. SteveSadlov
    Posted Oct 5, 2007 at 5:42 PM | Permalink

    Re: The September 2007 lower atmosphere temperature is actually about the same as the September 1979 measurement for the southern hemisphere.

    Also, further evidence that we are in negative PDO. There is more to the story than La Nina / ENSO.

  364. MJW
    Posted Oct 5, 2007 at 6:01 PM | Permalink

    A minor quibble, perhaps, but I have a problem with the cubic fit in comment 319. Using a cubic forces the the slope to increase (i.e., the warming to accelerate) at the end of the time period. Looking at the non-smoothed data, I see a slight deceleration. I also notice the interpolating polynomial doesn’t go as low as it seems to me it should in the 1970’s. I attribute this to the mismatch at the end of the graph, which pulls down the cubic at the end, and therefore pulls up the point of inflection.

  365. DougM
    Posted Oct 5, 2007 at 7:12 PM | Permalink

    Steve S. Thanks, it looks like just what I needed.
    Jae, the last link did the trick, although for some reason the graphics are not showing up.

  366. tetris
    Posted Oct 5, 2007 at 7:13 PM | Permalink

    Re: 308
    Willis
    Am not anywhere close to my files/library at present and will not be for the next few days, so can not give you exact refs. My apologies.
    From memory, check Laffer, et. al [Dep of Econ, UofCh for starters] who published an article in the last couple of weeks.

  367. Sam Urbinto
    Posted Oct 5, 2007 at 8:32 PM | Permalink

    358 Andrey:

    I don’t disagree about that, but take a look at my progression. I say 14 C. What the heck does that mean? What temp is it outside right now? It’s 28 and feels like 29. So? And? Tomorrow it’ll start out at 23 and get up to 34. Or 22 and 31. If you take some numbers and massage them, you can come up with anything. Is the average 12 C? 16 C?

    Steve wants mathematical proofs that doubling CO2 (100% increase) causes 2.5 C rise.

    Rise in what, where, when, how, and with what other factors? Not sure such a thing exists, something like that. Me? I want mathematical proof the “temperature of the Earth” is X degrees. (I also want to have 10 billion Euros btw) :)

    Lag from CO2 to temp? Pick it at 20 years. (Just as good as any other meaningless guess for any other meaningless number).

    So if there’s no trend in temps from ~1960 to ~1985 when CO2 went up 30, but from 1985 to 2005, that 30 ppmv caused a .45 C increase in the 20 year lag, now we get that ~10% CO2 caused ~.45 C so that leads to a doubling of CO2 being 4.5 C I know, I know. The measurements are accurate down to billionths of a degree, due to the power of made up numbers. I mean, um….. *sigh*

    #356 Gunnar:

    I don’t know what’s fudged and what’s not. I don’t think I even really care. We’re talking about this from different angles it seems. I’m just dealing in scenarios. I’m saying IF there was a 33% rise in CO2 and IF you take it that CO2 forces the temps then IF the anomaly is .6 C over the period, then draw the conclusion that a doubling of CO2 causes 1.8 C of temp increase. Or (and I hate this phrase) cherry-pick a time period and method of stating things, and come up with whatever number you like. If in year the CO2 levels were 200 or 300 or 400 or 10, where? When? How? Not important. I think my personal distrust of all of this is fairly clear.

    Link to Jaworowski?

    John #368: What did they use to measure temps in 1880 (or 1930 for that matter, or 1990, or pick a year) versus how it’s measured now? What did the stations look like in any of those given years versus now? How dedicated were/are the people getting the numbers then and now? What was the relative humidity, wind speed, hours of sunlight? Material near the sensor?

    All I’m saying is, what is the temperature at point X in your living room versus point Y in your bathroom? Does that tell you what the temperature is in your apartment? :)

    I don’t need peer-reviewed papers telling me it’s warmer in the bedroom upstairs then it is in the ‘fridge, nor that the garage is warmer than the freezer in the kitchen. Or that if I let go of a hammer that I’m holding, it’s probably going to land on the floor.

  368. tetris
    Posted Oct 5, 2007 at 8:50 PM | Permalink

    Re: 302
    John W
    My comment to your post above was, by all evidence, not to the liking of our host [it vapourized]. Somewhat simplified, please provide the scientific underpinnings for your assumptions/conclusions in #302.

  369. tetris
    Posted Oct 5, 2007 at 9:00 PM | Permalink

    Re: 374
    Sam
    Hardly. My pets, children, and all the others close to my heart you mention know better. It would however, appear that there’s a “troll” out there posting as tetris with a capital T. Not me.
    Having lived in Scandinavia for a good number of years, I’ve learned that as a rule most trolls have don’t have much to say. So don’t pay attention to whicheverone of them is doing the “T”etris thing.

  370. Posted Oct 5, 2007 at 9:17 PM | Permalink

    # 367

    SteveSadlov,

    In the Permian Period, during the Paleozoic Era, the concentration of CD was higher than 5000 ppmv. Through the Permian period the plant species diverged and the animals diversified as never before. Dinosaurs flourished and were the predominant order, greater than other orders of vertebrates. Coniferous plants appeared in the Permian Period.

    As Steve Sadlov has said, at the late part of the Permian Period the major extinction of animals occurred. Species from protozoa to dinosaurs disappeared from the planet. There are many hypothesis trying to explain the mass extinction; for example, a Chicxulub meteorite impact that would take the Earth out from its orbit, a climate change (neither SUVs nor industries, nor humans there), a raged volcanism, a glaciation, Pangaea, etc. The evidence points at glaciation like the most plausible explanation, although volcanologists could argue that the glaciation occurred due to an exaggerated volcanism. No way, Milankovich made its happy hour and the Earth altered her rotational axis … Wow! Someone will say that there was no glaciation because in Italy, on the ground where he is settling his feet there are no signals of glaciations.

    From the early Triassic to the middle Cretaceous, the CD concentrations were similar to current concentrations. From the end of cretaceous to the beginning of Miocene, Carbon Dioxide increased to ca. 2050 ppmv.

    It is possible that the density of CD increases normally to 1050 ppmv to 2500 ppmv in the next 50 million years. I’m tempted to argue about an imbalance that would drive the Earth to another Ice Age. The CO2 would make us all happy, like our ancestors were in the Pleistocene, until another Ice Age comes to make the bad thing.

    2050 ppmv of CD would maintain a change of temperature of 2.5 K, nothing out of this world. As many of you have pointed out, WV would buffer the changes of temperature. More WV in the atmosphere, more cloudiness, less energy hitting upon the surface of the Earth, etc., etc.

  371. Posted Oct 5, 2007 at 10:06 PM | Permalink

    From RealClimate:

    # Steven Says:
    5 October 2007 at 12:04 AM

    hi everyone

    I’m an observer here at realclimate, with no axe to grind on any ‘debate’. Can someone please post me to any journal articles that calculate a climate sensitivity of 2xCO2 of 3-4 Watts/m2. Please no reference to IPCC documentation, blog entries, etc. but rather to scientific articles.
    I’m a computational neuroscientist and am involved in plenty of dynamic, nonlinear modeling and I would like to follow through the empirically derived steps, even if my knowledge of the physical basis is very limited.

    if anyone could help out, it would be much appreciated
    thanks, Steve

    [Response: Of course: you want the IPCC ar4 report, box 10.2, which summarises things and points you to all the papers you could wish to read http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/Report/AR4WG1_Print_Ch10.pdf -William]

  372. Posted Oct 5, 2007 at 10:20 PM | Permalink

    The post I copied in #377 was #18 on this thread:

    http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/10/my-model-used-for-deception/#comment-57559

  373. Posted Oct 5, 2007 at 10:32 PM | Permalink

    # 377

    Theduke,

    Many spaghetti carts, but not a single word on algorithms. ;)

  374. Posted Oct 5, 2007 at 11:00 PM | Permalink

    steven mosher says:
    October 5th, 2007 at 9:45 am,

    I do believe you have the time constants wrong. Air should be minutes or hours. Ocean/land should be years. Deep ocean/land millennia.

    Roy Spencer says the ocean/land short time constant is around 5 years.

    It is the capacitor soakage problem with much longer TCs.

  375. Andrey Levin
    Posted Oct 6, 2007 at 3:46 AM | Permalink

    Re#373, Sam:

    Choice of the time interval is important. That’s why I chose between peaks of positive PDO in 1940 and 1990, to get rid of this substantial atmospheric temperature oscillation. Time lag from CD increase to temperature increase? Take 5 years, as suggested by Schwarz. It is already passed. Incidentally we have pretty good idea how concentration of CD changed from 1940 to present.

    [snip - I've asked that people not discuss potential CO2 measurements here as this is not an issue that I want to spend time on at this blog at this time]

  376. Buddenbrook
    Posted Oct 6, 2007 at 5:49 AM | Permalink

    Hello everyone. The site is so popular, that I cannot keep track of what is posted, so apologies if this has been discussed already.

    James Hansen’s Presentation to policy makers October 3rd 2007: http://www.columbia.edu/%7Ejeh1/gustavus_3oct07.pdf

    Opinions?

  377. EW
    Posted Oct 6, 2007 at 5:52 AM | Permalink

    #377

    I checked that IPCC chapter and it’s all about models. And it seems that the models don’t do well in experiments with paleoclimate reconstructions. The model that was used for Miocene was ECHAM4/ML, a predecessor of one of the cited models. And its results weren’t exactly in agreement with the proxies. In another study, the reconstruction of climate 7-9 MYA with AOGCM, HadCM3L used for the purpose of modelling C4 grass expansion also did not fit.
    However, the flora modeling of Tertiary says that under higher CO2 and higher temp, there will be more savannas instead of deserts and seasonal tropical forests will move towards temperate regions. Doesn’t seem to me as a terribly bad thing…

    Lunt DJ, Ross I, Hopley PJ, et al.
    Modelling late Oligocene C-4 grasses and climate
    PALAEOGEOGRAPHY PALAEOCLIMATOLOGY PALAEOECOLOGY 251 (2): 239-253 AUG 3 2007

    Steppuhn A, Micheels A, Bruch AA, et al.
    The sensitivity of ECHAM4/ML to a double CO2 scenario for the Late Miocene and the comparison to terrestrial proxy data
    GLOBAL AND PLANETARY CHANGE 57 (3-4): 189-212 JUN 2007

  378. Hasse@Norway
    Posted Oct 6, 2007 at 6:38 AM | Permalink

    Being a layman, I’ve got a layman question her ;)

    Does anyone know if deserts has increased/decrease in size from 1940s to the 1970s. And/or the increase/decrease in size of deserts from the 70s up until present? The reason I wonder, is that I remember reading in a popular scientific magazine som 5 years ago. That the deserts in Sahara had stopped expanding and in many places was starting to retreat. If say, the desert edges in southern Sahara was becoming more and more vegitated, that would contradict the idea that a warmer world would be a desert, just about everywhere.

    Anyway tropical forests are found around the equator and there are deserts north and south of the equator, but these are desided by high-low preasure systems and not by the amount of energy they are resciving. So I don’t get the idea that if the world get warmer everything will become a desert. You can’t have high preasure systems everywhere??

  379. EW
    Posted Oct 6, 2007 at 6:46 AM | Permalink

    As far as I know, that desertification of Africa occured in step with North hemisphere glaciations.

  380. steven mosher
    Posted Oct 6, 2007 at 8:08 AM | Permalink

    RE 380.

    Yes. I know. Been there done that.

    In 320 craig said

    “These imperfections are the boundary conditions that are often unknown. When we go the atmosphere, the bc completely overwhelm the physics. There is the problem of turbulent mixing of uprising air and horizontal wind, which occurs at all scales and is computationally intractable (solutions diverge almost immediately even if you think you have a detailed gridding). ”

    My rejoinder was, Yes, but planes still fly even though the problem of turbulance is mathematically
    insoluable.

    Which of course brings of the questions of control and stability

  381. steven mosher
    Posted Oct 6, 2007 at 8:18 AM | Permalink

    RE 381.

    I have no idea what the time scale is. I was referingto Taminos discussion of schwartz.
    HE put up a little two box solution and then showed how Temp changes for two different systems
    ( air/sea) when you suppose a 5 year and 30Year Time constant. Go have a look at his chart.

    What struck me was that this could be investiated further. That is if you could difference the two
    temperatutes then you should see the differential reponse to forcing. So I looked at Land anomaly
    and sea anomaly. Difference the the two and you get my charts. So, could suppose a forcing on the system
    Prior to 1900 and you see rate of change in air temps outpacing the Rate in the ocean. Then in 1920 or so
    the diffeence between rates peaks, then the rate in the ocean exceed the rate over land.. the system reches
    an equillibrium of sorts and then land temp rates start going up again.

  382. Larry
    Posted Oct 6, 2007 at 9:12 AM | Permalink

    384, I will say one thing: Hansen’s engineering solutions have all of the mathematical rigor of his statistics.

    I mean, jeez, doesn’t he even do back-of-the-envelope order-of-magnitude calculations [picks jaw up off the floor...].

  383. steven mosher
    Posted Oct 6, 2007 at 9:32 AM | Permalink

    389.

    I was Stunned at the leaps of logic. He fancies himself a whistle blower. I suspect
    the picture of the polar bears tells the real tale. Note the one on the right winking.
    Somebodies blowing something and it aint whistles.

  384. Posted Oct 6, 2007 at 9:39 AM | Permalink

    EW, #383, re 377:

    As a non-scientist, I’ll take your word for it. I posted it because I thought the way it was handled was typical of RC. The poster made a specific request for a paper that wasn’t part of IPCC documentation, and his request was ignored.

  385. Larry
    Posted Oct 6, 2007 at 10:27 AM | Permalink

    390, I’m just wondering if any feasibility calculations were done at all concerning the idea of growing crops for energy, and then blowing the CO2 into the deep ocean. Any mechanical or chemical engineer here should see the obvious problem with compressing flue gas into the deep ocean (or the alternative of scrubbing, regeneration, and injection of H2CO3, which isn’t much better).

    It’s not at all obvious, without actually doing some calculations, that you’d even break even on the energy.

    I hope this next paragraph isn’t a snipper, but I don’t think anyone is either serious or knowledgeable about CO2 reductions, if they won’t allow nuclear on the table. Sorry, but the numbers are what they are. The only way we currently know to achieve significant CO2 reductions without destroying civilization, is nuclear power. The rest is wishful thinking and hand waving.

  386. Posted Oct 6, 2007 at 10:34 AM | Permalink

    Nasif Nahle says: October 5th, 2007 at 10:32 pm

    Theduke,

    Many spaghetti carts, but not a single word on algorithms.

    Yeah! They usually don’t publish scientific posts against their ideas and don’t answer questionings straightly. It’s like a religious site.

  387. Posted Oct 6, 2007 at 10:38 AM | Permalink

    Re 384

    quote
    In another study, the reconstruction of climate 7-9 MYA with AOGCM, HadCM3L used for the purpose of modelling C4 grass expansion also did not fit.
    unquote

    Do any of the later models allow for possible population increases in obligate C4 phytoplankton or the sort which are optional C3/C4? If not, there goes the smoking gun.

    JF

  388. steven mosher
    Posted Oct 6, 2007 at 11:43 AM | Permalink

    RE 391.

    Chapter 10 has over 4 pages of bibliography. I Was going to post all the pages to RC and ask
    which paper?

  389. Posted Oct 6, 2007 at 11:44 AM | Permalink

    # 394

    Julian Flood,

    Yes, I agree with you; it’s a smoking gun. Nearly all the local paleocommunities correspond to an negligible section of the segments of organisms as they were grouped alongside an ecological gradient. Fossil collections are incomplete samples of the biota due to failures in the study of the conditions and processes of fossilization.

  390. Posted Oct 6, 2007 at 11:47 AM | Permalink

    # 395

    Steven Mosher,

    Good idea! I’d like to see how they’ll shuffle all those references. Hah!

  391. steven mosher
    Posted Oct 6, 2007 at 11:54 AM | Permalink

    RE 392. I was especially fond of the Arm waving C02 sequestration in the Ocean.

    It’ funny when it comes to the science you have all this rigor and attention to black soot
    and contrails, and land use and “methane” releases, BUT when it comes to the proposed solutions
    you get these cartoon engineering solutions. Ah, ya solar, and wind, and bury my C02 at wounded
    knee. All the while a functioning engineering solution ( nuclear power ) is ignored.

    I DID however like the Lake wobegone charts. Flooding that much of canada would be a great idea.
    Imagine the Ice road trucker series you could film.

  392. Posted Oct 6, 2007 at 11:58 AM | Permalink

    Nasif Nahle says: October 6th, 2007 at 11:44 am

    As a biologist I wouldn’t trust on grass paleocommunities to deduce the climate change or the concentration of atmospheric CD 7-9 million years ago, but instead I’d count on isotopes (Be, O, D, etc.) and calcium carbonates (foraminifera, mollusks, coral skeletons, thorn, stains of iron, etc.).

  393. Posted Oct 6, 2007 at 12:26 PM | Permalink

    Nasif Nahle says: October 6th, 2007 at 11:58 am

    If we look for paleocommunities of grass we should take into account the interspecific relations like competition and the shifting balance of natural paleocommunities that obviously were competing with grass. What would we assume if the distribution of those grass paleocommunities corresponded to a thermally disjunct distribution of gramineous species as it is happening today? Yes, you’re reading properly, neither the grass distribution 7-9 million years ago nor Recent are normal; they are just “poles apart”.

  394. Posted Oct 6, 2007 at 12:32 PM | Permalink

    # 400

    Who could say that Recent has abnormal concentration of CD or that some 450 thousand years the concentration of CD was normal? What’s wrong with temperatures and CD concentration today? Who can assume that Recent CD concentration and Temperature are abnormal, unusual, atypical, or anomalous? Nothing is wrong with Recent CD concentration and our change of T. To say that 7-9 mya the CD and the T was anomalous and that they were normal some 500 thousand years ago it’s a terrorist lie.

  395. Posted Oct 6, 2007 at 12:35 PM | Permalink

    It’s a solo… sorry.

  396. DeWitt Payne
    Posted Oct 6, 2007 at 1:32 PM | Permalink

    Nasif,

    Would you please give me a link to where you or someone else rigorously defines Fo as you use it. I haven’t been able to find it on biocab.org. Is it a flux? If so, of what?

  397. Posted Oct 6, 2007 at 3:18 PM | Permalink

    Sorry DeWitt, I was dining.

    Yes, it is “actinic Flux”, or the magnitude of energy available to molecules at a specific point in the atmosphere. It is calculated by integrating the spectral irradiance L (ë [lambda], è [theta], ö [psi]) on all directions of incidence of energy. In other words, the relation among emissivity of carbon dioxide, emissivity of surface, geometry of both, the surface and the layer of carbon dioxide, and the energy emitted by the surface that is intercepted by the carbon dioxide. I’ve taken the concept from Thermodynamics by Engel & Reid, but there are many URLs which develop the formula. Try this:

    http://www.springerlink.com/content/u6484824835k3551/

    Some people take F0 like “Forcing”, but it’s not the case. BTW the values given to F0 at climate science are highly speculative.

  398. Andrey Levin
    Posted Oct 6, 2007 at 4:06 PM | Permalink

    Re:385, Hasse:

    Take a look here:

    http://www.co2science.org/scripts/CO2ScienceB2C/subject/d/desertification.jsp

    Generally, worst case scenario most likely would be “Jurassic park”, not “Water world”, “Day after tomorrow” or “Resident Evil: Extinction”.

  399. Posted Oct 6, 2007 at 4:17 PM | Permalink

    Wow! Andrey Levin, Thanks a lot! It will be a very useful article for my next debate through TV.

  400. steven mosher
    Posted Oct 6, 2007 at 4:30 PM | Permalink

    RE 405.

    I figure if all the carbon sequestered during the carboniferous era gets released back into the
    atmosphere where it came from we are merely returning nature to its natural state.
    Only Specieists would argue to maintain this mamalian anomaly.

  401. Posted Oct 6, 2007 at 7:39 PM | Permalink

    Steven, #395: I had a feeling that “Steven” was connected somehow to CA. As for William’s response, you can bet that if the paper you requested existed and was persuasive then he would have provided it tout de suite. No, what he did instead was throw a blizzard of paper at you, in effect saying, “Sort it out, sonny.”

