JoNova

A science presenter, writer, speaker & former TV host; author of The Skeptic's Handbook (over 200,000 copies distributed & available in 15 languages).


Handbooks

The Skeptics Handbook

Think it has been debunked? See here.

The Skeptics Handbook II

Climate Money Paper


Advertising

micropace


GoldNerds

The nerds have the numbers on precious metals investments on the ASX



Archives

Washington Times: Climate due to water cycle not carbon dioxide

I’m very glad to see this point being made in the mainstream media. Earth is a water planet (yet the models don’t do clouds, rain, snow or humidity well).  This is pitched for The Washington Times audience, not a science blog, but it’s a point well made, and it’s good to see the point about positive feedback from water vapor, which I (and David Evans) have been making for so long, is getting out to the mainstream press. Readers will also find the North Atlantic hurricane statistics on predictions versus outcome rather stark.   – Jo

————————————————————————————————————————-

Climate change is dominated by the water cycle, not carbon dioxide

By Steve Goreham

Originally published in The Washington Times

Climate scientists are obsessed with carbon dioxide. The newly released Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) claims that “radiative forcing” from human-emitted CO2 is the leading driver of climate change. Carbon dioxide is blamed for everything from causing more droughts, floods, and hurricanes, to endangering polar bears and acidifying the oceans. But Earth’s climate is dominated by water, not carbon dioxide.

Earth’s water cycle encompasses the salt water of the oceans, the fresh water of rivers and lakes, and frozen icecaps and glaciers. It includes water flows within and between the oceans, atmosphere, and land, in the form of evaporation, precipitation, storms and weather. The water cycle contains enormous energy flows that shape Earth’s climate, temperature trends, and surface features. Water effects are orders of magnitude larger than the feared effects of carbon dioxide

Sunlight falls directly on the Tropics, where much energy is absorbed, and indirectly on the Polar Regions, where less energy is absorbed. All weather on Earth is driven by a redistribution of heat from the Tropics to the Polar Regions. Evaporation creates massive tropical storm systems, which move heat energy north [and south says Jo]  to cooler latitudes. Upper level winds, along with the storm fronts, cyclones, and ocean currents of Earth’s water cycle, redistribute heat energy from the Tropics to the Polar Regions.

The Pacific Ocean is Earth’s largest surface feature, covering one-third of the globe and large enough to contain all of Earth’s land masses with area remaining. Oceans have 250 times the mass of the atmosphere and can hold over 1,000 times the heat energy. Oceans have a powerful, yet little understood effect on Earth’s climate.

Even the greenhouse effect itself is dominated by water. Between 75 percent and 90 percent of Earth’s greenhouse effect is caused by water vapor and clouds.

Yet, the IPCC and today’s climate modelers propose that the “flea” wags “the dog.” The flea, of course, is carbon dioxide, and the dog, is the water cycle. The theory of man-made warming assumes a positive feedback from water vapor, forced by human emissions of greenhouse gases.

The argument is that, since warmer air can hold more moisture, atmospheric water vapor will increase as Earth warms. Since water vapor is a greenhouse gas, additional water vapor is presumed to add additional warming to that caused by CO2. In effect, the theory assumes that the carbon cycle is controlling the more powerful water cycle.

But for the last 15 years, Earth’s surface temperatures have failed to rise, despite rising atmospheric carbon dioxide. All climate models predicted a rapid rise in global temperatures, in conflict with actual measured data. Today’s models are often unable to predict weather conditions for a single season, let alone long-term climate trends.

 An example is Atlantic hurricane prediction. In May, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) issued its 2013 hurricane forecast, calling for an “active or extremely active” hurricane season. At that time, NOAA predicted 7 to 11 Atlantic hurricanes (storms with sustained wind speeds of 74 mph or higher). In August NOAA revised their forecast down to 6 to 9 hurricanes. We entered October with a count of only two hurricane-strength storms. Computer models are unable to accurately forecast one season of Earth’s water cycle in just one region.

….

The IPCC and proponents of the theory of man-made warming are stumped by the 15-year halt in global surface temperature rise. Dr. Kevin Trenberth hypothesizes that the heat energy from greenhouse gas forcing has gone into the deep oceans. If so, score one for the power of the oceans on climate change. Others have noted the prevalence of La Niña conditions in the Pacific Ocean since 1998. During 1975-1998, when global temperatures were rising, the Pacific experienced more frequent warm El Niño events than the cooler La Niñas. But the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO), a powerful temperature cycle in the North Pacific Ocean, moved into a cool phase about ten years ago. With the PDO in a cool phase, we now see more La Niña conditions. Maybe more La Niñas are the reason for the recent flat global temperatures. But if so, isn’t this evidence that ocean and water cycle effects are stronger than the effects of CO2?

Geologic evidence from past ice ages shows that atmospheric carbon dioxide increases follow, rather than precede, global temperature increases. As the oceans warm, they release CO2 into the atmosphere. Climate change is dominated by changes in the water cycle, driven by solar and gravitational forces, and carbon dioxide appears to play only a minor role.

Steve Goreham is Executive Director of the Climate Science Coalition of America and author of the new book The Mad, Mad, Mad World of Climatism:  Mankind and Climate Change Mania.

 

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 8.7/10 (126 votes cast)
Washington Times: Climate due to water cycle not carbon dioxide, 8.7 out of 10 based on 126 ratings

Tiny Url for this post: http://tinyurl.com/qz8hout

236 comments to Washington Times: Climate due to water cycle not carbon dioxide

  • #
    Bulaman

    I have been saying for years if you plot the increasing area of land under irrigation you will get a major hockey stick! All this water (responsible for 90+% of the greenhouse effect) being added to the “cycle” is more likely to affect the climate than the evil CO2 molecule!
    Of course it is less popular to call out the food industry vs evil big oil!
    Cheers

    131

    • #
      Backslider

      I have brought up this point previously. Human emissions of H20 are massive when compared with CO2. The retort is that “water doesn’t stay up there for long”…. yes, but its a constant flow and while its up there it does what it does.

      Perhaps we should all sign that di-hydrogen monoxide petition?

      231

  • #
    Andrew McRae

    It’s a shame that’s only in their blogs section. If it had been in the daily print version it would be a major raid on the IPCC camp in PR terms. This is another milestone on the road to climate skepticism becoming mainstream. Can we look forward to a full frontal assault within a year?

    Maybe more La Niñas are the reason for the recent flat global temperatures. But if so, isn’t this evidence that ocean and water cycle effects are stronger than the effects of CO2?

    Good point. They can’t have it both ways. Either the ocean cycle is always weak, or it is always strong. Somebody please tell Trenberth the oceans did not suddenly switch on in 2002. The temperature rise of 1972-2002 was partly because of the repeating 62 year PDO cycle being in the warming phase, so it should be no surprise since 2002 we’ve had cooling due to PDO too.

    Would have been nice if he’d mentioned sunspots as the other half of the effect.

    Steve Goreham is …author of the new book The Mad, Mad, Mad World of Climatism: Mankind and Climate Change Mania.

    Anna Rose of Australian Youth Climate Coalition wrote the book “Madlands” in 2012.

    I propose a new hypothesis of Climate Change Change, where each time a book by one side is written about the other side, the number of instances of Mad in the title is tripled.
    The number of “mad” words in the title is therefore equal to 3^n where n is the nth book in the flame war starting from n=0. The hypothesis can be tested by checking if a book about climate change containing “Mad,Mad,Mad,Mad,Mad,Mad,Mad,Mad,Mad” in the title is published by a warmist during the next 2 years.

    162

  • #
    Kevin Lohse

    Hi. Jo. Much common sense from you as usual. Have you seen this? Definitely treading on Green toes. The mere fact that it’s been published is a welcome sign that sceptic scientists are feeling bold enough to move from reacting to Warmist ideas towards getting our retaliation in first. The paper supplements much of what you’ve been saying for some time.

    http://www.bishop-hill.net/blog/2013/10/7/oceans-are-unprecedentedly-alkaline.html

    112

  • #

    For year, I have try to make that same point. This is a link to a chart of H20 in PPM of water vapor versus the dew point temperature.
    The ppm is based upon using the Goff-Gratch equation.
    Spread sheet and plot of PPM of H20 vs dew point tempertures.
    The link to the open office Goff-Gratch-vaporpressure.sxc is http://toms.homeip.net/global_warming/SpreadSheets/Goff-Gratch-vaporpressure.sxc

    A change in dew point from 50F to 75F is a change of 12,113 ppm to 29,247 PPM. This compared to some 100 PPM of CO2 over multiple decades. Dewpoints doubling the H20 change daily.

    Yet, the IPCC and today’s climate modelers propose that the “flea” wags “the dog.” The flea, of course, is carbon dioxide, and the dog, is the water cycle. The theory of man-made warming assumes a positive feedback from water vapor, forced by human emissions of greenhouse gases.

    101

  • #

    A minor typo.

    In August NOAA revised their forecast down to 6 to 9 hurricanes.

    Should read

    In August NOAA revised their forecast down from 9 to 6 hurricanes.

    10

    • #
      Woodsy42

      No, I don’t think it is a typo Manicbeancounter. They are not specifying a change from 9 to 6.

      They are specifying a different range – a new expectation of a range between 6 and 9 (hence the wording 6 to 9) in place of a previous expected range of between 7 and 11 (described as 7 to 11).

      31

  • #
  • #
    Rereke Whakaaro

    I always reckoned it waz water wot dun it. I sez to Mabel, it ain’t no gas that is making us ‘ot. It’ll be th’ water coz no one is sayin’ nuffin’ abart it, it’s a secret see?

    142

  • #
    Steve C

    Dead right. We call it “Planet Earth”, but it’s really Planet Ocean.

    100

    • #
      Neville

      “planet ocean” ?? Pffsshh! ONLY if you’re thinking of the extended biosphere – you know, that portion of the planet which by analogy is roughly equivalent to the proportions represented by the thickness of a sheet of paper wrapped around an orange. But yes, for sure, disregarding the interior of the planet, where a very significant amount of moving and shaking goes on (yes, that WAS a pun!) the extended biosphere certainly COULD be called planet “biosphere ocean”.

      10

  • #
    blackadderthe4th

    ‘Climate scientists are obsessed with carbon dioxide.’ with good reason!

    Water vapour and co2 as GHGs and heat vent blockers. [Therefore resulting in AGW!].

    ‘70 years ago the view that co2 could affect the global climate was held by only a tiny minority of climate scientists, many assumed there would be a self regulating mechanism that would put things back into balance. Then there was the scientifically valid view that water vapour also trapped radiation and warms up the Earth and it is more abundant in the atmosphere than co2. But research in the 1940s changed all that, Guy Stewart Callender, a British engineer showed that radiation absorption is not even. Water vapour absorbs is mainly in the 18-30 micro-meter band and allows most of the rest to escape into space, in effect these absorption gaps act like cooling vents , but co2 absorbs in a different range, 8-18 micro-metre so Callender concluded that co2 mops up this escaping radiation, effectively acting as a plug to these cooling vents’. {Therefore we get AGW!} Potholer54.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_RdAKIN6Y6k

    ————–

    REPLY: Yes. And due to a shortage of any rational voices from the believers of AGW we let BA post these banal CO2-is-a-Greenhouse-Gas comments, even though he is five years behind the pace, and the rest of us have moved on to talk about the feedbacks. Yes CO2 slows heat escape from some wavelengths. Extra heat most likely escapes through other windows. – Jo

    011

  • #
    Richard

    Good to see the mainstream media reporting on these issues more frequently. I always thought that water vapour’s role had been downplayed too. The IPCC attribute about 70% of the greenhouse-effect to water vapour. But consider that water vapour makes up on *average* 1% of the atmosphere or 10,000ppmv (Source: NASA Earth Fact Sheet) and CO2 is 0.04% or 400ppmv whereas other greenhouse gases like methane exist in negligible trace amounts. My loose command of math suggests that water therefore makes up about 96% of the greenhouse by volume. Consider also that water vapour absorbs energy over a far wider energy-wave spectrum (anyone got the graph?) and it becomes strikingly apparent that CO2 is totally insignificant and utterly overwhelmed by water vapour. To make matters worse a large part of CO2′s absorption-bands are overlapped by water vapour as well.

