Royal Society Humiliated

Royal Society building, London

Global warming basic maths error

First published at Thursday, October 14, 2010

Top international experts prove British numbers on carbon dioxide are wrong. Royal Society blunder grossly exaggerates climate impact.


This is an adopted article.

German born chemist, Dr Klaus L. E. Kaiser has published evidence that proves the Royal Society (RS), London, has been caught out making schoolboy errors in mathematical calculations over the duration of carbon dioxide (CO2) in Earth’s atmosphere. Backed up by a review by a leading Swedish mathematics professor the revelation is a serious embarrassment to the credibility of the once revered British science institute and a major setback for its claims about climate change.

A gaffe in their own basic calculations led the RS to falsely find that CO2 would stay in the atmosphere for thousands of years rather than a dozen or so as per peer-reviewed studies show. Global warming skeptics have been quick to condemn the error and demand an apology and immediate correction.

The Royal Society advises the British government on matters concerning climate change. Due to the scale of the error any forthcoming review will necessarily result in a substantial downward revision of the threat posed by CO2 in the official government numbers.

Royal Society members rebel against climate stance

In an article published on Canada Free Press (CFP: October 13, 2010) Dr Kaiser explains how he picked up on the fault after a recent climate skeptic “rebellion” by senior members of the world’s oldest scientific institute forced the RS to revise their guide “Climate change: a summary of the science”(30 September 2010). Of great concern to Dr Kaiser was one offending paragraph under the heading The Carbon Cycle and Climate where the RS says:

“Current understanding indicates that even if there was a complete cessation of emissions of CO2 today from human activity, it would take several millennia for CO2 concentrations to return to preindustrial concentrations” [emphasis added].

Dr Kaiser’s article poses some very embarrassing questions about the competence of authors of the Royal Society document. The German chemist expertly dismantles the claims by the Royal Society that it would take “millennia” for atmospheric CO2 to return to preindustrial levels. Such a claim, he says, “cannot be true.”

Swedish Mathematics Professor cites “elementary” mistakes

Backing up Kaiser’s analysis is none other than Sweden’s eminent mathematics Professor Claes Johnson, who was quick to respond to the German’s findings when posting on his blog, ‘Claes Johnson on Mathematics and Science.’

“The revised statement by the Royal Society Climate Change Summary of Science is full of scientific misconceptions as noted in the earlier post Royal Society in Free Fall, ” said the Professor of Applied Mathematics, Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm.

Posing the question about this shocking error on his blog the math professor added, “How can it be that even elementary mathematics is beyond the capacity of FRS?”

North American experts suggest sinister motive behind ‘error’

Leading Canadian Climate scientist, Professor Tim Ball, emailed this author to add his own comments and suggests the issue of residency time was part of the strategy to increase the focus on CO2. He says, “It is part of a bundle of claims about CO2 that are now shown false and Dr Kaiser’s is another major correction. I believe they were all produced with malice and forethought driven by the political need to demonize CO2.” Professor Ball further believes such a position is supported by the evidence of how the RS dealt with other issues including advocacy of dubious computer programs.

Climate writer and former US Navy meteorologist, Dr. Martin Hertzberg added, “The failure of the Royal Society and the APS to do their homework on this question and to accept propaganda as though it was valid science, is scientific malfeasance on a grand scale.”

Questions the Royal Society must now answer

Kaiser, a Canadian citizen for decades, is a professional chemist of almost 40 years’ standing who conducts research in environmental chemistry as well as being a successful science author. His latest book ‘Convenient Myths,’ examines “green desires and expectations and juxtaposing these with the physical and chemical facts and realities” urging us to all be skeptical in the continuing climate debate.

Taking the Royal Society to task Kaiser refers to several peer-reviewed papers reporting the half-life of CO2 in the atmosphere to be “between 5 and 10 years.” The chemist calculates that with a half-life of 5 years means that more than 98% of a substance will disappear in a time span of 30 years.

The German then poses the question that if CO2 were to stay in the atmosphere for millennia, why has its level in the atmosphere not doubled in the last 15 years, or gone up tenfold-plus over the last 100 hundred years?

Moreover, the CFP article refers to data collected by the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). Figures show one volcano alone is estimated to emit 9×10^6 kg CO2 per day, or 10^9 kg C per year. The article advises us there are thousands of other volcanic vents, above ground and below the sea, which also emit CO2 on a continuous basis, not to mention the occasional but massive eruptions of volcanoes which have been dormant for many years, such as on Iceland earlier this year.

Position of Royal Society now “untenable”

In conclusion Dr. Kaiser dismisses the claims of the Royal Society as “clearly untenable.” He admonishes the once peerless institution for failing to do a few “simple order-of-magnitude calculations” so as to as check the veracity of their claims. Even though it took months to
prepare that document, Klaus says, “it appears the Royal Society’s math is still wrong.”