    You should go back and say, “Cmon William. Cite one paper. Even if it’s a bad paper.”

  402. Andrey Levin
    Posted Oct 6, 2007 at 7:54 PM | Permalink

    Re#407, Steven Mosher:

    I surely do not want Earth atmosphere to return to “natural” state it was before “oxygen catastrophe”.

    One could argue about what is “natural state”, but there is one interesting twist. Only handful of plants (about 5% of total plant biomass) developed biochemistry to compensate for low concentration of CO2 in atmosphere – C4 plants. Remaining 95% are C3 or CAM photosynthesis plants, and suffer from unusually low on geological scale CO2 content in atmosphere. So little bit of additional CO2 would help (wouldn’t hurt?).

    I do not think, thought, that our civilization is capable to increase CO2 atmospheric concentration on long scale. It is very unlikely that in 100 years we will rely on fossil fuels (mostly coal) for our energy needs. And there are quite powerful long-term buffering mechanisms, such as described here:

    http://folk.uio.no/tomvs/esef/esef4.htm

    BTW, sugarcane, corn, sorgum, amaranth, switchgrass – plants constituting “holy grail” of biofuel production, are all C4 plants.

  403. pochas
    Posted Oct 6, 2007 at 11:32 PM | Permalink

    Re#407, Steven Mosher:

    I figure if all the carbon sequestered during the carboniferous era gets released back into the
    atmosphere where it came from we are merely returning nature to its natural state.
    Only Specieists would argue to maintain this mamalian anomaly.

    The last atom of sequestered carbon released would require the last atom of oxygen to release it, since all oxygen was produced via photosynthesis. Not only would mammals go, but all oxygen-breathing life would disappear.

  404. Posted Oct 6, 2007 at 11:50 PM | Permalink

    # 407 # 409

    I don’t think either that humans can cause an increase of CD up to 0.4% (about 3900 ppmv) from burning the totality of fossil fuels. Buffers are multiple and diversified, and include microorganisms, (for example mixotrophic microorganisms, microorganisms that fabricate shells, etc.), which are considered most efficient on sequestering CD than terrestrial photosynthetic plants. What I’m trying to say is that even when the concentration of atmospheric CD was 3900 ppmv, we cannot assure, from the viewpoint of Paleobiology, that it would be abnormal, unnatural, atypical, anomalous, etc., given that during the Devonian Period -and other epochs after the Carboniferous- the concentrations of CD were even higher than 3900 ppmv. What we cannot say is that doubling CD would be fatal for our civilization or for the living world because life “begun” under concentrations of CD and temperatures higher than on the current period. It is clear that “the atmospheric CD concentration rises after temperature rises” (quote from the reference provided by Andrey Levin).

  405. Posted Oct 7, 2007 at 12:10 AM | Permalink

    # 410

    pochas

    No, it’s not true. Partial pressure of Oxygen in the atmosphere is more than 600 times the CD partial pressure. Besides, there are inorganic chemical processes from which oxygen is released and there are mixotrophic organisms that release Oxygen from water molecules more efficiently than terrestrial plants. CD is good for life except for Wikipedia, which considers that water is a sinister toxic compound.

  406. Hasse@Norway
    Posted Oct 7, 2007 at 12:21 AM | Permalink

    Re: 405 Andrey Levin.

    Thanks a lot! The view within media and hence the general public in Norway is that a warmer world would mean deserts increasing, But I can’t see the link between a warmer world with more water vapor in the atmosphere and bigger deserts. I can imagine maybe southern europe beeing dryer, but I don’t se how that should affect the areas around the equator.

    I propaganda in Norway is that the poor countries will be affected the most, but I guess Jens Stoltenberg(norwegian PM) has looked at the where is waldo Africa tread on CA ;)

  407. DeWitt Payne
    Posted Oct 7, 2007 at 1:05 AM | Permalink

    Re: #410

    I have to agree with Nasif. There are other sources of oxygen than photosynthesis. For example, UV in the stratosphere can split water into H and O atoms. The kinetic energy of the H atoms or H2 molecules at that altitude is sufficient that a significant fraction exceed escape velocity. That is also a probable explanation for why there isn’t much water on Venus. The mass of Venus is lower than the Earth, so a larger fraction exceed escape velocity and and the intensity of radiation is twice as high.

    Using a very optimistic estimate for the total amount of carbon in methane clathrates, and including the oxygen converted to water when burning methane, burning every molecule of carbon that isn’t already carbon dioxide would use about 8% of the oxygen in the atmosphere, if I did my sums correctly.

  408. Jan Pompe
    Posted Oct 7, 2007 at 7:09 AM | Permalink

    414 Dewitt

    . For example, UV in the stratosphere can split water into H and O atoms.

    it makes sense to me but do you have a reference for this? (I will get back to UKweather when I have more time)

  409. Posted Oct 7, 2007 at 10:12 AM | Permalink

    Some references and other on abiotic production of O2:

    AWI

    ADSHAB

    http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1985mes..rept..202.

    SCIENCE DIRECT

    Lyman-á flux values are used to determine the water vapor dissociation rate.

    NASA/DONAHUE

    Photolysis of CO2 in the stratosphere.

    http://history.nasa.gov/CP-2156/ch2.8.htm

    SPRINGER

    http://www.springerlink.com/content/h82m88372g515lhg/

    SCIENCE MAGAZINE

    A classic article:

    http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/reprint/174/4012/941.pdf

    Radiolytic production of O2

  410. Mhaze
    Posted Oct 7, 2007 at 10:20 AM | Permalink

    http://Www.coyoteblog.com site is down.

  411. pochas
    Posted Oct 7, 2007 at 1:54 PM | Permalink

    #414

    Well, some of the methane may be primordial, or produced catalytically from primordial carbon. That would mean that to burn the last of the carbon we would have to import oxygen from ….. elsewhere?

    DeWitt, Are you sure your inventory of burnable carbon is complete? I am relying on conventional wisdom as to the source of the earth’s oxygen, plus simple stoichiometry. If other sources like photolytic decompostion of water followed by loss of the hydrogen to space are important, as you are implying, wouldn’t you expect to find oxygen in the Martian atmosphere? Remember, this was a CO2 world (no oxygen) before the blue-green algae appeared.

    Nasif, photolytic, radiolytic – are these reactions energetically favorable, or do the products quickly recombine?

  412. Jan Pompe
    Posted Oct 7, 2007 at 5:17 PM | Permalink

    #416
    Thank you Nasif.

  413. Follow the Money
    Posted Oct 7, 2007 at 5:42 PM | Permalink

    More on the 2.5C/CO@ Doubling history:

    @ # 193 I wrote:

    I believe I have an answer: because IPCC AR1 1990 (¡±Scientific Assessment) says so. From chapter 5 ¡°Equilibrium Climate Change¡± p. 139,

    The evidence from modeling studies, from observations and from sensitivity analyses indicate that the sensitivity of global mean surface temperature to doubling CO2 is unlikely to lie outside the range 1.5 to 4.5C. There is no compelling evidence to suggest in what part of this range the correct value is most likely to lie. There is no particular virtue in choosing the middle of the range, and both the sensitivity analysis and the observational evidence neglecting factors other than the greenhouse effect, indicate that a value in the lower part of the range may be more likely. Most scientists declined to give a single number, but for the purpose of illustrating the IPCC Scenarios, a value of 2.5C is considered the ¡°best guess¡± in the light of current knowledge. [orig. bold]

    I didn’t seem to have any takers here, maybe some believed there must be some real science about the 2.5C bandied about today, my find here merely a numerical coincidence. But I knowing that legends need not a rigid basis figured it worth more attention…

    So I looked at the IPCC’s Second Assessment Report and found no mention of the 2.5C/CO2 doubling matter, however I only skimmed the hard copy so I might have missed it…there is no online copy of the Report to my knowledge.

    TAR is another matter. The third assessment, published in 2001, contains at ch. 3, p. 221 “Box 3.7: Fast, simplified models used in this assessment,” describing two models, BernCC Model and ISAM model.

    For the BernCC model we find,

    “Climate sensitivity was sat at 2.5C for a doubling of CO2. Effects varying climate sensitivity from 1.5C to 4.5C are also shown for one case.”

    For ISAM,

    In addition to verying the climate sensitivity (1.5 to 4.5 C), paramater of the terrestrial and ocean components… …A reference case was defined with climate sensitivity 2.5C,…etc.

    Either this is one of the most amazing numeric coincidences ever, or these models are using the the 1AR numbers.

    Now we go to 4AR. Ch. 10, “Global Climate Projections” is replete with assertions that the doubling range is 1.5-4.5C, alternatively 2.0-4.5C. The “BERN2.5CC” model makes a strong appearance and might be an alteration or not on “BERN CC” model. Table 8.3 doesn’t mention doubling assumptions…but then, what else could the “2.5” mean in “BERN2.5CC”?

    I believe the “2.5C” assumption as “science” is a bleed over from modeling policies sourced back to the First Assessment Report. As can seen in my quotation from 1AR, that is not firm ground.

  414. Follow the Money
    Posted Oct 7, 2007 at 6:10 PM | Permalink

    I should add about 1AR – it is the source of the 2.5C/doubling CO2 “truism”, but not the 1.5 – 4.5C range. That is sourced in just one spot in the report to “(U.S. National Academy of Sciences, 1979; Bolin, et al., 1986)”

    Bolin, et al. can be found online here: link- SCOPE 29 – The Greenhouse Effect, Climatic Change, and Ecosystems

  415. jae
    Posted Oct 7, 2007 at 6:59 PM | Permalink

    420, 421:

    but for the purpose of illustrating the IPCC Scenarios, a value of 2.5C is considered the ¡°best guess¡± in the light of current knowledge. [orig. bold]

    LOL, brother. That is all there is to this story. LOL.

  416. steven mosher
    Posted Oct 7, 2007 at 7:20 PM | Permalink

    RE 409. Nothing is unatural in a materialistic universe. No state is preferable to any other state.
    It is what it is.

  417. steven mosher
    Posted Oct 7, 2007 at 7:20 PM | Permalink

    RE 409. Nothing is unatural in a materialistic universe. No state is preferable to any other state.
    It is what it is.

  418. DeWitt Payne
    Posted Oct 7, 2007 at 7:27 PM | Permalink

    Re: #418

    Are you sure your inventory of burnable carbon is complete?

    No. That was based on a quick internet survey. If anyone can come up with a better estimate, I’ll revise my calculation. But the comment on methane clathrates said the estimate may be high and I did include the oxygen necessary to convert the four hydrogen atoms in methane to water. Any hydrocarbon will also consume extra oxygen on combustion, but in the total non-carbonate reservoir, methane clathrates dominated, approximately 2/3 of the total carbon before effectively doubling for the hydrogen content.

  419. Larry
    Posted Oct 7, 2007 at 7:54 PM | Permalink

    I seem to recall that there are unbelievably large reserves of methane in porous rock in Illinois and Kentucky, that if liberated, were more BTUs than all known oil deposits. I forgot the name of the mineral, but the fact is that there’s no practical way to liberate the methane. That would be one example of a carbon reservoir that is chemically “burnable”, but as a practical matter not. I think that a significant amount of carbon is in that and similar forms; and in reality would never be possible to convert into CO2 (that was the original quesation, wasn’t it?).

  420. Posted Oct 7, 2007 at 11:40 PM | Permalink

    # 426

    Larry,

    Perhaps it is methane clathrate hydrate? It can be found at oceanic sediments at more than 450 m depth and continental soils at 800 m depth.

  421. Philip Mulholland
    Posted Oct 8, 2007 at 1:04 AM | Permalink

    Ref #420

    Online SAR
    This pdf any use?

  422. DeWitt Payne
    Posted Oct 8, 2007 at 1:39 AM | Permalink

    I used this source for the total carbon other than carbonate. I may have left out vegetation and soil carbon from my calculation. It still adds up to less than 10% of all the oxygen in the atmosphere. Note that the carbon in all fossil fuels (coal, oil and gas) is only about 1/3 the value quoted for methane clathrates and is only about twice the amount in soil and vegetation.

  423. DeWitt Payne
    Posted Oct 8, 2007 at 1:43 AM | Permalink

    Re: #428

    Unfortunately, that’s just the summaries for policy makers from each working group, not the complete SAR.

  424. Andrey Levin
    Posted Oct 8, 2007 at 2:10 AM | Permalink

    Re#428

    “Nothing is unatural in a materialistic universe. No state is preferable to any other state.
    It is what it is.”

    True. That’s why we can alter the nature around us as we are pleased. Say, boost plants productivity, or preserve wildlife biodiversity. For our utility or enjoyment.

    Here lies difference between Environment Protection and Environmentalism. Former is based on anthropocentric value’ scale. Later is functioning on behalf of Mother Gaia.

  425. Posted Oct 8, 2007 at 10:12 AM | Permalink

    # 418

    Poshas,

    I’d like to say that it is as you say; however, the Oxygen (O2) produced by photolysis or radiolysis is highly stable and it’s slow on reacting (Gilbert. 2000). The decay of Potassium-40 break molecules of water to produce H2 and O=, the latter combines with other atoms of Oxygen to form O2, or with water molecules to form Hydrogen peroxide (H2O2). We don’t need a huge water bed to make the process has effect, only a bit of moisture (Chyba. 2001).

  426. Posted Oct 8, 2007 at 10:26 AM | Permalink

    # 418

    Pochas,

    BTW, the bond in H2 is a very strongest bond. The dissociation energy for a molecule of hydrogen is 4.52 eV.

  427. pochas
    Posted Oct 8, 2007 at 11:19 AM | Permalink

    #425 DeWitt, #433 Nasif,

    From Nasif’s reference http://history.nasa.gov/CP-2156/ch2.8.htm

    Two important loss processes for oxygen do operate: oxidation of reduced volcanic gases, primarily H2 and CO; and oxidation of crustal materials at Earth’s surface, which may be written schematically as 2FeO + O2/2 -> Fe2 O3 The crustal loss rate is difficult to evaluate. It turns out not to be necessary to do so, however, since the H2 and CO outgassing from volcanoes appears [152] to be more than sufficient to overwhelm the production of O2 from H2O photolysis followed by hydrogen escape.

    Given DeWitt’s reduced carbon inventory and the fact that each free atom of oxygen produced by photosynthesis requires that a carbon atom must remain sequestered in reduced form, the question remains, “Where did all the extra oxygen in the atmosphere come from?”

  428. SteveSadlov
    Posted Oct 8, 2007 at 11:57 AM | Permalink

    Good to see some thought going into recovery mechanisms in the event that CO2 gets driven down too low and the biosphere starts to die. Whether in response to policy driven extreme sequestration scenarios or unstoppable long term CO2 decrease, doing recovery may buy us some time to allow colonization of other planets in other systems.

  429. Posted Oct 8, 2007 at 12:26 PM | Permalink

    434

    Pochas,

    From here

  430. Posted Oct 8, 2007 at 12:43 PM | Permalink

    # 434

    Matter is not constant, but energy (E=mC^2). Two protons stuck together have less mass than two single separate protons. The most abundant element in the universe is Hydrogen, followed by Helium. Oxygen is the third most abundant element in the universe. IMHO, I don’t think the universe is filled with photosynthetic organisms.

  431. UK John
    Posted Oct 8, 2007 at 1:07 PM | Permalink

    I have been looking for Waldo in the UK climate statistics,for 1914 – 2005

    http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climate/uk/about/UK_climate_trends.pdf (downloads a 2Mb pdf could take a bit of time!)

    According to this report Waldo only appears after 1987, the report says till 1987 there was virtually no Trend in Temperature.

    Sunshine Hours and Temperature show a completely matching Trend, and even the rise since 1987 is completely matching.

    The report helpfully says that Max Temp and Diurnal range are strongly correlated to amounts of Sunshine.

    So I concluded its got warmer but its also got sunnier, so I wrote to The Met office and asked if this was true, eventually they replied, that the reason the Climate was changing was due to CO2 induced global warming as explained on their website. I wrote back thanking them for this answer but would like an answer to my simple question of “its got warmer because its got sunnier, and if this isn’t the case please let me know”.

    After waitng some time the following reply was received ;- “I can only confirm what we indicated several weeks ago that there is no evidence to indicate that cloud cover is decreasing around the world.” Which again was not the question I asked.

    At this point I gave up.

    However 3 things do occur to me, that I need some help, suggestions, and encouragement to follow up

    1. 1987 was probably around the time all the UK weather observation stations were automated.

    2. From 1987 onwards UK electric supply voltage was gradually reduced from 240v to 230v to line up with European Standard and this may have affected all the instrumentation particularly as electric supply quality also took a dive at this point.

    3. 1987 was also about the time that every meteorologist knew to start looking for an upward temperature trend in every observation, correlation, correction or calibration, so perhaps it isn’t surprising that they found one.

  432. SteveSadlov
    Posted Oct 8, 2007 at 1:23 PM | Permalink

    RE: #438 – During the 80s, look at how much heavy industry got shut in the Midlands and North. That would certainly increase the insolation in much of the UK. Also the knock on effect of less radiation fog.

  433. SteveSadlov
    Posted Oct 8, 2007 at 1:27 PM | Permalink

    Weather (sort of) not climate …. if there were any doubts about the apparent early onset of climatic autumn on the Western US coast north of about 37, there are no longer. Our climatic autum (normally, dry, still and warm during the first half, and rainy with rapid cooling in the second half) really did start at the end of July. We are now over 2 months into it and the weather matches that perfectly in many respects. The only odd thing is that the temperature is just a wee bit higher than it would be in late Nov, only because of the higher Sun angle than late November. Synoptics are late Nov / early Dec normals …. now!

  434. UK John
    Posted Oct 8, 2007 at 1:34 PM | Permalink

    RE: #439

    Thanks Steve, the report does mention the decrease in industrial pollution as a likely reason for the quite substantial (up to 40%) increase in Sunshine hours, but fails to take the next (to me) obvious leap of it also explaining the increase in Mean Temp of 0.7 deg C. Subjectively the population of UK know we get more sunshine and less fog than we used to, but it is never explained to them what this might mean for Temperature.

    Have I got it wrong? surely if its sunnier in UK, it just cannot help being warmer ?

  435. SteveSadlov
    Posted Oct 8, 2007 at 1:54 PM | Permalink

    RE: #441 – During my short time living in the UK, the warmest days were ones with high pressure in place and hence, sun or at least partial cloud. Passage of a warm front would slightly warm things, but generally, overcast heralded damp cold. Anything which would have made the times when high pressure is in place more sunny would have definitely increased the temperature.

  436. DeWitt Payne
    Posted Oct 8, 2007 at 2:44 PM | Permalink

    Re: #423

    H2 and CO outgassing from volcanoes appears [152] to be more than sufficient to overwhelm the production of O2 from H2O photolysis followed by hydrogen escape.

    An oxygen molecule doesn’t know where it comes from. In the absence of water photolysis, those same oxidation reactions would have overwhelmed the production of oxygen by photosynthesis. Water photolysis has clearly made a significant contribution to the the current state of the atmosphere.

    I’m still waiting for a source for an order of magnitude larger estimate of reduced carbon produced by photosynthesis than what I found. Otherwise, the logical (to me) conclusion is that there are additional non-photosynthetic sources of oxygen.

  437. Sam Urbinto
    Posted Oct 8, 2007 at 3:57 PM | Permalink

    1. Strength of the Sun.
    2. Strength of the Earth’s magnetic field.
    3. Strength of cosmic rays.
    4. Tilt of the Earth.
    5. Number of hours of sunlight.
    6. Location of the thermometer.

    I don’t think I forgot anything major…

  438. jae
    Posted Oct 8, 2007 at 4:23 PM | Permalink

    440, SS:

    Weather (sort of) not climate …. if there were any doubts about the apparent early onset of climatic autumn on the Western US coast north of about 37, there are no longer. Our climatic autum (normally, dry, still and warm during the first half, and rainy with rapid cooling in the second half) really did start at the end of July. We are now over 2 months into it and the weather matches that perfectly in many respects. The only odd thing is that the temperature is just a wee bit higher than it would be in late Nov, only because of the higher Sun angle than late November. Synoptics are late Nov / early Dec normals …. now!