    130

    • #
      Graeme No.3

      Quite right.

      And soon someone will connect the quieter sun with the lower atmospheric water content in recent years, and the colder temperatures being reported in both hemispheres and wonder why the official temperature figures (not the satellite ones) are showing higher and higher temperatures.

      101

      • #
        Backslider

        the lower atmospheric water content in recent years

        And this point is key – alarmist GHG theory is 100% dependent on a positive feedback from INCREASED water vapor and clouds. Both have fallen while CO2 continues to rise.

        92

        • #
          Reinder van Til

          Isn’t that consistence with the claim by NASA that the Earth is turning more green? CO2 and H20 form the basic molecules plants need. So if plants take CO2 of our emissions they also take H20 from the air. Yesterday I saw a video on Youtube that is so beautiful and in someway comforting about the positive effects of CO2 in our atmosphere. It is a total shame how this basic molecule for life is treated nowdays:

          https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=uuhkS5flvZk

          40

        • #
          sophocles

          If you look at the databases (see Bob Tisdale’s blog where he
          publishes the cloud data from NOAA, for example),you’ll find
          that the average oceanic cloud cover is increasing slightly but
          steadily and has been for some time. It’s a small but steady
          increment, which is consistent with the steady but small
          temperature decrement for the last decade.

          Increasing cloud cover = decreasing temperature.

          Svensmark’s hypothesis is for the increasing oceanic cloud
          cover to be driven by increasing exposure to (very) high
          energy cosmic rays. This increment in cosmic ray exposure is,
          in turn, related to (or controlled by) the slow but steady
          decrement in Solar magnetic activity.

          There seems to be some interesting correlation. He and his
          team are still experimenting to further validate (or prove
          or disprove) this hypothesis.

          The CR count captured at the Oulu observatory Hawaii is for
          low to medium energy CRs, (counting free neutrons) not the
          very high energy ones (muons travelling at near light speed),
          so correlation of cloud cover etc with that count is poor.
          (It’s like trying to count high speed motorcycles but including
          all cars and trucks in the count.)

          The current sun spot cycle is just over half as strong as
          it was predicted to be four years ago. It seems to be
          tracking cycle 5 (which started about 1798) very closely.
          Cycles 5 and 6 were both low forming what is now called the
          Dalton Minimum (1798 – 1835 approx). Charles Dickens grew up
          and completed much of his writing over this period. The
          weather described in his books, especially the winters, are
          probably pretty much as we can expect for the next thirty
          years or so. The Northern Hemisphere’s last 5 winters have
          been … umm, extreme.

          60

    • #

      I have tried to put together graphs show CO2 and H20 absorption and transmission characteristics over typical black body ranges.

      Here are a few I have put together.
      http://toms.homeip.net/global_warming/+-Atmospheric_Transmission.jpg
      I think this is a generic from wiki

      http://toms.homeip.net/global_warming/nist.gov-H20-n-CO2-trans.gif
      this is a composite I created by overlaying CO2 and H20
      The original url of the data is shown in the image. They are from nist.gov.
      nist.gof is Currently closed as per the order of the obamanation adminsitruation.

      51

    • #
      jorgekafkazar

      And CO2 is soluble in the stuff, too. There may be a lot less than 400 ppm CO2 in clouds.

      20

  • #

    Does anyone really appreciate the meaning of the common dew point temperature. The dew point temperature is really an expression of current water vapor pressure in the air. It is the temperature where that current water vapor pressure would be at the saturation and any lowering of the temperature would cause condensation of the vapor. The important point is that it give a direct indication of how many parts per million of H20 is in the air.

    I looked into the credentials of the author of this article, Steve Goreham. He has an MSEE and an MBA. From there I went to his web site and his explanation of green house effects. facts-about-global-warming/#greenhouse_effect

    The following are part of the facts and that is repeated in the above article.

    Even the greenhouse effect itself is dominated by water. Between 75 percent and 90 percent of Earth’s greenhouse effect is caused by water vapor and clouds.

    I cannot comprehend how anyone can just assume that 75% to 90% is a logical or reasonable number.

    The green house effect of gas should be the sum of the effects of each molecule times the number of molecules in that gas.

    For anyone who looks at the absorption resonate wavelength of CO2 vs H20 it is evident that each molecule of H20 is 20? 50? times as potent based upon summing all the wavelengths and energy they represent. Why can we not find any information published giving that?

    Now you then multiply that summed wavelength energy by the numbers of molecules.

    All my engineering experience tells me. The percent of effect is the somehow related to that ratio. How can that be only 75 to 90% for H20.??

    I just don’t get it. Is everyone but me out picking daisies.

    http://toms.homeip.net/global_warming/SpreadSheets/Goff-Gratch-PPM-daisies.gif

    71

    • #
      jorgekafkazar

      Depends where you’re measuring it. As you go higher, the atmosphere gets dryer as water vapor freezes or condenses out. It’s variable.

      30

  • #
    AndyG55

    Hey, the anti-human-progress climate crew can now start GENUINELY using pics of cooling towers !!

    ……… look at that horrible steam pollution !!

    113

  • #

    It is a good article.
    Another way to see how carbon dioxide is the “flea that wags the dog” is by by extending backwards the positive feedback from CO2. In 2007 the IPCC had 3 celsius as its central estimate for climate sensitivity. Assume that the greenhouse effect is 33 celsius & CO2 is 400ppm. On a spreadsheet try halving 400 11 times. Next to this list the series 33,30,27…..0. By my reckoning (to 1 dp of CO2 level) the first 3 celsius of the greenhouse effect is from doubling CO2 from 0.2 to 0.4ppm. Then last 3 celsius is from doubling CO2 from 200 to 400ppm. This is ridiculous. There are three possibilities
    1. Strong positive feedback exists for a small range around current CO2 levels, with negative feedback outside of this range.
    2. To talk about change in temperature for a doubling of CO2 is incorrect. It is more towards a linear relationship for much lower levels of CO2 than at present, with greater rates of diminishing returns at higher levels. The rate of diminishing returns is accelerating.
    3. Alternatively, if the sensitivity of CO2 is related to its doubling, it has a much smaller impact than the 3 degrees.

    What Steve Goreham suggests is that there are many ways to look at the numbers. CO2 has been modelled to account (very crudely) for the largest variations in temperature over a short period, with other possible elements given bit parts.

    70

  • #
    PeterS

    No one has pointed out the obvious. If man-made CO2 is the cause of runaway global warming, then how come it hasn’t warmed for the last decade or so? Are the AGW alarmists now saying man-made water vapour is counteracting the warming? If so then what’s the problem? If not then what is counteracting it? No matter how one looks at this AGW issue, it’s a failed theory at best and a scam at worst, and more likely a mixture of the two.

    40

    • #
      Reinder van Til

      CO2 is not capable of creating a runaway greenhouse into a Venus atmosphere. If it was capable it had done so 500 million years ago when CO2 levels are estimated about 20 times as high as today.

      90

      • #
        PeterS

        I too see no way how our tiny amount of CO2 can lead to a runaway greenhouse effect, even if it doubled from present levels. It’s all BS.

        41

  • #
    RC Saumarez

    This is very serious.

    We must regulate WATER. If we do not we will have catastrophic global warming.

    We must not wash, water our gardens, flush our lavatories and we must recycle our urine (without emitting CO2).

    Bring on the water tax!

    70

    • #
      PeterS

      Well, we already have a water tax in effect. What we might see a urine tax like the one the Romans had.

      10

    • #
      Reinder van Til

      Now hush will ya? Be careful with what you wish for. Considering the apparent stupidity of some folks on this planet I would not rule out that they come up with a breathing tax too. :-D

      40

    • #
      Rohan

      Jeez Luoise, that means we’ll soon have a cabon AND a water tax, as water is the other significant combustion gas.

      10

    • #
      Manfred

      The EPA will turn their hand to the “regulation” of water.

      Hmmm.

      They could do what they did with CO2 n’est ce pas?

      20

    • #
      RC Saumarez

      It’s even worse. As a potentially dangerous substance, all water will have to accompanied by a tocicological analysis and full instructions on what to do if it is accidently spilt, or worse still, ingested.

      20

  • #
    Dave

    .
    Good article, I have sent it to Paul.Holper at csiro.au who is organising this:
    Greenhouse 2013.

    Sponsors are:
    1. BOM
    2. CSIRO
    3. Aust Government Department of Environment
    4. Government of South Australia
    5. New Scientist
    6. City of Adelaide
    7. ACE CRC Antartic Climate & Ecosystems.

    Speakers are:
    1. Dr. Thomas Stocker Co-chair IPCC working Group 1
    2. Prof Will Steffen ANU
    3. Dr Pep Canadell Executive Director Global Carbon Project, CSIRO
    4. Dr David Wratt New Zealand’s National Institute of Water & Atmospheric Research
    5. Prof Andy Pitman Professor Climate science, University of New South Wales
    6. Dr Rob Vertessy BOM
    7. Dr Steve Rintoul ACE CRC Oceans Program, CSIRO
    8. Prof Nathan Bindoff Physical Oceanography at the University of Tasmania
    9. Dr Lisa Alexander University of New South Wales
    PLUS there are 9 more, all rentseekers on the gravy train.

    Sent a copy to Hon Greg Hunt, asking him why all these government institutions are sponsoring this CAGW love fest.

    Costs for attending:
    Early bird registration (until 31 July 2013) – A$990
    Full registration (from 1 August 2013) – A$1485
    Two-day registration – A$770
    Student registration – A$440

    Bet the majority of attendees get the registration fees, accommodation and flights paid also by the government institutions and councils.

    190

    • #
      jorgekafkazar

      “Bet the majority of attendees get the registration fees, accommodation and flights paid also by the government institutions and councils.”

      Or by you, in other words.

      80

      • #

        Or the next generation. The Government has a deficit. In trying to “save the planet for future generations”, the Australian, British and US Governments of the left are bequeathing an unprecedented burden of debt to our children.

        00

    • #
      Michael

      I love the point where they say passion for climate change so its not the CO2 or water or the sun – its those participants – they are causing climate change. Another of “the science is settled”- except we consider it- except we have to make a difference- they have no idea what they are doing- minds who have the least going on in them.

      40

  • #
    Albert

    Climate due to water cycle, go figure ??

    10

  • #
    Reinder van Til

    I could not resist to reply to some comments on the comment section below the original article. :-)

    00

  • #
    incoherent rambler

    If you have not read this, do it.

    But wrapping themselves in the mantle of science, the warmists have utterly corrupted it: making the evidence fit prior conclusions, suppressing inconvenient truths that blow AGW theory into the stratosphere, tampering with and distorting the facts in order to serve a political agenda, pressurising and intimidating scientists who have tried to tell the truth about nothing-out-of-the-ordinary climate change. With AGW zealots pumping out propaganda under the guise of ‘science’, how is the public to be expected to believe scientists when they do tell the truth about where the evidence leads?

    For ultimately, this is not even just about science. It is about truth, evidence and rational thought. The real casualty of the AGW scam is surely reason itself.

    Now reason has to fight back.

    120

  • #
    janama

    The Late Professor Lance Endersbee proposed that the Great Artesian Basin was filled by Plutonic or Abiotic water that comes up from the mantle kilometres down. He claimed the loud noise created by the eruption of Krakatoa heard as far away as Alice Springs was caused by water in the base of the volcano suddenly expanding into steam. He’s saying that the mantle creates water just as some say it creates oil.