Finally, he cautions us “…not to trust all the hype or myths you hear or read… but look at the facts, then make up your own mind, and do believe in a better tomorrow.”


Kaiser, K. L. E, ‘The Carbon Cycle and Royal Society Math,’ (October 13, 2010), accessed online: October 14, 2010.

Johnson, C., ‘FRS Multiplication Table and CO2,’ (October 14, 2010), accessed online: October 14, 2010.

Ball, T., email correspondence with author (October 14, 2010).

Hertzberg, M., email correspondence with author (October 14, 2010).

Gerlach TM, McGee KA, Ekiast T, Sutton AJ, Doukas MP, 2002. Carbon dioxide emission rate of Kilauea Volcano: Implications for primary magma and the summit reservoir. Journal of geophysical research, 107: ECV3.1-ECV 3.15.

Read more at Suite101: Royal Society Humiliated by Global Warming Basic Math Error

Visits: 232

80 Thoughts on “Royal Society Humiliated

  1. Ron on 15/10/2010 at 10:16 pm said:

    Two commenters at Sullivan’s site point out there is a distinction between residence time and response time.

    “There is a difference between residency time and impulse response time. You can have a short residency time because large amounts of CO2 both enter and leave the atmosphere naturally every year. But the time an increase in the amount of CO2 lasts may be much longer.

    It doesn’t have to be so, but it can be. Reporting residency time is answering the wrong question. I’m saying this as a sceptic. ”


    or is this all part of a last ditch effort to again demonize CO2 rather than recognize the role of water vapour and direction of forcings? – WUWT has just posted about this:

  2. Richard C on 15/10/2010 at 10:52 pm said:

    Time to put this graph on display again – lest we forget.

    “Maximum ‘Residence Time’ of Atmospheric CO2”

    To quote Cohenite at JoNova:

    “Clearly the IPCC views about the long-life of ACO2 is an outlier”

    Seems we have a new outlier – RS by “several millennia”.

  3. Samoht on 16/10/2010 at 8:53 pm said:

    Sorry but you have been sucked in by O’Sullivan!

    Here a very brief primer on why O’Sullivan is completely mistaken and has fallen for a school boy level of understanding of the matter.

    CO2 must be understood in the combined system of Air and Ocean:

    The Atmosphere and the Ocean surface layers exchange CO2 readily. A balance evolves whereby the amount of CO2 dissolved in the Ocean is in balance with the partial pressure of CO2 in the atmosphere (like a fizzy drink bottle). More CO2 in the Atmosphere, more CO2 in the Ocean. This balance is established on very short time frames (high exchange rate)
    So if we raise atmospheric CO2 from 280ppm to 400ppm an analog increase in Ocean surface CO2 happens. All along the way Air and Ocean are almost in balance with a net rate of flow into the Oceans at current.
    The CO2 from fossil fuel burning ends up divided into the Atmosphere and into the Ocean surface layer. Exactly this shows in the data comparing our CO2 release from burning FF to atmospheric CO2. The missing CO2 from that is largely in the Ocean from which it will readily reemerge should our atmospheric CO2 go down for some reason (opening the cap on the fizz bottle)
    Besides this exchange there are SLOW mechanisms by which CO2 is removed from the Ocean surface to the deep ocean plus chemical processes which slowly remove CO2 from the system. (rock weathering, sedimentation etc…) The key is: these processes are SLOW, much slower than our current release of CO2 into that system. Hence the fast rising CO2 concentration in both: Air and Ocean surface waters.
    If we were to stop adding more CO2 to the atmosphere / ocean surface system tomorrow, the atmospheric CO2 concentration would in unison with the Ocean surface concentration go down only at the SLOW rate at which these other SLOW processes can remove it from both!
    This indeed can take centuries to complete.

    It is a fallacy (O’Sullivan) to assume that excess CO2 in the air would somehow drain quickly into the ocean. To the contrary, if we were to remove CO2 from the air we would see outgassing from the Ocean to balance this removal as the two systems (air/ocean) are really one system. The fizzy drink bottle is a good analogy.
    Only by removing CO2 from the combined system (Ocean surface waters and air) can we reduce CO2 levels.
    The natural pathways of that removal are well researched (Archer).

    • There are substantial uncertainties in our knowledge of the CO2 cycle. There is also the matter of the oceans outgassing CO2 as temperature rises, and here you have a choice: you can decide that temperature has been rising, in which case some outgassing has occurred, and declare your guess of how much. Or you can decide that temperature has not been rising, so more of the increase in atmospheric CO2 has been due to human activity. But then you face the necessary conclusion that the increase in CO2 has not raised the temperature (or has raised it by less than was thought).

      Hot Topic offers a limp-wristed refutation of O’Sullivan et al. which needs dismantling. Soon, soon. So many students with their papers, so little time.