    That is certainly the case in Southwest Oregon. I’ve never had my heating system on this early prior to this year.

  439. David Archibald
    Posted Oct 8, 2007 at 5:01 PM | Permalink

    I am giving the address to the Annual General Meeting of the Lavoisier Society on 22nd October in Melbourne. The address is available at:

    http://downloads.heartland.org/22059.pdf

    Steve Sadlov will want to stock up on some more canned goods.

  440. Posted Oct 8, 2007 at 8:28 PM | Permalink

    # 446

    David Archibald,

    Please, don’t take this note as a criticism on your paper. 20% of CO2 corresponds to 224117.65 ppmv. I’d like to know how you related this to that (NS). I’d like to know it. If you agree, drop me a message to my personal E-mail address which you can take from BioCab website.

  441. Richard Lewis
    Posted Oct 8, 2007 at 11:52 PM | Permalink

    Rather interesting that with all the drama surrounding climate “records” and weather extremes, the WMO has just gotten around to this action:

    http://asunews.asu.edu/20071008_cerveny

    The archives are here:

    http://wmo.asu.edu/

  442. Andrey Levin
    Posted Oct 9, 2007 at 3:06 AM | Permalink

    From:

    http://newparty.co.uk/articles/inaccuracies-gore.html

    (pending verification, IMO):

    British court has determined that Al Gore’s documentary “An Inconvenient Truth” contains at least eleven material falsehoods:
    • The film claims that melting snows on Mount Kilimanjaro evidence global warming. The Government’s expert was forced to concede that this is not correct.
    • The film suggests that evidence from ice cores proves that rising CO2 causes temperature increases over 650,000 years. The Court found that the film was misleading: over that period the rises in CO2 lagged behind the temperature rises by 800-2000 years.
    • The film uses emotive images of Hurricane Katrina and suggests that this has been caused by global warming. The Government’s expert had to accept that it was “not possible” to attribute one-off events to global warming.
    • The film shows the drying up of Lake Chad and claims that this was caused by global warming. The Government’s expert had to accept that this was not the case.
    • The film claims that a study showed that polar bears had drowned due to disappearing arctic ice. It turned out that Mr Gore had misread the study: in fact four polar bears drowned and this was because of a particularly violent storm.
    • The film threatens that global warming could stop the Gulf Stream throwing Europe into an ice age: the Claimant’s evidence was that this was a scientific impossibility.
    • The film blames global warming for species losses including coral reef bleaching. The Government could not find any evidence to support this claim.
    • The film suggests that the Greenland ice covering could melt causing sea levels to rise dangerously. The evidence is that Greenland will not melt for millennia.
    • The film suggests that the Antarctic ice covering is melting, the evidence was that it is in fact increasing.
    • The film suggests that sea levels could rise by 7m causing the displacement of millions of people. In fact the evidence is that sea levels are expected to rise by about 40cm over the next hundred years and that there is no such threat of massive migration.
    • The film claims that rising sea levels has caused the evacuation of certain Pacific islands to New Zealand. The Government are unable to substantiate this and the Court observed that this appears to be a false claim.

  443. Steve Milesworthy
    Posted Oct 9, 2007 at 3:16 AM | Permalink

    #438 UK John

    Surely it got sunnier because it got warmer. Though not last winter and last summer which was both wet and very warm.

    Statistics for the UK go back to before the industrial revolution.

    I’m not sure, but I seem to remember that the furore about automating observations has all happened within the last 10 years. However, there are still plenty of independent observers. Also, lot of thermometers work without electricity! And if there were any light-bulbs in the Stevenson screens they would have got cooler, not warmer, when the voltage dropped. Certainly, having lived for [snip] years, I don’t need the Met Office to tell me it’s got warmer.

  444. Steve Milesworthy
    Posted Oct 9, 2007 at 4:01 AM | Permalink

    #452 Gaudenz Mischol
    I was being ironic. For the reasons given, you can’t attribute recent UK climate change to reductions in industrial activity leading to extra sunniness.

  445. VG
    Posted Oct 9, 2007 at 4:32 AM | Permalink

    Why this obsession with anomalies? (in all data presented by NASA, NOAA, Hadley etc) There is no anomaly (unless you could live to observe for AT LEAST 200+ years?). The only anomaly is the positioning of met stations close to concrete etc. excuse the pun. Use only rural station data (not encroached by cement) and go back to earliest records (1880) and judge by this. Used to be an AGW believer, now skeptic and rapidly becoming denier. On an aside issue the interest in climate change seesm to be incredibly male oriented. Are there any women interested in this issue? Answer = NO (it seems)

  446. TAC
    Posted Oct 9, 2007 at 4:51 AM | Permalink

    Today’s NYT has an interesting piece by John Tierney, “Diet and Fat: A Severe Case of Mistaken Consensus.”

  447. Gaudenz Mischol
    Posted Oct 9, 2007 at 7:08 AM | Permalink

    455

    very interesting and indeed very smiliar to AGW!

  448. MarkW
    Posted Oct 9, 2007 at 7:14 AM | Permalink

    Your kidding. You mean the NYT is admitting that it is possible for a “consensus of scientists” to be wrong?

  449. Hasse@Norway
    Posted Oct 9, 2007 at 7:53 AM | Permalink

    Breaking news!! (In Norway anyway)

    Australian scientist and man of the year Tim Flannery in Australia is claiming in one of his papers that CO2 content in the atmosphere is not 380 ppm like it used to be according “consensus”. But 455ppm. What I’d like to see was the raw data for CO2 measurements. Anybody know where those can be found??

    Article in Norwegian: http://www.dagbladet.no/nyheter/2007/10/09/514533.html

    The man himslef: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tim_Flannery

  450. CO2Breath
    Posted Oct 9, 2007 at 8:10 AM | Permalink

    I’ve found local CO2 concentrations as high as 45,000 ppm in the (very) near vicinity of the front of my head. YMMV.

  451. James Erlandson
    Posted Oct 9, 2007 at 8:47 AM | Permalink

    A recurring theme on this blog revolves around the value of publishing in refereed journals vs. blogs. Andrew Gelman of Columbia has some interesting thoughts on this.

    It makes sense to publicize results in five formats:
    a. press release or “executive summary”
    b. blog entry
    c. webpage
    d. lecture or “powerpoint presentation”
    e. paper

    I agree that, when writing papers, the refereeing process is a lot of effort. I say this as an author and also as an editor and referee at journals. It’s unpleasant to have to write for the gatekeepers rather than the readers. One thing I’ve liked about writing books (and blog entries) is that I can go straight to the readers.

    Gelman’s associate Aleks Jakulin writes about one of his webpages on JPEG compression algorithms …

    This page ended up being cited by JPEG itself as a reference on artifacts, and my terminology was adopted. I was approached by ~20 people about it, it got cited in a number of academic papers (~30), it’s linked to from Wikipedia. There are ~50 academic papers on the topic, none of which really gets used.

  452. Posted Oct 9, 2007 at 9:01 AM | Permalink

    You will find the full transcript of the Tim Flannery interview that aired on Lateline on ABC TV 8th Oct here:

    http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2007/s2054168.htm

    – and you will find links to the video that went to air on the RHS of the page if you wish to watch it.

    In brief, he was spreading alarm by claiming that the atmospheric ‘CO2 equivalent’ passed the ‘dangerous climate change’ threshold in 2005, citing the upcoming IPCC report to be released in Nov. as his source, and that drastic action is required immediately to minimise the damage.

  453. Hasse@Norway
    Posted Oct 9, 2007 at 9:28 AM | Permalink

    “CO2 equivalent” now that is a stroke of genius. Then you can both claim that CO2 measurments are correct, but things are still much more worse than previously thought.

  454. jae
    Posted Oct 9, 2007 at 9:43 AM | Permalink

    The COURTS have decided Gore is wrong on 11 counts, LOL. It seems odd that the courts would get so far into the science.

  455. Posted Oct 9, 2007 at 9:45 AM | Permalink

    # 459

    Carl,

    Fine observation! It’s normal to obtain a 455 ppmv in areas close to industrial cities or in areas near to highways. We’ve measured up to 450 ppm at the suburbs of Monterey at about 530 masl; however, going to towns at 2056 masl we have obtained less than 360 ppmv. Tim Flanery is evidently hiding some numbers, conditions and experimental controls.

    # 457

    CO2Breath,

    I’ve found a bit higher than 45000 ppmv just in the vicinity of my nose… I smoke, so we have to add the CD emitted from my Capitol Bruyere.

    # 452

    VG,

    You’re right; few women have taken action on this issue. Sally Balliunas and Sandy are two of a handful of women –scientists- interested on GW. However, I’ve seen many young women that are going back to science and reason. I think there are more girls than boys (students) seeking for the science behind GW.

  456. UK John
    Posted Oct 9, 2007 at 9:46 AM | Permalink

    #451

    Ah well, thanks Steve Milesworthy, so a sunny day is not warmer than a cloudy one, (all other things being equal) this really is groundbreaking science.

    A few “ironic” UK Met office “records” for you that all made the AGW headlines, April 07 was the warmest and sunniest April on record, July 06 was the warmest and sunniest month on record, and 2003 was the warmest year on record and I hope that by now you can work out that 2003 was also the sunniest year on record.

    All from the UK met office website.

  457. jae
    Posted Oct 9, 2007 at 9:57 AM | Permalink

    453: BOY, that looks familiar.

  458. Larry
    Posted Oct 9, 2007 at 10:17 AM | Permalink

    463, right down to the minute details.

  459. John Lang
    Posted Oct 9, 2007 at 10:18 AM | Permalink

    On #456, Tim Flannery is talking about all the Greehouse Gases and the CO2 equivalent of all of them combined.

    For example, Nitrous Oxid (N20) is about 300 times as powerful as CO2 in terms of Greenhouse potential. The N20 content of the atmosphere is about 320 parts per billion and would then represent about one-third of CO2 in terms of its equivalence as a greenhouse gas.

    Here is a link to the time series of all the major greehouse gases: CO2, N2O, Methane and the CFCs. Note that Methane (25 times as powerful as CO2) has unexpectedly stablized over the past few years (it is okay to eat beef again.)

  460. Larry
    Posted Oct 9, 2007 at 10:23 AM | Permalink

    460, the problem with using a CO2 equivelent is that the math doesn’t work. You can’t just add concentrations when the effect is logarithmic. You have to keep track of the gases separately, because a doubling of one gas doesn’t have the same effect as a doubling of another.

    They’re trying to be clever, but they’re ending up with something that’s just plain wrong and calculationally useless.

  461. Posted Oct 9, 2007 at 10:29 AM | Permalink

    # 465

    John Lang,

    Yes, you’re right. I’ve not read the interview. However, I’m right also.

  462. Steve Milesworthy
    Posted Oct 9, 2007 at 10:47 AM | Permalink

    #466 Larry
    If you calculate the forcing of x increase in CO2, y increase of N2O, z increase of CH4 (and so on for the other 60 or so GH gases) you can then related it to the amount of CO2 you’d have needed for the same forcing in absence of increases in the other gases. The figures aren’t added.

    #462 UK John
    I don’t doubt that sunny days aren’t usually warmer days. But the fact is that even wet miserable days are now warmer than wet miserable days were 30-odd years ago, and sunny days are warmer now than sunny days were 30-odd years ago. I think you are a long way off attributing current warming to a reduction in manufacturing.

  463. Posted Oct 9, 2007 at 10:59 AM | Permalink

    And the negative feedbacks? ;)

    Compared with CD, N2O is a refrigerant more than a warmer.

  464. Larry
    Posted Oct 9, 2007 at 11:29 AM | Permalink

    468, the general form of the climate sensitivity relationship is DT = a*ln(C/C0). The parameter a is different for different materials. You can calculate the net effect by keeping track of the effect seperately (ignoring band overlap), but you can’t relate the a value for one gas to the a value for another, and then treat them as one gas. Try it. It doesn’t work. In Einstein’s words, it’s “simpler than possible”.

  465. Posted Oct 9, 2007 at 12:06 PM | Permalink

    Larry,

    What’s the parameter a? It seems to be a misterious case for Sherlock Holmes. Values given to a change at the will of the authors. For CD, many give a magnitude for “a” of 5.35 with units W/m^2 or without units, while others prefer to assign it a value of 4.29 with and without units. Physics establishes a magnitude of 0.423 W/m^2.

  466. UK John
    Posted Oct 9, 2007 at 1:17 PM | Permalink

    #468 Steve Milesworthy

    I never said anything about industrial decline, the UK Met office in the report I quote says there is evidence for extra sunshine being caused by less industrial pollution, and quotes various research that indicates this.

    I just say that looking at the Met office report there has been a gradual increasing trend in sunshine hours since 1929 and a matching upward trend in Temperature, the graphs in the report almost match exactly, have a look at fig 3 and fig 15. So my contention is quite simply , its got warmer because its got sunnier, not exactly rocket science eh!

    I must admit to being a skeptic, because of things like this, but mainly that climate change has all happened before without any human influence, so I think we should look for a natural explanation then look for a human induced reason, but it is our nature to want to believe we affect the climate, this is who we are, every human civilisation has thought like this we are no different.

  467. Gunnar
    Posted Oct 9, 2007 at 1:41 PM | Permalink

    >> but it is our nature to want to believe we affect

    That’s a great point. It’s human conceit. Humans have a strong desire/need to dominate his environment. Nothing wrong with this, but it leads to the mistaken belief that “I can do anything”. (as stated by Madeline in the kids movie)

  468. Posted Oct 9, 2007 at 1:45 PM | Permalink

    #461 jae

    Thanks for that link. Now where do I sign up for this ‘New Party’?

    KevinUK

  469. Posted Oct 9, 2007 at 2:38 PM | Permalink

    KevinUK,

    Here. :)

  470. Posted Oct 9, 2007 at 2:44 PM | Permalink

    I’m beginning to think that I’m being ignored here. I have asked several times for the conceptual definition of the parameter “a” at DT = a (Ln C/Cs) and nobody has told me what it is… Oh! Perhaps I don’t exist? Or… Perhaps “a” doesn’t exist?

  471. Pat Keating
    Posted Oct 9, 2007 at 2:51 PM | Permalink

    461: jae
    The reason the courts got involved was a suit by a British truck driver against Government school illegal use of propaganda rather than educating the kids.

  472. Sam Urbinto
    Posted Oct 9, 2007 at 3:17 PM | Permalink

    A quick read of some of the simple explanations tells me while you can say x amount of NH4 does the same thing as y amount of CO2 (or H2O or O3 or whatever) the facts are that when you start putting them all together, their effect is different put together. I like simple explanations. :D

    Well mixed forcing estimate: http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/222.htm

    If 10 N20 does the same thing as 3000 CO2, putting them together is not the same as 20 N20 or 6000 CO2, then you have to take the other gases into account. That doesn’t even begin to consider things like clouds and amount of sunlight, pollutants, etc.

    Direct GWP: http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/248.htm

    I forget if we ever cleared this up totally.
    NO2, Nitric Oxide (Nitrogen dioxide)- Growth enhancing hemodilator
    N2O, Nitrous oxide – Laughing gas with about 300 times the power (taking time into account) of CO2

    As far as sunlight, you can get plenty and not much warming, say winter in the NH for example. :) Or at the pole facing the sun…

  473. Dan Scoledge
    Posted Oct 9, 2007 at 3:44 PM | Permalink

    I believe Unthreaded is for random topic issues. I hope non technical is accepted here.

    Lawrence Lessig has been a big player in stopping the extensions of copyright laws: Lessig Bio
    He has recently changed his area of intrest to Fighting Government Corruption. One of his motivations is the government not accepting Gore’s movie.
    He has started a Wiki with a section on Science/Climate Change. They have a few entries with what I know now is false info about now being the warmest its been in a 1000 years.

    I was about to edit the Wiki some when I realized all I’d be doing is citing you guys. I was wondering if anyone that could actually go straight to the source of the evidence was willing to go over and do some editing.

  474. Chas
    Posted Oct 9, 2007 at 3:55 PM | Permalink

    #438 UKJohn thanks for the link to the pdf. I was looking at the relationship between sunshine hours and monthly av temperatures [at ONE UK site] the other night, at first glance it seems that there is quite a good relationship in the summer months eg july august r2~.4/.5 which becomes pretty weak (r2 .05/.02) in the winter months with generally a negative slope (clear nights?). These ‘bright sunshine hours’ seem have increased by about 25% since their low in the mid/late 1960’s -I am not quite sure,yet, what the ‘hours’ are ie whether they represent Campbell-Stokes hours or what. But Ive also just noticed that the metoffice now has some station data on its site that includes ss hours and that Armagh has some data too, to play with.
    It would be interesting to know:

    1]Whether the US or anywhere else has experienced an increase in ‘bright’ sunshine hours.
    2]If such increase has been foretold by the climate models?

    Chas

  475. Dan Scoledge
    Posted Oct 9, 2007 at 4:01 PM | Permalink

    I believe that Unthreaded is for off topic issues. I hope non technical is ok.

    Lawrence Lessig has been instrumental in trying to stop the extension of Copyright laws. Bio

    He has recenly changed his area of interest to Fighting Government Corruption. And he points to the Government not accepting Gore’s movie as one of the reason for taking on this issue.

    He has started a Wiki on this topic and he has a section on Science/Climate Change. There are some entries that have what I now know is false info about this being the warming period in 1000 years. I was about to do some editing but I realized that I’d just be citing you guys here.

    I was wondering if someone here that can actually cite links to the actual evidence could go over and do some editing.

  476. Chas
    Posted Oct 9, 2007 at 4:08 PM | Permalink

    Further to #481 the UK metoffice historic station data page is here:

    http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climate/uk/stationdata/index.html

  477. jae
    Posted Oct 9, 2007 at 4:59 PM | Permalink

    481, CHAS: You might be interested in these relationships between solar energy at the surface and temperature.

  478. steven mosher
    Posted Oct 9, 2007 at 5:03 PM | Permalink

    Did Gore win a No Bell peace prize?

    I thought he was up for the Art Bell science prize?

  479. Sam Urbinto
    Posted Oct 9, 2007 at 5:41 PM | Permalink

    I think maybe he got the Taco Bell prize.

  480. Philip_B
    Posted Oct 9, 2007 at 6:25 PM | Permalink

    Re: #420

    You have the answer to where the 2.5C and range of 1.5 to 4.5C sensitivity comes from. These are the value ranges required to make the GCM models work.

    Re #481 Jonathan Lowe at Gust of Hot Air has many analyses that show increasing Australian temps result from increased daytime warming.

  481. Posted Oct 9, 2007 at 7:12 PM | Permalink

    Again, to get 2.5 °C by doubling atmospheric CO2 we need the value of “a”… But, what’s “a” and what its units are?

    Steve McIntyre,

    You can see now how it is difficult to find a trustworthy peer reviewed paper on the stuff “2.5 °C by doubling CO2”? If no person dares to give openly a conceptual definition of “a” and its real magnitude… ;)

  482. Larry
    Posted Oct 9, 2007 at 7:23 PM | Permalink

    Nasif….It’s an empirical constant. And it’s in degrees C (since the log is dimensionless). And it’s not guaranteed to produce 2.5.

  483. Follow the Money
    Posted Oct 9, 2007 at 8:15 PM | Permalink

    Mulholland,#428 re: my #420

    Thank you for that link to “SAR.” I checked, no “2.5” in there, but that publication is more of a “summary” although it is titled “Assessment”. It is like the “Synthesis” publications at TAR. See:

    http://www.ipcc.ch/pub/reports.htm

    What I was skimming was the 572 page “Climate Change 1995: The Science of Climate Change” publication coming under the “Second Assessment” of 1995. You’ll see at the IPCC site this publication is not available online. To repeat for others, I found no 2.5/CO2 doubling lore in it, but could have missed it with my eyeballing of the text.
    ______________________
    Phillip B, #487

    You have the answer to where the 2.5C and range of 1.5 to 4.5C sensitivity comes from. These are the value ranges required to make the GCM models work.

    I believe so. According to 1AR 2.5C is chosen “for the purpose of illustrating IPCC Scenarios”. However a calibration compromise has evolved into a scientific “fact” that doubling= +2.5C.