    If that’s the case then water may not be a finite resource and is increasing which could also account for sea level rise.

    http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=1215&page=0

    20

  • #
    delory

    If the temperature-rise-generates-extra-water-vapour-which-further-amplifies-the-temperature-rise (unstable feedback) argument is true, then it should apply regardless of how the initial temperature rise may have occurred (whether via CO2 or via water-vapour or whatever else);

    Assuming
    * The oceans cover a large surface area of the earth, and act as a mighty reservior of water vapour.
    * CO2 can cause a rise in temperature.
    * Water vapour is a significantly more effective greenhouse gas than CO2, and can also cause a rise in temperature.
    * Greenhouse gas molecules are ignorant to the CAUSE of the temperature rise – they simply do what they do to reach chemical/energy equilibrium.

    Then;
    Why do we not see a catastrophic ‘runaway’ climate system that has been perturbed at some stage by excess water vapour?

    16

  • #
    R. Gates, a Skeptical Warmist

    Hey Aussies, how are you enjoying your warmest year on record?

    CO2 is a noncondensing GHG and is the thermostat for the climate. Take it away, and we go back to an ice house planet as all that condensing GH water vapor is rained or snowed out of the atmosphere. This is simple physics Aussies. As CO2 levels go up, the planet warms.

    433

    • #
      R. Gates, a Skeptical Warmist

      The point is that water vapor is indeed a more potent GH gas BUT the level of noncondensing GH gases, of which CO2 is the most important, determine the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere. It is absolutely a fact that if you removed the noncondensing CO2 from the atmosphere we would go back to the ice house planet conditions much like Antactica. CO2 determines the level of H2O. It is the dog that wags the climate tail.

      424

      • #
        Andrew McRae

        It is absolutely a fact that if you removed the noncondensing CO2 from the atmosphere

        HAHAHA! Ah you warmists are so predictable. You demonstrate your inability to discern the difference between theory and fact. The only way the above statement could be a fact is if this experiment had actually been done and all the CO2 had been removed from the atmosphere. This had never happened, so it is not a fact. Facts are actual, observable, measurable events. Please remember the difference!

        we would go back to the ice house planet conditions much like Antactica.

        Is there any nonsense the IPCC crowd and Lacis et al 2012 could tell you that you wouldn’t believe? You actually believe these people when they exaggerate the warming power of CO2.

        Just think of the scale of energy involved. These people are actually trying to tell you that if it were not for the ongoing GHE of CO2, all the clouds would rain out, humidity would drop, and the missing water vapor would never be replaced by any more evaporating water.
        This implies the GHE backradiation of CO2 alone, which they estimate in their flat earth model as 30W/m^2, is capable of evaporating an amount of water equal to 20% of the world’s average total daily rainfall, since with water vapour feedback they can evaporate the rest. That’s infeasible, but if you want to believe that is occurring just try figuring out how much energy is needed.
        The global averaged daily rainfall is 990L/m^2 and you have to evaporate 198L/m^2 with a average daily dose of 2592kJ of energy per square metre. See how far you get evaporating all that water with CO2 alone. Hehehee.
        The latent heat of vaporization is 44kJ/mol, so you can only evaporate 58mol of water per square metre, which is 1060g or just over 1L. That’s too low by a factor of 200 times. Your heroes have sold you on a theory which is impossible by a factor of 200.
        The CO2 is too weak at warming to be evaporating that much water, therefore it is isn’t responsible for that much evaporation, so getting rid of the CO2 would not lead to a total loss of water vapour from the air, so the most powerful GHG (water!) would remain and keep the surface warm.

        131

        • #
          Andrew McRae

          UPDATE: Sorry, please note the above calculation was based on an incorrect figure for average rainfall, where the annual average was used instead of a daily average.
          The calculation of required daily evaporation with the correct rainfall figure is:
          505000 [km^3/y] ÷ 510072000 [km^2] × 10⁹[m^3/km^3] ÷ 10⁶[m^2/km^2] ÷ 365[d/y] × 0.2 [alleged CO2 evaporation fraction] × 1000 [L/m^3] = 0.54 L/m^2

          The calculation of volume evaporated by 30W/m^2 (1L/m^2) was correct, though this assumes the CO2 backradiation alleged by Lacis et al is as strong as 30W/m^2.

          The new conclusion is the actual evaporation from 30W/m^2 is about double the amount needed by the iceball hypothesis. The amount being presently evaporated by CO2 according to the Lacis hypothesis can’t be disproven by the above rainfall argument. This does not prove the Lacis hypothesis about the iceball Earth, it just means that hypothesis doesn’t demand total evaporation to be more than is occurring.
          The figure of 30W/m^2 from CO2 could still be disputed based on other empirical research of climate sensitivity to CO2, such as by Sherwood Idso and Spencer & Brasswell where climate sensitivty (and therefore the radiant forcing) of CO2 is found to be between a third and a quarter of the IPCC guesstimates.
          According to Trenberth’s energy budget diagram the back-radiation from all GHGs is 333W/m^2 and 20% of that is 66W/m^2, so even amongst the warmists they don’t really know what contribution is from CO2.

          Quite possibly this whole line of argument is irrelevant due to the logarithmic effect of CO2 on temperature. When the partial pressure drops below 10ppmv the curve goes into a steep dive, and the temperature drop down to 1ppm could be taken as the total contribution to temperature.
          Take the consensus dT = λ * 5.35 * ln ( c / c0 ) equation for CO2 effect on temperature. Note the mainstream Rahmstorf value for λ is 0.8. To freeze the oceans from their average value of 12.5 Celsius requires a λ no greater than 0.39, and plugging this λ back into the equation gives us a climate sensitivity of 1.44 degrees per doubling of CO2. That is not far above lukewarmer skeptical views and is so far from being catastrophic that it barely qualifies as “warmist”, it’s basically in no-man’s land. So the warming effect of projected CO2 profiles may be quite uneventful even if the iceball hypothesis was true.

          Then there’s the inconvenient fact that cloud cover over China decreased by 1.6% per decade between 1954-2005, and a global decrease in albedo of nearly 3% per decade was seen by Goode and Pallé’s Earthshine experiment between 1984 and 2004 (giving a radiative forcing increase during those 20 years nearly 3 times greater than all the CO2 increase since 1850). The measurements fly in the face of global warming enthusiasts. The earth’s feedback response to a warming from any source is to evaporate more water and make more clouds. When you have cloud cover decreasing at the same time as warming it shows the decrease in clouds is the primary cause of that warming. The more warming attributable to cloud cover decrease, the less that can be attributed to CO2, which begins to look weak by comparison.
          The iceball hypothesis can’t stand the heat.

          00

      • #
        Reinder van Til

        CO2 determines the level of H2O. It is the dog that wags the climate tail.

        Really? Are you familiar with the Vostok Ice cores? If so, how do you explain the lag between temperature rises and CO2 increasing? Why does the temperature rise first and CO2 later if CO2 “wags the climate tail”?

        90

    • #
      Richard

      And yet increasing CO2 for the past decade or more hasn’t seen an increase in surface temperatures. Perhaps we should name this conundrum the “global warming hiatus”, recognising simple physics is not enough to explain what’s happening in a complex system.

      103

      • #
        R. Gates, a Skeptical Warmist

        You know where this is going Richard, or if you are a long term student of the climate system you ought to know. The energy gained by the oceans over the past 40+ years vastly dwarfs anything the troposphere could have gained. In fact, the leading expert on ocean heat content summed it up nicely this year when he said:

        “if all the heat stored in the world ocean since 1955 was instantly transferred to the lowest 10 km ( 5 miles) of the atmosphere, this part of the atmosphere would warm by ~ 65°F.”

        See his full report here:
        http://cicar.ei.columbia.edu/sitefiles/file/Levitus-Lamont-05.pdf

        The troposphere I has a low thermal inertia, but the ocean, as the primary heat sink of the planet can’t escape the heat and has been warming, without ant decadal pause for 40+ years.

        323

        • #
          Backslider

          if all the heat stored in the world ocean since 1955 was instantly transferred…..blah blah blah

          Right. That’s from the guy who thinks he is able to measure ocean temperatures since 1955. We know immediately that anything he has to say is a crock.

          Sorry sonny, but all of your models have failed miserably. Temperatures are in decline, sea ice is rising, clouds and water vapor are falling (oops, there went your CO2 positive feedback)…..

          Come back when you have some science.

          142

        • #
          janama

          I see – so the increase in atmospheric temperatures was fine until 1998 when it all decided to go into the oceans instead and no longer affect the atmosphere.

          Interesting science, I didn’t know the atmosphere had a mind of it’s own.

          160

          • #
            Reinder van Til

            Yes! Didn’t you know that was the same year they put traffic signs all over the planet to help the heat find the oceans? That is also why they invented tomtom’s! :-D

            50

          • #
            R. Gates, a Skeptical Warmist

            Janama,

            Net energy flow is ALWAYS from ocean to atmosphere. This is fundamental to understanding Earth’s climate. For the atmosphere to stop warming under the continued increased forcing from increased GH gases, only two things can be the cause: less energy flowing from ocean and/or less solar energy reaching the atmosphere. Over the past decade, both are true, but it has not been an even split– about 75% of the tropospheric pause is due to less energy moving from ocean to atmosphere. The other 25% is from increased sulfate aersols blocking out sunlight and a somewhat sleepy sun.

            08

        • #
          Dave

          Mr. Gates.

          CAGW FACTS (GAIA):

          1. The oceans are holding 65 deg F increase of heat (Maggate et al)
          2. The atmosphere is heating to boiling point by 2030 (Geldof et al)
          3. The Arctic has nearly totally melted (SKS.com)
          4. The Antarctic is melting rapidly (Al Gore et al)
          5. Australia has had the hottest year on record EVER (Maggot et al)
          6. The oceans are expanding and going to flood the world (Flannery et al)

          We’re all gone, aren’t we Mr. Gates?

          QUESTIONS:

          1. Should I stop paying my mortgage?
          2. Should I close my polluting truck business to stop CO2 and go on the dole?
          3. Should I buy a heap of stuff from Bunnings to build an ARK?
          4. Should I donate any left over money to the Climate Council who’ll save us?
          5. Should I say stuff it, and go for broke as everyone is pharqued anyway?

          I really like number 5. Mr Gates. Don’t you see the fear factor is working against you.
          As MV said below, you haven’t got a clue as to the real situation, only GAIA worship.

          The more idiots like you come here, the better to highlight your stupidity.

          You have ID ten T bug that commonly infect computer trolls.

          161

        • #
          Andrew McRae

          Bobby Gatekeeper quotes:
          >“if all the heat stored in the world ocean since 1955 was instantly transferred to the lowest 10 km ( 5 miles) of the atmosphere, this part of the atmosphere would warm by ~ 65°F.”

          In other words, if something that can never occur were to occur then something that won’t happen would happen.
          Sounds scary! To keep it scary you’ll have to assume all that heat stays on the surface and doesn’t get radiated away within a matter of months by that fabulous infra-red emitting gas called water-vapour. Otherwise you’ll end up with the shortest Armageddon in fiction. That would be embarrassing.

          Back here on earth, Bobby G, it seems cool times are ahead for ocean heat content.

          the ocean, as the primary heat sink of the planet can’t escape the heat and has been warming, without ant decadal pause for 40+ years.

          Better check that northern hemisphere OHC graph again, in case you missed it. The NH OHC leads the SH OHC with a lead of 12 months. Better put on an extra jumper, Bobby G.

          Say, how’s that CO2 theory working out for ya, Bobby boy? Dead as a doornail by the looks of it.
          Could I interest you in an alternative that works?

          90

        • #
          AndyG55

          “if all the heat stored in the world ocean since 1955 was instantly transferred to the lowest 10 km ( 5 miles) of the atmosphere, this part of the atmosphere would warm by ~ 65°F.”

          And if all the fish in the sea suddenly jumped up in the air, the sea level would drop by 10 meters and all the starving people in the world would be fed.

          Is this the same RGates that used to make everyone laugh with his idiocy over on WUWT?

