Could these striations somehow be an artifact of the data being auto-correlated and the time scale of the moving average?

I have no idea if this is or could be the case but it would be nice to rule this out.

Does anyone know how to get the underlying data he used?

]]>Spencer seems to have found the source of artificial positive bias in diagnosing cloud feedback, which, if corrected, can reduce climate sensitivity at mere 0,8 deg K. If Spencer is right (none seriously disputed his conclusions thus far, he even had presentations of his results at Colorado University with 40 climatologists attending, and none objected) then all IPCC science is completely wrong, and your demand to AGW supporters to provide engineering quality study of 2XCO2 leading to 3 deg of warming is unnecessary. They will be shown to be **wrong**, not only stating uncertain propositions without engineering quality.

Geoff,

The correction involved appears to be because the measurement system is imperfect (finite angle of acceptance), not a problem with the theory itself. It’s similar to how stray light in a spectrophotometer limits the range of linear behavior of absorbance with concentration. Exponential extinction of transmitted radiation should continue for many more orders of magnitude than it is possible to measure in the lab.

]]>Ramanathan probably has something on it, but this is a dead end in terms of tracking IPCC

Ramanathan radiative-convective equilibrium.

]]>Is not line strength propotional to radiative forcing? Or do perhaps other physical laws apply for the atmosphere of the Earth and atmospheres of other objects in the universe? ]]>

The grass roots derivation of Beers Law is purely logarithmic.

What’s logarithmic is the concentration as a function of the fraction of transmitted light. Which makes the fraction of transmitted light an exponential function of the concentration.

]]>It should not be encouraged that a certain type of relationship, because it fits OK in a certain concentration range, can be extrapolated and turned into a rule relationship.

I have not read the whole article now cited, but the abstract gives an indication of some of the complexity. Given that some of the variables are as yet unable to be modelled or properly measured, great care should be taken in arriving at conclusions. Reference follows – I’d go broke if I had to pay the opening fee of every article of interest.

**L Wind and W W Szymanski
Institute of Experimental Physics, Aerosol Laboratory, University of Vienna, Boltzmanngasse 5, A-1090 Vienna, Austria
Abstract. We present a modelled approach of scattering contribution to the radiation transmission through a scattering medium, such as an aerosol, yielding a correction term to the Lambert-Beer law. The correction is essential because a certain amount of the forward scattered light flux is always overlaid on the transmitted radiation. Hence it enters together with the attenuated beam into the finite aperture of any detector system and therefore constitutes a potential problem in the inversion of measured data. This correction depends not only on the geometry of the measuring system but also substantially on the optical depth of the medium. We discuss the numerical analysis of the magnitude and functional behaviour of the scattering correction for a number of important measuring parameters and we give a simple approximation for the determination of the range of applicability of the scattering correction for single scattering conditions. Finally, we show that the derived expressions yield useful values of optical depths at which non-negligible multiple scattering effects occur.**

Keywords: extinction, aerosols, scattering corrections, single scattering, multiple scattering

An erratum for this article has been published in 2002 Meas. Sci. Technol. 13 951

**Print publication: Issue 3 (March 2002)
Received 29 June 2001, in final form 13 November 2001, accepted for publication 16 November 2001
Published 8 February 2002**