    Regarding the “value ranges required to make the GCM models work” I hope you might elaborate a little for this non-scientist…my confusion is why is a doubling assumption necessary for these models? I assume the models contain considerations of CO emissivity and other thermal considerations, why have a separate doubling assumption plugged into the models? Isn’t it in effect a redundancy? Would these models produce different results if the doubling function was omitted, or would they not work at all?

  484. Philip_B
    Posted Oct 9, 2007 at 9:29 PM | Permalink

    why is a doubling assumption necessary for these models?

    The assumption in the GCMs is that the climate has a sensitivity to increasing COO levels. The sensitivity may comprise a direct COO effect and feedbacks, but the result is the same. I can’t speak to the internals of any particular model or how the CO2 sensitivity is implemented in the models. I was just highlighting that the IPCC itself says the 2.5C sensitivity and range comes from the models. I’d suggest that sensitivities below the lower range value result in nothing to worry about scenarios. While those above the upper range value spiral (in the models) into runaway warming (or cooling) too quickly to do anything about it. ‘There is nothing to worry about’ and ‘there is nothing we can do’, weren’t on the IPCC’s policy agenda, hence the sensitivity range.

    I don’t think the models have assumptions about doubling or any other level of COO, although certain scenarios (model runs) may/do. The significance of doubling is that it provides sufficient time for suitably catastrophic effects and for mitigations to have some impact.

  485. Dave Dardinger
    Posted Oct 9, 2007 at 9:57 PM | Permalink

    re: #152 Willis,

    posts with significant scientific content, or serious scientific questions, are never snipped.

    Now let’s not get too obsequeous. Steve M does snip posts with scientific content or questions if he doesn’t feel competent to moderate the resulting arguments correctly. Hence the ban on thermodynamics, and some other things. But he’s up-front about those and admits his limitations.

  486. Sam Urbinto
    Posted Oct 9, 2007 at 11:46 PM | Permalink

    I think already showed how to get 2.5 C for a doubling. (Or any other meaningless capricious arbitrary number of some idea of a unified global mean for something for that matter).

    1) Pick a time period of X rise in CO2 (aka “Carbon Dioxide, Oxygen Carbon Oxygen, OCO, COO, et al”) (What year what that paper?)
    2) Postulate a lag of Y years from that rise due to oceans and pollution and UHI and etc
    3) Go get the trend from something like GHCN-ERSST or HadCRUT2v for Y years away for Z years from that which fits X
    4) Take your pick of
    a) Find a friendly journal with some buddies to peer review your paper full of equations that are under virulent opinion-based debates, put into terms of un-intelligable circular language, that’s ill-defined, and pubish it under closed doors after it’s too late to change it or effectivly oppose it
    b) Develop a model that results in the answer you want from your inputs, making assumptions that can neither be proven nor disproven by any objective standard
    c) Adjust results, refusing to give out the code that gets you the results you want, changing things as you go along with no audit trail, over 3-10 steps that are not clearly defined anywhere in any level of detail, on sites you control
    d) Point to the melting icebergs and sea ice, satellite readings, polar bears dying, species migration and ice-albedo cloud cover warm sea cold sea CO2 absorbtion GHG forcings. Water-vapor is not a feedback as validation of your findings, but you don’t understand the subject, it all supports my contentions I’m right you’re an idiot. Yes, I just answered all your questions. Bye.
    e) Repeat after the rest: We’re the United Nations, and we are neutral, just RTFR/Letter/Study/Report/Essay/Op-Ed and don’t listen to them they are biased and not only in the pay of the oil companies, politically motivated, wrong, stupid and all of the above.

    But hey, it’s Climate Science.

  487. Andrey Levin
    Posted Oct 10, 2007 at 3:38 AM | Permalink

    Money well spent:

    “Department of Energy (DOE) awarded the first three large-scale carbon sequestration projects in the United States and the largest single set in the world to date. The three projects … will conduct large volume tests for the storage of one million or more tons of carbon dioxide (CO2) in deep saline reservoirs. DOE plans to invest $197 million over ten years, subject to annual appropriations from Congress, for the projects, whose estimated value including partnership cost share is $318 million.”

    http://www.fossil.energy.gov/news/techlines/2007/07072-DOE_Awards_Sequestration_Projects.html

  488. Andrey Levin
    Posted Oct 10, 2007 at 5:19 AM | Permalink

    Re#496

    Call it beef, ham, or pork, but St. Albert made 100 million after he left the office:

    http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/story?id=3281925

    http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=22663

    Last week he has presentation of updated version of his “truth” in my Vancouver, and snipped 1500 tickets for 500 dollars each.

  489. TonyN
    Posted Oct 10, 2007 at 5:30 AM | Permalink

    Re #449 and #461

    If teachers are forced to comply with the New Party’s suggestions and warn pupils about the 11 inaccuracies in AIT, then releasing 3500 copies of this shoddy little shocker to schools would have a diametrically opposite effect to the one that the government intended. Instead of it indoctrinating kids as true warmers, it would teach them not to take what they see and hear about AGW at face value. In other words it would teach them to be skeptical of the climate change consensus. I wonder how many teachers would prefer not to use the film at all?

    Somehow I don’t think that any of this is going to happen. It’s just too good to be true.

  490. Mark T.
    Posted Oct 10, 2007 at 9:02 AM | Permalink

    Nasif….It’s an empirical constant. And it’s in degrees C (since the log is dimensionless). And it’s not guaranteed to produce 2.5.

    Somehow I get the feeling the value for a is “whatever it takes to get the answer in the back of the book.”

    Mark

  491. Hoi Polloi
    Posted Oct 10, 2007 at 9:59 AM | Permalink

    Nobel horror scenario:

    Al Gore tipped to win Nobel…

    http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article2603982.ece

  492. Larry
    Posted Oct 10, 2007 at 10:11 AM | Permalink

    Nasif, Mark, and everyone else, empirical constants in semi-theoretical formulae (such as the Arrhenius equation) are common in physical chemistry. It’s not phony handwaving, it’s the only way to grapple certain types of problems for the time being. Go study up on p-chem, and you’ll see that that’s the way it’s done for the time being. The only alternative is models, where they’re making slow but steady progress.

    These relationships aren’t rigorous, they’re just a somewhat more intelligent way of fitting data than something totally blind, like a polynomial.

  493. Gunnar
    Posted Oct 10, 2007 at 10:51 AM | Permalink

    >> These relationships aren’t rigorous, they’re just a somewhat more intelligent way of fitting data than something totally blind, like a polynomial.

    I’m glad to see this written. I think this confirms my points on this matter, and I think it’s the first time on this blog that it’s been admitted to. Therefore, a derivation of this equation from first principles is impossible. I also agree with you Larry that the mere presence of an empirical constant does not imply “phony hand waving”.

  494. Posted Oct 10, 2007 at 11:02 AM | Permalink

    # 500

    Larry,

    Models are based on those formulas, so we can deduce that models are as right or as wrong as those parameters are. The parameter “a” or alpha takes ad arbitrium values as author’s wills. I don’t think there are not other ways for obtaining real values from observational and empirical researches. For example, if we wish to know the load of heat transferred from A to B we can make use of well know formulas that have been tested as reliable formalizations. There are trustworthy formulas for conduction, convection and radiation. Why to make our works using idealized formulas and parameters? For example, the parameter “a” changes as I change my socks and the assigned units not always are °C. Many authors use W/m^2 like the units for “a”, and many others do not use any units. Let’s examine the called “Arrhenius’ Formula”:

    Delta T = a (Ln[2 CO2 /CO2 standard]) / 4 (sigma) (Tsta) ^3

    With units:

    K = W/m^2 (Ln[2 (ppmv)/(ppmv)] / 4 (W/m^2*K^4) (K^3)

    If we assign °C or K to “a”, we would get something wrong:

    K = K (Ln [2 (ppmv) / (ppmv)] / 4 (W/m^2*K^4) (K^3)

    Delta T = W/m^2?

  495. Michael Jankowski
    Posted Oct 10, 2007 at 11:15 AM | Permalink

    Obviously, the models are wired such that we knew what the answer would be, but there’s an interesting conclusion…

    http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071010/ap_on_sc/global_warming_humidity

    “…Gillett studied changes in specific humidity, which is a measurement of total moisture in the air, between 1973-2002…

    …To show that this is man-made, Gillett ran computer models to simulate past climate conditions…

    …He looked at what would happen from just man-made greenhouse gases. That didn’t match either. Then he looked at the combination of natural conditions and greenhouse gases. The results were nearly identical to the year-by-year increases in humidity…”

    So even under the circumstances where the model assumptions of input would generate the obvious type of results, “natural conditions” still contributed substantially to climate change between 1973 and 2002 according to the authors. Yet the “consensus” says natural variability is a token player.

  496. Larry
    Posted Oct 10, 2007 at 11:16 AM | Permalink

    Gunnar, I think you get the idea. Nasif, I don’t think you quite do. You can make a long list of approximations to get the form of the equation, and still use empiricism to get the values of the constants. You end up lumping a lot of ignorance into the constants, but since there is some theoretical basis for saying that the nature of the relationship is logarithmic, that’s better than saying that temperature is proportional to concentration, or that it’s a quadratic. It’s not rigorous, though. It’s simply the best that they knew how to do in closed analytical form in the 20th century.

    One growing area of physical chemistry right now is modeling molecular dynamics, which promises to give is really good tools for predicting chemical phenomena, which we couldn’t do before. But the atmosphere is yet another can of worms. There’s more than just molecular dynamics going on there.

  497. Posted Oct 10, 2007 at 11:42 AM | Permalink

    # 503

    Larry,

    The problem is not my ignorance on constants; the problem is how many people play with units and magnitudes. The formula that I included like an example was developed by Myhre et al this year. This doesn’t mean that I agree with it. I prefer to work with not idealized formulas, magnitudes, units, etc. But well know and established algorithms.

  498. Gunnar
    Posted Oct 10, 2007 at 11:45 AM | Permalink

    Yes, Larry, thanks to your #499, I’m a lot clearer about this.

    Nasif, I’m not saying that I necessarily agree with the form of the Arrhenius equation, but I don’t think it’s valid to argue that the mere presence of an empirical constant is a sign of “phony handwaving”. For example, Newtons law of gravitation has a big ole constant that I believe was determined empirically. I guess one could say that it’s a “semi-theoretical formulae”.

  499. Larry
    Posted Oct 10, 2007 at 11:49 AM | Permalink

    Nasif, all I’m saying is that it’s not an illegitimate approach to certain classes of problems. Yes, it’s not rigorous, and yes, it can be manipulated. We just all need to realize that. But it’s not an inherently wrong approach, it’s just an inherently limited approach.

  500. Mark T.
    Posted Oct 10, 2007 at 11:59 AM | Permalink

    Nasif, Mark, and everyone else, empirical constants in semi-theoretical formulae (such as the Arrhenius equation) are common in physical chemistry. It’s not phony handwaving, it’s the only way to grapple certain types of problems for the time being.

    I realize this, and agree with you. However, what I was getting at was more an implication that “tweaking” in the models to arrive at the value for a is more likely how it was derived than an empirical solution. The empirical solution would imply extensive testing to determine a, but given that the correlation between CO2 and temperature is, shall we say, weak at best (indeed, sometimes it is an inverse relationship), such testing is not really feasible.

    Mark

  501. Posted Oct 10, 2007 at 12:13 PM | Permalink

    # 505, # 506

    I still think they chose that formula for its susceptibility to be manipulated ad arbitrium and so they could back their campaign with something that seems to be a “scientific approach”. If not, why AGWists don’t use the formula derived from Prevost Law? I don’t think they have not other resources to get a not spurious, damaged, etc. result. If I have those consistent resources, why AGWists don’t?

  502. Posted Oct 10, 2007 at 12:28 PM | Permalink

    # 505, # 506, # 508

    Mark T, Larry, Gunnar,

    My last assumption would be that they are acting on ignorance, as Larry and Gunnar think; however, why they defend their ignorance piling more falsehood on the same background? For example, they have declared 2007 has had an unusual number of hurricanes; they say 2007 has been as warm as 1998; they say that mosquitoes don’t live in cold regions; they dismiss the recovery of the Antarctic ice cape; they say that the errors from surface stations are negligible; etc. I don’t only lump on ignorance about constants, but of lies. As I said before, it’s not a matter of ignorance, but of pseudoscience.

  503. Mark T.
    Posted Oct 10, 2007 at 12:47 PM | Permalink

    Can’t disagree with that, either. Plenty of mosquitoes in CO, btw, even in the mountains. However, they seem to be fairly lethargic, a trait I have always attributed to the altitude, not the cold. :)

    Mark

  504. Larry
    Posted Oct 10, 2007 at 1:02 PM | Permalink

    Gunnar and Nasif – I think that what’s bothering you is the fact that if you start out with something with empirically adjustable constants, that it can be abused. No doubt about it. An AGW proponent, can, with a completely straight face, plot temperature rise v.s. CO2 rise, and then arrive at a climate sensitivity number. The problem isn’t with the equation, the problem is with the built-in assumption, that it’s CO2 that’s (in part, or totally) causing the temperature rise. It’s not that it’s illegitimate to try to find a way to fit data to the constant, it’s that it’s illegitimate to attribute it arbitrarily (in part or totally) to CO2 without a good reason. And the attribution that they did in the IPCC reports is pretty weak.

  505. Larry
    Posted Oct 10, 2007 at 1:04 PM | Permalink

    Mark, one of many Alaskan jokes is that the state bird is the mosquito. In the summer, they’re thick in the tundra. No peace for the carribou.

    So no, I don’t think the mosquito is exclusively a tropical beast.

  506. Gunnar
    Posted Oct 10, 2007 at 1:07 PM | Permalink

    >> acting on ignorance, as Larry and Gunnar think

    No, I agree with you that they have an emotionally driven agenda.

    >> but given that the correlation between CO2 and temperature is, shall we say, weak at best (indeed, sometimes it is an inverse relationship), such testing is not really feasible.

    No, it’s feasible, it just means that the proposed equation is invalid, as was pointed out 100 years ago.

  507. UK John
    Posted Oct 10, 2007 at 1:28 PM | Permalink

    #481, 484, 484, Chas, The sunshine hours in the UK statistics are recorded on only two types of equipment.

    One is the older Campbell-Stokes instrument the newer one is a Kipp and Zonen sensor, all values are converted to “Campbell-Stokes equivalent” by using conversion factors obtained from:-

    Kerr A, Tabony R. 2004. Comparison of sunshine recorded by Campbell-Stokes and automatic sensors. Weather 59: 90-95.

    The Met office tell me they are trying to improve this conversion.

  508. Stephen Richards
    Posted Oct 10, 2007 at 1:30 PM | Permalink

    I’m notg sure if I have remembered exactly the points I make here but here goes. I work for some years on the accelerated ageing and therefore reliability of semiconductors. I was testing and analysing for a mean time to failure(MTTF) of 25 years. One of my analytical techniques was the use of Arrhenius’ equation(s). The data, from the accelerated ageing process, were plugged into the equation and the results plotted. The slope(s) of the graph gave the energy of the failure mechanism(s) but not the cause and not the mechanism, but I coud determine from these the MMTF. 2 different slopes, 2 different mechanisms. I have to say that it sounds a bit like climate analysis. What I could never do when reporting to my client was to take leaps of faith beyond the almost indefinite results. Confidence levels were vital and their derivations. The ‘constant of proportionality ‘ was ignored.
    Hope I’m not repeating you

    Stephen

  509. SteveSadlov
    Posted Oct 10, 2007 at 1:56 PM | Permalink

    RE: #494 – So long as sequestration would be done in a way so as to produce oil or coal, and would require less energy than the resulting compounds’ BTU content, then I say, go for it. Otherwise, I say, nuts!

  510. Chas
    Posted Oct 10, 2007 at 2:59 PM | Permalink

    Re #515 UKJohn,thanks. I hadn’t realised that some of the Campbell-Stokes hours weren’t the real thing – I suppose now that meteorologists have restyled themselves as climatologists there is no-one about who is willing to go outside to change the cards.
    Regarding ‘other places’ and sunshine, there is an interesting paper on the Armagh records that shows a declining sunshine-hours trend (and an interesting temperature history!):

    http://www.arm.ac.uk/preprints/2007/494.doc

  511. David H
    Posted Oct 10, 2007 at 3:21 PM | Permalink

    I am not sure if this is right thread for this but we can now add £200,000 to the cost to taxpayers of AGW in the UK:

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/education/7037671.stm

  512. Mark T.
    Posted Oct 10, 2007 at 3:23 PM | Permalink

    No, it’s feasible, it just means that the proposed equation is invalid, as was pointed out 100 years ago.

    The infeasibility I was referring to is that there is no way to empirically tinker with the atmosphere, holding all other variables constant, to determine some direct relationship. Clearly the relationship indicates non-linearities, otherwise we’d _always_ see a rise in temp with rising CO2, which is not the case.

    Mark

  513. Hasse@Norway
    Posted Oct 10, 2007 at 4:29 PM | Permalink

    More breaking and ground shattering news being reported up in Norway!!

    Research done by Corinne Le Quere, shows that the CO2 content in the southern oceans has not increased in a period of from 1981 to 2004. This can only mean that the oceans has been saturated.

    Uhm, Has this lady heard of Henry’s law??

    http://environment.newscientist.com/article/dn11876-southern-ocean-already-losing-ability-to-absorb-cosub2sub.html

  514. jae
    Posted Oct 10, 2007 at 4:51 PM | Permalink

    510, 511, 513: Related article.

  515. Larry
    Posted Oct 10, 2007 at 4:57 PM | Permalink

    524, never mind Henry’s law, has she ever heard of Fick’s law? It’s news to me that churning reduces mass transfer coefficients.

  516. DeWitt Payne
    Posted Oct 10, 2007 at 5:42 PM | Permalink

    Re: #501

    Nasif,

    The constant a does have the units W/m^2. The equation is for empirically determining the forcing at the tropopause, not the change in temperature. Then you have to use a climate sensitivity factor or model to convert the forcing to a delta T.

  517. Larry
    Posted Oct 10, 2007 at 5:54 PM | Permalink

    524, the only reference to the Arrhenius relationship that I’ve found is here:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Svante_Arrhenius#Greenhouse_effect_as_cause_for_ice_ages

    While it’s a little vague, it seems to be expressing it in degrees, rather than w/m2. As you say the two should be interconvertable, but Arrhenius was clearly talking about temperature effect. And I also doubt that he was considering feedback effects. I think he was just talking about greenhouse effect alone.

  518. Posted Oct 10, 2007 at 7:11 PM | Permalink

    In case this hasnt been posted ( link )

  519. Posted Oct 10, 2007 at 7:21 PM | Permalink

    My apology if this kangaroo story has already been linked ( link ). I didn’t realize that ‘roo poots were so wicked.

  520. Posted Oct 10, 2007 at 9:03 PM | Permalink

    From an Australian blog site:

    I was born in Feb 1955 in the middle of the worst flood in 150 years in our region. The previous worst flood in 150 years was in 1948. By the time I turned 12 we were in the middle of the worst drought in 150 years in our region since 1934. By the time I turned 18 we had snow falling in our coastal city, unheard-of in history since 1959. When I was 19 we suffered the first cyclone in history since 1938, which sent a large ship aground and trashed half the city (previous unheard-of cyclones wrecked about 112 ships over 100 years according to maritime records). In 1989 we had a deadly earthquake, the first in history since 1926, and 1886 before that.

    Climate does weird things all the time. People need to get used to it, especially if they live past the age of 20.

  521. Chas
    Posted Oct 10, 2007 at 11:59 PM | Permalink

    483,Jae,thanks, is it possible that temperature is explaining the absolute humidity (as warmer air can hold more moisture) or does that not matter?

  522. VG
    Posted Oct 11, 2007 at 1:01 AM | Permalink

    Seems that a significant blow to the Al Gore An Inconvenient Truth: Most major networks are reporting the errors in the film as determined by a British court see BBC film

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/education/7037671.stm

    This could lead to a significant reversal? Especially when people start delving into the data!