    • Chris on 18/10/2010 at 10:06 pm said:

      Try doing a search on ocean acidification. The CO2 cycle is well understood. The PH of the oceans are significantly changing because of increased atmospheric CO2. The reduction in PH is threatening many species of shellfish. Setting aside AGW – which should be of serious concern – Ocean acidification is also a serious threat to sea life.

    • Richard C (NZ) on 18/10/2010 at 11:21 pm said:

      Chris, the PH scale runs 0 – 14, 7 is neutral, 7 -14 is alkaline, 0 – 7 is acid, the ocean is 8+

      Go figger!

    • Chris on 11/11/2010 at 1:59 pm said:

      Acidification means, becomes more acidic, i.e the pH of the oceans is reducing. The pH scale is a measure of hydrogen ion concentration in a solution. More acidic means more hydrogen ions.

      go figure

    • Richard C (NZ) on 11/11/2010 at 2:58 pm said:

      Careful if you go swimming in the ocean this summer then

    • What’s the opposite called — alkalinisation if you’re old-school or basicisation (basicise?) if you’re younger?

      There is some good reliable data at Sea Friends, a New Zealand site. Among much else, there is this (summarised):

      Ocean pH occurs in a range from about 7.8 to 8.3. The lowest pH occurs in upwelling areas and the highest pH occurs in the centres of ocean gyres (rotating areas). It would be difficult to calculate the ‘average’ pH for the oceans, let alone whether they have become more or less acidic. Note that upwelling areas are more acidic because high-CO2 bottom water surfaces, warms up and makes CO2 more readily available, a bonus for photosynthesis by marine plankton.

      They say there are few time series of ocean acidity, so few conclusions should be drawn, especially about the cause of any increase in acidity in a region. Natural variability is regular and fairly large. There appears to be a maximum pH, as there are no excursions to pH higher than about 8.15, but frequent excursions to lower pH levels such as 8.02.

      There are some interesting graphs.

    • Richard C (NZ) on 12/11/2010 at 5:30 pm said:

      Here’s the link to seafriends –

    • Richard C (NZ) on 17/10/2010 at 11:07 am said:

      Problem being, Samoht , that CO2 LWIR is unable to heat the ocean in the first place.

      So relax – don’t panic, there is nothing to worry about.

    • Samoht on 17/10/2010 at 12:37 pm said:

      You do not understand my post. My post is simply making the point that neither Treadgold nor O’Sullivan comprehend the matter they are talking about.

      They think that because roughly 1/2 of the human CO2 emissions do not show up in the Atmosphere that there is a large drain of CO2 from the system that would speedily remove any access CO2 from the air once we stopped adding it.
      However this is entirely naive and wrong. The “missing” CO2 is largely in the ocean surface layers as there is a ready exchange and balance between atmospheric and the ocean surface. This is a “balance” whereby CO2 either enters the ocean when the atmospheric level increases or gasses out when the atmospheric level drops.
      The only way to remove CO2 from this active balanced system is through the slow drains of CO2 into long term removal. These drains are through rock weathering and ocean sedimentation.
      If we stopped adding CO2 today to the Air/Ocean system the current atmospheric levels would reduce slowly according to the flow rates of these drains.

      I recommend this:

      Contrary to what Treadgold says here the pathways of CO2 have been studied well and there is ample literature on the topic.
      The hobby scientists like O’Sullivan simply either do not know what they are talking about our deliberately raise issues in a manner designed to confuse the public.

    • Richard C (NZ) on 17/10/2010 at 1:16 pm said:

      But so what , if CO2’s not the major climate driver or anywhere close?

    • Samoht on 17/10/2010 at 1:25 pm said:

      Dream on….

    • Richard C (NZ) on 17/10/2010 at 2:35 pm said:

      So I take it (from your remark), that you consider ACO2 to be the planet’s major climate driver.

      Do you?

    • Samoht on 17/10/2010 at 4:01 pm said:


    • Richard C (NZ) on 17/10/2010 at 6:41 pm said:

      Well if ACO2 is the major climate driver, it’s a bit erratic, going by this plot kindly supplied by Gareth Renowden at Hot Topic:

      Upper Ocean Heat Content Anomaly


      Does ocean cooling prove global warming has ended?

      (Sceptical Science must be nervous passenger too, by the looks)

      Your driver (the “A” part of ACO2) has just not got to grips with the task.

      It might be time to look for another driver – maybe even a team of drivers, don’t you think?

  4. Andy on 17/10/2010 at 10:55 am said:

    In relation to the RS (and not this story, on which I have no comment), the article below by Ben Pile is a very well written and thought-provoking piece on the Royal Society and its position in society and politics.

    (h/t Bishop Hill)

    • Samoht on 17/10/2010 at 1:37 pm said:

      Nonsense. The issue is simply this: for as long as science predominantly gave people more power through the great inventions of the last century science as almost uniformly loved by all. Today, as science discovers that there are true and dangerous limits to the current form human endeavor people agitate against science because they can not accept the message we are being handed. Bugger truth, shoot the messenger then….. [AD HOMINEM REMARKS DELETED. This Conversation treats every participant in the same spirit of goodwill while they address the topic. Don’t call anybody deniers or liars.]