          The warmists are somehow finding trolls that are more and more STUPID each time they send a new one !!

          141

        • #
          Reinder van Til

          “if all the heat stored in the world ocean since 1955 was instantly transferred to the lowest 10 km ( 5 miles) of the atmosphere, this part of the atmosphere would warm by ~ 65°F.”

          I see. Next winter I will remember this when it’s cold outside. I will travel to the Northsea and sit in the water to make me warm. :-D

          50

        • #
          tom0mason

          These are not facts but hypotheses. Where are the large scale measurements of ocean temperatures and salinity at different depths?
          Answer, there is next to none. There is no experimental proof.

          60

        • #
          Eric Anderson

          R. Gates:

          “if all the heat stored in the world ocean since 1955 was instantly transferred to the lowest 10 km ( 5 miles) of the atmosphere . . .”

          Yes, and if all the heat stored in the atmosphere were instantly sucked out of the atmosphere we’d all freeze. What’s with the nonsensical, hypotheticals? Sounds vaguely familiar to this silly story that recently ran in the US MSM:

          http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/10/02/climate-craziness-of-the-week-climate-boiling-point/

          10

          • #
            AndyG55

            Its simple..

            Reality is proving their hypothesis WRONG, so they now have to try and scare us with hypotheticals instead.

            What would happen if an elephant fell out of a plain and landed on you. ?

            (“plain” is spelt exactly as I wish to spell it)

            10

    • #
      Backslider

      CO2 is a noncondensing GHG and is the thermostat for the climate.

      No its not! A far more rabid warmist than yourself has assured us that it is “The Control Knob”.

      As CO2 levels go up, the planet warms.

      CO2 levels continue up….. the warming has stopped.

      BUT the level of noncondensing GH gases, of which CO2 is the most important, determine the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere.

      Perhaps then you can tell us, if you will, why water vapor and clouds are in fact falling as CO2 continues to rise?

      121

      • #
        R. Gates, a Skeptical Warmist

        Backslider,

        What do you suppose would happen if we took all the CO2 out of the atmosphere? (Besides all the plants and then animals going away). Answer: Ice planet Earth, with a very dry atmosphere much like Antarctica. So if you allow the rational part of your brain to engage, only logic ought to tell you that as we slowly increase CO2 from 0 ppm up to what we have now that water vapor content would slowly increase, warming the planet even more. Thus, CO2, and not water vapor is the actual control knob.

        The current total amount of water in the atmosphere is NOT well known and cannot be seem merely from cloud cover in the troposphere or stratosphere. We know, for example, that water in the mesosphere has been increasing through the increase in noctilucent clouds bring observed.

        223

        • #
          Backslider

          Well sonny, your control knob is broken because water vapor and clouds are in decline (please catch up) as are global temperatures (please catch up).

          So if you allow the rational part of your brain to engage

          Ahhh…. the classic warmist line. Yes sonny we are all irrational idiots. Damn fool…..

          as we slowly increase CO2 from 0 ppm up to what we have now that water vapor content would slowly increase, warming the planet even more

          If you care to look you will find that CO2 level are extremly low compared to the past. Ice core data clearly shows that CO2 levels follow warming, not as you purport. It’s guff.

          The current total amount of water in the atmosphere is NOT well known and cannot be seem merely from cloud cover in the troposphere or stratosphere.

          As I said, you need to catch up. Please take the time to research things you know nothing about but like to troll blogs with.

          153

        • #
          Yonniestone

          “Skeptical Warmist” possibly the greatest oxymoron of all time, keep it coming luv.

          92

        • #
          AndyG55

          “What do you suppose would happen if we took all the CO2 out of the atmosphere? ”

          Absolutely nothing would happen to the temperature.

          Even at 97% CO2, Venus is still almost EXACTLY the same temperature (at comparative atmospheric pressures)is should be for its distance from the Sun.

          CO2 has basically ZERO warming effect..

          Learn that, and your tiny brain will be released from its stupor !!!

          81

        • #
          AndyG55

          “What do you suppose would happen if we took all the CO2 out of the atmosphere?”

          Actually, once all life on Earth died, you would be left with bare earth, no plants to absorb and utilise all the Sun’s energy…….and the temperature would skyrocket !

          51

          • #
            R. Gates, a Skeptical Warmist

            Wrong Andy. The water would be condensed to eventually ice, nearly all the way to the equator. We’d be back at snowball or ice planet Earth. Additionally, all life would not die. Some form would most likely exist deep in caves or under the frozen ocean surface.

            111

            • #
              Backslider

              Well gee. We had better make sure that doesn’t happen, huh? Have you taken the time to look at what say 5 times current CO2 levels would do? I know you think we would all fry, however that’s quite incorrect. We would actually have a lush green planet able to feed its burgeoning population.

              The Biosphere LOVES CO2 !!!!!!

              60

            • #
              AndyG55

              Some amoeba and microbes might survive.

              Nothing capable of rational thought though.

              That means you at least would have a chance.

              40

            • #
              AndyG55

              No, not wrong. Sorry, your imagination is playing tricks on you again.

              You need new assumptions, or less chilli.

              00

        • #
          Mark Hladik

          R. Gates:

          Check out something called “equilibrium blackbody temperature”.

          Astrophysics long ago determined that a planetary body, orbiting a G2-V main sequence star (much like our own), with a nominal atmosphere (devoid of any ‘greenhouse gasses’) and an average albedo of 0.3 (much like our own planet) has a temperature of 277 Kelvins (4 degrees Celsius for those who might be Kelvin-ly challenged).

          That ‘nominal atmosphere’, by the way, is 80% N2, and 20% O2.

          You’ve confused with ‘subsolar blackbody temperature’.

          Regards,

          Mark H.

          30

          • #
            R. Gates, a Skeptical Warmist

            You are correct to a point, but on this planet we have lots of water, and if the noncondensing GH are removed the atmosphere slowly cools, more ice is formed as water is condensed out, the albedo goes up and up as ice forms nearly all the way to the equator on the oceans. With an albedo greater than .9, we’d be back at snowball Earth.

            112

            • #

              If my aunty had balls, she’d be my uncle. She doesn’t and so she isn’t.

              Playing hypotheticals without any experimental proof might be a bit of fun, but it bears no resemblance to real life, so your claims about what might or might not happen is full of shit and can easily be countered with other hypotheticals without experimental proof. Ergo..

              By the time all the CO2 is removed and H2O precipitates out of the air (including clouds) vast areas of the surface would receive upwards of 1000Wm2, that’s about 96DegC for a near black body.

              Furthermore (how can I put this so that your feeble little mind might comprehend it?)….THE OCEANS ARE VERY VERY BIG AND DEEP GATES.
              If the ocean surface was to cool down towards 0degC, the lower levels would be warmer causing massive overturning. IT WOULD TAKE TENS OF THOUSANDS OF YEARS BEFORE THE OCEANS FROZE.

              Furthermore still, during ice ages, vast areas of the globe WERE covered in ice and snow. polar caps were much larger YET THE OCEANS DIDN’T FREEZE you numskull.

              There’s much more but I can’t be bothered. Take your alarmist lemming act elsewhere Gates, you are a disgrace.

              111

              • #
                R. Gates, a Skeptical Warmist

                Hey Bah,

                CO2 only fell to about 180 ppm during the glacial advance periods. Of course, had it gone lower, those glacial advances would have gone right into Snowball Earth. Thank goodness for noncondensing GH gases!

                111

              • #
                R. Gates, a Skeptical Warmist

                Hey Bah,

                Even in an Ice Planet Earth situation only the surface of the oceans freeze- it’s called sea ice- have you heard of it? It makes a very good insulator to keep the water under it quite liquid.

                111

              • #
                Mark Hladik

                R.Gates:

                So sorry you missed the point: the “warmist” claim that without ‘greenhouse gasses’ we would be thirty-three degrees lower in average global temperature (hence, a permanent ‘snowball Earth’) is misleading (not to mention, incorrect).

                Without ANY (misnomered) ‘greenhouse gasses’ in our atmosphere, our average global temperature (N2 – O2 atmosphere) would be about 277 Kelvins. That is established physics. Sorry if it is an inconvenient truth for you, but there it is.

                Carbon dioxide’s contribution to the (misnomered) “greenhouse effect” is minuscule. You would do yourself a service you if explained to one and all how the Earth alternated between (misnomered) “greenhouse” and “icehouse” conditions in the Cryogenian, when atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations were in the percent range, and not just in the ppm range.

                Are you ready to do the cross-correlation coefficient, and share it with all of us, between Berner & Kothavala’s GEOCARB III curve, and Veizer’s paleotemperature curve?

                Regards,

                Mark H.

                50

        • #
          tom0mason

          …noctilucent clouds bring observed.
          The number and spread of noctilucent clouds are directly affected by the amount of cosmic rays hitting the atmosphere. The amount of cosmic rays hitting the planet are affected by the sun’s variable output.

          20

          • #
            R. Gates, a Skeptical Warmist

            You are actually not completely wrong about that tomomason, but not completely right either. Increased amounts of Methane reaching into the mesosphere (remember methane has been increasing right along with CO2) is converted to water vapor in the mesosphere through a most interesting reaction:

            http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v338/n6215/abs/338490a0.html

            Also see: http://phys.org/news/2013-06-noctilucent-clouds-early.html

            But these very interesting clouds seem to be indications of major climate changes going on in the middle atmosphere.

            07

            • #

              Yeah, you’re right here Gates.

              We really do need to worry about that Methane level.

              I mean, it’s huge.

              It’s around 1850PPB (parts per Billion) which is 1.85 PPM or just less than half of one percent of the concentration of CO2. When you consider that it’s GHG effect is 25 times greater than for CO2, then I suppose that’s the equivalent of 46 extra PPM of CO2, and then it only sticks around for an eighth of the time, and has a radiative forcing effect that is only 28% that of CO2, and …… but wait, we’re only circumlocuting here, aren’t we.

              There was that huge spike in 91 due to Pinatubo, and then it started to drop in the years of drought, and there has been a very very slight rise in recent years.

              I suppose we could always tax those volcanos, or even wetlands (20% of all Methane emissions) or even forests (up to possibly 30% of all emissions) or perhaps cut down on ruminant animals or rice production or Natural Gas usage.

              Yep! That Methane sure is a problem.

              But wait, if we cut back on man made emissions then those Governments with an ETS in place would lose all that lovely money, because Methane is costed at CO2 multiplied by 25, and imagine the job losses among those who are need to measure all those burping ruminants CO2 emissions.

              Can’t have that. That money’s needed for election bribes really important reasons.

              Tony.

              60

            • #
              AndyG55

              If you think methane is a problem.

              Shove a cork up your —-.

              Problem solved.

              40

            • #
    • #
      Angry

      Come to Australia “R. Gates, a Skeptical Warmist” and experience the real truth……the weather is nothing out of the ordinary despite the BS PROPAGANDA from the global warming communist nut jobs !

      143

      • #
        R. Gates, a Skeptical Warmist

        Except of course for the fact that so far this is the warmest year in record for Australia, and that doesn’t quite match the “globe is cooling” meme that some whacky Aussies keep spewing out.

        118

        • #
          Neville

          for gawd’s sake R.Gates, quit making silly statements you can’t back up! Provide some EVIDENCE that

          so far this is the warmest year in record for Australia

          and maybe we’ll be impressed! It simply is not! Check the FACTS (you know, those nasty little inconvenient parameters that spell out what IS, and what IS NOT!
          I can tell you for FACT that this is NOT “the hottest year …”! Dunno what country YOU live in, but I actually live in Australia, you know, the country that recently threw out a warmist Govt coz of its irrational marriage to a carbon tax that was NEVER needed, and about which it LIED to get into govt. Sheesh!! Nick off, troll, and LEARN some science.