  523. PaulM
    Posted Oct 11, 2007 at 3:03 AM | Permalink

    Al gored by UK judge

    The top story on last nights BBC news was the criticism of Al Gore’s ‘Inconvenient truth’ by a British judge (link given by David H in #519 above). The case was brought by a School Governor following the governments decision to send a copy of the film to all secondary schools. Judge Michael Burton said the film was alarmist and contained nine significant errors. His ruling was that it could still be shown in schools, provided it was accompanied by guidance notes to balance Gore’s one-sided views.

    See also the article in The Times here

  524. Filippo Turturici
    Posted Oct 11, 2007 at 5:26 AM | Permalink

    #531: Paul, I knew about 11 errors: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2007/10/09/court-identifies-eleven-inaccuracies-al-gore-s-inconvenient-truth
    Another error could be top10 warmest years of USA, but this was discovered after the film was made.

  525. Filippo Turturici
    Posted Oct 11, 2007 at 5:31 AM | Permalink

    #531: Paul, I knew about 11 errors: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2007/10/09/court-identifies-eleven-inaccuracies-al-gore-s-inconvenient-truth
    Another error could be top10 warmest years of USA, but this was discovered after the film was made.

    Well, at least 11 errors, all very important, enough to demolish the entire documentary (above all CO2 vs. temperature historical graph), and recognised a scientific expert from UK government (this one, Hadley Centre, MetOffice and Royal Society are all strongly involved in pro-AGW scientifical research but also propaganda, so Al Gore cannot say it was made by his enviromental enemies).

  526. py
    Posted Oct 11, 2007 at 5:44 AM | Permalink

    #533: I wonder whom the scientific expert that represented the government was?

  527. Michael Jankowski
    Posted Oct 11, 2007 at 6:06 AM | Permalink

    Wow #527, a scientist says, “Kangaroos do not emit greenhouse gases.” I had no idea their respiratory system was so different from other animals!

  528. jae
    Posted Oct 11, 2007 at 6:58 AM | Permalink

    529, Chas: Yes you are correct. The solar energy received by the surface goes into evaporating water, as long as sufficient water is available. That is why the correlation between December temperature and absolute humidity is nearly perfect–there is always enough water available in December at all 134 locations. However, in July little water is available in the West, especially in the desert Southwest (where there is very little vegetation to interfere with absorption by the surface). In those areas the energy just heats up the surface. Evidently, this type of heating produces higher average temperatures than in those areas where there is adequate water. This could be due to cloud formation, or to the heat of vaporization or to increased convection caused by the lighter water molecules. Or all the above. If I include arbitrary “weighting factors” to account for surface dryness and absorbtivity, I can improve the correlation greatly. I will show that at some point.

  529. Reference
    Posted Oct 11, 2007 at 7:29 AM | Permalink

    A Cool Look at Global Warming 2 October 2007 (audio lecture 71 mins) Professor Philip Stott & Lord Lawson – lucid overview of science, politics and economics

  530. Gunnar
    Posted Oct 11, 2007 at 7:53 AM | Permalink

    >> Evidently, this type of heating produces higher average temperatures than in those areas where there is adequate water

    Jae, isn’t the most obvious reason the phenomena itself? That is, if the energy went into evaporating water, it is not available for heating, thus lower temperatures?

  531. Gunnar
    Posted Oct 11, 2007 at 7:57 AM | Permalink

    >> Interesting comment. In what way wrong?

    John Baltutis, Larry was being sarcastic, making fun of the view that insists on a purist view of scientific rigour.

  532. steven mosher
    Posted Oct 11, 2007 at 8:43 AM | Permalink

    Gunnar. If the Russians try to protect or claim copyrights on Tree ring data they will run smack
    into Feist.

    Facts are considered synonymous to “ideas” or “discoveries” under this law and are not copyrightable. By extension, a compilation of uncopyrightable facts is also uncopyrightable. However, § 103 of the Copyright Act allows for the protection of “compilations,” provided there is an “creative” or “original” act involved in such a compilation, such as in the selection (deciding which things to include or exclude), and arrangement (how they are shown and in what order). The protection is limited only to the selection and arrangement, not to the facts themselves, which may be freely copied.

    The Supreme Court decision in Feist v. Rural further made clear the requirements that a compilation be original in its composition, in denying protection to telephone “white pages”. The Feist court rejected what was known as the “sweat of the brow” doctrine, in ruling that no matter how much work was necessary to create a compilation, a non-selective collection of facts ordered in a non-creative way is not subject to copyright protection.

    Steve Mc:
    No more discussion of copyright please, which are IMO remote from any of the issues raised in this thread. I l;et this one pass only because it made reference to a decision. Gunnar, if you cannot control yourself and the urge to reply is uncontrollable, do so on Unthreaded, but I’d prefer to terminate this discussion of copyright and tree ring data.

  533. Larry
    Posted Oct 11, 2007 at 8:50 AM | Permalink

    531, 540, technically all Newtonian physics is wrong. It may be wrong in the tenth or twentieth or thirtieth digit, but it’s wrong. There is no situation where it’s exactly correct. It’s just close enough for engineering. And Gunnar is correct, the point is that none of these radiative relationships are exact, and all of them have some adjustable slop in them. You have to decide if that’s good enough based on what you’re trying to do.

    Completely rigorous and exact solutions in climate science aren’t even on the horizon.

  534. steven mosher
    Posted Oct 11, 2007 at 8:56 AM | Permalink

    Tree rings and ringing Phones.

    A tree ring series is a compilation of facts. A collection site. A tree species. and a
    compilation of facts ordered in a standard fashion. ( early wood, late wood,, etc )

    the supreme court on copyrighting facts and compilations of facts.

    http://www.law.cornell.edu/copyright/cases/499_US_340.htm

  535. Gunnar
    Posted Oct 11, 2007 at 8:59 AM | Permalink

    >> Facts are considered synonymous to “ideas” or “discoveries” under this law and are not copyrightable. By extension, a compilation of uncopyrightable facts is also uncopyrightable.

    I told Steve M I would give IP a rest, but I think he would understand answering a direct question. You’re right that the facts themselves are not protectable. It’s the expression of those facts. You are free to gather the facts yourself. Your second statement is a non sequiter, since all facts are uncopyrightable. In fact, all ideas, no matter how creative, are also unprotectable. However, believe me, encylopedias, dictionaries and all non fiction books are quite copyrighted.

    >> not to the facts themselves, which may be freely copied

    non sequiter, since a fact can’t be copied, it’s an abstract concept. If there is “copying” involved, it’s an expression of a fact.

    >> Feist v. Rural

    That decision did rule a phonebook was not copyrighted, but, even that decision said that all other compilations are covered, limiting the scope of that decision. Irregardless, congress promptly responded by legislating that databases are protected. Thus, protection is now even stronger than normal.

    Ok, enough about IP!

  536. steven mosher
    Posted Oct 11, 2007 at 9:04 AM | Permalink

    Here Gunnar. The money quote:

    [20] This Court has long recognized that the fact-expression dichotomy limits severely the scope of protection in fact-based works. More than a century ago, the Court observed: “The very object of publishing a book on science or the useful arts is to communicate to the world the useful knowledge which it contains. But this object would be frustrated if the knowledge could not be used without incurring the guilt of piracy of the book.” Baker v. Selden, 101 U.S. 99, 103 (1880). We reiterated this point in Harper & Row:

    “No author may copyright facts or ideas. The copyright is limited to those aspects of the work — termed ‘expression’ — that display the stamp of the author’s originality.

    “Copyright does not prevent subsequent users from copying from a prior author’s work those constituent elements that are not original — for example . . . facts, or materials in the public domain — as long as such use does not unfairly appropriate the author’s original contributions.” 471 U.S., at 547-548 (citation omitted).

    [21] This, then, resolves the doctrinal tension: Copyright treats facts and factual compilations in a wholly consistent manner. Facts, whether alone or as part of a compilation, are not original and therefore may not be copyrighted. A factual compilation is eligible for copyright if it features an original selection or arrangement of facts, but the copyright is limited to [p*351] the particular selection or arrangement. In no event may copyright extend to the facts themselves.

    There is nothing Original in the selection of tree ring data. One trusts they used accepted scientific
    principles in selecting the actual trees. There is nothing Orginal is the data collected. It’s tree
    ring science. Nothig Original in the order of presentation. Tree species, date, early wood thickness,
    late wood thickness.

  537. steven mosher
    Posted Oct 11, 2007 at 9:12 AM | Permalink

    Ok Gunnar. Peace on this thread. St.Mc is right. unthreaded or nowhere. ok?

  538. Larry
    Posted Oct 11, 2007 at 9:14 AM | Permalink

    Hey. Both of you guys. Put down the IP discussion, or I’ll go off on a tangent about how MoveOn is suing anyone spoofing their trademarked logo.

  539. jae
    Posted Oct 11, 2007 at 9:26 AM | Permalink

    539: Exactly, Gunnar. I think that’s the main reason for a negative feedback from water vapor. This idea of radiative forcing by greenhouse gases (at least water) is very questionable to me.

  540. jae
    Posted Oct 11, 2007 at 9:28 AM | Permalink

    technically all Newtonian physics is wrong

    Isn’t it correct under certain circumstances?

  541. DeWitt Payne
    Posted Oct 11, 2007 at 9:31 AM | Permalink

    Completely rigorous and exact solutions in climate science aren’t even on the horizon.

    Indeed. If I read Gerald Browning correctly, they aren’t even in the realm of the possible.

  542. Webbo
    Posted Oct 11, 2007 at 9:50 AM | Permalink

    Gunnar,

    Your error is that you keep refering to databases without understanding the differences between a protected database and an unprotected database.

    Arguably the strongest international copyright is that defined by the Berne Convention. As you are refering to automatic copyrights I pressume this is the one you are refering to.

    A database under this protection requires creativity in the selection and arrangement, and cannot be covered if it is complete. I would assume the tree ring data is specificaly intended to be complete.

    Unless you are aware of any Russian legislature that extends these rights to cover complete data, it is not covered under Berne. It would be a surprise if you were able to find such legislature as the Russians initialy refused to sigh up to Berne as they believed it benefited richer western nations that were “data exporters”, and they therefore initialy rejected the notion of extensive automatic copyrights.

    Incidently there is an EU directive which does cover complete databases as long as there has been substantial investment in the compilation of the data. Moberg (as a member of the EU I pressume) would be covered by this if he owned the data. But even this directive has the following limitation (if adopted by the member state);

    “extraction for the purposes of illustration for teaching or scientific research, as long as the source is indicated and to the extent justified by the non-commercial purpose to be achieved”

    So even this most dracoian of copyright legislature specificaly provides for scientific use.

  543. Larry
    Posted Oct 11, 2007 at 9:57 AM | Permalink

    Here we go again…

  544. Gunnar
    Posted Oct 11, 2007 at 10:10 AM | Permalink

    Steve M, please note that I’m giving it a rest, but others aren’t.

    >> “extraction for the purposes of illustration for teaching or scientific research

    Right, that’s item C, which I’ve clearly pointed out is “fair use”. Publication is not fair use. The tree ring data is certainly not “complete”. Originator citizenship is irrelevant, only the location of the publication. The web makes this last point somewhat moot/murky. To illustrate further, the text of US laws are public domain, but the printer has copyrighted the page numbers. I think folks in this thread would be surprised at how low the threshold for “originality” is. Enough said!

  545. Posted Oct 11, 2007 at 10:13 AM | Permalink

    Kangaroos do not emit greenhouse gases. They are not hooved animals either so they don’t damage the soil,” Dr Diesendorf said

    Holy Puffs! Kangaroos gasp in bags.

  546. Webbo
    Posted Oct 11, 2007 at 10:15 AM | Permalink

    My understanding is that the data is restricted by policy not by law.

    Anything contrary to AGW is restricted by default isn’t it?

    It shouldn’t be the case in science but this all went far beyond science years ago.

  547. Posted Oct 11, 2007 at 10:31 AM | Permalink

    Yesterday, we sustained here a “polynomial” dialogue about the concept “a”; however, I don’t know yet what’s the definition of “a”. If it is expressed in °C, it is temperature. If it is expressed in W/m^2, as physic chemistry says, then it is a kind of Flux. If it is the latter, then the value of “a” must be expressed in W/m^2 and it is equal to F0, but noted with another letter (“a”), as authors on “thermo” say. If F0 is the concept, then “a” = F0 = W/m^2, and if “a” is F0, we can reach to a valid and precise physical figure, based on experimentation-observation.

  548. Steve McIntyre
    Posted Oct 11, 2007 at 1:07 PM | Permalink

    test

  549. Larry
    Posted Oct 11, 2007 at 1:09 PM | Permalink

    Yes, we’re back. Maybe that ping thing knocked the blog offline.

    Steve: I re-booted the server, which I can do from here. WordPress seems to get stuck every so far often and has to be re-booted. Email me or Anthony if you notice that it’s gotten stuck.

  550. Follow the Money
    Posted Oct 11, 2007 at 1:46 PM | Permalink

    “”Well, at least 11 errors, all very important, enough to demolish the entire documentary (above all CO2 vs. temperature historical graph),””

    The ice core graph was a complete lie. It was posed to show Co2 increase causes temp increase. The only reason I think they used it is because of the visual power of a hockey stick graph.

    Now technically, if one looks closely, Gore says in the film the relationship is “complex” or “complicated.” This is standard warmer rhetoric when faced contrary facts, pose their side as clear, contrary findings “complicated.” INdeed, this makes Gore’s use of the graph even more insidious because he can’t claim ignorance of the meaing of the graph. He used it for his visual power, and gave is a 180 degree spin.

  551. UK John
    Posted Oct 11, 2007 at 2:09 PM | Permalink

    Al Gore !

    A quick straw poll of the office in UK (40 people) this am, revealed nobody who had heard of the court case, except me, and only one other person who had seen Al Gore’s film (it turned out he had seen “The Day after To-morrow”!). Most said who?

    Conclusion, joe public didn’t take any notice or believe Al Gore anyway, its only a few who are interested.

    Felt a bit deflated, had to book myself a holiday in Spain to cheer up! Ah well there goes my Carbon Footprint. Bring on the Sunshine!

  552. UK John
    Posted Oct 11, 2007 at 2:27 PM | Permalink

    #537 jae # 529 Chas

    One of the UK / European recent weather events that AGW Environ”mental” gang ( not Climate Scientists) always point to to indicate CO2 global warming is the summer of 2003.

    The attached study I think supports what you are saying, and also shows almost unbroken clear sky conditions as the cause of this hot, sunny and dry summer. (I enjoyed it, while it was here, the previous one like it was in 1976!)

    http://www.met.reading.ac.uk/~swrmethn/summer2003/heatwave2003_reading_incfigs.pdf

  553. jae
    Posted Oct 11, 2007 at 2:56 PM | Permalink

    561, UK John: Thanks for that link. It describes exactly what I think happens routinely in the Desert Southwest, USA:

    Observations taken at the University of Reading indicate that the ground played an important role in the accumulation of heat during the day and its gradual release at night. This acted to offset night-time cooling driven by upward longwave radiation under clear skies, slowing the decrease in air temperature before sunrise. The impact on surface air temperature was more significant because the nocturnal boundary layer was very shallow in anticyclonic conditions. Therefore, the strong ground heat flux contributed to exceptionally warm nights, sustaining the thermal stress which led to the increased human mortality across Europe (WHO, 2003).

  554. Peter C
    Posted Oct 11, 2007 at 3:53 PM | Permalink

    An interesting article regarding a U.K. judgement and supporting legislation that officially classifies Gore’s Inconvenient Truth as political propaganda.

    For the film to be lawfully shown in school, the court ruled, government must describe the film as a political work that promotes only one side of the argument. The court further ruled that the government must advise teachers who present the film without making its political nature plain that they may be in breach of Section 406 of the Education Act and guilty of political indoctrination. Eleven inaccuracies needed to be specifically drawn to the attention of schoolchildren.

  555. Sam Urbinto
    Posted Oct 11, 2007 at 4:13 PM | Permalink

    Gunner, I don’t think Steve ever said “IP rights” don’t exist.

    Then there’s this:

    I certainly have never argued that Sidorova is actually reserving his/her rights or that he/she should. That Sidorova is reserving rights is indicated by Dr Juckes, and confirmed by Moberg.

    But you are arguing things that need to have assumptions made about, or have conclusions that aren’t really valid, perhaps not to the extent of my steps in the post at 212 about the issue. And your second two parts of that paragraph:

    1) You are assuming Sidorova and Naurzbaev are the one with the rights. You don’t know that. So the rest of this is moot.
    2) You are claiming Dr. Juckes has indicated both that he knows they are the ones with the rights and that he’s saying Sidorova is reserving those rights. This makes no sense, since he’s been talking about the data from Dr. Moberg and Dr. Moberg’s request to not publicly archive data.
    3) You are claiming Dr. Moberg’s reply’s to Steve confirms this, when in fact, Dr. Moberg’s first reply disproves it. He makes it clear he is asking this and explains why. He doesn’t even really talk about Sidorova and Naurzbaev at all!

    How can you turn

    “It is simply in courtesy of the original authors of the Indigirka series that I ask users of the data file not to publish their data.”

    “Yes, this is all I am saying,” (‘it has not been publicly archived’)

    “I simply ask users of the data to not publish them. My opinion is that it is best if the original authors (of any series) publish the data themselves. If they have reasons for not doing so, I think users of their data should respect this.”

    into Dr. Moberg confirming anything about Sidorova and Naurzbaev, even if Dr. Juckes had been refering to anything other than the data Dr. Moberg has. Are you confused about Dr. Moberg using “publish” and “publicly archive” interchangably? Is that what this is?

    The second reply from Dr. Moberg makes it even more clear, as well as supporting Steve’s assessment of the situation. So is Dr. Moberg confirming something meaningful and his telling Steve how he can use the data meaningless? Which is is, Dr. Moberg is a reference or not, you can’t have it both ways. Did you actually read his two replies to Steve?

    I don’t understand why you keep coming at this as if you know who has the rights in the first place. If you can point me to a resource that’s one thing. You’re just guessing.

    And even still, from what Steve has said, it’s almost common practice for this to happen. So even if we assume they have the rights, take a guess that they do, they may not care about the legal aspects of this, which nobody has even proven are absolute anyway. (That’s why people have to go to court over these types of things). Exhibit A: http://www.cbc.ca/arts/story/2006/03/09/da-vinci-lawsuit.html If handing around data and using it is common practice, the data itself may not even have anyone have rights over it once it’s released to the community. You don’t know that either.

    Oh, and since the data was gathered and compiled in Russia, what does Russian law say about a database with tree ring data in it? So tell me, where is the proof that a tree ring database is owned by anyone, and that those owners are Sidorova and Naurzbaev?

    Until somebody can do that, anything further said about this particular subject is meaningless.

    I don’t know how much clearer everything can get, or how much more plainly I can put it.

  556. Sam Urbinto
    Posted Oct 11, 2007 at 4:57 PM | Permalink

    § 103 of the U.S. Copyright Act wouldn’t apply in Russia (data collected and first published in a journal) or the U.K. (second journal)

    Berne’s for EU as was mentioned. I’m behind on my politics, I didn’t know they let Russia into the EU… :)

    Scientific Research includes journals I’d think.

    I think a court case on this would last a very long time.

    All meaningless. We don’t know if the data itself is ownable (I would assume Russian law would apply; it was gathered in Russia, by Russians, one would assume. Does anyone know who exactly did the field work, and who gathered and compiled the data? Are we just assuming the authors of the first paper did? I think we are. The work itself could have been done by one set of people, investigated/measuered by another set, transcribed by another, etc.

    If it is ownable, we don’t know who it is owns it; we just assume it’s the authors of the paper.

    Anyone?

    What we do know is that the person providing the data, the lead author of Moberg et al. 2002, has stated:

    I made the Indigirka available to you. My interpretation is that you (or anyone else) are allowed to do both A, B and C (as you define them in your last email).

    A) using the data in a larger composite even if the composite does not show the Indigirka data separately.
    B) showing a graphic of the data;
    C) discussing the impact of inclusion or exclusion of the data in a larger composite

    Is there anyone with any proof that he actually isn’t the “owner” of the data? (If anyone at all owns it, which hasn’t been proven either.)