    • Andy on 17/10/2010 at 2:05 pm said:

      So do you disagree with the statement that the RS is a political instrument?
      Do you not accept that science has been a political instrument for many centuries?

      There are many historical precedents. These are not lies, we are not “deniers”. I am happy to have a rational discussion.

    • Samoht on 17/10/2010 at 2:39 pm said:

      Science is drawn into politics if it makes predictions or delivers findings that require society to take note and possibly act.
      Precedents to the current AGW debate are for example Tobacco regulations derived from science linking disease to smoking. Funny that many of the same figureheads who then fought against the points of science and for the Tobacco companies are again in battle against the points of science and against the idea that society should act upon the advice of scientists.

      The RS is not a political organization. The debate has been politicized by those who can not separate the political interests calmly from the debate about scientific matters.

    • Andy on 17/10/2010 at 5:15 pm said:

      the debate has been politicized by those who can not separate the political interests calmly from the debate about scientific matters.

      I would agree wholeheartedly with that statement you made above.

  5. Richard C (NZ) on 17/10/2010 at 1:58 pm said:

    Samoht says: October 17, 2010 at 1:37 pm


    OK – let’s hear YOUR truth, if you disagree..

    Please present the peer-reviewed papers that support the core notion of CAGW.

    FYI, we have some up our sleeve on this side of the fence.

    While we are at it, let’s talk about points-of-inflexion across the metrics, or don’t you monitor the science in that regard?

    And where, exactly, has all the warming gone?

    The excess “heat” is “missing”. Kevin Trenberth can’t find it, and if he can’t, I doubt you can. But if you do know, please tell us. The world is waiting for the answer.

    I’ve heard the Marianas Trench is quite deep – have you looked there?

    • Samoht on 17/10/2010 at 2:51 pm said:

      You probably want to draw our attention again on your sunspot cycle length theory.
      I suggest you read this:
      “Claims that solar cycle length prove the sun is causing global warming are based on a single paper published nearly 20 years ago. Subsequent research, including a paper by a co-author of the original 1991 paper, finds the opposite conclusion. Solar cycle length as a proxy for solar activity tells us the sun has had very little contribution to global warming since 1975. In fact, direct measurements of solar activity indicate the sun has had a slight cooling effect on climate in recent decades while global temperatures have been rising.”

      As of papers about CAGW I am sure no matter how many I would cite here, it would not matter to you. [YOU MAY BE SURE, BUT this is insulting. Please cite some references. – Moderator] I suggest to turn on the Scholar option in Google and have a go yourself if you would like references.

    • Richard C (NZ) on 17/10/2010 at 3:05 pm said:

      “You probably want to draw our attention again on your sunspot cycle length theory.”

      Actually – no (sorry to disappoint you).

      I was thinking more along the lines of how CO2 fails dismally to account for the 1930′s warming but sunspot cycle length correlates with temperature over the entire warming period:

      And how CO2 fails dismally to correlate with Arctic-wide Surface Air Temperature anomalies:

      But solar irradiance does:

    • Samoht on 17/10/2010 at 3:06 pm said:

      Sorry you are mistaken

    • Richard C (NZ) on 17/10/2010 at 3:09 pm said:

      Please explain – in detail

    • Richard C (NZ) on 17/10/2010 at 4:50 pm said:

      You have an excellent side-step Samoht – I’m impressed.

      Does avoiding the unpalatable TRUTH of climate phenomena – temperature correlations that are in far better agreement than the fleeting and tenuously apparent 1990’s ACO2 – temp correlation, come easier with practice?

      Seeing you’re such side-stepper, how about a change of subject?

      Would you like to discuss CO2 forcings datasets?

      You know, the Law Dome – Mauna Loa splice (looks like a hockey stick).

      That WAS a bogus contrivance wasn’t it.

      In case you’ve forgotten (I know how little scientific details like this get lost so easily when the mind has no place for them), here’s a plot to refresh your memory;

      Isn’t it remarkable, how the Mauna Loa data provides such an an up-tick?

      And the two datasets are so disparate.

      What is your opinion of this type of data manipulation Samoht? Is it an honest and TRUTHful basis for model simulutions that produce the guesses, sorry “projections”, of such certainty out to 2100, that we must radically “de-develop” (as John Holdren puts it), entire western economies, leaving China and India to carry on their coal-fired industrial boom, regardless.

      It does seem a bit far-fetched don’t you think?

      [AD HOMINEMS roughly pointed out as a rough kind of reminder that we’re having a Conversation. – Richard T]

    • Richard C (NZ) on 17/10/2010 at 5:06 pm said:


    • Richard C (NZ) on 18/10/2010 at 10:15 am said:

      [AD HOMINEMS roughly pointed out as a rough kind of reminder that we’re having a Conversation. – Richard T]

      You run a tight tight ship here RT.

      I can see I will have to change my ways.


      “Does avoiding the unpalatable TRUTH of climate phenomena – temperature correlations that are in far better agreement than the fleeting and tenuously apparent 1990’s ACO2 – temp correlation, come easier with practice?”

      was my VERY BEST behavior!

    • Richard C (NZ) on 17/10/2010 at 3:08 pm said:

      “I suggest to turn on the Scholar option in Google and have a go yourself if you would like references”

      Did you come up empty when you tried?

    • Samoht on 17/10/2010 at 4:04 pm said:

      about 64,600 references according to Google… 😉

    • Richard C (NZ) on 17/10/2010 at 4:55 pm said:

      One will suffice, Samoht

    • Richard C (NZ) on 17/10/2010 at 5:22 pm said:

      Is THAT your evidence?

      How does that article (of dubious extraction) explain the global ocean heat content?

      Or, to put it another way, the planet’s greatest heat sink, is giving up its heat despite the best efforts of CO2. (Yes I know – same provenance).

      Your champion really has not had a good run these last few years, do you think we will see a resurgence in the near future”

    • Samoht on 17/10/2010 at 3:06 pm said:

      Oh and when you read about the missing heat there are two possibilities:
      1) There is no missing heat – Trenberth is very cautious and can not rule out that his measurements are wrong or –
      2) There is heat energy being stored in places where we are not seeing it and the trouble with that is that it will haunt us later.
      So what is your point?

    • Richard C (NZ) on 17/10/2010 at 3:16 pm said:

      1) ‘There is no missing heat” – a strong possibility, I agree..

      2) “There is heat energy being stored in places where we are not seeing it and the trouble with that is that it will haunt us later”

      Golly Samoht – that’s frightening.

      When you say haunt, do you mean, in a searing, boiling, crucible, kind of way?

      Is this the “millions and millions” of degrees that Algore was talking about?

  6. Samoht on 17/10/2010 at 4:36 pm said:

    O’Sullivans article did not live very long on his site, it has disappeared. Perhaps he got embarrassed? Perhaps this one was just so wrong, even he could not live with it….

    • Richard C (NZ) on 17/10/2010 at 5:05 pm said:


      That sounds like the “could”‘s, “may”‘s and “potentially”‘s we read so often in the IPCC reports.

      They really don’t seem to be very certain of the weather, sorry climate, around 2100, do they?

      So what do you think, Samoht,

      another cold Northern Hemisphere winter (like last year)?

      The Southern Hemisphere winter was a bit cold too, wasn’t it?

      I see the Pacific’s a bit cooler than normal too:

      Warming not going to plan?

    • Richard C (NZ) on 17/10/2010 at 5:31 pm said:

      Bet you’re hoping we don’t see THAT again this year. It would really set an alarming trend if we did.

      But we were told back in March 2000, that:

      “Snowfalls are now just a thing of the past”

      What went wrong?

    • Richard C (NZ) on 17/10/2010 at 6:02 pm said:

      I’ve just checked the weather forecast for Britain, Samoht – not looking good.

      Turning cold with frost and a risk of snow in the north

      A wintry feel to the weather developing during the next few days as a cold northerly wind develops across Britain during the first half of next week. It should certainly be cold enough for some wintry showers in Scotland, with accumulations of snow over higher ground. Even higher ground in northern England may well see some wintry showers bringing a mix of rain, sleet and snow during the middle of next week. Overnight frost is also likely at times, with temperatures in the north possibly getting as low as -5C locally, making it very cold for the time of year.

      There are now signs that coldish conditions will last until next weekend, making for a longer cold snap than had looked likely.


      A hat trick of cold winters for the UK?

      In Britain between 1991 and 2007 most winters were mild, but the last two years have brought a change, with 2009/10 bringing the coldest conditions since 1979 to many parts of the country. So a cold winter this year would mean the third in succession.
      Is it likely? As ever, long range forecasting is about identifying broad patterns and trends, and given this TheWeatherOutlook view is that a colder than average conditions are likely this winter. However, the pattern which develops may be different this time, with the cold tending to come more from the east or south east rather than the north east. In this scenario the heaviest snow often occurs in the boundary zone between the cold dry air from the east, and the mild and moist air trying to push in from the Atlantic, but the cold can be most persistent in eastern regions.

      Oh well, better luck next year

    • Not the police — the spelling assistant. :>)

      Of course, you realise you’re using the “weather is climate” argument? You won’t get far with that, except to irritate.

    • Richard C (NZ) on 17/10/2010 at 6:28 pm said:

      It will be the weather that irritates RT – not me.

    • Andy on 17/10/2010 at 6:32 pm said:

      It’s worth mentioning that the weather patterns that Britain is currently experiencing exhibit similarities to what happened in the forties. So maybe there is a cyclical pattern here?

      I am distinctly underwhelmed by the “global warming is causing snow and cold weather” argument. Last year was the coldest winter in Britain in about 35 years.

    • Richard C (NZ) on 17/10/2010 at 6:45 pm said:

      Before you know it they’ll be skating on the Thames, wouldn’t that be a first .

      No wait……

    • Samoht on 17/10/2010 at 7:02 pm said:

      Meanwhile out there in the real world:

    • Andy on 17/10/2010 at 7:14 pm said:

      Hang on. Are you suggesting that the real world is a bunch of graphs from NASA, and people shoveling themselves out of snow drifts in London is not reality?

      It’s quite a difficult argument to convey to the general public. Last winter everyone in the UK was joking that “another 20 cms of global warming” fell overnight.

      Anyway, this thread has deviated somewhat from the CO2 residency argument.

    • Richard C (NZ) on 17/10/2010 at 7:45 pm said:

      Does your preferred centre of excellance operate in the same world as everyone else?

      This one, for example:

      CU Sea Level 2010

      Sea Ice Extent (See 176)

      HadCRUT3 Global Monthly Temp Since 1979

      It must be tricky working with such a limited set of metrics – I admire your fortitude.

      In passing, has it occurred to you, that Hansen’s extrapolation techniques render the NZCSET v NIWA Case – moot?

      i.e .Invercargill’s temperature, is just as readily derived from Kaitaia, and vice versa.

      Or, Spain’s temperature record’s are made obsolete by Scotland’s.

      Consequently, your preferred centre of excellence, turns out some very other-worldly data when compared to say – DMI. Who, I should point out, tend to take a more empirical approach.

      Or is the traditional scientific method now just old hat?.

    • Andy on 17/10/2010 at 6:46 pm said:

      Has it?
      There appears to be a link on suite101 that is broken
      The original article cited in the article above is Canada Free Press

      Still there, as you can see.

      And the second article referenced, that of Claes Johnson, is also still there

    • Andy on 17/10/2010 at 6:57 pm said:

      Sorry, the threading got a bit messed up here. This was a response to the comment that the original article had been taken down.

    • Samoht on 17/10/2010 at 7:07 pm said:

      … which is not surprising really considering they started this nonsense.

    • Andy on 17/10/2010 at 7:15 pm said:

      The thread got messed up because I pressed the wrong button.
      And who, exactly, started “this nonsense”?

    • Samoht on 17/10/2010 at 9:43 pm said:

      Looks like some Kaiser “publishing” in Canada Free Press (where else…)

  7. This discussion belongs under the page “Open threads | Climate | Disproving AGW”

    Go hence! Or to another of your choosing!

  8. val majkus on 17/10/2010 at 8:59 pm said:

    This probably needs saying; I’ve noticed Samoht has not answered any queries other than cite website which leads me to assume (and I may be wrong) that Samoht has no expertise in so called ‘climate science’; I’m a layperson (I do have tertiary qualifications but not in science) and that’s what I do because I have no scientific knowledge and then when people with expertise start to question me all I can do is quote websites as Samoht is doing; so that leads me to the question why does Sarnoht choose one AGW above anti AGW; just curious Sarmoht; can you answer that because I could if you asked me the same question but you have to answer first

    • Samoht on 17/10/2010 at 9:32 pm said:

      I have a physics degree. I find it more helpful to point to sources when possible. The evidence for AGW is overwhelming.Try spelling me backwards… 😉
      Hope this answers your questions.

    • Andy on 18/10/2010 at 7:40 am said:

      The evidence for AGW is overwhelming

      This is a political statement, not a scientific one.

  9. val majkus on 17/10/2010 at 9:00 pm said:

    Also I have the courage to use my real name which ….is not doing

  10. val majkus on 17/10/2010 at 9:40 pm said:

    So is your first name Thomas; and your surnam?; with a physics degree why would you point to resources rather than have your own thoughts with research and published papers to back you up; I’m curious, so far as you’re concerned I’m a lay person but I can’t see on this thread that you have said anything other than quote cites and that is typical troll behaviour (in my experience; most trolls have no science experties)

    • Samoht on 17/10/2010 at 10:30 pm said:

      Would you not rather read the original works of the scientists working in the climate field?
      Also I don’t have the time to add the information that others have already eloquently provided.
      I am not sure what your specific question on “back radiation” is but a NASA scientist has made good site explaining IR radiation physics. You can purchase the radiometer he refers to in NZ and do your own experiments.

    • val majkus on 17/10/2010 at 11:09 pm said:

      and when you say ‘the original work of scientists working in the field’ to whom do you refer other than to Dr Roy Spencer?

    • Samoht on 18/10/2010 at 8:12 am said:

      There IPCC list of contributing scientists would be a good start for you!

    • Richard C (NZ) on 18/10/2010 at 9:00 am said:

      First on the list of AR4’s “2500 scientists”:

      BERNSTEIN, Lenny
      L.S. Bernstein & Associates, L.L.C.

      A Lawyer!

    • Richard C (NZ) on 18/10/2010 at 9:43 am said:

      Samoht, I have not been able to find Dr Roy Spencer’s explanation of how CO2 (not to mention ACO2) down-welling back radiation heats the oceans.

      The NASA page you presented as CAGW proof (in the absence of peer-reviewed papers) is a bit hazy on this too.

      We would be interested to see your explanation of the thermodynamic and chemical processes (give your physics degree a work out).

      I only have the material of a Solicitor to go by; him being Stephen Wilde:

      “Greenhouse Gases Can Cause Cooling !”

      He asserts:

      “However the effect of downwelling infrared is always to use up all the infrared in increasing the temperature of the ocean surface molecules whilst leaving nothing in reserve to provide the extra energy required (the latent heat of evaporation) when the change of state occurs from water to vapour”

      Is he right here?

      We have a knowledge gap on this topic at this site and because we are always willing to embrace new learning, your contribution to close that would be valued.

      Given that the ocean is the planet’s greatest heat sink, we really should address this topic, I’m sure you’ll agree.

    • Andy on 18/10/2010 at 9:54 am said:

      On the subject of Roy Spencer, he has a commentary on the recent Lacis et al paper

      It makes interesting reading as it exposes some of the circular reasoning in the CO2 forcing argument.

      Roger Pielke Snr also has comments here

      h/t Bishop Hill’s weekly climate cuttings

    • Richard C (NZ) on 18/10/2010 at 1:00 pm said:

      Thanks Andy, there’s a whole lot going on in that commentary.

      Of particular interest to me was this:

      After assuming clouds and water vapor are no more than feedbacks upon temperature, the Lacis et al. paper then uses a climate model experiment to ‘prove’ their paradigm that CO2 drives climate — by forcing the model with a CO2 change, resulting in a large temperature response!

      Well, DUH. If they had forced the model with a water vapor change, it would have done the same thing. Or a cloud change. But they had already assumed water vapor and clouds cannot be climate drivers.

      And this:

      Furthermore, the cloud feedbacks in their climate model are positive, which further amplifies the model’s temperature response to forcing. As readers here are aware, our research suggests that cloud feedbacks in the real climate system might be so strongly negative that they could more than negate any positive water vapor feedback.

      I will post the link under Climate: Clouds in Models.

      It is a VERY interesting development given the position of the GISS ModelE in the simulation arena i.e I think there is some desperation here by GISS.

      ModelE is a “conventional” model that is in danger of becoming on the outer in comparison to newer generation models that incorporate Cloud Resolving Models (CRM’s)to such an extent that it may be irrelevant or cause a rift in the “narrative”.

      I see some strategic positioning to deflect attention from this and to try to discredit the opposition. There is even in-house NASA rivalry at play.

      BTW. O/T but still science/physics.

      The Spencer – Miscolczi showdown at the Spencer corral must go down as one of the best examples of cutting-edge, truth seeking, cut-and-thrust ever to be enjoined and witnessed on a global scale.

      We are very privileged to be able to follow it in real-time. This encounter would have been undertaken by snail-mail pre-internet and any resolution would have been unlikely within the lifetimes of the protagonists. Not so now. New papers are raked over in a matter of months.

      I would be happy to provide relevant links to anyone interested – just drop a reply below.

      There is much to the story, including intrigue (Miscolczi – NASA), ego, battles of wits, cutting-edge science and on and on.

      I am a fan of both so was most interested in the encounter and intend to revisit it in the future – life expectancy permitting.

      Comments on Miskolczi’s (2010) Controversial Greenhouse Theory

      See also, Dr Roy’s subsequent posts on the same topic.

      Also at Dr Spencer’s site:

      Our JGR Paper on Feedbacks is Published”a must read.


      The Persistence of Paradigms” – Cloud Feedbacks


      Five Reasons Why Water Vapor Feedback Might Not Be Positive” – Brilliant!

      I will do some linking of the above in the appropriate Open Threads categories soon, hopefully – life expectancy permitting.

      FYI, I have around 20 links in my “Miskolczi” Bookmark folder alone. His is quite a story. For example, he was only able to have his seminal paper:

      The saturated greenhouse effect theory of Ferenc Miskolczi

      published in the obscure “Quarterly Journal of the Hungarian Meteorological Society” and nowhere else, for obvious reasons.

    • Richard C (NZ) on 19/10/2010 at 3:00 am said:

      It is a VERY interesting development given the position of the GISS ModelE in the simulation arena i.e I think there is some desperation here by GISS.

      ModelE is a “conventional” model that is in danger of becoming on the outer in comparison to newer generation models that incorporate Cloud Resolving Models (CRM’s)to such an extent that it may be irrelevant or cause a rift in the “narrative”.

      I see some strategic positioning to deflect attention from this and to try to discredit the opposition. There is even in-house NASA rivalry at play.”

      I asked Richard S. Courtney to comment on my analysis:-

      My question:

      Is my analysis way off?

      His answer:

      It is spot on and not “way off”

      Full story here:

    • Richard C (NZ) on 18/10/2010 at 10:02 am said:

      “We would be interested to see your explanation of the thermodynamic and chemical processes (give your physics degree a work out).”

      Alternatively, if you can provide us with links to some peer-reviewed papers, that would help too.

      I’ve searched the Royal Society’s document “Climate change: a summary of the science” for “back radiation” and all I got was:

      “Reader has finished searching the document, no matches were found”

      It seems the Royal Society has a knowledge gap too.

    • val majkus on 18/10/2010 at 10:47 am said:

      Dr Roy Spencer says at that link
      in response to a comment by Andy Lacis
      I just try to make people aware that CO2 has not yet been *proved* to be the main culprit in climate change.

      So do you Thomas have any peer reviewed paper showing the proof Dr Spencer says is lacking

    • Andy on 18/10/2010 at 11:39 am said:

      An answer to your question can be perhaps found in Roy Spencer’s post, where he says with some resignation…

      Unfortunately, what I present here is just a blog posting. It would take another peer-reviewed paper that follows an alternative path, to effectively counter the Lacis paper, and show that it merely concludes what it assumes at the outset. I am only outlining here what I see as the main issues.

      Of course, the chance of editors at Science allowing such a response paper to get published is virtually zero. The editors at Science choose which scientists will be asked to provide peer review, and they already know who they can count on to reject a skeptic’s paper.

      Many of us have already been there, done that.

    • Samoth on 18/10/2010 at 11:55 am said:

      Perhaps the editors at Science simply find way to much fault with Spencers arguments. If Spencer can not convince his peers than probably he needs to come up with more evidence.
      A good (brief) rebuttal of his main idea is here:
      and a more technical here:

    • Andy on 18/10/2010 at 2:33 pm said:

      “Rebuttals” from either Sceptical Science or RealClimate (probably the two most ill-named site on the internet) don’t hold much credibility for me.

      The latter was set up partly by one William Connelly, now topic banned from Wikipedia for overly biasing climate pages in favour of his own views.

      It’s hardly a recomendation for impartiality is it?

    • Richard C (NZ) on 18/10/2010 at 1:53 pm said:

      Let’s highlight that, Val.

      I just try to make people aware that CO2 has not yet been *proved* to be the main culprit in climate change

  11. val majkus on 17/10/2010 at 9:41 pm said:

    and as a matter of curiousty what do you say about the physical possibility of ‘back radiation’

  12. Samoth on 18/10/2010 at 11:10 am said:

    This is not the place where you should come if you seek basic education on matters of the greenhouse effect nor do I intend to give you a private lecture on the topic.

    This thread here is on a specific matter: How long will CO2 remain in the system if we would stop emissions.

    On : while he gives a good intro on backradiation (thats why I pointed you there) I do not agree with his assessment on other matters on his site, especially not his essay on water vapor versus CO2 forcings / feedback.

    Back radiation reduces the net heat flow away from a warm surface by sending some of the IR radiation back. Obviously if you had a perfect IR mirror over a warm surface the net radiation loss from that surface in the direction of the mirror would be zero. Any matter that absorbs and then also radiates IR will contribute to the greenhouse effect.
    It ‘warms’ the oceans by affecting their net IR radiation balance.

    If you Val and Richard are truly interested in gaining knowledge on this matter [SNIP] then you will surely find the education you are after. [SNIPPED AD HOMINEM COMMENT: Samoth, you’re perfectly capable of contributing at a useful level. Don’t continue in this vein. Val expresses his frustration in his reply to this and says it well. – Richard T]

    Perhaps this summary on some of the science will assist you further:

    • val majkus on 18/10/2010 at 4:13 pm said:

      Thomas I do resent being assessed as someone who is ‘desperately fishing for confirmations to … preconceived ideas’ by someone not prepared to provide his full name;
      Are you prepared to provide however the basis upon which you made the assumption that I am ‘desperately fishing for confirmations to … preconceived ideas’?
      It’s a bit of a generalisation from someone with a physics degree.

  13. Bulson on 04/11/2010 at 9:05 pm said:

    FYI: Samoth’s, or Thomas’ last name is most probably Palm. He’s nicked TTTP by Swedish blog-writers, which spells out: ‘Thomas The Tippingpoint Palm’ and he is truly making full cred of that nick. His style of writing/’discussing'(?) and general appearance [here] are identical to what can be seen/read [though in Swedish…;) ] at: – there, though, he is Thomas.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Post Navigation