          120

          • #
            R. Gates, a Skeptical Warmist

            Little facts like this:

            http://www.smh.com.au/environment/weather/warm-winter-caps-nations-hottest-year-20130901-2syzt.html

            Get in the way of the “globe is cooling” meme spewed out by dome nutty Aussies.

            117

            • #
              R. Gates, a Skeptical Warmist

              “Some” nutty Aussies…

              213

            • #
              Backslider

              Oh, The Sydney Morning Herald….. how positively scientific!

              70

            • #
              Andrew McRae

              Bobby Gatekeeper is new here. He didn’t get the memo:
              Australia’s record hottest 12 month period? Not so say the Satellites.
              Do try to keep up.

              Besides, you’re employing fallacious rhetoric. A natural warming over the last 100 years would also lead to high records for average temperatures being broken. It does not imply the warming is due to CO2.
              Your rhetoric is analogous to saying that if the grass on the front lawn is wet then someone must have used a hose and sprinkler on it. The possibility it might have rained is deliberately ignored.

              Warming has happened naturally in the past and *was* (past tense) happening naturally in the 20th century (eg natural 62 year cycle). No warming in the last 15 years, exactly as expected by a naturalist theory of climate, but contradictory to the CO2 hypothesis.

              30

              • #
                Rereke Whakaaro

                Excellent explanation, Andrew. Thank you.

                Isn’t it interesting that R Gates never seems to be around to comment on such information?

                20

              • #
                R. Gates, a Skeptical Warmist

                Unfortunately satellites do not actually measure temperature, and thus as we’ve seen, direct ground based measurements are much more reliable:

                http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satellite_temperature_measurements

                Based on those, you Aussies have now seen several 12 month periods in a row, each successively warmer. Absolutely astounding. If you live in fire prone areas, do stay ready to evacuate!

                01

              • #
                MemoryVault

                you Aussies have now seen several 12 month periods in a row, each successively warmer.

                And the NH has seen five successive record cold winters. So your point is . . .

                If you live in fire prone areas, do stay ready to evacuate!

                Leaving aside the fact that most of eastern Australia is still recovering from successive floods, those of us who live here know that any increased threat of fire comes from Greenies’ opposition to controlled burning.

                EVERY damaging bush fire in OZ in the last decade has been the result of Greenie opposition to controlled, seasonal back-burning. That’s not my personal opinion. That’s the finding of a couple of Royal Commissions into the subject.

                You have to be a particularly sick individual to try and and morph the inevitable, tragic results of stupid, short-sighted Greenie policies into some kind of “proof” of Man-Made Global Warming.

                .
                A very sick individual indeed.

                20

              • #
                Mark D.

                Hmmm, Satellite data collected by people outside of AU, surface data adjusted by people within the political sphere inside AU. Does anyone else wonder why they differ?
                ___________
                MV, it is lousy Green influenced forestry management that has also caused the forest fuel loading and subsequent “extreme fires” here in the US of late. I’ve read that to a Greeny, wildfires get humans out of the way of nature. There is evidence that at least some of the fires here (US) are arson. Connecting the dots gets one to a notion that any increase in fires is in fact AGW caused, not by warming, but by fanatic zealotry in the faith of AGW.

                10

            • #
              janama

              Mr Gates – that is a deception created by the warmists that have infiltrated our Bureau of Meteorology who have created their own homogenised temperature record of Australia called ACORN – it goes back as far as 1910.

              Our early explorers had thermometers from the UK that exploded in the temperatures they experienced in our outback in the 1880s.

              To use just 100 years of data and make claims for the hottest year is just junk science.

              This is science.

              17 January 1908

              Was it Australia’s hottest day?

              40

        • #
          Backslider

          the fact that so far this is the warmest year in record for Australia

          Tommy rot. It’s just as much rot as you warmists screaming that the 2001 to 2010 decade was the warmist on record.

          Please take the time to look at unadjusted data. Australia has had much hotter climes and the 1930′s was the hottest decade on record.

          110

          • #
            jiminy

            1930′s was the hottest decade on record.

            Not according to the full data set, and not by a long shot. You are buying into the BoM adjustment meme.

            However one day in January 1939 was remarkable for having had possibly 8% of the land area simultaneously experience 1 in 10,000 day heat. (1 in 10,000 over the full 1890 to present day data set, from spatial interpolation of unadjusted temperature) This record stood until January 2013 when up to 13% of the land area had the same experience. Most of the other stand out days are in the last thirty years.
            1939 had lethal fires in Southern Australia. The Fire Danger Index was calibrated to 100 against the computed intensities of the time.
            Peak and average FDIs have been rising. 1983 probably exceeded 120, Black Saturday 2009 easily doubled it.

            11

        • #
          tom0mason

          What is the percentage area that Australia is compared to the whole globe?

          40

        • #
          Angry

          facts, FACTS???
          You “R. Gates, a Skeptical Warmist” wouldn’t know a real FACT if it bit you on the ass !
          Have you EVER visited Australia??
          OBVIOUSLY NOT !
          So stop talking about things you know absolutely NOTHING about, you imbecile !!

          51

          • #
            R. Gates, Skeptical Warmist

            Yep, been to both Cains and to Sydney. Great country…great people…and about the same percentatge of know-nothing climate change [SNIP] whack jobs that we have here in the U.S.

            ———————
            R. Gates: Name the scientific observation we deny or apologize for wasting our time with baseless namecalling. – Jo

            [Snip by ED]

            03

          • #
            AndyG55

            “and about the same percentatge of know-nothing climate change [SNIP] whack jobs”

            yes we do have Flannery, Karoly, Cook, the ABC and quite a few others to boot !

            First thing you have been correct about this thread, well done. !

            20

        • #
          Mark D.

          Except of course for the fact that so far this is the warmest year in record for Australia, and that doesn’t quite match the “globe is cooling” meme

          At what point does one say “weather” not “Climate”? Then where is more of the co2 northern hemisphere you say? But all the heat ends up in AU and you’re sure it is AGW.

          Riiiiiiigggghhhtttttt

          30

      • #
        R. Gates, a Skeptical Warmist

        Angry,

        BTW, I’ve been to your beautiful country and love it.

        110

    • #
      MemoryVault

      CO2 is a noncondensing GHG and is the thermostat for the climate. Take it away, and we go back to an ice house planet as all that condensing GH water vapor is rained or snowed out of the atmosphere.

      This statement is contradicted by observable, observed, measured data.

      In layman’s terms, it’s unsubstantiated, easily refuted [Snip].

      141

      • #
        MemoryVault

        Congratulations Mods.

        An all-time record – four hours in moderation, and for what?
        The word C*R*A*P.

        This site is becoming more PC than my grandkids’ primary school, where the word “BANG” is banned because of its perceived connection to firearms.

        .
        Hell, am I even allowed to say “bang”?
        [The filters take exception to certain words, and hold the comment in moderation until one of us notices and releases it. If you avoid the expletives, you will have fewer problems] -Fly

        101

        • #
          Andrew McRae

          It’s not just expletives. I suspected yesterday that you can’t even say the word “hahaha” (followed by exclamation mark) if the laughter interjection is written in capitals. That’s the only unusual word I could see.
          I think this is quite rash of the moderators, who are painting capitals with a broad brush. Whilst I can understand some historic misgivings about Canberra I do not think all capitals should be blamed.

          10

      • #
        R. Gates, a Skeptical Warmist

        Nice try Memory Vault, but it seems your vault is not so secure. There is nothing scientific that refutes the role of noncondensing GH gases in the atmosphere, with CO2 being the largest. Without them, all the water vapor condenses eventually and we get ice planet Earth. Those are the scientific facts…but you can have your faulty vault “facts” to make you feel less cognitive dissonance.

        113

        • #
          MemoryVault

          There is nothing scientific that refutes the role of noncondensing GH gases in the atmosphere, with CO2 being the largest. Without them, all the water vapor condenses eventually and we get ice planet Earth. Those are the scientific facts

          SepticGate,

          I repeat what I have said elsewhere. There is absolutely nothing “scientific” in the above statement – it is goobedly-gook. Just for starters, let’s take:

          Without them (non condensing GHG gases), all the water vapor condenses eventually

          I hate to have to be the one to break this to you, but “all the water vapour” – “condenses eventually”, is precisely what the water vapour DOES once it rises to the cool point where adiabatic transfer of phase change from vapour to liquid becomes possible.

          Water vapour rising to the point where surrounding atmospheric conditions (temperature and pressure) dictate a phase change to condensate has absolutely nothing to do with the presence or otherwise of GHG’s. It happens all the time and is known as “rain”, “hail”, sleet” “snow”, or collectively as “precipitation”

          Condensate precipitation (water) remains a major problem in large industrial enterprises, such as an Ammonia Plant, where air is compressed, cooled and dried to the point where liquid Nitrogen can be collected. Even after extraction of all impurities (CO2 included) the by then near pure Oxygen-Nitrogen mix must be passed through a molecular sieve to remove the water molecules, because the “hard” water molecules can damage the equipment use to compress the syngas to make Ammonia.

          .
          As I said earlier, which cost me four hours in the moderation sin-bin, you are talking absolute, unscientific, unsupported C*R*A*P, spouted out of the sphincter muscle that controls the output of your bowels.

          110

          • #
            R. Gates, Skeptical Warmist

            Faulty Memory Vault,

            Without CO2, the whole world looks much like Antarctica. Very cold…very dry atmosphere (the driest on the planet in fact). All the water vapor condensed out. In short– without CO2 we have Ice Planet Earth.

            05

            • #
              AndyG55

              What a total load of unsubstantiated TWADDLE !!

              40

            • #
              Mark Hladik

              So, 0.04% of the atmosphere COMPLETELY and SOLELY controls the temperature of the other 99.96% of the atmosphere?

              You seriously expect someone to believe that?

              (Please send me some of that ‘recreational pharmacology’ you are using; I’m just up the road in Wyoming, if you are the “R. Gates” who once trolled WUWT, and are in Denver)

              Mark H.

              P. S. Awaiting that cross-correlation coefficient, at your earliest convenience (22.3.1.5.3, above) … … …

              00

        • #
          MemoryVault

          While we’re on the subject, SepticGate,

          There is nothing scientific that refutes the role of noncondensing GH gases in the atmosphere, with CO2 being the largest.

          No, probably not.
          And there’s nothing “scientific” that refutes the role of fairies at the bottom of my garden being responsible for this year’s roses.

          .
          For much the same reason.

          101

          • #
            R. Gates, a Skeptical Warmist

            Nice distraction leaky Memory Vault, but the science would support the role of noncondensing GH gases in preventing a return to Ice Planet Earth.

            113

            • #
              Graeme No.3

              Ordovician ice age when there was 3-4000 ppm CO2.

              Where was the warming effect of non-condensing GH gases?

              80

              • #
                R. Gates, Skeptical Warmist

                Graeme No. 3,

                Great question, and nice to meet someone who is actually looking at the big picture, which these scientists have done as well:

                http://geology.gsapubs.org/content/31/6/485.short

                Glad to educate you on how you can still have an Ice Planet Earth along with higher CO2 levels, and that under current astronomical cycles and solar insolation, if we reduced CO2 to very low levels, we would once more return to Ice Planet Earth.

                ———————
                REPLY: Educate? With models we know are worthless, we don’t learn anything about the ordovician. – Jo

                04

              • #
                AndyG55

                rusty gate, You couldn’t educate a gnat..

                You actually need to KNOW something first, before you can educate anyone.

                A primary school education like yours obviously is, does not count !!!