  557. SteveSadlov
    Posted Oct 11, 2007 at 5:05 PM | Permalink

    In a “normal” year, the October pattern on the W. Coast of the US would have some rain in Or and Wa and mostly dry in Ca especially south of about 40 N. By month end, a few weak systems would wet down the dust as far south as 36 or 37N. Only in Nov or perhaps even Dec would systems start to truly affect most of Ca. So far this season (our rainfall season is July 1 – June 30) we have had our initial weak systems in Aug and Sept. As soon as the equinox passed the storm door opened. We are now having a rather amazing October, that is reminiscent of October 2004. Oct 2004, the ski areas (at least the key ones) opened Oct 20th. Of course, after the current 2 week siege of repeated fronts, we may yet have a late Indian Summer and it will all melt away. But at this point, the only question is, will this October surpass Oct 2004, or even, Oct 1960? In any case, an incovenient truth.

  558. Sam Urbinto
    Posted Oct 11, 2007 at 5:17 PM | Permalink

    ELI is running for the ICE

    Seemingly so is Tamino.

    I wonder; raise your hands for a vote.[snip]

  559. Posted Oct 11, 2007 at 5:36 PM | Permalink

    Question: If every house, building, factory etc in the world had a sola panel on their roof for power, hot water whatever, what effect would this have on the temperature, if any? If there were 1 billion wind turbines on the planet would this have an effect on wind circulation?

  560. Sam Urbinto
    Posted Oct 11, 2007 at 5:40 PM | Permalink

    1. I don’t think it would be any different than what’s on the roof now, except we could cut fuel usage if it’s replacing energy and usage stays the same.

    2. I don’t think you can really mess up with flows by putting a blade at some altitude in the way, no matter how many there are.

    Question back: What would it do to the Earth’s carbon cycle et al to have all the cars driving around expelling water vapor instead of CO2, other GH and non-GH gasses, and pollutants?

  561. steven mosher
    Posted Oct 11, 2007 at 5:57 PM | Permalink

    RE 468.

    Every fall from now on we will be subjected to two Narratives.

    1. run for the Ice
    2. Hide from the Wind

    ( need a better title for the Hurricane theme…)

  562. tetris
    Posted Oct 11, 2007 at 5:59 PM | Permalink

    Re: 570 and 569
    I believe there is a Danish study [late 2005 or early 2006] on the effects of very large wind turbines. One of the findings was that these very tall mills had the effect of mixing the layer of air immediately above ground level with the one above. I unfortunately do not have any better refs.

  563. Sam Urbinto
    Posted Oct 11, 2007 at 6:02 PM | Permalink

    hehheh

    Turbines, what I meant is I didn’t think the blades at an altitude would mess things up. Obviously, it would have some sort of effect, but I doubt it would be very meaninful.

  564. steven mosher
    Posted Oct 11, 2007 at 6:32 PM | Permalink

    re 569. I expect this kind of question on RC. They are currently discussing cow farts, birth control
    and Solar Power.

  565. steven mosher
    Posted Oct 11, 2007 at 6:32 PM | Permalink

    re 569. I expect this kind of question on RC. They are currently discussing cow farts, birth control
    and Solar Power.

  566. tetris
    Posted Oct 11, 2007 at 6:35 PM | Permalink

    Re: 570
    SamU
    Your question re the carbon cycle and water vapour is a very pertinent and interesting one. In my previous incarnation I served as the CEO of a nanotechnology company that had very cool technology enabling the use of photonic/solar energy to produce hydrogen from water and store it chemically/non-pressurized. This is crucial because hydrogen is not a primary energy source but a carrier like electricity [this is readily overlooked even by those working in that sector] and unless it can be produced and stored efficiently it is meaningless as an “alternative” energy source.
    One argument underpinning the project was that unless you can efficiently produce hydrogen from a non-hydrocarbon source, efficiently using a renewable energy source to do so, not only are you not doing much in terms of “mitigating” the carbon cycle because you’re producing CO2 as a by-product, but you’re also producing new water vapour at the fuel cell’s exhaust. Only if you use water as your primary source of hydrogen and reycle that water vapour through a closed loop system are you not emitting new water vapour. It is an issue that many in the hydrogen energy community to this day do not want to discuss, because it opens the door to the really difficult question: what is the environmental impact of the water vapour produced by the fuel cell in current designs? If water vapour/clouds are indeed negative forcers as argued by Spencer, Svensmark and others, what are the implications of adopting current generation hydrogen fuels on a large scale?

  567. Philip_B
    Posted Oct 11, 2007 at 7:25 PM | Permalink

    Re #570 A more interesting question IMO is, what would happen if low albedo roofing materials were replaced with high albedo materials? In fact, this is happening in Australia where most new homes have reflective steel roofs. This trend isn’t being driven by a complicated and expensive subsidy scheme, but by the simple fact these kinds of roofs keep homes cooler in the summer by reflecting sunlight back up into the atmosphere. Cool the planet and cool your home at the same time is too obvious a solution for the AGW hair-shirt brigade.

  568. Hasse@Norway
    Posted Oct 11, 2007 at 7:33 PM | Permalink

    I’ve just got a few quick questions. Can anyone please give me the weight of the atmosphere and the weight of the oceans. How far into water can IR penetrate IR in general, and IR from the wavelenghts of CO2 in particular?

  569. Pat Keating
    Posted Oct 11, 2007 at 8:02 PM | Permalink

    549, 565
    It’s off-topic but this will hopefully end that hijack. It is true that there are errors if the effect of relativity are neglected, but they are even more miniscule than negligible for everyday objects. Similarly, for quantum effects.

  570. Larry
    Posted Oct 11, 2007 at 9:19 PM | Permalink

    576, it’s not as if we aren’t already putting lots of water vapor into the air with various industrial processes. Have you ever looked at a paper mill on a misty day? The discharge literally makes clouds. I’m not prepared to consider the possibility that this makes clouds that otherwise would have formed, though. It’s simply too little to worry about. And don’t forget, the hydrocarbon burning engines are currently putting a lot of water vapor out. It’s not as if we would be doing anything that we’re not already doing to a great extent.

    And then when the weather dries out, it’s all gone. Believe me, if it had even the slightest chance of being a problem, someone would have identified it and be making a good living going ape over it now.

  571. tetris
    Posted Oct 11, 2007 at 10:45 PM | Permalink

    Re: 584
    Larry
    Not a problem with your point about the industrial processes. And yes, of course internal combustion engines produce water vapour. And yes, I have seen my fair share of pulp mills [British Columbia, Canada] and cooling towers [in France with a plutonium breeder reactor not too far from where my parents live].

    My point was simply that moving away from known technologies, with known efficiencies, that use hydrocarbon fuels [and which of course produce water vapour in the process of doing the work] and that more importantly can probably be improved on, in order to adopt so called “clean fuel” hydrogen, which with current technologies produces water vapour both in the process of generating and storing it, and in its recombination with oxygen in the fuel cell, you would be producing considerable more water vapour than running a Diesel or Otto cycle internal combustion engine.
    On an overall “well to wheels” energy cycle basis, the very best hydogen fuel cell propulsion systems currently available are no more efficient than a top-of-the-line diesel-electric powertrain, but in the overall cycle with currently available sources for hydrogen production and storage, result in considerably more CO2 and water vapour than the diesel equivalent. It may be counter intuitive, but the math is implacable.
    And again, if that is so, and if Svensmark, Spencer and the others are right, what would the effect be of introducing that much more water vapour into the atmosphere?

  572. Posted Oct 12, 2007 at 12:09 AM | Permalink

    Steven, #575: You may be missing the point of 569. His point, if I read him correctly is that widespread use of solar panels could conceivably contribute to higher temperatures (or temperature readings, if you prefer) in habited areas.

    The issue of roofing materials is one that needs to be explored in relation to UHI. When I was just out of college in the late 60s I worked for a roofer (an ex-con, but that’s another story) who replaced roofs and did new work in developments. In those developments at the time, nearly every home was roofed with asphalt-based roofing materials. Every older home that had its roof replaced was usually replacing a cedar roof with a new asphalt roof. I can tell you from experience that asphalt roofs radiate far more heat than cedar roofs.

    Asphalt-based roofing became the standard rooofing material during the several building booms that occurred after World War II.

    Cedar roofing and clay tile roofing do not absorb and radiate heat nearly as much as does aphalt roofing.

    (I’m having trouble typing this since the website or the server is moving about 1/10th as fast as I can type at the moment. Very annoying.)

    The effect of this switch in roofing materials is a topic that might weigh signifigantly on UHI calculations since the 1960s, when the post-war building boom began in earnest.

  573. Andrey Levin
    Posted Oct 12, 2007 at 12:45 AM | Permalink

    Re#584

    Exactly, Larry. Modern gasoline car has tank-to-wheels thermal efficiency of about 16%. About third of energy generated from burning of gasoline is derived from combustion of hydrogen. Hybrid fuel cell/battery vehicle with tank-to-wheels efficiency of 50% (quite reasonable number: regular gasoline electric hybrid like Prius has thermal efficiency of about 30%) will emit same amount of water vapor as current gasoline car. I can not find the article, but it was researched about 10 years ago, the main concern was if hydrogen FC car will increase icing of the road surface at winter.

    For comparison, thermal efficiency of human muscle is 15-25%, and total “mouth-to-legs” efficiency is about 10%.

  574. Andrey Levin
    Posted Oct 12, 2007 at 1:28 AM | Permalink

    Re#… something is going wrong with numbers.

    Theduke:

    The issue of dark roofs and paved surfaces in general was also researched at the dawn of GW scare. It was conveniently forgotten, because, say, cup-and-trade system is much more profitable way to “mitigate” Climate Change for AGW clergy.

    In a nutshell, about 2% of surface of continental US is “paved surface” – roofs, parking lots, factories, shopping malls, roads, etc. For comparison agricultural land is about 25%. By far the biggest portion of paved surface is roads. It was calculated, that simple addition of crushed glass to asphalt (so called glassphalt) will increase reflectivity of road surface, and compensate completely for AGW.

    Another way to cool the planet is to add sulfur components to jet fuel. During intercontinental flight, regular commercial plane will switch to sulfur-rich fuel, and resulted sulfur aerosols in contrail will serve as nuclei to cloud formation, which in turn will “cool the Earth”.

    Couple of schemes were developed to draw down atmospheric CO2. DOE once calculated that cultivation of some species of shrubs with very deep roots in part of Argentinean pampas will sequester deep underground same amount of carbon as it is emitted in whole N. America.

    The champion of such geoengineering exercises is ocean fertilization by iron and phosphorous. As John Martin, who conducted full scale experiments on ocean fertilization once said: “Give me a half tanker of iron, and I’ll create an ice age”.

    Fortunately, such “mitigation” measures are not of interest to AGW bandwagon.

  575. John Baltutis
    Posted Oct 12, 2007 at 1:33 AM | Permalink

    Re: 540 and 542

    Larry says:

    … technically all Newtonian physics is wrong. It may be wrong in the tenth or twentieth or thirtieth digit, but it’s wrong. There is no situation where it’s exactly correct. It’s just close enough for engineering. And Gunnar is correct, the point is that none of these radiative relationships are exact, and all of them have some adjustable slop in them. You have to decide if that’s good enough based on what you’re trying to do.
    Completely rigorous and exact solutions in climate science aren’t even on the horizon.

    Oh! I get it now, but don’t think sarcasm was the intent. However, I disagree with the wrong connotation. I could say the same for everything ever postulated in quantum mechanics and relativity, which are just mathematical constructs (still theories) attempting to explain the physical universe using fabrications such as quarks, strings, multidimensional universes, ad infinitum. They don’t offer completely rigorous and exact solutions either. The same applies to most numbers. One-third is exact, but its decimal representation isn’t, whereas one-half is exact and so is its decimal representation. Inexact also are all nonterminating decimal representations of rationals, not to also mention irrationals and transcendentals.

  576. John Baltutis
    Posted Oct 12, 2007 at 2:00 AM | Permalink

    Re: 565
    Neil Fisher writes:

    Well, OK – if lift is generated by pressure differentials created by the shape of the wing, then how does a plane fly upside-down?

    Lift is not a result of pressure differentials created by wing shape. That’s a common, but erroneously held misconception. Lift is proportional to the amount of air diverted down times the vertical velocity of that air. See A Physical Description of Flight. When upside down, the same effect occurs, albeit with a substantially different angle of attack to maintain the same condition as when right-side up, such as level flight.

  577. Steve Viddal
    Posted Oct 12, 2007 at 3:08 AM | Permalink

    Just in from Norway (link to follow when I find an english reference):

    Al Gore and IPCC shares the Nobel Peace Prize for 2007.

    Truly a sad day to be Norwegian.

  578. Posted Oct 12, 2007 at 3:12 AM | Permalink

    Here,

    http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/laureates/2007/

  579. UK John
    Posted Oct 12, 2007 at 3:30 AM | Permalink

    #588 Al Gore Nobel Prize winner

    This is hope for us all! One minute he’s down, then a miracle, he’s back up again. You couldn’t script write a story like this, they would throw it out on the grounds of being too far fetched

    He might be well intentioned, but the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

  580. Andrey Levin
    Posted Oct 12, 2007 at 4:05 AM | Permalink

    I got perfect nominee for next Noble Peace Prize. Take a minute to read how this multiple time US presidency candidate describes Dynamite Al:

    “…Albert Gore is preeminent among the politicians who have seized on this new corporate prerequisite for investment as an avenue for career advancement. He has best defined the role of politicians deemed attractive by corporations that appreciate the dangers and opportunities of environmentalism in politics. Corporations now reward politicians who can deliver environmental votes and opinion without seriously deterring their goals with burdensome environmental constraints. Albert Gore is the politician who has best understood that his ability to attract and deliver the environmental constituency would make him attractive to corporate backers… As a broker of environmental voters on corporate terms, Gore is the prototype for the bankable, Green corporate politician.”

    http://debatethis.org/gore/enviro/naderopenletter.html#globalwarming

  581. PeterS
    Posted Oct 12, 2007 at 4:15 AM | Permalink

    #588 Al Gore Nobel Prize winner
    The Guardian newspaper is a laugh this morning.
    1st headline:
    “Gore and UN share Nobel peace prize
    …Mr Gore’s award-winning film on the issue, An Inconvenient Truth, was this week criticised in a British high court case for allegedly containing inaccuracies.”
    2nd headline:
    “Study reveals stressed out 7-11 year-olds
    …Primary-aged children worry daily about global warming and terrorism”

    Link

  582. Andrey Levin
    Posted Oct 12, 2007 at 4:19 AM | Permalink

    Blogger’s response around the world:

    “Good grief, there will be no shutting him up now”

    “Recount, anyone?”

    “I wonder if he’ll fly to pick it up in a private jet? $100 anyone?”

  583. Sombonivagh Jalapenat
    Posted Oct 12, 2007 at 4:29 AM | Permalink

    What a joke… that’s the nail in the coffin for Nobel Prize’s credibility, I guess.

  584. TonyN
    Posted Oct 12, 2007 at 4:37 AM | Permalink

    I think that Al Gore is in pretty good company. Here

  585. Bob Weber
    Posted Oct 12, 2007 at 4:49 AM | Permalink

    test

  586. py
    Posted Oct 12, 2007 at 4:55 AM | Permalink

    finally, this award must put the theory that climate change is a human induced activity driven by CO2 emissions beyond all reasonable doubt. The probability has clearly risen from 95% to 99% certainty. ;)

  587. Posted Oct 12, 2007 at 4:58 AM | Permalink

    The Astronomy Picture of the Day:http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/

  588. TonyN
    Posted Oct 12, 2007 at 6:15 AM | Permalink

    Al Gore’s Nobel prize will probably get far more publicity than the High Court ruling on AIT, but will that matter in the long run?

    When NAS and Wegman savaged the Hockey Stick most of the press coverage was ambivalent about their findings and it looked as though Mann had been vindicated. Now there doesn’t seem to anyone who is prepared to risk citing MBH and paleoclimatology has gone out of fashion; hardly a mention in AR4 SPM. Those who are really involved in the debate over AGW, on both, sides were not mislead and they recognize that Mann was not vindicated.

    The court ruling has attrackted little media coverage in the UK but the Noble award will get plenty. Doubtless the ‘Green Machine’ will do all they can to publicize their champion’s new honor, but how much of that coverage will also mention the nine exaggerations in AIT bringing this story to a wider audience? The fuss about a Noble Prize award will pass quickly, but a judge’s ruling persists, just like the NAS and Wegman findings.

    Perhaps controversy over the Noble Committee’s decision will, in time, do more to damage Gore’s reputation than enhance it. What is certain is that nine of the environmental activist’s favorite scare stories have been discredited. It will take time for them to find new ones and it will now be very risky to mention melting ice caps, imminent catastrophic sea level rise or drowning polar bears from now on.

    Does anyone have a link to the clip of Roger Higman of Friends of the Earth wringing his hands and squirming in his seat as Newsnight’s Jeremy Paxman repeatedly asks why his organization supported AIT when they must have known that the scientific evidence was being exaggerated? A taste of things to come perhaps?

    PS. The BBC RAdio 4 1pm news has just used this story as its lead focusing on the AIT controversy angle.

  589. TonyN
    Posted Oct 12, 2007 at 6:33 AM | Permalink

    Re #598 and #599

    Sorry for repeat post. I rewrote it because I thought the spam filter had got the first one. Been a problem recently.

  590. Gerald Machnee
    Posted Oct 12, 2007 at 6:49 AM | Permalink

    What Peace? I will eat light today, in case I &^%$%&*(!!

  591. Sam Urbinto
    Posted Oct 12, 2007 at 7:35 AM | Permalink

    “He might be well intentioned, but the road to hell is paved with good intentions.”

    Their intentions aren’t that good
    And I can smell the asphalt
    That’s their personal road to hell being paved

  592. Gunnar
    Posted Oct 12, 2007 at 7:38 AM | Permalink

    #578,

    Hasse, The mass of Earth’s atmosphere is 5.3 x 10^18 kg, only .378% of the oceans.

    >> that’s the nail in the coffin for Nobel Prize’s credibility

    What, giving the “peace” prize to a nazi terrorist didn’t do it for you? Like Steve Viddal said, a day to truly be embarrased to be norwegian. What has Gore done for Peace? You know, he promised to run for President if he got the peace prize.

  593. Sam Urbinto
    Posted Oct 12, 2007 at 7:42 AM | Permalink

    I like this part, from the page John linked to:

    The amount of air diverted by the wing is proportional to the speed of the wing and the air density.
    The vertical velocity of the diverted air is proportional to the speed of the wing and the angle of attack.
    The lift is proportional to the amount of air diverted times the vertical velocity of the air.
    The power needed for lift is proportional to the lift times the vertical velocity of the air.

  594. Pat Keating
    Posted Oct 12, 2007 at 7:51 AM | Permalink

    586

    Lift is not a result of pressure differentials created by wing shape. That’s a common, but erroneously held misconception. Lift is proportional to the amount of air diverted down times the vertical velocity of that air.

    Wrong. Wrong. Right.

    Lift IS the result of the pressure differences between upper surface and lower surface — that conception is not erroneous.

    The last sentence is correct only because conservation of momentum, a fundamental law of physics, requires it. The amount of air diverted down depends on the pressure differential, and is the result of it, not the cause of lift. (kind of like COO and T).

  595. Michael Jankowski
    Posted Oct 12, 2007 at 8:09 AM | Permalink

    So how come the IPCC didn’t win/share in 1990, 1995, or 2001?

    How is it that Gore can lead such an energy-consuming life and get this award?

    http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071012/ap_on_sc/nobel_peace;_ylt=Apis7Y99K7LDXCVhc7V5qNpvaA8F

    Former Vice President Al Gore and the U.N.’s climate change panel won the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize on Friday for spreading awareness of man-made climate change and laying the foundations for counteracting it.

    Say what?!?!?

    “We face a true planetary emergency,” Gore said. “The climate crisis is not a political issue, it is a moral and spiritual challenge to all of humanity.”

    At least he admits it’s not a scientific issue.

    Gore plans to donate his half of the $1.5 million prize money to the Alliance for Climate Protection, a bipartisan nonprofit organization that is devoted to changing public opinion worldwide about the urgency of solving the climate crisis.

    Wow, how generous – a man whose already made millions with this scare only walks away with $750k for the award (of course, I’d read elsewhere he’d pledged 100%, so something is amiss somewhere!). That’s $750k-$1.5m more towards activism and brainwashing. They even give tips on how to discuss climate change to “skeptics” and “naysayers” http://www.climateprotect.org/al5 – not by providing lit sources or anything, just spouting off things like “consensus,” showing two photos of a melting glacier, etc.

  596. Buddenbrook
    Posted Oct 12, 2007 at 8:37 AM | Permalink

    Gore getting the peace prize is just sickening. Kid you not, his so called “CO2-footprint” must be one of the largest on the entire planet. His documentary was full of inaccuracies (and even deliberate mispresentations). Even if you were a hysterical alarmist I don’t see how you can justify this. Thousands of people risk their lives to get aid to people in warzones, or raise against oppression in dictatorships risking their own lives. Why can’t the Nobel committee show some balls and give it e.g. to Chinese democracy activists. But no… none of that, let’s give it to a westerner living the luxyry life, wholly contrary to what he preaches, who has put together some anecdotes about climate alarmism (which any half-qualified investigative journalist could gather in 1-2 days). What has he done really? What sacrifice has he made? Where is the courage, unique vision or any such thing he has shown?

    Just unbeliveable. Kissinger and Arafat mark III.

  597. Sam Urbinto
    Posted Oct 12, 2007 at 8:46 AM | Permalink

    I think you didn’t parse this correctly: “pressure differentials created by wing shape.” There is a pressure differential, but it’s not created by wing shape. And the pressure differential isn’t the cause either, that’s an effect of pulling the air to create the vertical force that gives lift. I think I have it correctly…

    Also from the site (paraphrased, reorganized and edited mostly)

    Lift is created by diverting a few tons of air. A wing develops lift by transfering momentum to the air, by accelerating it. What the wing does to the air is the action and lift is the reaction.

    Air is bent around the top of a wing, that pulls on the air above it and accelerating that air downward. Air is pulled from above. This pulling causes the pressure to become lower above the wing. It is the acceleration of the air above the wing in the downward direction that gives lift.

    “The air passes over the wing and is bent down. Newton’s first law says that them must be a force on the air to bend it down (the action). Newton’s third law says that there must be an equal and opposite force (up) on the wing (the reaction). To generate lift a wing must divert lots of air down.”

  598. Larry
    Posted Oct 12, 2007 at 8:53 AM | Permalink

    For the record, the reason why the Goracle was awarded the peace prize is the idea that war is caused by climate change (i.e. the Sahel). So in addition to the fact that Gore actually didn’t do anything, and the fact that he’s peddling junk science, they’ve also bought into junk social science. The idea that climate change causes genocide is absurd and obscene, but good enough for the same committee who awarded a peace prize to a terrorist for killing civilians.

  599. Sam Urbinto
    Posted Oct 12, 2007 at 8:54 AM | Permalink

    On second thought, I guess pulling air is the main cause, which creates a pressure differential, which accelerates the air, which creates vertical velocity that gives the wing lift.

    So increasing speed and the angle of attack increase the vertical velocity hence more lift.

    Something like that.

  600. Hoi Polloi
    Posted Oct 12, 2007 at 8:55 AM | Permalink

    Gore plans to donate his half of the $1.5 million prize money to the Alliance for Climate Protection,

    Only the half? I presume he needs the other half to pay his energy bills…

  601. Gunnar
    Posted Oct 12, 2007 at 9:11 AM | Permalink

    >> I presume he needs the other half to pay his energy bills

    The IPCC got the other half, which I find really strange. Why does the IPCC need money or a peace prize? Does anyone know where this money comes from? Please don’t tell me it’s the norwegian tax payers.

  602. Sam Urbinto
    Posted Oct 12, 2007 at 9:30 AM | Permalink

    “(this was a consensus view, so it must be right)”

    Yes, but is it peer-reviewed?

  603. Larry
    Posted Oct 12, 2007 at 9:32 AM | Permalink

    614, wow! That sounds like Jukes! The reason for the flatterburpal is the snogogram.

  604. Gunnar
    Posted Oct 12, 2007 at 9:35 AM | Permalink

    Sam, wow, you converted me. I was certainly assuming that the standard explanation was correct, as pointed out by Larry. It just goes to show how the conventional wisdom is often incorrect. What was the link?

  605. Tom Vonk
    Posted Oct 12, 2007 at 9:51 AM | Permalink

    #585

    However, I disagree with the wrong connotation. I could say the same for everything ever postulated in quantum mechanics and relativity, which are just mathematical constructs (still theories) attempting to explain the physical universe using fabrications such as quarks, strings, multidimensional universes, ad infinitum. They don’t offer completely rigorous and exact solutions either.

    I admit that that is philosophy but even philosophy needs a minimum of consistence .
    You are mixing up theories and numerical values of formulas .
    Newton is not wrong because his formula gives sometimes a numerical result that is not quite what is observed .
    Newton is wrong because his whole construction (theory) is derived from demonstrably wrong postulates , namely an infinite speed of propagation of interactions .
    Technically his theory is not Lorenz invariant and that is a VERY wrong thing .
    It is irrelevant that it gives numerical values that are not “very far from observation” in some specific cases .
    Both general and special relativity are derived from postulates that are demonstrably right and that is what gives them their validity .
    In that sense the wrong Newton theory is NOT an approximation of the right Einstein theory at low energies because Newton’s postulates are wrong for all energies .
    What is true though that the 0 order development of the relativity for low energies gives numerical results similar to the Newton formula .
    I don’t exclude that one day Einstein’s principles could be demonstrated wrong but it is not yet the case and perhaps will never be .
    If scientists confused what sometimes works with what is right , we’d still use epicycles and happily accept the ether theory .
    After all with such a philosophy the “flat earth theory” also works most of the time .
    Symetrically making a clear difference between what is right and what is wrong doesn’t prevent using wrong formulas that sometimes work provided that one is pretty sure that they work also in this particular case .

    I agree that the status of quantum mechanics is a special case .
    Even if the Schrödinger equation can be derived by a kind of analogy , the complementarity principle and the correspondence principle have nothing obvious .
    Establishing an equivalence between a physical parameter like energy and an abstract mathematical being like a hamiltonian operator has indeed something unsettling .
    Once the principles accepted , QM offers rigorous and exact solutions in any case .
    That’s by the way why the discussions concerning the interpretation of the quantum mechanics are still burning hot .
    It might be that the question of QM interpretation is irrelevant because based on an unreasonable demand – namely that events happening on subatomic scales be formulated (and understood !) in terms of events happening on macroscopic scales .
    Personnaly I believe that that will never happen despite the fact that QM and its principles are fundamentally right .

    That means that the right language on subatomic scales is the mathematics (perfectly understandable) and not the natural speech because electrons are not small balls and the spin is not a speed of rotation of a very small thing .

  606. Webbo
    Posted Oct 12, 2007 at 10:03 AM | Permalink

    Any flat object passed through air (or water etc.) at an angle will recieve an angular force towards the direction of the tilt. In the absence of gravity a 90 degrees wing angle has equalibrium and would fly straight. At say 80 degrees the air in the area below the wing is condensed and forces the wing upwards. The opposite is true for the air above the wing. This is why flat winged aircraft can fly upside down as long as the power is sufficient. Commercial aircraft dont have the power to achieve this kind of flight hence they “cheat” by varying the suface area. This has the side effect of reducing the power needed for lift.

    The distance air travelled over the wing is a misnomer. This arguably (I say arguably because it may have no effect at all) only helps lift, it doesn’t cause it. And at higher speeds this has a negative drag effect and is therefore not used supersonically.

    The angle of the tilt is predominantly what gives lift.

  607. Sam Urbinto
    Posted Oct 12, 2007 at 10:05 AM | Permalink

    I’m basically just paraphrasing them, and distilling their explanation so if you’re convinced, they did it! :)

    http://home.comcast.net/%7Eclipper-108/lift.htm

    I guess it’s really not “this does this”, except “vertical velocity causes lift” I tend to think of it as a vortex (take a look at the image on the site of the clouds behind the plane)

    They explain the air pattern like this: So, why does the air follow this pattern? First, we have to bear in mind that air is considered an incompressible fluid for low-speed flight. That means that it cannot change its volume and that there is a resistance to the formation of voids. Now the air has been accelerated over the top of the wing by of the reduction in pressure. This draws air from in front of the wing and expels if back and down behind the wing. This air must be compensated for, so the air shifts around the wing to fill in.

    Ignoring upwash, they say about how much air needs to be diverted: Diverting so much air down is a strong argument against lift being just a surface effect (that is only a small amount of air around the wing accounts for the lift), as implied by the popular explanation. In fact, in order to divert 5 ton/sec the wing of the Cessna 172 must accelerate all of the air within 18 feet (7.3 m) above the wing.

    Wow!

    Pulling in the air creates the acceleration that creates the reduction in pressure that causes the air to shift back and down, which gives us vertical velocity. So yes, the pressure has something to do with it, but I suppose you could say trying to create a void causes the pressure reduction. This isn’t simple… It’s kind of circular.

    Anyway, check the site (I’m sure there are others…)

  608. Webbo
    Posted Oct 12, 2007 at 10:17 AM | Permalink

    Talking about QM…

    Does anyone know where the energy of freezing water comes from? As water loses heat/energy and reaches 0 degrees it expands to form ice. This effect is strong enough to split steel or rock.

    I’ve yet to hear a satisfactory explanation.

    This seems a prime candidate for possible QM on a macroscopic scale to me.

  609. Larry
    Posted Oct 12, 2007 at 10:44 AM | Permalink

    If all a wing does is deflect air, why do you need a wing? Just tilt the engine downward, and you get the exact same effect.

    Flaps are used to do that during takeoff and landing, only to reduce stall speed. If you have a 5-mile long runway and landing gear than can handle 300 mph, you can take off and land without them like the space shuttle does. But in flight, look out the window next time you fly, the flaps retract into the wing, and the only vertical force is due to the control surfaces. You do need maybe 10% of the lift from control surfaces, just to give you the range of control needed, not because that’s an important source of lift.

  610. Webbo
    Posted Oct 12, 2007 at 11:00 AM | Permalink

    If all a wing does is deflect air, why do you need a wing? Just tilt the engine downward, and you get the exact same effect.

    Spot on! And that’s exactly how a Harrier takes off. Massive amount of power needed though. It becomes more efficient as it moves forward.

    But in flight, look out the window next time you fly, the flaps retract into the wing, and the only vertical force is due to the control surfaces.

    And you may also notice the angle of the wing. If control surfaces were the only vertical force then how come you don’t see any commercial planes with the wing pointing down or straight? And how then do you explain the vertical lift of supersonic flat-winged aircraft?

  611. Sam Urbinto
    Posted Oct 12, 2007 at 11:05 AM | Permalink

    Yes, they jump on air! (From this one; http://amasci.com/wing/rotbal.html )

  612. Posted Oct 12, 2007 at 11:20 AM | Permalink

    Yes, Sam, hurling and bouncing untiringly on quilted air layers :)

  613. Andrey Levin
    Posted Oct 12, 2007 at 11:33 AM | Permalink

    Gore plans to donate his half of the $1.5 million prize money to the Alliance for Climate Protection, a bipartisan nonprofit organization…

    Funny thing. According to Wiki, founder and current manager of Alliance of Climate Protection is person also named Al Gore. What a coincidence!

    Reminds me of founder and director of Generation Investment Management, where Al Gore buys his carbon offset credits. His name is also Al Gore.

  614. Larry
    Posted Oct 12, 2007 at 11:46 AM | Permalink

    We have an interesting juxtaposition of American democrat Nobel peace prize winners:

    Carter: “There is no genocide in Darfur”

    Gore “Global warming causes genocide in Darfur”

    Do you suppose that anyone in the media is going to notice that, and try to get them to reconcile their differences?

  615. UK John
    Posted Oct 12, 2007 at 12:10 PM | Permalink

    #631 Yes you are right, a “flying saucer” will fly. Just Google “flying saucer” and see what remakable things are already flying, and these are only the ones that are not secret military projects (I haven’t gone mad, honest!)

    Vertical take off planes will take off vertically, when a big jetliner takes off its the engines that make it climb, not only lift from the wings.

    Anyway back to “Big Al”, we shouldn’t get too wound-up about this, after the Nobel Prize, Al Gore and the IPCC are now inextricably linked in the public and media mind, now Al might not mind about this, but it will be interesting to watch how the IPCC shape up over the coming years, after all being linked to someone who distorts the scientific truth is a bit of a handicap for a scientific committee, dedicated to consensus.

  616. Michael Jankowski
    Posted Oct 12, 2007 at 12:16 PM | Permalink

    Good lord! Karen dies, but her remnants have become TD 15 and could turn out to be named (Noel).

  617. David
    Posted Oct 12, 2007 at 12:17 PM | Permalink

    Plane wings do not just provide lift by “bouncing” on the air deflected downwards.
    The other source of lift from the wings is due to the coanda effect.
    You can see exactly what happens by holding a spoon handle between your fingers so the part that goes in your mouth is hanging down, then move it under a tap so that just the outer curved part enters the moving water. As the water hits the spoon it sticks to it and the flow is diverted – the equal and opposite reaction of the spoon sucks it further into the water flow.

    This is exactly how air passing over the upper surface of a wing behaves.

    When at uni, (as part of a physics degree!!) we were incorrectly told that the air passing over the top of wing had to travel faster since it had further to travel, (because for some mystical reason, never adequately explained, the air over the top and under the bottom of the wing had to magically recombine in the same relative positions) and therefore due to Bernoullis equations, the faster moving air was at a lower pressure, creating lift. Never mind the fact that it confuses static and dynamic pressures, its DEMONSTRABLY false, just by releasing and filming adequately sized shreds of paper as they fly over/under a wing. It’s amazing that this kind of stuff is still taught at unis.

  618. Steve Viddal
    Posted Oct 12, 2007 at 12:19 PM | Permalink

    #613, Gunnar

    It is not the taxpayer’s money. They come from Alfred Nobel’s will. He left a substantial amount of money to the creation of 5 prizes in his name. They were for achievements in Literature, Medicine/Physiology, Physics, Chemistry and finally the Peace Prize. The first are awarded by the Royal Swedish Academy of Science. For some reason the swede Alfred Nobel entrusted the Norwegians with awarding and handing out the Peace Prize. An honour that we failed spectacularly today.
    Although, there’s been a long downward trend with Arafat, Menchu and Maatahai

  619. Larry
    Posted Oct 12, 2007 at 12:20 PM | Permalink

    What does the IPCC do with the money? With the UN’s track record for financial shell games, just watch as it ends up in some dictator’s pocket. I know if Kofi were still there, he’d be figuring out what to do with it right now.

  620. Larry
    Posted Oct 12, 2007 at 12:28 PM | Permalink

    Steve, I think all of these airplane wing comments (sorry, I think I inadvertantly started it), are making the blog look bad. I’d snip them all if I were you.

    Steve: I agree. It’s annoying and rude for people to get into stuff like this.

  621. Chris Kaiser
    Posted Oct 12, 2007 at 1:02 PM | Permalink

    Could someone please update me on the latest efforts of plotting temperature from the rural class 1 and class 2 sites that Anthony Watts has documented? I can’t locate the info on this that was done a few weeks back. Thanks.

  622. Craig Loehle
    Posted Oct 12, 2007 at 1:03 PM | Permalink

    To try to save the airplane thing. There is no way to design an airplane from first principles of physics because it is too complicated JUST LIKE THE CLIMATE SYSTEM. The reason airplanes fly is that 1) they experiment with wing shapes in wind tunnels and 2) you can constantly adjust the controls as you fly (there is a real-time feedback control system) so it doesn’t have to be perfect. Neither of these conditions applies to the climate models.

  623. Follow the Money
    Posted Oct 12, 2007 at 1:41 PM | Permalink

    Al Gore wins the Nobel? LOL. What a joke that prize has become.

    I would follow the money…but I think this is the product of Western European Elite Sheeple Thought.

  624. DeWitt Payne
    Posted Oct 12, 2007 at 1:51 PM | Permalink

    Webbo

    The heat of fusion of water comes from the formation of hydrogen bonds between the water molecules. The hydrogen atoms in one molecule interact with the oxygen atom in another water molecule. Above the freezing point the average kinetic energy is high enough that large scale structures cannot form. IIRC, the normal structure of water has consists of an average of about 6 water molecules bound together by hydrogen bonds. Water expands as it freezes (maximum water density is about 4 C) because the crystalline structure of ice packs water molecules together less efficiently than in the liquid form. The high heat of vaporization of water comes from breaking the remaining hydrogen bonds.

  625. See - owe to Rich
    Posted Oct 12, 2007 at 1:53 PM | Permalink

    Re #446 Archibald:

    That is an interesting paper (especially the solar cycle length ideas), though not hugely different from the one you presented in June. I have a query regarding your

    “It is well known that the 380 ppm of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere makes it about three degrees warmer than it would otherwise be.”

    Do you have a reference for such? I thought that the warming from greenhouse gases was 15-20C, but of course most of that may be attributable to water vapour, hence your 3C might be correct. In any case, you may have noticed that Steve M has been asking for mainstream articles supporting 2.5C per CO2 doubling; if you can supply a well accepted article of 3C for 380ppm, then that would obviously have important implications. I note that on RC they hotly dispute your low assessment of the CO2 effect, so some supporting evidence really would be useful.

  626. Gunnar
    Posted Oct 12, 2007 at 2:02 PM | Permalink

    >> but that doesn’t mean his model was falsified

    Oh, you have empirical data that supports the Arrhenius model? I remember that when I suggested we have one these brilliant statisticians compare T & C02, you said it would mean nothing.

    >> Or are you talking about his kinetic rate law

    No, that’s been validated by SM

  627. DeWitt Payne
    Posted Oct 12, 2007 at 2:26 PM | Permalink

    Tom Vonk and anyone else interested.

    They just required permission to post at the UKweatherworld Climatic Discussion and Analysis forum. Apparently too much off-topic and antagonistic exchanges. I will reply to your last post as soon as I can get permission. I would like very much to continue the discussion there.

  628. Posted Oct 12, 2007 at 2:29 PM | Permalink

    re 630:

    Oh, you have empirical data that supports the Arrhenius model? I remember that when I suggested we have one these brilliant statisticians compare T & C02, you said it would mean nothing.

    Nir Shaviv has. :p

  629. jae
    Posted Oct 12, 2007 at 2:59 PM | Permalink

    “I wonder if he’ll fly to pick it up in a private jet? $100 anyone?”

    Maybe he will use the money to trade in his old fuel-inefficient jet for a new model, thereby adding some carbon credits to his holdings in Generation Investment Management.

  630. tetris
    Posted Oct 12, 2007 at 6:22 PM | Permalink

    SteveM
    Well done, no doubt.
    Unfortunately, I have to agree with Anthony Watts comment in #51.

    Even if the new data turns out to be the final nail[s] in the coffin of the HT’s scientific credibility, the Gore obscenity of today will have uber-politicized the AGW/ACC story line for a long time forward. The Financial Times of London, an opiniom maker in the business community if ever there was one, writes that the Gore/IPCC Nobel prize has in one fell swoop shifted public opinion and whatever was left in terms of “debate” around AGW/ACC firmly into the realm of politics/policy and the “urgency to do something about the problem”.
    The mainstream media paid absolutely no attention to the seminal UK High Court ruling earlier this week to the effect that Gore’s movie is scientifically substantially incorrect and amounts to political propaganda. No, instead, two days later the man gets to share the Nobel Peace Prize!
    Sorry to be the proverbial guy with the bucket of cold water, but auditing only has a purpose if its findings can be applied to ensure meaningful negative consequences for those who are found out. I think Anthony’s take on what the HT will do next is spot on.

  631. Buddenbrook
    Posted Oct 12, 2007 at 6:57 PM | Permalink

    http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=24275&Cr=climate&Cr1=change

    Ban Ki-moon hails Nobel laureates Al Gore, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

    Mr. Ban, who has made addressing climate change a key priority of his administration, pointed out that the IPCC’s “lucid and well-documented findings” helped to establish “beyond doubt that climate change is happening, and that much of it is caused by human activity.”

    How have “we” moved to “beyond doubt”? How did this happen politically and psychologically during the last 10-15 years? I am a former alarmist, and I cannot answer this question.