                30

              • #
                R. Gates, Skeptical Warmist

                With models we know are worthless

                ____

                The value of a model that is trying to show the dynamics of a complex AND chaotic system is not necessarily in the accuracy of the model to predict exactly what happens in the real world, but rather to so what real world dynamics are involved. Lorenz (the founder of Chaos Theory) was quite clear on this point and every developer or serious user of global climate models will tell you straight up that all models are “wrong”, but you need to understand what they mean by wrong. Because of the chaotic nature of climate models might not get every detail exactly right, but they can still be right about dynamics and longer term trends. Here’s a simple, but parallel real world example: Take a garden hose and spray it against a window. Do you doubt that the drops and rivulets of water will flow down the window to the bottom? Probably not- the dynamics of gravity and water against glass will tell you the end result will be that the water will flow down the window. Yet, the path of individual drops flowing down that window will be subject to chaotic fluid motion, forces between molecules of glass and water, etc. You could develop a model that tried to show how the water molecules will flow exactly down that window, but you would know from the start that the exact path the water molecules will flow is impossible to model exactly– thus your model will be wrong about the details, but you can have a very high degree of confidence that your model will be right about the end result. Thus, your model is “wrong”, but still right about the net result and about the general dynamics involved. Global climate models (though they are much more complex of course) are similar in terms of showing what the long-term effects from increasing GH gases will be. They will always be wrong about the exact path into the future, but we can have a very high-degree of confidence in the net result.

                03

              • #
                AndyG55

                No, your little cut and paste is irrelevant.

                The models are wrong, and have been proven wrong.

                Live with it !

                20

              • #
                Backslider

                you can have a very high degree of confidence that your model will be right about the end result

                This is quite incorrect. Even your water example misses so much that happens that its ridiculous.

                The only thing that a model can be helpful with is perhaps giving you an idea of what you should be looking at and measuring in the real World. To use them for any kind of prediction is pure bunk.

                21

              • #
                Mark Hladik

                R. Gates:

                The “warming” or “greenhouse” effect is known, by science, to have a diminishing effect above concentrations of about 300 ppm. The best chart I have ever seen in in Jo’s “Skeptic’s Handbook”, which is a distillation of empirical data.

                That’s why we had “icehouse” during the Siluro-Ordovician boundary, when atmospheric carbon dioxide levels were over 3000 ppm (and order of magnitude greater than today). The “warming” effect (which you so vociferously champion here) at that concentration is negligible.

                Just in case I miss it, see if you can sweet-talk our lovely and gracious hostess into e-mailing me your cross-correlation coefficient.

                Please don’t be the next troll to refuse a simple request — – I’ve lost track, but I think you’ll be number eleven to refuse the challenge.

                Regards,

                Mark H.

                00

            • #
              Backslider

              the science would support the role of noncondensing GH gases in preventing a return to Ice Planet Earth

              Ok, out with it. Peer reviewed science please.

              60

        • #
          tom0mason

          Your whole theory relies on correlation between CO2 levels and temperatures, and is NOT confirmed by experiment or observation.

          Why the big fuss over CO2 anyway why not ozone, that’s also a minor part of the atmosphere that is a ‘greenhouse gas’?

          40

    • #
      Scott

      1940′s was Australia’s hottest years not sure where your getting your info from but suggest updating your records.

      101

    • #
      MemoryVault

      SepticGate,

      Not sure where you are coming from mate, but wherever it is, it has little to do with the known physics of this planet.

      The sun heats (transfers energy to) the oceans.
      CO2 plays little or no part in the process.

      The oceans lose heat (energy) to the atmosphere via evaporation.
      CO2 plays little or no part in the process.

      Warm air plus water vapour rises to the point where the water vapour can condense out into clouds.
      CO2 plays little or no part in the process.

      As the water vapour condenses into droplets, it loses heat (energy) to the upper atmosphere.
      CO2 plays little or no part in the process.

      This is known as the Water Cycle, and CO2 plays little or no part in the process.

      The upper atmosphere radiates the heat (energy) back out into space.
      CO2 MAY play a part in this process, but if it does, it is one of COOLING, not HEATING.

      232

    • #
      janama

      Sure it does – but it is NOT linear, it’s logarithmic and most of the effect has already occurred. In fact doubling CO2, if we could, would only cause around 1.2C rise in temperature.

      Check out this graph

      See – that’s also science.

      71

      • #
        R. Gates, a Skeptical Warmist

        No, let them believe that CO2 has no effect at all. It makes it easier to skim through the blogs when you come across the whack jobs.

        117

        • #
          janama

          That would be deceitful R Gates. It does have an affect but it’s tapers off as more and more is added.
          That’s the science your referred to.

          71

          • #
            R. Gates, a Skeptical Warmist

            There is nothing “deceitful” about accurately discussing the very important role that noncondensing GH gases play in Earth’s atmosphere, in both helping to maintain the overall atmospheric temperature, and critically, to discuss the return to Ice Planet Earth that would occur without the noncondensing GH gases.

            118

            • #
              Backslider

              to discuss the return to Ice Planet Earth

              How is that relevant to anything? Is that what you think is happening or likely to happen? Yes, its true that all the indications are that we are headed for a serious cooling, but certainly not by that much.

              50

              • #
                R. Gates, Skeptical Warmist

                all the indications are that we are headed for a serious cooling

                Yep, the warmest year so far on record for Australia sure does point to a very serious cooling.

                I actually wish you very good look for your “serious cooling” fire season this year. Could be rought one ahead.

                05

              • #
                Backslider

                the warmest year so far on record for Australia

                So, you can show us bats and birds falling out of the sky? Livestock dropping dead?

                I actually wish you very good look for your “serious cooling” fire season this year

                Australia always has a fire season. That you make a mockery of it simply shows that you are a drongo.

                20

            • #
              tom0mason

              R. Gates, a Skeptical Warmist

              So how does CO2 theory account for the ‘pause’ in the warming.
              The models can’t account for it, and we all know how accurate they are.

              Oh yes I remember…With no data to support it the theory morphed to the oceans have it hidden below 700m in depth. And yes it managed to get there without being evident on the ocean surface.

              What’s the next trick?
              Actually having a climate theory that is verifiable by observation and practical experimental measurements to prove all assumptions made?
              I take it that a NO then.

              60

              • #
                R. Gates, Skeptical Warmist

                Excellent question Tomomason,

                You know of course that rate of flow in ocean to atmosphere energy transfer is far more an influencial a factor on atmospheric sensible heat than any other factor. The NET flow of energy on this planet is always from ocean to atmosphere. Furthermore, the energy stored in the ocean is far larger than the atmosphere with a far far larger thermal inertia. Thus, the very best way to guage the effects of any external forcing on the Earth’s climate is NOT to look at sensible heat in the atmosphere, but rather to look at energy storage in the ocean. When we do that, we see that the ocean heat content has been continually increasing (without pause) for many decades. I linked to an excellent presentation recently done by one of the leading experts in the world on this topic, and for your convenience here is that link:

                http://cicar.ei.columbia.edu/sitefiles/file/Levitus-Lamont-05.pdf

                So, during the past decade or so, while temperatures have not risen at the same rate they did during the previous decade, this is mainly due to a slowdown in the rate of energy flow from ocean to atmosphere due to natural ocean cycles, as well as a bit more sulfuric aerosols in the atmosphere, and a sleepy sun. But the better guage for showing that the Earth system continues to store energy is to look at ocean heat content.

                ———
                REPLY: Yes lets do look at Ocean Heat Content. According to argo the Earth System appears to be storing more energy (hard to say). But it isn’t enough energy. The models are wrong. Any warming trend does not mean Co2 caused it. – Jo

                04

              • #
                Mark D.

                morphed to the oceans have it hidden below 700m in depth. And yes it managed to get there without being evident on the ocean surface.

                TomOmason, Our friend Gates will simply announce that Levitus found it.

                You need not question HOW it got there, Levitus is an expert and we “regular” folk need not question any more.

                31

              • #
                tom0mason

                Shall I genuflect before the ordained ones?

                10

              • #
                R. Gates, Skeptical Warmist

                R. Gates: Name the scientific observation we deny or apologize for wasting our time with baseless namecalling. – Jo

                How about AndyG55 saying this:

                CO2 has basically ZERO warming effect..

                ___
                Now c’mon…really? This is a perfect example–perhaps the best example– of [snip d word insult] thinking. I can understand talking about logarithmic effects and the like, but really ZERO effects! Simply anti-science [snip again] rot.

                I will always stand up for scientific truth in the face of ignorant [snip again!].

                It would be nice to see this comment get published…but not holding my breath.

                [If you want your posts to be published then stop using the D word. It is really pretty simple for a smart guy like you.] ED

                05

              • #
                AndyG55

                Where is the scientific observation that shows CO2 has warming effect in an open atmosphere?

                Come on Mr Gates.

                30

              • #
                Rereke Whakaaro

                Hmm, nothing but the sound of crickets … funny, that.

                20

            • #
              AndyG55

              I agree, it is not deceitful, Just ignorant.

              30

    • #
      AndyG55

      It was only warm in the centre of Australia, (gees that’s unusual)

      ALL of the coastal cities actually pretty average summers.

      The ONLY REASON the press got the “warmist effa” message was from BOM’s massive adjustments of past records. These have been adjusted even more that the GISS record !!

      http://www.waclimate.net/bomhq-giss-adjust.html

      131

      • #
        Dave

        Exactly AndyG55

        On the Sunshine Coast, I have 4 temperature BOM sites listed to choose from within 25 kilometers.

        They are:
        1. Maleny Tamarind St Opened 1915, to current, but data only available from 2001 to 2013.
        2. Baroon Pocket Dam, Opened 1992 to current, but data only available from 1998 to 2007.
        3. Nambour DPI, Opened 2007 to current, and data available from 2007 to 2013.
        4. Sunshine Coast Airport, Opened 1994 to current, and data available from 1994 to 2013.

        All the data in these stations that have been recorded in some cases from 1915, are not available. Why? They are too busy homogenising the records.

        The airport, great location, flat, hot, and sandy plus an airport. HOT.
        Maleny has been cool, but why not make available all raw data?
        Nambour, a new station, hot, windless and not representative of the Sunshine Coast.
        Baroon Pocket Dam, 1992 to current, but temperature records available from 1998 to 2007. Cool place to live and gets freezing at night, even in summer.

        Thermomixers are the new norm for the BOM, just eliminate old places with data that were hotter than now, insert new ones with even hotter current records, and PRESTO, you have CAGW. Recipe available from Tim Flannery.

        You have Mr. Gates CAGW BOM graphs of doom and gloom but the Sunshine Coast has had a mild winter and I packed away the heater last weekend, but still haven’t turned on the fans yet, and the doona is still on the bed.

        MaggGate is wrong. He doesn’t even live here. He prefers hot Curries.

        91

      • #
        R. Gates, a Skeptical Warmist

        Yep, it is all a conspiracy…that’s all you got left when facts don’t match your crazy notions.

        116

        • #
          AndyG55

          The facts are right there, bozo. You can see the massive data manipulation.

          Darn , they have sent a 2 year old this time !!!

          80

          • #
            R. Gates, Skeptical Warmist

            Wow Andy, you seem to be almost frothing at the mouth. Sorry chum, but Australia has a very warm and hot record warm summer ahead and no one will be manipulating data to make that a fact. Australia caught a bit of a reprieve from warming temperatures during the La Nina years. Of course, you also caught all that flooding from the La Nina. Now that we have an ENSO neutral condition, just average amounts of energy are flowing from ocean to atmosphere, and so, that combined with the long-term forcing from higher GH gas levels gives you this record warm summer, winter, and year. Basic physics.

            ——————

            REPLY: It’s good how R Gates knows the future. Send him to the BOM. – Jo

            06

        • #
          AndyG55

          Not a conspiracy, a collaboration.

          The guy who adjusted the Australian record was one of Phil Jones’ students.

          He learnt the basics of data adjustments at CRU, then thought… gees, I can do better than that !!

          80

        • #
          tom0mason

          So this isn’t about global warming any more?
          It’s about some weather on Australia, not the whole planet and not climate?
          Average global temperatures are down but Australia was warm so global doesn’t count, eh?

          Sounds to me like you have selective thinking geared to conformation bias of CO2 theory only. Not exactly scientific then.

          60

      • #
        Rereke Whakaaro

        Yep, it is all a conspiracy … that’s all you got left when facts don’t match your crazy notions

        I find it amazing that all of the people who have taken empirical weather readings, all over Australia, over the last two hundred years, somehow managed to conspire to inflate their readings, so they would appear to be very similar, or higher than those published today, as the “hottest day on record”.

        Claiming a conspiracy is all you have got left when the actual data trumps your belief system.

        120

    • #
      Bob Fernley-Jones

      R. Gates, the funny thing is that in our record “Angry Summer”, the BoM official time series records show that ALL of the individual States and Territories were hotter in the past. Also ALL of the Staes and Territories have past record high temperatures. See: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/28/clanging-of-the-bells-on-extreme-weather-change/

      30

  • #
    pat

    Dave -

    this one has been aired & repeated on Foxtel-funded A-PAC Channel:

    ANU: The Great Green Debate 2013 – 2nd October 2013
    The ANU Sustainability Learning Community presents: The Great Green Debate 2013.

    “80% of fossil fuels must stay in the ground to avoid exceeding 2C of global warming. How should we respond to unburnable carbon?”

    The debate will take the form of a panel discussion in which each speaker will have 8 minutes to present their personal and/or professional opinion. This will be followed by 30 minutes of Q&A time.

    Distinguished speakers include:
    John Hewson – former leader of the Liberal Party of Australia
    Matt Grudnoff – the Australia Institute
    Simon O’Connor – Responsible Investments Association Australasia
    Janette Lindesay – Fenner School of Environment and Society
    Charlie Wood – 350.org
    Tom Swann – ANU Master of Climate Change student

    The debate will be chaired by Shane Rattenbury MLA, ACT greens member for Molonglo.
    http://billboard.anu.edu.au/event_view.asp?id=104122

    changing the government doesn’t stop the CAGW program from carrying on as usual.

    ANU: Sustainability Learning Community
    http://sustainability.anu.edu.au/get-involved/sustainability-learning-community

    40

    • #
      Dave

      Thanks Pat,

      A bigger bunch of rent seekers you would only find gathered at a GAIA concert by Bob Geldork.

      That Simon O’Connor is a gravy train economist, training to get into BIG Green parasite position:
      1. CEO, Responsible Investment Association Australasia
      2. Economic Adviser at Australian Conservation Foundation
      3. Senior Responsible Investment Analyst at Innovest Strategic Value Advisers (now MSCI)
      4. Environmental Risk Consultant at Willis Group

      Another proud product of Monash Uni.

      The rest are just religious followers of GAIA and CAGW.

      50

    • #
      Angry

      At least one of the group namely “350.org” are COMMUNISTS, probably the rest are also…

      51

  • #
    pat

    7 Oct: Grist: Chris Mooney: Who created the global warming “pause”?
    The rise of the pause
    To begin, let’s turn to the tape. On Sept. 26 — just before the IPCC report’s Sept. 27 release — CBS News provided a textbook case of misleading journalism focused on the alleged global warming “pause.” Sadly, in coverage of the new IPCC report, it was far from an exceptional one…
    http://grist.org/climate-energy/who-created-the-global-warming-pause/?utm_source=syndication&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=feed

    any chance Mooney mentioned any of the following? nope. Mooney starts with Sept 26, 2013? NoTricksZone also explains why “pause” is an Alarmist’s word:

    June 2013: NoTricksZone: P. Gosselin: Long List Of Warmist Scientists Say Global Warming Has Stopped…Ed Davey Is Clueless About What’s Going On
    Reader Jimbo sent me a list of comments from climate scientists acknowledging that the warming has stopped. Some of these scientists even recognised this years ago already.
    Phil Jones saw it 8 years ago! Here’s Jimbo’s list:…
    Many are using the word “pause” or “break” to describe the recent trend because they refuse to believe their theory is failing before their eyes. But this is only the language of denial…
    Many insist that it’s only a pause, and that temperature will resume climbing with abandon once the hidden heat comes out of hiding deep somewhere in the ocean. But that’s pure speculation with no data to back it up. Right now the atmospheric data and observations are clear:
    WARMING HAS STOPPED.
    http://notrickszone.com/2013/06/04/list-of-warmist-scientists-say-global-warming-has-stopped-ed-davey-is-clueless-about-whats-going-on/

    50

  • #
    Eddie Sharpe

    More green jobs

    20

    • #
      Eddie Sharpe

      … Carillon will cut more jobs in Britain after failure of the government’s flagship energy efficiency policy.
      The Green Deal launched in January “as the most ambitious home improvement programme since the second world war”. But in September it was revealed that just 12 homeowners were making repayments through its finance package – offering loans for measures such as loft insulation, draught-proofing and new boilers
      Carillion plans major job cuts as Green Deal falters

      Green Deal is Failing

      40

  • #

    @” Climate change is dominated by the water cycle, not carbon dioxide”;

    AND the oceans dominate AND control the water cycle;
    see overview: http://www.seaclimate.com/a/a3/mid/big/A3b-5.png

    10

  • #
    Sunray

    Thank you Jo, could this be a “Tipping Point”?

    30

    • #
      gee Aye

      not another one! Each tipping point tips, whatever it is, back the other way. Which way is this tipping point tipping?

      19

      • #
        handjive

        I’ll take this “Dorothy Dixer,” gee Aye.
        Tipping points only go one way, and it’s always “worse than we first thought.”
        In this video, NASA, via climate scientist Jay Zwally, makes a scientific statement (i.e. it is testable & falsifiable) whilst demonstrating how tipping points work in UN-IPCC climate science.

        20

      • #
        AndyG55

        The major tipping point was the introduction of the satellite record.

        A few years after it was recognised as being “real”, the warming stopped.

        Amazing, Isn’t it !!

        Just recording the temperature accurately, stopped it rising !..

        Science is truly grand. !!!

        10

  • #
    Tim

    From the Sydney Morning Herald (where else),October 31st:

    “One interesting issue is the role of clouds and aerosols. For the first time, the IPCC report attributes a ‘sign’ to their impact on global warming, says UNSW Professor Steven Sherwood.

    An expert on clouds, Professor Sherwood says the IPCC now recognises clouds will likely contribute a positive feedback to climate change – that is, they will make it worse.”

    Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/ipcc-report-latest-climate-change-findings-20130927-2uj36.html#ixzz2h8Jf00ie

    00

  • #
    David

    I recall a few years ago a hydrogen cell bus running around London emblazoned with the legend: ‘Emits only harmless water vapour’…
    Yeah, right…

    30

  • #
    Roy Hogue

    Isn’t it amazing that no matter what’s done or what’s happening, it does both something desirable and something undesirable. Water! Who’d have thought…

    Welcome to the real world where, “It’s an ill wind indeed that blows nobody good.”

    Like you, Jo, I’m glad to see this being put in front of the public by a major news outlet. Unfortunately the Washington Times is quite well known for being conservative and may not be read by those most in need of seeing the opposing point of view.

    30

  • #
    Colin Henderson

    If the IPCC feedback model were correct wouldn’t radiative forcing make it warmer in the shade (of a cloud) than in direct sunlight?

    30

    • #
      Rereke Whakaaro

      I read somewhere, that it does, in terms of convective heat. We get the sensory perception that direct sunlight is hotter because of radiant heat on the skin.

      But physiology is way down there, when it comes to my store of knowledge, so I could be spouting hot air.

      20

    • #
  • #
    handjive

    UN-IPCC 95% settled climate science?
    UN-IPCC 100% voodoo science & scientific mumbo jumbo.

    “What was not so encouraging, however, was the fact that most of the state-of-the-art climate models from modeling centers around the world do not reproduce this cloud behaviour.”

    Study shows strong evidence that cloud changes may exacerbate global warming

    30

    • #
      tom0mason

      handjive

      And they fail to adequately model –

      storms (thunder, tornadoes, hurricanes, cyclones, etc.),
      ozone, and other minor ‘greenhouse gases’,
      local and regional atmospheric convection,
      all the effects of solar variation and cosmic rays,
      oceanic cyclic variations,
      radiative cooling from the thermosphere,
      just to name a few.

      As you said UN-IPCC 100% voodoo science & scientific mumbo jumbo.

      30

  • #
    jiminy

    Climate scientists are obsessed with carbon dioxide.

    Snicker. Not nearly so much I would submit as the funding sources for the hydra-headed coalition of “apolitical” think tanks. Compare their boards for heavens sake.

    Even the greenhouse effect itself is dominated by water. Between 75 percent and 90 percent of Earth’s greenhouse effect is caused by water vapor and clouds.

    It’s annoying when people conflate vapour effects which are well understood (in theory) with cloud effects which are still the well documented bane of predictive climatology (how will they stratify). But in 1906 Arrhenius published what I think is the first C02/H20 split sensitivity to C02 doubling, of 1.6C for CO2 and 2.1C for H2O vapour. Even if we go with a unlikely low value of 1C for CO2 sensitivity, that leaves less that 70% for H2O feedback.
    We have precious little observational detail about clouds (e.g. no historical nighttime obs for a start – and that’s critical in explaining changes in overnight temperature minima)

    Yet, the IPCC and today’s climate modelers propose that the “flea” wags “the dog.” The flea, of course, is carbon dioxide, and the dog, is the water cycle. The theory of man-made warming assumes a positive feedback from water vapor, forced by human emissions of greenhouse gases.

    Now this is a mischaracterisation. But for rhetorical and not logical reasons it’s necessary to put this image in peoples minds.

    In effect, the theory assumes that the carbon cycle is controlling the more powerful water cycle.

    No – this still presents a two way feedback loop as a one way control. It’s more like a waltz than a flea bite.
    None the less it’s important that you swallow the morsel ‘cos he’s about to ask you to swallow an elephant.

    But for the last 15 years, Earth’s surface temperatures have failed to rise, despite rising atmospheric carbon dioxide.

    And there he goes. A lot of people swallow this one. But it’s untrue. And importantly, in the southern hemisphere the rate of change has not changed. Neither has the northern hemisphere summer temperature slowed down. Northern winter land temperatures on the other hand – have cooled. See (if you can) Kosaka and Xie (2013, Nature, doi:10.1038/nature12534), referenced by Tamino (also worth a look

    But he descends further into the cloud of factoids.

    All climate models predicted a rapid rise in global temperatures, in conflict with actual measured data.

    Well shown despite some horrific denialista graphics that in fact we have has a rapid rise in temperature.

    Today’s models are often unable to predict weather conditions for a single season, let alone long-term climate trends.

    Ok so now he needs to cast doubt. So he goes for the very tired “climate is just weather” mischaracterisation. What a turkey!
    So can we prove that climate models are weather models? Let’s go for a completely separate type of prediction and hope no-one’s reading with sceptical eyes.

    An example is Atlantic hurricane prediction.

    Goose.

    The IPCC and proponents of the theory of man-made warming are stumped by the 15-year halt in global surface temperature rise.

    Not quite. There is no halt, there is a slow down in a bradly averaged figure. A scientist might start to investigate why, a paid hack like this guy will cast asparagus.

    But if so, isn’t this evidence that ocean and water cycle effects are stronger than the effects of CO2?

    It’s part of the system and no-one denies it (even though the nutters claim so). But it’s also change on a completely different time scales.
    But don’t worry, he’s going to throw in another extremely tired factoid – addressed ad nauseum.

    Geologic evidence from past ice ages shows that atmospheric carbon dioxide increases follow, rather than precede, global temperature increases.

    My bingo card is full. This guy is a funded hack.

    39

    • #
      AndyG55

      “My bingo card is full.”

      Bingo is about the peak of your intellectual ability.

      They must have used way too much pressure when they brain-washed you.

      31

      • #
        • #
          AndyG55

          Just trying to get down to your level of understanding.

          22

          • #
            jiminy

            Twice as witty.
            Aren’t you the knuckle-dragger who just talked about the 60% recovery in sea ice? Or was that irony that I missed? (would be ironic if so).
            I think you are trying too hard to get somewhere you won’t recognise when you get there.
            Feel free to use facts at some stage.

            14

            • #
              AndyG55

              “Feel free to use facts at some stage”

              Sorry, I didn’t want to confuse you.

              41

            • #
              AndyG55

              Min Arctic Ice 2012 approx 3.4M km2
              Min Arctic ice 2013 approx 5.5M km2

              2.1/3.4 x 100 = guess what……. about 60% FACT !!!

              30

              • #
                jiminy

                Good. So you have a thousand dollars.
                Some rascally ‘abbot takes nine hundred of it.
                You go to Max the knife and ask him to get it back, explaining you’ll pay $100 provided it’s more than half recovery.
                He comes back and gives you $60 and says “60% recovery, pay or else”
                The last thing you ever say is “That’s not 60% recovery”

                I’d love to be your banker.

                03

    • #
      Backslider

      Well by crickets!!! Don’t they come out of the woodwork when simple facts are presented.

      It’s annoying when people conflate vapour effects which are well understood (in theory) with cloud effects which are still the well documented bane of predictive climatology

      Is that why the models ignore them?

      Now this is a mischaracterisation.

      Its not at all. The latest fad among you warmists is to refer to CO2 as “The Control Knob” or “The Thermostat”.

      in fact we have has a rapid rise in temperature

      Oh puleeeze….. ok sonny, show us the data.

      Everybody else among warmists are jumping up and down or scratching their heads due to the distinct lack of warming…. making up such nonsense as the heat being hidden “in the deep oceans”……

      This guy is a funded hack.

      Nothen like a bit of conspiracy ideation….

      40

      • #
        Scott

        The parallels of warmists and Bernie Maddof

        Splice the Enron chart to the latter day Apple chart and try to sell you Enron shares.

        10

      • #
        jiminy

        Is that why the models ignore them?

        They don’t. All models produce cloud estimates, and all models estimate changes in cloud.And all models estimate high and low cloud cover.
        The issue is that almost always they do so by parameterisations not by direct physics. Call them reasonable guestimates.

        Oh puleeeze….. ok sonny, show us the data.

        Fair call. I wrote in haste and with poor context. The last 60 (ish) years show a remarkable rise in temperature. The last period shows about half the rate of the longer term rate. The stats over that last period are such that there is a 93% chance that there is a positive trend.
        93% < 95% so it is fair to say the trend is not signnificant (at the 0.95 level of confidence)

        If you're a really bad statistician (and there are many amongst us) you say "Aha. So the trend is not different from zero"

        So if we stood at the side of a busy road and agreed that there was a 93% chance of being hit by a car if we walked at random, what would your fleeting assessment of me be if I cried, "Not statistically significant, ergo you are safe" as I pushed you into the traffic?

        Nothen like a bit of conspiracy ideation

        Indeed it was nothen like … I read their web site.

        03

        • #
          Backslider

          The last 60 (ish) years show a remarkable rise in temperature.

          This is patently false. The last rise in temperatures did not begin until the mid 70′s (not the 50′s, temperatures were falling back then) and finished in the late 90′s. If you care to look at the real data you will see a cycle of warming and cooling. Right now we are cooling, however studies of sun activity indicate that we have begun a marked cooling, as the Northern winters are already showing.

          20

          • #
            jiminy

            The last rise in temperatures did not begin until the mid 70′s

            Dunno. My analysis has it pretty flat by mid 50s leading to a gradual rise. By 70′s it was significant.
            Gimme a year or two to cover my “ish” and we’re fine. I’m closer than you I reckon.

            Right now we are cooling, however studies of sun activity indicate that we have begun a marked cooling, as the Northern winters are already showing.

            Well you’re a step of your mates if your are aware that the cooling shows only in northern European land winters (not hemisphere).
            Which implicitly means that ocean surface temperatures are still rising, and lo, the numbers show they are.
            By what analysis do you find them falling? And especially in the light of surface recordings showing otherwise, why would you claim sun activity shows that Earth has begun cooling?
            Sunspot cycles here show we have had rising sun spot activity (possibly peaked, which may be your point, but more likely rising).
            If indeed warming kicked off in the 70s, then for 35 years of that time solar irradiance fell marginally (by < 0.1%) while Earth warmed (by 0.3% Kelvin, or about 1C). I think what solar irradiance shows is that the minor fluctuations are being confounded by greenhouse warming – science which goes back to 1890s based on observations from the early 1800s.
            You patently need to believe otherwise.

            Now I've got useful things to do, and I no longer have patience for people who won't do their own analyses or thinking.

            So if it makes you feel better, you can convince yourself of your superior debating skills.

            And whilst the denialisa are fond of going back to irrelevant periods of history, here's a contextual issue.
            Given that total solar fluctuations are miniscule in the holocene, and that 3-4 billion yeas ago total solar irradiance was perhaps 70% of now yet geologists conclude that the surface temperature of the Earth was similar; given that, explain the paradox that the Earth seems remarkably resilient to a change of 30%(ish) from then, and yet it is now supposed to slavishly and instantaneously (or if required, with lag de jour) follow oscillations of much less than 0.1%

            03

  • #
    pat

    “lend clout”?

    IMF, World Bank heads lend clout to climate change efforts
    WASHINGTON, Oct 8 (Reuters) – The world’s finance ministers should focus on two elements to tackle climate change: setting the “right price” on carbon emissions and phasing out fossil fuel subsidies, International Monetary Fund chief Christine Lagarde said on Tuesday…
    http://www.pointcarbon.com/news/reutersnews/1.2624958?&ref=searchlist

    00

  • #
    Bob Fernley-Jones

    Another funny thing is that in the IPCC report of 2007, Kevin Trenberth et al found that by far the greatest heat loss from the surface was by evapotranspiration at 46.4 %. (and pure convection another 14.3%)
    http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/faq-1-1.html

    00

  • #
    pat

    lots more at the link:

    6 Oct: BBC: Spain’s sunshine toll: Row over proposed solar tax
    “We will be the only country in the world charging for the use of the sun,” says Jaume Serrasolses.
    “Strange things are happening in Spain. This is one of them.”
    Mr Serrasolses, the secretary of an association promoting the use of solar energy, SEBA, is referring to the government’s proposal for a tax solely on those who generate their own electricity.
    They would pay a backup toll for the power from their solar panels, in addition to the access toll paid by everyone who consumes electricity from the conventional grid.
    Although the tolls vary, if you pay an access toll of 0.053 euros per kWh, you could face a backup toll of 0.068 euros per kWh.
    The new tax would extend the average time it would take for solar panels to pay for themselves from eight to 25 years, according to the solar lobby…
    This is just the latest in a series of setbacks for the renewable energy sector.
    The government has gradually lowered a feed-in tariff – a scheme that paid people to produce their own “green electricity” – first reducing the period over which it was paid, then limiting it to already existing installations and finally an energy reform in July opened up the possibility of withdrawing it retroactively.
    At the same time it has not endorsed net metering, a policy allowing solar panel owners to send surplus energy to the grid and use it later…
    But while the government may have been heavily promoting solar energy six years ago, those who followed that lead may now pay dearly for their investment…
    “Many of these people are going to lose their houses (that they used as collateral to buy solar panels). They are unable to pay back at the bank. They can’t sell the installations, because the government has made them toxic assets,” Mr Holtrop says…
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-24272061

    00

  • #
    pat

    hope this isn’t confusing!

    on 3rd oct on earlier thread, i made note of weather channel 10-day forecast for my area showing high temps of 37, 35, 37 for 11-13 Oct, which i said i doubted would eventuate. weather channel today has these dates as 32, 26, 30.

    when i checked two days ago to see if those 11-13 Oct forecasts had been changed, i noted they had, but that 15-16 Oct were now forecast to be 36 and 39 respectively. 39 degrees? how extreme is that for SEQ spring, i thought. well, today 15-16 Oct are forecast to be 25 and 25 respectively!

    surely something is wrong with these EXTREME differences in forecasts every couple of days! it’s almost as if the intention is for viewers to register extreme temps in advance that will never actually happen.

    40

  • #
    kuhnkat

    Over at Curry’s WebHubbleTelescope assured me that water vapor feedback is TINY. I had asked why water vapor couldn’t cause Gorebull Warming on its own.

    He is a confirmed BELIEVER!!!

    The hilarious part is that he still screams about CO2 when he argues that Water Vapor feedback is TINY!!! What doesn’t he understand about CO2 not being a problem without dangerous Water Vapor Feedback?!?!?!

    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

    30

  • #
    pat

    read all:

    (2 pages) 8 Oct: Forbes: Larry Bell: Will Cooling Temperature And Economic Climates Finally Take The Wind Out Of Failed Energy Policies?
    http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2013/10/08/will-cooling-temperature-and-economic-climates-finally-take-the-wind-out-of-failed-energy-policies/

    10

  • #
    ursus augustus

    It really is bizarre this obsession with the CO2 ‘greenhouse’ effect which is about a 20th or less of the evaporo-transpiration energy flow ( ~78 W/sq m) according to the Trenberth graphic in AR whatever. Evaporate 1 kG of water and you absorb 2230 kJ of energy which cools an adjacent 2230 kG by ~1˚ or 22,300 kG by ~0.1˚ ( take your pick) and then ends up in the upper atmosphere when the water vapour recondenses, ready for shipping to outer space. A negative feedback worth having a look at just on that analysis.

    60

    • #
      Bob Fernley-Jones

      ursus augustus,

      I had several email exchanges with Roy Spencer a few years ago on this, puzzling why there seemed to be no research on this and he agreed that what he jointly described as convection effects were very important. (= evapotranspiration + thermals ~61% of heat leaving the surface according to Trenberth). However in effect he admitted that he and Dessler et al (everyone) were too busy competing on the radiative stuff.

      10

  • #
    Mark Sokacic

    I was thinking about this article and i remembered an earlier article here on JoNova that was discussing (if i remember correctly) that higher earth temperatures in earlier geological history had more to do with higher atmospheric pressures than the proportional amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. Doesn’t quite gel with Snowball earth but i guess Svensmark theory on cosmic ray cloud modulation via galactic or solar forcing may fit the geological evidence.

    Ironically the amount of C02 within the Venusian atmosphere with a co-incident small temperature rise in the 70′s and 80′s here on Earth got James Hansen started with his infamous congressional stunt stemming from his previous work on Venusian atmospheric insulation (1967). He obviously learned a lot from the 70′s Ice age scare on how to promote environmental catastrophe but this time the environment was on his side (slightly warming) and bolted on quite well with his studies to find out why the Venusian atmosphere was so different to Earth’s and rising CO2 concentrations, lending him an air of credibility.

    Anyway, i was curious to find out if the atmospheric pressure on Earth was always constant or had been higher / lower. I found this referenced piece of research explaining the history of Earth’s atmospheric pressure and the part that Carbon / CO2 had played. Namely earth’s pressure was once around 90 bar, possibly 5 bar around Dinosaur time and 1 nowadays in most part due to the continual sequestering of atmospheric carbon within the lithosphere/mantle due to chemical processes including life. Yes, we are living in an age of Carbon starvation (at least in geological terms).

    The article also has a great explanation (theory) of why Earth has tectonic activity when Venus and Mars don’t (Hello Mr. Moon impact theory). Although i disagree with the hot earth formation theory and favour the cold earth formation theory. So if the moderator would consider posting the article for all to renew their ideas on carbon in a geological time scale, it’s a great read and fist in well with the article on the water cycle.-> Earth’s atmosphere before the age of dinosaurs

    20

  • #

    [...] This blog is in response to ‘Climate due to water-cycle not CO2′ and ‘Solar Magnetic influence on Earth’s atmospheric pressure’. Both are discussed at JoNova, here,and here. [...]

    00

  • #
  • #
  • #

    [...] the North Atlantic hurricane statistics on predictions versus outcome rather stark. – Jo – Click here to read the full article [...]

    00