    Obviously CO2 is a climate forcing of some signifigance. and obviously human kind have considerably increased it’s atmospheric concentration, and clearly there has been some warming during the past three decades that is difficult to fit in with the natural cycle but how do you move beyond that?

    How do you count average global temperatures and how do you estimate different natural climate forcings to get a reliable numeric value for anthropogenic warming? How do you then move on to disregard other anthropogenic climate forcings (such as land use change and black carbon on ice) as minor? How do you know how oceans and green plants will react to increased CO2?

    These analysis processes happen prior to parameterization of the General Circulation Models. Alarmist scientists parameterize and tune the models to give answers that will inadvertly point to a certain direction and give high numeric values for climate sensitivity.

    It seems obvious to me that if we alter the parameters a bit: Less overall warming in the last 30+ years (as Steve McIntyre here is in the process of establishing a strong case for), more complex picture of natural causes than just simplified solar cycle and volcanoes, more significant role given to other anthropogenic climate forcings (as Roger Pielke Sr has been making a strong case for) and an admission of general lack of knowledge re: feedback mechanisms, and the numeric values the models will give for climate sensitivity will be vastly different, i.e. smaller.

    It’s all about justifying the parameters, and the alarmists are long away from establishing that justification. In fact in recent years they have suffered several losses and setbacks. Mann’s paleoclimatic hockey stick was thrown out, 800-2000 year lag in the ice core data raised some blushes, lots of new studies on UHI showed that we might have underestimated it’s signifigance, Global dimming – used to explain the 1940-1970 cooling – has been found to contribute to warmer night temperatures in East Asia, NASA satellite data showed that raining had increased 3x more than what the models had projected, and more recently the infamous “Y2K” error and Anthony Watts surface station survey.

    Yet, while scientific “consensus” and “certainty” has weakened, the psychological and political certainty (and soon to be consensus? Next round of Kyoto with Hillary Clinton?) has been growing stronger.

    I think it is symptomatic of this development. that the alarmists have become more and more politicized. They don’t seem to openly debate good folks like McIntyre here or Roger Pielke. They don’t feel a need to justify themselves scientifically, and that is alarming. They are more and more seeking general and political approval. You only need to read recent realclimate postings (and look at their well known censorship policies) to get a perspective into what is going on.
    They censor “unwelcome” scientific debate (questions they cannot answer) while encouraging the usage of such vocabulary as “denialist” which has ugly echoes of holocaust denial.

    And now the Nobel prize. And at the same time our scientific understanding of climate sensitivity remains very uncertain, more uncertain that it might have looked in 2001. The scientific case for alarmism has weakened, but this has had a contrary effect on the climate politics!

    My own feeling / guess based on estimation of probabilities, the post 1995 “plateau” and in part historical CO2 concentrations of 2000ppm-3000ppm when dinosaurs lived on earth is that climate sentivity will end up somewhere between 1.0C and 1.5C, and decreasing solar activity will further lessen the threat and nothing drastic will happen. In fact the impact could just as well be positive.

    One of my worries is that CO2 indulged fixation is going to make us blind to more serious environmental concerns such as clean water shortage and species extinction. We possibly lost Yangtze’s Freshwater River Dolphin this year, Baiji, a majestic animal that had lived in Yangtze for 20-25 million years. And that loss (if it is verified in coming years) had nothing to do with “Global Warming”.

    Our biggest environmental threat is over-population, but it’s not a popular topic with the UN or the progressives, because you cannot blame it on the West (directly anyway).

    So what’s your take on the psychology of climate change?

    ( I hope this discussion is allowed in the context of Gore’s Nobel Prize, which I felt was just depressing )

  632. Basil Copeland
    Posted Oct 12, 2007 at 6:58 PM | Permalink

    re #51 and #102

    Not to get off-topic, since I have no desire to say any more than what I’m about to say, the reputation of the Nobel Prize is not what it used to be. The way one pundit put it today, “I think he makes a fitting addition to the pantheon of Nobel Peace Prize holders.” That was said, I’m sure, as a snark.

    So, let this site stay on task, doing what it is doing. If Gore is wrong, time and truth will win out.

  633. Posted Oct 12, 2007 at 8:12 PM | Permalink

    When Al gore states he want’s to raise the consciousness of the world does he mean the people of the world or the “world”? Is this a new memes theory?

  634. David Archibald
    Posted Oct 12, 2007 at 8:17 PM | Permalink

    Re 629, I don’t have a reference for the greenhouse numbers, which are actually 30 degrees C with 95% of that from water and 5% from CO2. Thus CO2 is good for 3 degrees C. Any bit of basic searching will find it for you, for example Dr Dewpoint. Richard Lindzen comes up with a very similar sensitivity to my own. His is 0.6 degrees for doubling without clouds and 0.2 degrees with clouds. He is about as eminent a climatologist as you could hope for. For supporting evidence on the climate sensitivity, why not read the paper quoted? Idso’s 1998 paper is hosted on Warwick Hughes’ blog at: http://www.warwickhughes.com/papers/idso98.htm

    The important thing about Idso’s paper is that it is based on the real world. You have to prove Idso wrong for climate sensitivity to not be 0.1 degrees per watt. Of course that level means that AGW is not a problem.

  635. Follow the Money
    Posted Oct 12, 2007 at 8:27 PM | Permalink

    One of my worries is that CO2 indulged fixation is going to make us blind to more serious environmental concerns such as clean water shortage and species extinction.

    You get a two for one. Not only has the parasitical AGW-carbon traders/taxers discourse hitched on to good concerns about the environment, it also has hijacked the energy independence movement.

    There are many environmentalists who fear when the AGW narrative crashes, all environmentalism will suffer by association in the public eye. Generally the big American enviro orgs eschewed the global warming bandwagon late compared to Euros. The hitched on around 2004 or so when the national Democrats made cap and trade a quiet centerpiece of their alliance with Wall Street traders.

  636. Geoff Sherrington
    Posted Oct 12, 2007 at 10:40 PM | Permalink

    Scientific fakery?

    Have just seen TIME magazine for 01 Oct 2007. The front cover has a photo that is digitally manipulated and so a fake. Different countries might have different covers. This is Australia. The caption is “A 5-to-6 tonne piece of melting ice on the shore of Igloolik Island, Foxe Basin, Nunavut, Canada”. The fakery is so, so amateur.

    How far into society can fakery go before someone in authority calls for a stop?

    TIME also notes “… for the first time in recorded history, the Northwest passage was ice-free all the way from the Pacific to the Atlantic”. Is this correct? See post 41 at

    http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=2095

    Image is at

    Can’t get the links to work. Geoff.

  637. MrPete
    Posted Oct 12, 2007 at 11:27 PM | Permalink

    Northwest Passage traversals: Here’s a link to an article that claims to document many traversals in the past. http://freestudents.blogspot.com/2007/09/bad-reporting-about-northwest-passage.html

  638. Geoff Sherrington
    Posted Oct 13, 2007 at 1:29 AM | Permalink

    Correction to 640.

    Post is 81, not 41.

    Thank you MrPete for # 641. There might be a semantic difference between “free of ice” and “able to be navigated”.

    I looked at the TIME website. There are faint words under the offer to buy the image saying that the flags were indeed added digitally. But these words are not on the printed cover.

  639. Posted Oct 13, 2007 at 5:34 AM | Permalink

    Congrats Steve!

    http://bigcitylib.blogspot.com/2007/10/steve-mcintyre-rewarded-nobel-peace.html#links

  640. Gunnar
    Posted Oct 13, 2007 at 6:12 AM | Permalink

    #632, Shaviv is great, but I believe that’s climate sensitivity to energy. Besides, I said “empirical data that supports”. None in that article. Of course, we do have that data, we just haven’t compared it to the model.

    Btw, my ancestor, Ragnar Olavsen published a paper back in 1038 that relates:

    DeltaEnemyCasualties = alpha * (BonFiresInEnemyCamp + VikingsOnHand * (1 – e ^ DaysSinceFullMoon ))

    He may have been wrong about the constant alpha, but no one has come up with anything better in terms of the form of the relationship, so it has not been falsified.

  641. MrPete
    Posted Oct 13, 2007 at 6:20 AM | Permalink

    Interesting reading/viewing about the Northwest Passage.

    On one side: amazing how many have said “never been done before” when it obviously has been done. Sailing traversals going back to at least 1906: In 1906 Norwegian explorer Roald Amundsen became the first person to sail the entire Passage from east to west.

    Clearly, the passage has been navigable over the years, with much open water. However, interviews with boat captains highlight that there’s always concern about free-floating ice, and the danger of running into a large chunk of ice. That’s why boats have always been reinforced for traversing the NW passage.

    At the other end, recent reports have gone from alm ost-accurate to somewhat reasonable, to blatant hyperbole.

    Headlines and “leads” on the short articles are incredibly misleading. As far as I can tell, nothing has changed other than the fact that we now have a bird’s-eye view of the sea ice. Reinforced hulls are still required, to handle flowing ice that’s encountered. There are no additional efforts toward commercial navigation.

    A non-story. Just ESA getting PR for their satellite imagery work.

  642. Posted Oct 13, 2007 at 10:31 AM | Permalink

    I have a better solution for alpha alpha = # of rats on the enemy camp. BTW Arrhenius constant alpha, and the whole algorithm, was rebated by Knut Ångström, but the scientific Media allowed Arrhenius to defend his case, while Ångström was not allowed to answer the defense of Arrhenius. Something similar at present days?

  643. SteveSadlov
    Posted Oct 13, 2007 at 11:09 AM | Permalink

    RE: #645 – To be fair, the period 1900 – 1910 was apparently quite unremarkable in terms of NH sea ice. What allowed Amundsen to make it through was a combination of factors. He was extremely lucky in a number of ways. Given that he had to overwinter with his boat icebound, he certainly lucked out in that his boat was not damaged or destroyed. Also, the design of his boat, based in many ways on old Viking designs, allowed the hull to ride up when compressed from the sides, instead of being crushed. He also lucked out with choosing the right passages in the labyrinth of the Canadian Archepelego, if he’d chosen incorrectly, tides, free ice and other factors might have confounded him. I used to play as a child on his boat, which for years was located in Golden Gate Park (San Francisco) half embedded in an old stablized dune. After he docked in SF, he had no good way to get the sea worn boat back to Norway, and lacked the funds (and will, not to mention time) to get it refitted and refurbished for a journey either around the Horn or via the then iffy Panama overland haul out method. So he gifted the barque to the People of San Francisco. Finally, a few years ago, a fund was taken up, and action coordinated by the Norwegian Consulate. The boat was pulled out of the park, partially restored, then taken by freighter to Oslo, where there is apparently a restoration (may be completed) under way. I can’t wait to see it in the Viking Ship Museum or other applicable venue!

  644. SteveSadlov
    Posted Oct 13, 2007 at 12:02 PM | Permalink

    RE: #647 – I was prompted to look up the particulars …. Gjoa (Admunsen’s boat) was actually sent back to Oslo in the 70s (I must have confused it with something more recent). In any case, it is no longer there at Golden Gate Park – one less illegal “play area” for kids to get hurt, one less place for homeless to illegally camp! Sadly, the boat was not sent to the Viking Ship Museum where it would have been beautifully displayed along with the best, but instead, went on outdoord display at the Norwegian Maritime Museum. If I would have known that on my last trip to Oslo, I would have gone there to check it out … oh well!

    RE: #648 – I won’t write much on that, at the risk of being snipped, but yes, there is a definite possibility of an element of overseas interference …. cannot be ruled out.

  645. greg poulin
    Posted Oct 13, 2007 at 12:04 PM | Permalink

    re: 643. Off topic but thanks for pointing out the National Post, a piece by Terence Corcoran sums it up nicely.

    http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/story.html?id=46d1e620-cb1f-4c58-841f-c2acfc7e2023

    BTW, IPCC = International Panel of Climate Control

  646. Posted Oct 13, 2007 at 12:10 PM | Permalink

    Among the 2007 weather head-scratchers is the behavior of the Southern Hemisphere ‘ozone hole’.

    The current hole area plot is here . The black dots are the to-date estimates for 2007 while the white line is the median for the 1990s. 2007 looks pretty normal relative to the 1990s and to the record years (colored lines).

    And the ozone minimum value ( here ) looks rather normal.

    Now the year is not over and there’s a lot of interannual variation so this is simply a snapshot, not a trend. But, it does go into the “might something be up?” file.

  647. Posted Oct 13, 2007 at 12:13 PM | Permalink

    Ozone hole minimum value ( link )

  648. Larry
    Posted Oct 13, 2007 at 12:13 PM | Permalink

    650,

    What a blow the award must be to the IPCC, self-proclaimed home of scientific rigour, to now be lumped in with Reverend Al and his Travelling Snake Oil Road Show and Climate Terror Machine.

    Interesting point that I haden’t considered.

  649. Posted Oct 13, 2007 at 6:49 PM | Permalink

    I am sorry but I have no clue where to post this. At real climate they have a new post on the co2 equivalent. 275 ppm is assumed the initial concentration and the 5.35 constant is determined from curve fitting. That confuses me since why should they have to curve fit. Also for a log function the initial or original value is kinda important. This new math confuses me.

  650. Posted Oct 13, 2007 at 7:14 PM | Permalink

    # 653

    Captdallas,

    Here Houston… The 5.35 W/m^2 constant must to be deduced from experimentation, not from curve fitting. You’re right, its confusing because the CO2 equivalent is not 275 ppm (5 ppm less than the assumed “standard”), when we know it is 350 ppmv (from OSHAM standards). If we get the constant alpha (5.35 W/m^2) from observed and empirical values of emissivity, geometry, L, energy emitted, energy intercepted, etc., we obtain a value of 0.423 W/m^2. This is very important because the IPCC is handling the constants for fitting in the magnitude of 2CO2 = 2.5 °C.

    Perhaps Dr. McIntyre will have soon the peer reviewed paper he’s looking for. Keep waiting… Roger…

  651. Reference
    Posted Oct 14, 2007 at 4:27 AM | Permalink

    Steve, this table is an attempt to summarize the status of the auditing work presented here. Its purpose is to give a flavor of where CA stands today. This is just an outline of the outline, as you can see most of the boxes are empty. Comments, corrections etc etc, especially from professional auditors, are more than welcome.

  652. Posted Oct 14, 2007 at 5:25 AM | Permalink

    Sorry about that – go look at the Guardian.

  653. JP
    Posted Oct 14, 2007 at 7:22 AM | Permalink

    #366,
    Steve S.
    Could it simply be that the PDO has been in a warm phase for 31 years, and the AMO has been in a warm phase since 1995? The Pacific and Atlantic Ocean currents has just transported huge amounts of very warm waters poleward. The warm NH SST anamolies are just a reflection of this. A cooling Pacifc (longterm PDO change, not just La Nina) would, overtime cut off the flow of warm tropical waters northward.

    I remember reading some years back that the Chinese in the 1400s completed a number of expeditions to the Artic Circle, and they found nothing but water -that is no ice. There is also speculation that Marco Polo accompanied them. The glacial melt in the NH is more a reflection of warm SSTs and not warm ambient air temps.

    In any event a cooling Central Pacific has resulted in screwed up NH snyoptic weather patterns. Joe Bastardi mentioned this in a recent Accuweather blog post. He seems to be the only one who can accurately make medium range forecasts. NOAA already has under forecasted the current La Nina episode. Could the Pacific SSTs be cooling -as you say- because of general cooling, and not El Nino/La Nina oscillations?

    Steve: No reliance should be placed in these accounts of Chinese expeditions. The “evidence” has been sharply criticized. I don’t want to discuss this on this blog though.

  654. jimDK
    Posted Oct 14, 2007 at 9:54 AM | Permalink

    Nasif,
    “BTW Arrhenius constant alpha, and the whole algorithm, was rebated by Knut Ångström, but the scientific Media allowed Arrhenius to defend his case, while Ångström was not allowed to answer the defense of Arrhenius. Something similar at present days?”

    Do you have a reference for Angstrom defending his work? Everything i’ve seen says he was wrong.

    thankyou, jim

  655. Filippo Turturici
    Posted Oct 14, 2007 at 10:11 AM | Permalink

    JP (#657) the Chinese story is a dubious legend.
    But there is much better story to tell, which is proved too by archeological findings.
    Ellesmere Island, despite settlements like Eureka, is still nowaday surrounded 12 month a year by sea ice; it is the northest major isle of Canadian Arctic, north-east of Greenland. In the same years, around 1,000AD, when Vikings settled with their farms in South Greenland, such island was colonised by local people (likely the ancestors of Inuit people): the so-called Thule culture. They had to settle so far north because they had to follow sea ice for hunting, and it was confined so far north in the Middle Ages Optimum (remember that, likely, in Viking era Newfoundland coast was ice-free even during winter, while nowadays it is ice-blocked from late autumn to early summer); indeed, they were wiped out by Little Ice Age cooling.

  656. Larry
    Posted Oct 14, 2007 at 10:32 AM | Permalink

    655, you may want to add carbon cycle to the list for completeness (not that there’s any chance of getting all of that accomplished in 3 lifetimes). Also, the IPCC list of forcings is ripe for an audit. And this is just the WG1 stuff. You could also make that list about 5 times as long by adding WG2 and WG3 (consequences, economics, and remedies) to the list. Then we’d need about 10 lifetimes.

  657. Larry
    Posted Oct 14, 2007 at 10:38 AM | Permalink

    659, that’s correct. There was a Chinese captain named Zheng He (google for many articles), and he did have several documented voyages to the middle east, but no serious historian accepts the tales of him sailing the Arctic, or to the Americas. I’ll leave it up to anyone who wants to read these articles as to who would want to embellish his story and why.

  658. Larry
    Posted Oct 14, 2007 at 12:53 PM | Permalink

    FWIW, I think this thread is getting a bit long in the tooth. It’s almost impossible to comment without a text editor.

  659. Posted Oct 14, 2007 at 3:33 PM | Permalink

    re 646:

    BTW Arrhenius constant alpha, and the whole algorithm, was rebated by Knut Ångström, but the scientific Media allowed Arrhenius to defend his case, while Ångström was not allowed to answer the defense of Arrhenius. Something similar at present days?

    Knut Ångström rebutted Arrhenius in 1901 again (Annalen der Physik), however, Ångström did not dispute the underlying physics, just the constants. There is no trace of censoring, you are obviously not aware of the literature.
    BTW Where are you in the ukweatherworld thread?

  660. AK
    Posted Oct 14, 2007 at 4:06 PM | Permalink

    I hope the search is still on for peer-reviewed papers estimating 2.5 degrees for 2xCO2…

    In the book 3D Radiative Transfer in Cloudy Atmospheres by Marshak and Davis (Eds.) on page 10 there is a chart of estimated effects from “a well-known British climate model to an imposed doubling of CO2 with feedbacks added one by one“.

    It shows about 0.8 degrees for no feedbacks, 1.8 for water vapor feedback, 2.5 for ice albedo, and ranges from 2 to perhaps 5.5 after cloud effects. It claims to be adapted from “Senior and Mitchell(1993)”.

    I can’t get the full PDF to load in Mozilla, but from the abstract:

    The global warming produced with the four models then ranges from 5.4° with a relative humidity scheme to 1.9°C with interactive cloud water and radiative properties. Improving the treatment of ice cloud based on observations increases the model’s sensitivity slightly to 2.1°C. Using an energy balance model, it is estimated that the climate sensitivity using the relative humidity scheme along with the negative feedback from cloud radiative properties would be 2.8°C. Thus, 2.8°–2.1°C appears to be a better estimate of the range of equilibrium response to a doubling Of C02.

    Hope this helps.

  661. Richard Sharpe
    Posted Oct 14, 2007 at 4:25 PM | Permalink

    Gore criticized:

    Gore gets a cold shoulder

  662. Steve McIntyre
    Posted Oct 14, 2007 at 4:38 PM | Permalink

    http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=2200 continues this

One Trackback

  1. [...] Kirshan Murphy wrote an interesting post today onHere’s a quick excerptAs for (semi)classical radiation theory it is actually quite simple – rule 1 everything is black body , rule 2 everything is in the Planck law (derived from Bose Einstein statistics) . Of an important note and one that is often … [...]

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 3,332 other followers

%d bloggers like this: