Climate science

This page is for discussion of climate science in general not covered by other threads.

Leave a Reply

34 Comment threads
175 Thread replies
Most reacted comment
Hottest comment thread
11 Comment authors
Notify of



First carbon victim is the truth – smh

See “Australia”

“Cutting through the climate change rhetoric has been Elaine Prior, the senior environment, social and governance analyst at Citigroup.

Last week, in the wake of a Greenpeace report on lending to the coal industry in Australia (covered previously here), Prior and her colleagues tried to quantify the exposure of our big four banks if a price on carbon were to wipe out the value of their loans to coal-fired power stations.

This is not far-fetched. The banks are definitely worried – especially in the Latrobe Valley of Victoria, where the first plant shutdowns are expected.

Bank shareholders are worried too. ”Investors, including super funds, have expressed concern about bank exposures to coal-fired power,” Prior says, ”more than about the banks’ internal carbon footprint.””

Richard C (NZ)

See “Consultation begins on forest carbon measurement”

Friday, 15 October 2010, 2:18 pm
Press Release: Ministry Of Agriculture And Forestry

Richard C (NZ)

Measuring carbon emissions from land-use change and forestry

The New Zealand Land-use and Carbon Analysis System

Bureaucratic nirvana and all at the behest of the UN IPCC. Hopefully some spin-offs of economically and environmentally useful information.

The “Detecting change” section has this:-

Once land-use maps are completed for 1990 and 2008, change can be identified. The images to the right show an area north of Taupo, New Zealand where deforestation has occurred. The pre-1990 planted forest area (dark green) has been converted to high-producing grassland (pale yellow). This is likely to be due to conversion to a dairy farming land use.

And the (rushed) “conversion to a dairy farming land use” was “likely to be due” to the impending enactment of the ETS.

Richard C (NZ)

Carbon Trade Ends on Quiet Death of Chicago Climate Exchange

Published Nov 7, 2010

Republican mid-term election joy deals financial uncertainty among green investors as the Chicago Climate Exchange announces the end of U.S. carbon trading.

The Chicago Climate Exchange (CCX) announced on October 21, 2010 that it will cease carbon trading this year. However, Steve Milloy reporting on (November 6, 2010) finds this huge story strangely unreported by the mainstream media.

To some key analysts the collapse of the CCX appears to show that international carbon trading is “dying a quiet death.” Yet Milloy finds that such a major business failure has drawn no interest at all from the mainstream media. Milloy noted that a “Nexis search conducted a week after CCX’s announcement revealed no news articles published about its demise.”

Not until November 02, 2010 had the story even been picked up briefly and that was by (Crain’s). Reporter, Paul Merrion appeared to find some comfort that while CCX will cease all trading of new emission allowances at the end of the year, “it will continue trading carbon offsets generated by projects that consume greenhouse gases, such as planting trees.”



Richard C (NZ)

Roy Clark, Ph.D.

Energy transfer at the Earth’s surface is examined from first principles. The effects on surface temperature of small changes in the solar constant caused by the sunspot cycle and small increases in downward long wave infrared (LWIR) flux due to a 100 ppm increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration are considered in detail. The changes in the solar constant are sufficient to change ocean temperatures and alter the Earth’s climate. The surface temperature changes produced by an increase in downward LWIR flux are too small to be measured and cannot cause climate change. The assumptions underlying the use of radiative forcing in climate models are shown to be invalid. A null hypothesis for CO2 is proposed that it is impossible to show that changes in CO2 concentration have caused any climate change, at least since the current composition of the atmosphere was set by ocean photosynthesis about one billion years ago.

Keywords: Carbon Dioxide, Global Warming, Greenhouse Effect, Maunder
Minimum, Meteorological Surface Air Temperature, Milankovitch Cycles, Ocean Warming, Radiative Forcing, Radiative Transfer, Sunspot Cycle.

Richard C (NZ)

CALIFORNIA CLIMATE CHANGE IS CAUSED BY THE PACIFIC DECADAL OSCILLATION, NOT BY CARBON DIOXIDE by Roy Clark | September 15, 2010 ABSTRACT The long term trends in monthly minimum temperature from 34 California weather stations have been analyzed. These trends can be explained using a variable linear urban heat island effect superimposed on a baseline trend from the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO). The majority of the prevailing California weather systems originate in the N. Pacific Ocean. The average minimum monthly temperature is a measure of the surface air temperature of these weather systems. Changes in minimum surface temperature are an indicator of changes in the temperature of the tropospheric air column, not the ground surface temperature. The PDO provides a baseline minimum temperature trend that defines the California climate variation. This allows urban heat island effects and other possible anomalous temperature measurement effects to be identified and investigated. Some of the rural weather stations showed no urban heat island effects. Stations located in urban areas showed heat island effects ranging from 0.01 to over 0.04 C.yr-1. The analysis of minimum temperature data using the PDO as a reference baseline has been demonstrated as… Read more »


Limits on CO2 Climate Forcing from Recent Temperature Data of Earth
David H. Douglass and John R. Christy, 2008


Maximum ‘Residence Time’ of Atmospheric CO2

Plot illustrating how the IPCC’s view of long-lived CO2 is an oulier

Richard C (NZ)
Richard C (NZ)
Richard C (NZ)

Climate Change (A Fundamental Analysis of the Greenhouse Effect)

By John Nicol 2008

Over recent years there has been considerable debate concerning the possibility of industrially induced increases in the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere giving rise to increased warming across the world.

Main points:-

1) Infrared radiation from the surface is absorbed in the first few feet of the atmosphere.

2) 99% of the absorbed radiation is converted to kinetic energy within milliseconds.

3) Heat transport in the troposphere is dominated by convection.

And the back-radiation, on which the CAGW hypothesis rests, is shown to be both fixed and infinitesimal, leaving absolutely no mechanism by which the so-called ‘green house’ effect can warm the surface.

Richard C (NZ)

The Shattered Greenhouse: How Simple Physics Demolishes the “Greenhouse Effect”. Timothy Casey B.Sc. (Hons.) Consulting Geologist First Uploaded ISO: 2009-Oct-13 Revision 4 ISO: 2010-June-25 Abstract This article explores the “Greenhouse Effect” in contemporary literature and in the frame of physics, finding a conspicuous lack of clear thermodynamic definition. Arrhenius’ backradiation mechanism is identified as a key aspect of the “Greenhouse Effect” hypothesis. The general idea as expressed in contemporary literature, though seemingly chaotic in its diversity of emphasis, shows little change since its original proposition by Svante Arrhenius in 1896, and subsequent refutation by Robert Wood in 1909. The “Greenhouse Effect” is presented as a radiation trap whereby changes in atmospheric composition resulting in increased absorption lead to increased surface temperatures. However, since the composition of a body, isolated from thermal contact by a vacuum, cannot affect mean body temperature, the “Greenhouse Effect” has, in fact, no material foundation. Compositional variation can change the distribution of heat within a body in accordance with Fourier’s Law, but it cannot change the overall temperature of the body. Arrhenius’ backradiation mechanism did, in fact, duplicate the radiative heat transfer component by adding this component to the… Read more »


Falsi fication Of The Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse E ffects Within The Frame Of Physics Version 4.0 (January 6, 2009) replaces Version 1.0 (July 7, 2007) and later Gerhard Gerlich and Ralf D. Tscheuschner Abstract The atmospheric greenhouse e ect, an idea that many authors trace back to the traditional works of Fourier (1824), Tyndall (1861), and Arrhenius (1896), and which is still supported in global climatology, essentially describes a fictitious mechanism, in which a planetary atmosphere acts as a heat pump driven by an environment that is radiatively interacting with but radiatively equilibrated to the atmospheric system. Ac- cording to the second law of thermodynamics such a planetary machine can never exist. Nevertheless, in almost all texts of global climatology and in a widespread secondary literature it is taken for granted that such mechanism is real and stands on a firm scientifi c foundation. In this paper the popular conjecture is analyzed and the underlying physical principles are clarifi ed. By showing that (a) there are no common physical laws between the warming phenomenon in glass houses and the fictitious atmospheric green-house e ffects, (b) there are no calculations to determine an average surface temperature of a planet, (c)… Read more »

Richard C (NZ)

Comments on the “Proof of the atmospheric greenhouse effect” by Arthur P. Smith

Gerhard Kramm1, Ralph Dlugi2, and Michael Zelger2
1University of Alaska Fairbanks, Geophysical Institute
903 Koyukuk Drive, P.O. Box 757320, Fairbanks, AK 99775-7320, USA
2Arbeitsgruppe Atmosphärische Prozesse (AGAP),
Gernotstraße, D-80804 Munich, Germany

Abstract: In this paper it is shown that Smith (2008) used inappropriate and inconsistent formulations in averaging various quantities over the entire surface of the Earth considered as a sphere. Using two instances of averaging procedures as customarily applied in studies on turbulence, it is shown that Smith’s formulations are highly awkward. Furthermore, Smith’s discussion of the infrared absorption in the atmosphere is scrutinized and evaluated. It is shown that his attempt to refute the criticism of Gerlich and Tscheuschner (2007, 2009) on the so-called greenhouse effect is rather fruitless.

Richard C (NZ)

“It is shown that his attempt to refute the criticism of Gerlich and Tscheuschner (2007, 2009) on the so-called greenhouse effect is rather fruitless.”

i.e. This paper by Kramm Et Al supports G&T’s criticism of the greenhouse effect.

Richard C (NZ)

COMMENT ON “FALSIFICATION OF THE ATMOSPHERIC CO2 GREENHOUSE EFFECTS WITHIN THE FRAME OF PHYSICS” JOSHUA B. HALPERN Department of Chemistry, Howard University, Washington, DC CHRISTOPHER M. COLOSE Department of Atmospheric, Oceanic, and Space Sciences, University of Wisconsin-Madison CHRIS HO-STUART JOEL D. SHORE Physics Department, Rochester Institute of Technology ARTHUR P. SMITH JÖRG ZIMMERMANN Quality Management, Deutscher Wetterdienst March 2010 Abstract: In this journal, Gerhard Gerlich and Ralf D. Tscheuschner claim to have falsified the existence of an atmospheric greenhouse effect.1 Here, we show that their methods, logic, and conclusions are in error. Their most significant errors include trying to apply the Clausius statement of the Second Law of Thermodynamics to only one side of a heat transfer process rather than the entire process, and systematically ignoring most non-radiative heat flows applicable to the Earth’s surface and atmosphere. They claim that radiative heat transfer from a colder atmosphere to a warmer surface is forbidden, ignoring the larger transfer in the other direction which makes the complete process allowed. Further, by ignoring heat capacity and non-radiative heat flows, they claim that radiative balance requires that the surface cool by 100 K or more at night,… Read more »

Richard C (NZ)

REPLY TO “COMMENT ON ‘FALSIFICATION OF THE ATMOSPHERIC CO2 GREENHOUSE EFFECTS WITHIN THE FRAME OF PHYSICS’ BY JOSHUA B. HALPERN, CHRISTOPHER M. COLOSE, CHRIS HO-STUART, JOEL D. SHORE, ARTHUR P. SMITH, JÖRG ZIMMERMANN” GERHARD GERLICH Institut für Mathematische Physik, Technische Universität Carolo-Wilhelmina RALF D. TSCHEUSCHNER Dr. Ralf D. Tscheuschner, Dipl.-Phys. March 2010 Abstract: It is shown that the notorious claim by Halpern et al. recently repeated in their comment that the method, logic, and conclusions of our “Falsification Of The CO2 Greenhouse Effects Within The Frame Of Physics” would be in error has no foundation. Since Halpern et al. communicate our arguments incorrectly, their comment is scientifically vacuous. In particular, it is not true that we are “trying to apply the Clausius statement of the Second Law of Thermodynamics to only one side of a heat transfer process rather than the entire process” and that we are “systematically ignoring most non-radiative heat flows applicable to Earth’s surface and atmosphere”. Rather, our falsification paper discusses the violation of fundamental physical and mathematical principles in 14 examples of common pseudo-derivations of fictitious greenhouse effects that are all based on simplistic pictures of radiative transfer and… Read more »

Richard C (NZ)

New Satellite Data Contradicts Carbon Dioxide Climate Theory

John O’Sullivan

Industrialized nations emit far less carbon dioxide than the Third World, according to latest evidence from Japan’s Aerospace Exploration Agency (JAXA).

Global warming alarmism is turned on its head and the supposed role of carbon dioxide in climate change may be wrong, if the latest evidence from Japan’s scientists is to be believed.

Japanese national broadcaster, NHK World, broke the astonishing story on their main Sunday evening news bulletin (October 30, 2011). Television viewers learned that the country’s groundbreaking IBUKU satellite, launched in June 2009, appears to have scorched an indelible hole in conventional global warming theory.

Standing in front of a telling array of colorful graphs, sober-suited Yasuhiro Sasano, Director of Japan’s National Institute for Environmental Studies told viewers, “The [IBUKU satellite] map is to help us discover how much each region needs to reduce CO2 [carbon dioxide] emissions.”


Richard C (NZ)

Popular Skeptic Writer Fired for Exposing Carbon Climate Fraud By John O’Sullivan Friends, I write to announce my employment with my publishers, Suite101 was terminated today without prior notice or explanation and all my articles published over a two-year period with them are now removed from the Internet. I believe this is in retaliation for my latest article ‘New Satellite Data Contradicts Carbon Dioxide Climate Theory’ revealing the shocking fact that the Japanese ‘IBUKI’ satellite measuring surface carbon dioxide emissions shows that Third World regions are emitting considerably more CO2 than western, industrial nations. […] It appears a self-serving and influential clique of zealots, fearful that the story may go viral, is desperate to kill it. This morning my Suite101 article had already gotten over 400,000 crosslinks a mere two days after publication. This evening a Google search shows that number cut to 297,000; so much for free speech and easy access to information on the Internet. But what these ecoloons fail to understand is that they may shoot down one or two bloggers, but there are legions more waiting to step up to the plate. By such egregious censorship they merely draw… Read more »


It appears that one of the outlets for his articles,, has finally noticed his tenuous connection with reality and removed all his posts. The real pity is that they allowed them on their servers in the first place. I wonder if Treadgold will run that bit of news as well?

That was a quote from GR at HotTopic

Richard C (NZ)

GR hasn’t got a clue. He thinks Ibuki/GOSAT is “really talking about” reducing estimation error of ground observations and cites H. Takagi et al — “a rather technical read, to be sure, and not at all the thing for bedtime reading” (all of 4 pages counting References). But that paper is just a spin-off from the project titled “On the Benefit of GOSAT Observations to the Estimation of Regional CO2 Fluxes”. It’s no different to using satellites for any other metric that is also measured by ground stations e.g. GAT and reducing estimation error (or introducing more – whatever the case may be). smartypants may be on to something though “The graphics that Sky Dragon is showing are actually showing levels of uncertainty for CO2 measurement, NOT absolute measurements of emissions”. O’Sullivan has a problem if that is true but but all anyone has to do is look at this Press Release:- May 28, 2009 (14:00) Initial Analysis of Observation Data (Greenhouse Gas Concentrations) from “IBUKI” Greenhouse gases Observing SATellite (GOSAT) “While data is currently in the preliminary stages of being calibrated and validated, an initial analysis of carbon dioxide and methane… Read more »

Richard C (NZ)

Update plots in this October 30, 2009 Press Release:-

Figure 2: Column averaged dry air mole fraction distribution of carbon dioxide
for the month of September, 2009, obtained from IBUKI observation data (unvalidated)

Figure 3: Column averaged dry air mole fraction distribution of methane for the month of September, 2009, obtained from IBUKI observation data (unvalidated)

The evil emitters seem to be Northern China, Central India and North-Central Africa. Shame on them.

Richard C (NZ)


CO2 jpg plot

CH4 jpg plot

The most heinous CO2 emitter on the planet seems to be a secret Australian fossil fuel installation in the Great Victoria Desert on the WA-SA border.

Where’s James Bond when you need him?

It appears that one of the outlets for his articles,, has finally noticed his tenuous connection with reality and removed all his posts. The real pity is that they allowed them on their servers in the first place. I wonder if Treadgold will run that bit of news as well? – GR at Hot Topic Ah, Gareth Renowden, our local champion of free speech. But only his own. Not an inspiring hero, is he: “the real pity is that they allowed them on their servers in the first place”? What the hell are you afraid of, Gareth, you jellyfish — someone pointing out the flaws in your climatic fantasies? Someone suggesting (perfectly reasonably) that no ETS in Kiwiland will change the climate anywhere? Someone stating as a fact that closing down the entire NZ economy and requiring each of our 4.4 million people to subsist on what they might find or grow in their own neighbourhood will go spectacularly unnoticed by the global climate? That’s only using the IPCC’s view of things, which is that carbon dioxide is the supreme driver of weather. Or are you afraid of something else? Like not… Read more »

Richard C (NZ)

Carbon dioxide intake soars

Using data from 1958 and mathematical techniques that haven’t been widely used in the field, scientists took the amount of emissions and subtracted what was retained in the atmosphere and what the oceans took up, leaving the land component for the study.

They noticed the abrupt shift in 1988, when the intake of 0.3 billion tonnes of carbon per year surged to one billion tonnes.


Kevin Tate, research associate at Landcare Research, said he was ”intrigued” by the findings.

”One thought struck me and that is that perhaps to this point we have underestimated the size of the terrestrial sink, and this work may be correcting that.”

Mike Jowsey

Or another possibility:

If phytoplankton respond like most plant species do, we may find that the modest increases in CO2 levels we have experienced over the last 50 years may actually create a bounty of micro plant growth in the oceans, which would in turn create the food supply necessary to support an increase in the oceans’ animal population.

At the same time, it would explain where the excess atmospheric CO2 has been going; much of it converted into additional biological matter, with only a limited existence as raw CO2.

Richard C (NZ)
Richard C (NZ)

How the temperature datasets tell us extra CO2 has little effect by TallBloke Since the sun went quiet and cloud cover consequently increased again, not as much sunshine has got into the oceans, and consequently they have started cooling slightly since 2004. This makes the sea surface has cool down, and since land surface temperatures mimic what the sea surface does a few months later, they have cooled too. But the lower troposphere higher up above the ground has warmed, because the excess energy stored in the oceans while the sun was very active and cloud diminished between 1975 and 2004 is now being emitted back out, warming the atmosphere at cloud level, and from there heading out to space. But how come this energy being emitted into the atmosphere from the oceans isn’t being trapped by the extra co2 and then re-radiated back down to the surface and warming it up? The answer is that it is trying its best, but the effect is much less powerful in relation to the effect of a more active sun in the warming period and a less active sun now, than the warmist theoreticians believed.… Read more »

Rob Taylor




Richard C (NZ)

The causes of global warming and climate change! There are two competing theories for the recent global warming trend. * The first is based on a theory which followed the warming trend that occurred between 1975 and 1998. * The second theory is based on highly correlated data going back thousands of years. Most agree that the temperature has increased about 0.6 – 0.7 Centigrade over the last century and that the level of CO2 or Carbon Dioxide a greenhouse gas has been increased in the atmosphere by 25-30% from pre industrial values. * The first theory, which is the generally accepted one, is that the release of greenhouse gases from the burning of fossil fuel and from land use is responsible for the resent temperature increase. * The second theory is that the sun’s magnetic field and the solar wind modulate the amount of high energy cosmic radiation that the earth receives. This in turn affects low altitude cloud cover and how much water vapor there is in the atmosphere and thus regulates the climate. Continues…… ——————————————————————————————————————– Cosmic Rays and Climate By: Nir J. Shaviv In 1959, the late Edward Ney of… Read more »


Climate Driver Hypotheses – Google Search

Richard C (NZ)

See The Primary and Secondary Climate Drivers.

A compilation of papers and articles evidencing solar, lunar, cosmic ray and celestial influence on climate change.


Wednesday, October 20, 2010

Physicist: Global Warming 1980-2008 caused by Sun, not Man

Dr. Horst Borchert, the Director of the Department of Physics of the Johannes-Gutenberg Institute, Mainz, Germany, presented a paper, Using Satellite Measurements to study the Influence of Sun Activity on Terrestrial Weather at the Space Weather Workshop held in Boulder, Colorado earlier this year. Dr. Borchert finds from satellite measurements that global warming between about 1980 to 2008 was “not anthropogenic but caused by natural activities of the Sun’s surface.” He relates changes of the solar magnetic field to cosmic rays and cloud formation (the cosmic ray theory of Svensmark et al) and to effects on the North Atlantic Oscillation, which affects weather phenomena around the globe.


Thursday, October 7, 2010

Paper: Sun affects Climate much more than thought

Adding the the recent spate of papers showing that – surprise – the Sun has much, much more to do with climate change than previously thought, the respected German Physics Journal Annalyn der Physik recently published a paper analyzing solar irradiance data from 1905 to 2008 which finds cosmic rays modulated by solar activity cause a large portion of atmospheric aerosols (clouds) with profound effects on climate [see the cosmic ray theory of Svensmark et al]. The paper concludes, “The contribution of the active sun, indirectly via cosmic rays, to global warming appears to be much stronger than the presently accepted [IPCC] upper limit of 1/3.”


Paging IPCC: Much of recent global warming actually caused by Sun

By Lewis Page • The Register Posted in Environment, 7th October 2010

New data indicates that changes in the Sun’s output of energy were a major factor in the global temperature increases seen in recent years. The research will be unwelcome among hardcore green activists, as it downplays the influence of human-driven carbon emissions.

As the Sun has shown decreased levels of activity during the past decade, it had been generally thought that it was warming the Earth less, not more. Thus, scientists considered that temperature rises seen in global databases must mean that human-caused greenhouse gas emissions – in particular of CO2 – must be exerting a powerful warming effect.

Now, however, boffins working at Imperial College in London (and one in Boulder, Colorado) have analysed detailed sunlight readings taken from 2004 to 2007 by NASA’s Solar Radiation and Climate Experiment (SORCE) satellite. They found that although the Sun was putting out less energy overall than usual, in line with observations showing decreased sunspot activity, it actually emitted more in the key visible-light and near-infrared wavelengths.

Richard C (NZ)

Duh! Oceans Drive Climate (Not CO2), Says New Nature Study

By P Gosselin on 20. Mai 2011

More evidence of the obvious now revealed in a recent Nature article from research conducted by the IFM GEOMAR and Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution. Believe it or not, they are slowly finding out that the oceans play a role in climate.

Once again climate scientists, who often claim the science is settled, are running into “surprises” and finding out that there is so much they don’t know. Here’s the press release from the IFM GEOMAR (emphasis added):


Richard C (NZ)

New paper shows significant natural climate change from ocean oscillations Friday, May 20, 2011 A paper published online today in the journal Geophysical Research Letters finds a strong influence of shifts in the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO) on changes in snow cover of the distant Tibetan Plateau over the past 200 years. Major shifts occurred in the 1840s, 1880s, 1920s, and 1960s with CO2 levels well below Hansen’s fictitious “safe limit” of 350 ppm. Ocean oscillations such as the AMO are not incorporated in climate models, but nonetheless have large effects upon climate change as demonstrated by this paper and others. Meanwhile, the IPCC claims they can’t explain climate change based on natural forces, allows no competing hypotheses, and thus proclaims man-made CO2 as the default climate control knob, while conveniently ignoring ocean oscillations and other natural influences. Although ocean oscillations are poorly understood and scant research is being done to understand this large natural climate forcing, the IPCC and fellow alarmists cannot rightfully claim that only man-made CO2 explains climate change over the past century. The paper also finds not surprisingly that cold phases are associated with more snow and warm phases… Read more »



Richard C (NZ)

Global Warming Science

by Alan Cheetham

Richard C (NZ)
Richard C (NZ)

C3 – INDEX and conditions for use

CO2-Greenhouse Gas Charts/Graphics

Climate Model – Charts/Graphs

Modern Temperatures Charts/Graphs

Natural Oscillations-Cycles Ocean, Solar & Other Oscillations

Sea & Ice – Charts/Graphs

Miscellaneous Charts/Graphs

Richard C (NZ)

Climate Science: Roger Pielke Sr. – INDEX
Main Conclusions

Entries Tagged as ‘Climate Change Forcings & Feedbacks’

Entries Tagged as ‘Climate Models’

Entries Tagged as ‘Climate Change Metrics’

Entries Tagged as ‘Climate Change Regulations’

Richard C (NZ)

Earth Observatory – NASA

Extreme caution required on entry.

A highly politicized organisation – prime mission (according to Obama): “Reaching out to the Muslim nations”

So engage BS detector and pull down propaganda filter.

A worthwhile resource nonetheless


Dr Roy Spencer’s Blog

Classic Posts

Research Articles<

Simple Climate Model – NON IPCC Natural Forcings only

Richard C (NZ)

World Climate Research Programme (WCRP)

Science Highlights – Archive

Richard C (NZ)

Special Collections in AGU Journals


Richard C (NZ)

AGW Observer has hotlinked postings of new published research with abstracts e.g.:-

“New research from last week 28/2011”

Medici Network temperature record from 1654-1670 recovered

The earliest temperature observations in the world: the Medici Network (1654–1670) – Camuffo & Bertolin (2011)

Why is northern Tibetan Plateau warming up so rapidly?

The significant climate warming in the northern Tibetan Plateau and its possible causes – Guo & Wang (2011)

Determining forcings over the last 2009 years

Response of Earth’s surface temperature to radiative forcing over A.D. 1–2009 – Friend (2011)

AMO might be a statistical artifact

Is the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO) a statistical phantom? – Vincze & Jánosi (2011)

Deep ocean is important for Earth’s radiation balance

Importance of the deep ocean for estimating decadal changes in Earth’s radiation balance – Palmer et al. (2011)

Melting of Greenland and Antarctica shows in Earth’s oblateness

Recent changes in the Earth’s oblateness driven by Greenland and Antarctic ice mass loss – Nerem & Wahr (2011)

Up to 1/3 of late 20th century warming could have been natural variability

On the time-varying trend in global-mean surface temperature – Wu et al. (2011)

Now if we could just be presented with conclusive evidence of the anthropogenic “signature”………



Richard C (NZ)

Please Note;

The Climate Model thread will NOT be found under Climate Science at Climate Conversations for as long as I am successful in influencing Richard Treadgold’s (the Blog owner’s) discretion in this.

IPCC-centric GCM’s are NOT climate science “experiments” IMO. Therefore, the Climate Model thread is found under Climate (not the more appropriate Controversies and Scandals – please note) along with de-bunking papers and controversial issues.

When a natural forced (non-IPCC RF) GSM is found, THEN and ONLY THEN will there be a Climate Model thread under Climate Science. Such models are proving to be very elusive so be patient – I’m still searching.

Thank you for your attention in this mildly interesting matter.


The Climate Science: Climate Models – NON IPCC and Natural Forcings ONLY

Thread is now open.

And what better way to start than with Dr Roy Spencer’s “Simple Climate Model Release, Version 1.0” ?

Richard C (NZ)

Scafetta on 60 year climate oscillations

George Taylor, former Oregon State climatologist writes:

Nicola Scafetta has published the most decisive indictment of GCM’s I’ve ever read in the Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics. His analysis is purely phenomenological, but he claims that over half of the warming observed since 1975 can be tied to 20 and 60-year climate oscillations driven by the 12 and 30-year orbital periods of Jupiter and Saturn, through their gravitational influence on the Sun, which in turn modulates cosmic radiation.

If he’s correct, then all GCM’s are massively in error because they fail to show any of the observed oscillations.

See “Controversy and scandal”


Global Warming’s Corrupt Science

By Patrick J. Michaels, October 20, 2010



Richard C (NZ)

VOLUME 21 · NUMBER 4 · 2010
Guest editorial
Arthur Rörsch (The Netherlands) ……………………………………………………………………….i
Introductory paper on paradigm shift
Should we change emphasis in greenhouse-effect research?
Arthur Rörsch
(The Netherlands) ………………………………………………………………….165
A null hypothesis for CO2
Roy Clark
(USA) …………………………………………………………………………………………171
The thunderstorm thermostat hypothesis
Willis Eschenbach
Tropical rainstorm feedback
Noor van Andel
(The Netherlands) ………………………………………………………………..217
A natural constraint to anthropogenic global warming
William Kininmonth
The stabilising effect of the oceans on climate
Dick Thoenes
(The Netherlands) ……………………………………………………………………237
What goes up must come down (a commentary)
Peter Siegmund
(The Netherlands) ………………………………………………………………..241
The stable stationary value of the earth’s global average
atmospheric Planck-weighted greenhouse-gas
optical thickness
Ferenc Miskolczi
(USA) ………………………………………………………………………………..243
The thermodynamic relationship between surface
temperature and water vapour concentration in the troposphere
William C. Gilbert
Note on the Miskolczi theory
Noor van Andel
(The Netherlands) ………………………………………………………………..277
Fuel for Thought
Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen
(UK) ………………………………………………………………..293

Richard C (NZ)

A HotLinked, HotList of HotPapers. Generally model-centric Wyant, M.C., Khairoutdinov, M. & Bretherton, C.S., 2006. Climate sensitivity and cloud response of a GCM with a superparameterization. Bretherton, C.S., 2006. Low-Latitude Cloud Feedbacks on Climate Sensitivity. [Steve McIntyre at CA noted that Bretherton (2006) that shows negative cloud feedbacks contrary to the positive feedback orthodoxy, was NOT cited in AR4 even though the paper must have been known to the authors.] David H. Douglass, John R. Christy, Benjamin D. Pearson and S. Fred Singer, A comparison of tropical temperature trends with model predictions P. W. Thorne, D. E. Parker, B. D. Santer, M. P. McCarthy, D. M. H. Sexton, M. J. Webb, J. M. Murphy, M. Collins, H. A. Titchner, G. S. Jones, 2007, Tropical vertical temperature trends: A real discrepancy? – Abstract only, behind paywall. Pincus, R., C. P. Batstone, R. J. P. Hofmann, K. E. Taylor, and P. J. Glecker (2008), Evaluating the present-day simulation of clouds, precipitation, and radiation in climate models Limits on CO2 Climate Forcing from Recent Temperature Data of Earth, David H. Douglass and John R. Christy, 2008 – [PDF] from On the Effective Number of Climate… Read more »

Richard C (NZ)


Richard C (NZ)
Richard C (NZ)

Update: 850 Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skepticism of “Man-Made” Global Warming (AGW) Alarm

Richard C (NZ)

On the observational determination of climate sensitivity and its implications Richard S. Lindzen, and Yong-Sang Choi May 22, 2011 Asia-Pacific Journal of Atmospheric Sciences (accepted) Abstract We estimate climate sensitivity from observations, using the deseasonalized fluctuations in sea 26 surface temperatures (SSTs) and the concurrent fluctuations in the top-of-atmosphere (TOA) 27 outgoing radiation from the ERBE (1985-1999) and CERES (2000-2008) satellite instruments. 28 Distinct periods of warming and cooling in the SSTs were used to evaluate feedbacks. An earlier 29 study (Lindzen RS, Choi Y-S (2009) Geophys. Res. Lett. 36:L16705) was subject to significant 30 criticisms. The present paper is an expansion of the earlier paper where the various criticisms are 31 taken into account. The present analysis accounts for the 72 day precession period for the ERBE 32 satellite in a more appropriate manner than in the earlier paper. We develop a method to distinguish 33 noise in the outgoing radiation as well as radiation changes that are forcing SST changes from those 34 radiation changes that constitute feedbacks to changes in SST. We demonstrate that our new method 35 does moderately well in distinguishing positive from negative feedbacks and in quantifying… Read more »




“The Late 20th Century Warming Resulted From a 1970s Climate Shift (Not CO2)”


Ocean and Heat


Ocean Heat Content and ARGO Project

Richard C (NZ)

The GISS divergence problem: Ocean Heat Content

Posted on May 8, 2011 by Anthony Watts

Bob Tisdale points out the reality versus projection disparity. It would seem, that we have a GISS miss by a country mile. Where’s the heat? – Anthony

First-Quarter 2011 Update Of NODC Ocean Heat Content (0-700Meters)


Figure 1 shows the Global NODC data from the first quarter (Jan-Feb-Mar) of 1955 to the first quarter of 2011. There was a minor uptick in the past three month period.

Looking at the NODC OHC data during the ARGO era (2003 to present), Figure 2, the uptick was nowhere close to what would be required to bring the Global Ocean Heat Content back into line with GISS projections
Figure 2 is well worth a look

Richard C (NZ)

Tisdale on the new “hide the decline” version of ocean heat content data

The undocumented (as of this writing) NODC 0-2000 meter Ocean Heat Content dataset appears as though it was prepared to show that Global Ocean Heat Content continues to rise during the ARGO era, and that it is intended to counter the argument that Global Ocean Heat Content has flattened during the ARGO era as shown in the NODC 0-700 meter dataset.

Due to the extremely limited number of observations at depths of 1000-5000 meters (shown in Figure 3 and in the animations), the 0-2000 meter Ocean Heat Content dataset should be used with great caution. It appears to me to be an ARGO-era 0-2000 meter Ocean Heat Content dataset spliced onto a long-term 0-700 meter dataset. For this reason, I, personally, would not expend the effort to analyze the long-term (pre-ARGO era) 0-2000 meter NODC OHC data beyond what has been presented in this post.



Bottom Falling Out of Global Ocean Surface Temperatures?

October 28th, 2010

Richard C (NZ)

Global air and sea temperatures starting to drop rapidly

Posted on October 29, 2010 by Anthony Watts

Dr. Roy Spencer has an essay below on sea surface temperatures starting to bottom out, but in addition to that, the UAH daily lower troposphere plot shows a sharp drop also.

As this graph of UAH TLT from D Kelly O’Day’s site shows, The current global anomaly is 0.044C – or very nearly zero. That’s a big drop from last month when we ended up at 0.60C.

Richard C (NZ)

The Global Warming Threat Continues Its Retreat: Feeble “Warming” of Oceans Was Not Predicted By IPCC

Read here. Over the last 15 years, the alarmists and IPCC Climategate scientists have been predicting a significant warming of sea surface temperatures due to the vast increase of human greenhouse (CO2) gases. This was the supposed no-brainer, “consensus” prediction that government and bureaucrat elites swallowed hook, line and sinker.

Yet, over that time span, the guaranteed “warming” trend has been essentially non-existent, other than extended warming spikes due to strong El Niño phases. The two charts below indicate the lack of a significant warming trend for ocean waters, globally, over the last 15 years.

The left chart represents the Southern Hemisphere seas, and the right chart, the Northern Hemisphere. Per the IPCC consensus climate science, this feeble level of “warming” (cooling?) was not supposed to happen. (click on images to enlarge)

Clearly, policymakers and the public have been seriously misled by unproven climate science techniques, non-verifiable climate models, and researchers solely devoted to increased government AGW-research funding.

Bob D

Google maps – Argo project status

Richard C (NZ)

Bob, what app can I use to open :”status.kmz”? – knowledge gap

That’s a Google Earth file.

Bob D

Yup, sorry, I meant Google Earth not Google maps. It’s a free download.


The “Missing Heat”

More Oddities with the IPCC Numbers

by Willis Eschenbach

“A number of people have said Hey, in your previous post, the missing forcing is going into the ocean, so it’s still “in the pipeline”. I had considered that, but it didn’t make sense. I’ve taken a closer look, and it still doesn’t make sense.

According to the IPCC calculations in that post, about 0.7 W/m2 was missing. Let us assume that it is going into the ocean. Here’s my numbers, please check them. The spreadsheet doing the calculations is here.”

Richard C (NZ)

Understanding The Missing Heat

Posted on December 20, 2011 by Steven Goddard

If the heat is where Spencer says it is and where our radiative transfer models say it is, we lose our funding. More likely a bunch of lower density warm water sank to the bottom of the ocean – undetected by sensors on its way down.

-Kev T


Monday, October 18, 2010

The fallacy of the greenhouse effect

A recommended post from the planetary vision blog, The fallacy of the greenhouse effect, explains in simple terms why the conventional explanation of the “greenhouse effect” violates both the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics:

Richard C (NZ)

Josh Willis under the scope at Jo Nova.
October 8, 2012 at 2:23 pm

There are, in fact, a number of engineers working on calibrating, testing, and perfecting the floats — that’s why they work as well as they do.

Willis, however, used none of this information in deciding which floats to remove from his data set. According to his own testimony [Hotlinked], his sole criteria for rejecting a float’s data was that it conflicted with his colleagues’s models. He reported no attempt to correlate his rejected floats with any other calibration data. He rejected no floats that were reading suspected anomolously high temperatures — only low temperature ones.

His goal, pure and simple, was to get the ‘right’ answer (coincidentally, I’m sure, also the answer that would most likely get him follow-on grants), whatever he had to do to the data to get there.

Richard C (NZ)

The Moon Effect Called the Greenhouse Effect on Earth
28 June 2010

The personal thoughts of Charles R. Anderson are presented here. He is a materials physicist, a benevolent and tolerant Objectivist, a husband and a father, the owner of a materials characterization laboratory, and above all a thinking individualist. The critical battle of our day is the conflict between the individual and the state. We must be ever vigilant and constant defenders of the unalienable and sovereign rights of the individual to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

“It appears that if any “greenhouse effect” occurs due to CO2 in our atmosphere, that effect is very small compared to the 3-dimensional effects of distributed heat with convection heat transfer. That this is so has long been known by NASA, which nonetheless has played a very major role in the promotion of AGW alarmism on the basis of greenhouse gases!”


“It appears that if any “greenhouse effect” occurs due to CO2 in our atmosphere, that effect is very small compared to the 3-dimensional effects of distributed heat with convection heat transfer. That this is so has long been known by NASA, which nonetheless has played a very major role in the promotion of AGW alarmism on the basis of greenhouse gases!”

Richard C (NZ)

John L. Daly: The Deep Blue Sea Posted: December 6, 2010 by tallbloke in solar system dynamics Still as relevant as when it was written, this repost is from John Daly’s website ‘Still Waiting for Greenhouse‘ maintained since John’s death in 2004 by Jerry Brennan. THE DEEP BLUE SEA by John L. Daly The Earth is essentially a water planet. Over 70% of its surface area is covered by oceans, seas, and lakes, while a further 5% or so is covered by glaciers and ice caps resting on land areas. More than two-thirds of this water area is located in the southern hemisphere, and the ocean masses are typically 4 to 5 kilometres deep. With the Earth being over 75% covered by water in one form or another, it follows that the response of this 75% to any increase in greenhouse gases will be decisive in determining to what extent a warming, if any, will occur. The atmosphere cannot warm until the underlying surface warms first. This is because the transparency of the atmosphere to solar radiation, (which is a key element in the greenhouse warming scenario), prevents the lower atmosphere itself being… Read more »

Richard C (NZ)

Earth’s Missing Geothermal Flux Written by Joseph A Olson, PE, guest post | April 25 2011 I have struggled with the ‘missing geothermal flux’ from Earth’s apparent gigantic fission energy for many years. In a number of articles and in my chapter in the science textbook, “Slaying the Sky Dragon”, I have made the point that Earth’s fission rate changes are the most likely cause of the periodic fluctuation in ocean temperatures. In addition, the Earth’s fission operating between two base states sets the lower Glacial Period and upper Inter-glacial Period temperature limits. The huge problem has been where this energy manifests itself, since apparent geothermal energy release seems isolated and of low magnitude. I had reviewed the article “Ocean Heat Content and Earth’s Radiation Imbalance” by Dr David Douglas and Dr Robert Knox [1] when it was issued and had several email exchanges with Dr Knox on the Earth fission paradox. The Douglas-Knox article was sent as an attachment on a recent email and after rereading I was struck again by this quote: “The flux into the ocean and trenches averages 101 mW/m2 and into the land and shelves averages 65 mW/m2… Read more »

Richard C (NZ)
Richard C (NZ)

Reply to article from Joe Bastardi: Heidi Cullen – Stop pretending it’s not climate change- Open question for Heidi Cullen and her ilk by Joe Bastardi: Do you even follow what is going on beyond anything that serves your agenda. Have you even looked, or even thought about, the physical implications of the energy loss that the cold PDO creates to the entire climate system? DO YOU EVEN LOOK AT THE RECORD COLD MID TROPOSPHERIC TEMPERATURES, ESPECIALLY 400 MB WHERE THE TRAPPING HEAT WAS SUPPOSE TO SET OFF THE TIPPING POINT FEEDBACK, AND ASK HOW CAN RECORD COLD BE GOING ON HERE IF ALL THIS IS A SIGN OF WARMING? How can we cool the central tropical Pacific, and then the atmosphere above, and then come to the conclusion that warmth is occurring and leading to the perceived increase in extremes. If defies all logic of any rational, free thinking person, yet alone scientist. You need to explain this, and also need to tell us if you even look at these things. I can not believe you have watched these levels and it not present a major challenge to your thinking on… Read more »


Water Vapour

Richard C (NZ)

Water vapor mischief

Climate Etc.

Richard C (NZ)

Five Reasons Why Water Vapor Feedback Might Not Be Positive

September 14th, 2010 by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.

Richard C (NZ)

Congratulations (finally) to Spencer and Braswell on getting their new paper published

Posted on August 28, 2010 by Anthony Watts

Richard C (NZ)

Sauna, Sweating and Global Warming lördagen den 28:e augusti 2010 Claes Johnson on Mathematics and Science The World Sauna Championship 2010 in Finland ended in tragedy with one finalist dead and another hospitalized after serious burns apparently caused by adding too much water to the stove giving a wet sauna. Everybody with some sauna experience knows that it is possible to survive a higher temperature in a dry sauna than in a wet sauna saturated with water vapour. Why? Because, in a dry sauna the sweat on your skin can vaporize and thereby consume heat energy. But in a wet sauna the sweat cannot vaporize and thus has no cooling effect. And sweating is the main mechanism for keeping your body temperature constant at 37 C: The more you work, the hotter you tend to get, which is balanced by vaporizing sweat. Is there a connection to global warming? IPCC climate alarmism claims that the World is turning into sauna: Doubled atmospheric CO2 is supposed to cause a “radiative forcing” of 4 W/m2, which will increase global temperature by 1 C and with additional feedbacks to a climate sensitivity of 2 – 4.5… Read more »

Richard C (NZ)

Water Vapour And Climate Change P Gosselin – NoTricksZone How is it that a settled science keeps finding things never expected? For example, the HIAPER Pole-to-Pole Observations (HIPPO) mission was launched in January 2009 and will make a series of five flights over three years covering more than 24,000 miles to sample the atmosphere in some of the most inaccessible regions of the world. Read HIPPO background here. Flight path for atmospheric measurements The goal of the mission is the first-ever, global, real-time sampling of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases across a wide range of altitudes in the atmosphere, from pole-to-pole. Professor Mark Zondlo of Princeton University has taken measurements of water vapour in the atmosphere, from 14 km high to just above the sea ice, using a vertical cavity surface mini laser hydrometer. Watch Zondlo video here. Here are some of Professor Zondlo’s observations so far: We don’t really know how clouds are formed. Water vapour impacts the climate more than any other gas. What we are finding is surprising. Large plumes of water vapour exist in areas we never expected to find them. Learning how this fits into the puzzle… Read more »

Richard C (NZ)

Anastassia Makarieva Where do winds come from? A new theory on how water vapor condensation influences atmospheric pressure and dynamics Makarieva A.M., Gorshkov V.G., Sheil D., Nobre A.D., Li B.-L. now up for public discussion at ACPD: According to the Economist , the biotic pump theory stating that natural forests drive winds to sustain the water cycle on land has caused “a stir” in Western academia. Indeed, last time it was in the end of the 17th century (see Halley 1686) that a physical driver of winds was proposed. That time it was differential heating (the statement that the warm air rises being lighter than cold air). It formed the basis of a consensus regarding the causes of atmospheric motion, a consensus that is now over three hundred years old. However, this consensus had formed long before the kinetic theory of gases was formulated. This fundamental theory revealed that gas pressure depends not only on temperature, but also on the number of gas molecules in a unit volume. Phase transitions of water (condensation and evaporation) namely change this number. Thus, spatial gradients of the intensity of condensation/evaporation are to be associated with… Read more »

Richard C (NZ)

Dessler 2010: How to call vast amounts of data “spurious” Posted on November 13th, 2010 Joanne Nova This is part of the big PR game of publishing “papers.” In the climate models, the critical hot spot is supposed to occur because (specific) humidity rises in the upper troposphere about 10km above the tropics. The weather balloons clearly show that temperatures are not rising as predicted, so it was not altogether surprising that when Garth Paltridge analyzed weather balloon results for humidity, and found that humidity was not rising as predicted either. Indeed, he found specific humidity was falling, which was the opposite of what all the major climate models predicted and posed yet a another problem for the theory that a carbon-caused disaster is coming. He had a great deal of trouble getting published in the first place, but once he finally did get published and skeptics were starting to quote “Paltridge 2009″, clearly, Team AGW needed an answer. “Dessler 2010″ is transparently supposed to be that answer. To start by putting things into perspective, lets consider just how “spuriously” small, patchy and insubstantial the radiosonde measurements have been. According to NOAA The… Read more »

Richard C (NZ)

Warming Power of CO2 and H2O: Correlations with Temperature Changes Paulo Cesar Soares 2010 From the conclusions The main conclusion one arrives at the analysis is that CO2 has not a causal relation with global warming and it is not powerful enough to cause the historical changes in temperature that were observed. The main argument is the absence of immediate correlation between CO2 changes preceding temperature either for global or local changes. The greenhouse effect of the CO2 is very small compared to the water vapor because the absorbing effect is already realized with its historical values. So, the reduction of the outcoming long wave radiation window is not a consequence of current enrichment or even of a possible double ratio of CO2. The absence of correlation between temperature changes and the immense and variable volume of CO2 waste by fuel burning is explained by the weak power of additional carbon dioxide in the atmosphere to reduce the outcoming window of long wave radiation. This effect is well performed by atmosphere humidity due to known increase insolation and vapor content in atmosphere. The role of vapor is reinforced when it is observed that… Read more »

Richard C (NZ)

Paper: Water vapor feedback is negative, not positive as assumed by IPCC alarmists

Sunday, March 6, 2011 – The Hockey Schtick

A new paper finds that observations of atmospheric water vapor show a decrease with global warming, leading to a negative feedback on global temperature, not positive as assumed by alarmist IPCC computer model projections. The entire basis of global warming alarmism is that a supposed 1.0-1.2C warming due to a doubling of CO2 levels (which will take 234 years at the current rate) is amplified by positive water vapor feedback to 2-5C. This paper finds water vapor feedback is instead negative, resulting in only a 0.3C warming due to doubled CO2 with water vapor feedback.


William M. Gray and Barry Schwartz

Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado

Richard C (NZ)

Why is Water Vapour, the Most Important Greenhouse Gas, Ignored?

by Dr. Tim Ball on May 4, 2011


Temperature increases projected by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) depend totally on increased water vapor. It is known as a positive feedback and is at the center of the debate of climate sensitivity. Evidence shows the positive feedback is wrong and climate sensitivity is overestimated.

Reality Provides the Ugly Fact

All computer models have the positive feedback mechanism built in, so warming predictions are no surprise. The problem is that the real world is not cooperating. Richard Lindzen demonstrated this clearly at the Third International Conference on Climate Change (June 2009). He presented this diagram that compared model predictions with real world data (top left graph):
Bottom right plot is NIWA’s UKMO model

Richard C (NZ)

Water Vapor Trends and Variability from the Global NVAP Dataset

Thomas H. Vonder Haar, CIRA/Colorado State Univ., Fort Collins, CO; and J. M. Forsythe, J. Luo, D. L. Randel, and S. Woo. 2005

The NASA Water Vapor Project (NVAP) dataset is a global, daily, multilayer and total column, satellite-derived water vapor dataset that currently covers the time period from 1988 – 2001. This paper will discuss significant interannual variability and noteworthy variations on shorter timescales. Maps of the daily change in layered and precipitable water vapor, both in absolute and relative terms, are presented. They highlight regions where atmospheric moisture is most variable, such as midlatitude storm tracks and adjacent to the ITCZ. Examination of the water vapor record on longer timescales indicates different atmospheric processes such as the monsoons and ENSO. The NVAP dataset does not show a convincing global trend of water vapor. There are however significant regional trends during this time period. Extension of the NVAP dataset beyond 2001 and synergy with other global climate datasets (clouds, precipitation, global temperature) will be discussed.

Can be accessed by inserting title in Google scholar (WordPress doesn’t like the link).

Richard C (NZ)

Contributions of Stratospheric Water Vapor to Decadal Changes in the Rate of Global Warming 1. Susan Solomon1, 2. Karen H. Rosenlof1, 3. Robert W. Portmann1, 4. John S. Daniel1, 5. Sean M. Davis1,2, 6. Todd J. Sanford1,2 and 7. Gian-Kasper Plattner3 Science 5 March 2010 + Author Affiliations 1. 1National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Earth System Research Laboratory, Chemical Sciences Division, Boulder, CO, USA. 2. 2Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences, University of Colorado, Boulder, CO, USA. 3. 3Climate and Environmental Physics, Physics Institute, University of Bern, Sidlerstrasse 5, 3012 Bern, Switzerland. Abstract Stratospheric water vapor concentrations decreased by about 10% after the year 2000. Here we show that this acted to slow the rate of increase in global surface temperature over 2000–2009 by about 25% compared to that which would have occurred due only to carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. More limited data suggest that stratospheric water vapor probably increased between 1980 and 2000, which would have enhanced the decadal rate of surface warming during the 1990s by about 30% as compared to estimates neglecting this change. These findings show that stratospheric water vapor is an important driver of… Read more »

Richard C (NZ)

Trends in middle- and upper-level tropospheric humidity from NCEP reanalysis data Garth Paltridge & Albert Arking & Michael Pook Received: 21 July 2008 / Accepted: 4 February 2009 / Published online: 26 February 2009 G. Paltridge (*) Environmental Biology Group, RSBS, Australian National University, GPO Box 475, Canberra, ACT 2601, Australia e-mail: A. Arking Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD, USA M. Pook Centre for Australian Weather and Climate Research, Hobart, TAS, Australia Abstract The National Centers for Environmental Prediction (NCEP) reanalysis data on tropospheric humidity are examined for the period 1973 to 2007. It is accepted that radiosonde-derived humidity data must be treated with great caution, particularly at altitudes above the 500 hPa pressure level. With that caveat, the face-value 35-year trend in zonal-average annual-average specific humidity q is significantly negative at all altitudes above 850 hPa (roughly the top of the convective boundary layer) in the tropics and southern midlatitudes and at altitudes above 600 hPa in the northern midlatitudes. It is significantly positive below 850 hPa in all three zones, as might be expected in a mixed layer with rising temperatures over a moist surface. The results are qualitatively consistent… Read more »

Richard C (NZ)

Three-dimensional tropospheric water vapor in coupled climate
models compared with observations from the AIRS satellite system

David W. Pierce,1 Tim P. Barnett,1 Eric J. Fetzer,2 and Peter J. Gleckler3

Received 30 May 2006; revised 28 July 2006; accepted 12 September 2006; published 1 November 2006.

Changes in the distribution of water vapor in response to anthropogenic forcing will be a major factor determining the warming the Earth experiences over the next century, so it is important to validate climate models’ distribution of water vapor. In this work the three-dimensional distribution of specific humidity in state-of-the-art climate models is compared to measurements from the AIRS satellite system. We find the majority of models have a pattern of drier than observed conditions (by 10–25%) in the tropics below 800 hPa, but 25–100% too moist conditions between 300 and 600 hPa, especially in the extra-tropics. Analysis of the accuracy and sampling biases of the AIRS measurements suggests that these differences are due to systematic model errors, which might affect the model-estimated range of climate warming anticipated over the next century.

Richard C (NZ)

From Cohenite via JoNova

Of possibly more interest is the fact that in the overlapping spectrum CO2 reduces the emissivity of H2O:

This is well shown in a graph of H2O and CO2 in the overlapping spectrums:

This decline in the emissivity of H2O in the presence of CO2 means the dependency of AGW on climate sensitivity from positive feedback from H2O is severely restrained and must be problematic.

Richard C (NZ)

Precipitation within the Waikato Region of New Zealand Reference Dravitzki, S. and McGregor, J. 2011. Extreme precipitation of the Waikato region, New Zealand. International Journal of Climatology 31: 1803-1812. Background The authors write that “Trenberth (1999) proposed that globally, extreme precipitation events would account for a larger proportion of annual precipitation as the globe warmed,” as was additionally suggested by Trenberth et al. (2003). And they state that “this is also supported by the fourth IPCC report (IPCC, 2007),” which “expects the change in the intensity of precipitation events to be proportional to changes in total precipitation.” Thus, they decided to see if any of these projections have occurred over the past century or more in New Zealand’s Waikato region, which is an important farming district that also produces 13% of the country’s electricity by means of hydro-generation. What was done Working with data from 18 meteorological observation stations located in and about the Waikato region, Dravitzki and McGregor developed daily precipitation time series covering the period 1900-2007, where they averaged the precipitation values, as they describe it, “both spatially and temporally to approximate the total volume of precipitation within the region,” and… Read more »

Richard C (NZ)

New paper supports Miskolczi’s theory of saturated greenhouse effect A paper published today in the Journal of Climate finds that relative humidity has been decreasing 0.5% per decade across North America during the 62 year period of observations from 1948-2010. Computer models of AGW show positive feedback from water vapor by incorrectly assuming that relative humidity remains constant with warming while specific humidity increases. The Miskolczi theory of a ‘saturated greenhouse effect’ instead predicts relative humidity will decrease to offset an increase in specific humidity, as has just been demonstrated by observations in this paper. The consequence of the Miskolczi theory is that additions of ‘greenhouse gases’ such as CO2 to the atmosphere will not lead to an increase in the ‘greenhouse effect’ or increase in global temperature. Journal of Climate 2012 Surface Water Vapor Pressure and Temperature Trends in North America during 1948-2010 V. Isaac and W. A. van Wijngaarden Abstract Over 1/4 billion hourly values of temperature and relative humidity observed at 309 stations located across North America during 1948-2010 were studied. The water vapor pressure was determined and seasonal averages were computed. Data were first examined for inhomogeneities using a… Read more »

Richard C (NZ)

Makarieva, A. M., Gorshkov, V. G., Sheil, D., Nobre, A. D., and Li, B.-L.: Where do winds come from? A new theory on how water vapor condensation influences atmospheric pressure and dynamics, Abstract: Phase transitions of atmospheric water play a ubiquitous role in the Earth’s climate system, but their direct impact on atmospheric dynamics has escaped wide attention. Here we examine and advance a theory as to how condensation influences atmospheric pressure through the mass removal of water from the gas phase with a simultaneous account of the latent heat release. Building from fundamental physical principles we show that condensation is associated with a decline in air pressure in the lower atmosphere. This decline occurs up to a certain height, which ranges from 3 to 4 km for surface temperatures from 10 to 30 C. We then estimate the horizontal pressure differences associated with water vapor condensation and find that these are comparable in magnitude with the pressure differences driving observed circulation patterns. The water vapor delivered to the atmosphere via evaporation represents a store of potential energy available to accelerate air and thus drive winds. Our estimates suggest that the global mean… Read more »

Richard C (NZ)

New data falsifies basis of man-made global warming alarm, shows water vapor feedback is negative Physicist Clive Best has analyzed the latest NASA satellite and radiosonde data to find that global water vapor has declined despite the consensus belief among climate scientists that it would rise in response to man-made carbon dioxide. Dire predictions of global warming all rely on positive feedback from water vapor. The argument goes that as surface temperatures rise so more water will evaporate from the oceans thereby amplifying temperatures because H2O itself is a strong greenhouse gas. The fact that water vapor has instead declined indicates water vapor feedback is negative, overwhelming alleged warming from CO2, and accounting for the stall in global temperatures over the past 16+ years. As Dr. Best notes, “All climate models (that I am aware of) predict exactly the opposite. Something is clearly amiss with theory. Is it not now time for “consensus” scientists to have a rethink?” H2O decreasing while CO2 rises ! Reblogged from Clive Best by Clive Best [,,,] Fig1: Total precipitative H2O (running 30 day average) compared to Mauna Loa CO2 data in red. The central black curve… Read more »

Richard C (NZ)

‘Cause of the Southwest Heat Wave: Too Little Water Vapor’ by Carl Brehmer, PSI. […] As of now, the Southwestern United States is threatened with a heat wave and for good reason: there is not enough water vapor present in the air to keep the temperature down. Take a look at this snapshot of the distribution of water vapor over North America taken June 27th. As you can see there is a dearth of water vapor in the Southwestern United States at this time and without the presence of water vapor to keep the lower atmosphere refrigerated the temperature predictably goes up, just like what happens when you don’t put water in your swamp cooler. Humidity low = temperature high; Humidity high = temperature low. Thankfully for the people living in Kentucky and Tennessee they have plenty of water vapor present in the air to keep their June temperatures moderate this year. […] It is well understood that as the daytime sun heats the ground, which, in turn, heats ground level air that this high-energy air expands, becomes less dense and ascends skyward. This, in turn, draws cooler, more-dense air from aloft… Read more »

Fascinating. Thanks, Rich.

Richard C (NZ)

‘Southwest U.S. Heatwave Cancelled. Reason? Too much Water Vapor’ by Carl Brehmer Good news! The 2013 Southwestern US heat wave has been cancelled because a deluge of water vapor has moved into the region and cooled everything down. […] This, of course, is opposite what the “greenhouse effect” hypothesis predicts. It asserts that water vapor is a “heat trapping gas” that is suppose to cause at least 22 degrees C (40 degrees F) of atmospheric warming. Here are a just a few statements that conflict with the above empirical observation that water vapor actually cools rather than warms surface level air. From NASA: “Water vapor is known to be Earth’s most abundant greenhouse gas . . . Increasing water vapor leads to warmer temperatures. From “Warmer air can hold more water vapor, which can trap more heat. This creates a positive feedback loop.” From NOAA: “As a greenhouse gas, the higher concentration of water vapor is then able to absorb more thermal IR energy radiated from the Earth, thus further warming the atmosphere.” From the Union of Concerned Scientists: “Water vapor is the most abundant heat-trapping gas.” From the EPA: “Water vapor… Read more »

Richard C (NZ)

‘The influence of water vapor absorption in the 290-350 nm region on solar radiance: Laboratory studies and model simulation’

Juan Du, Li Huang, Qilong Min, Lei Zhu


[1] Water vapor is an important greenhouse gas in the earth’s atmosphere. Absorption of the solar radiation by water vapor in the near UV region may partially account for the up to 30% discrepancy between the modeled and the observed solar energy absorbed by the atmosphere. But the magnitude of water vapor absorption in the near UV region at wavelengths shorter than 384 nm is not known. We have determined absorption cross sections of water vapor at 5 nm intervals in the 290-350 nm region, by using cavity ring-down spectroscopy. Water vapor cross section values range from 2.94 × 10-24 to 2.13 × 10-25 cm2/molecule in the wavelength region studied. The effect of the water vapor absorption in the 290-350 nm region on the modeledradiation flux at the ground level has been evaluated using radiative transfer model.



Climate Models

NON IPCC and Natural Forcings ONLY


Simple Climate Model Release, Version 1.0


Atmospheric & Environmental Research, Inc.’s (AER)
Radiative Transfer Working Group

The foundation of our research and model development is the validation of line-by-line radiative transfer calculations with accurate high-resolution measurements.

LBLRTM Line-by-line Radiative Transfer Model.

LNFL Creates the blocked binary line parameter files (TAPE3) for use by LBLRTM

RRTM/RRTMG Longwave and shortwave rapid radiative transfer models.

MonoRTM Radiative transfer model designed to process a small number of monochromatic frequencies (e.g. microwave region, laser)

Line Parameter Databases Spectral Line Parameter Database used as input into LNFL.

Continuum MT_CKD continuum model.

Solar Source Function Spectral solar source function developed by Kurucz.

RADSUM Utilizes LBLRTM computuations to compute cooling rates.

OSS is a fast, accurate, monochromatic radiative transfer model, ideally suited for geophysical parameter retrieval.

Richard C (NZ)


The InterComparison of Radiation Codes in Climate Models – III

Richard C (NZ)


Continual Intercomparison of Radiation Codes

Richard C (NZ)

Atmospheric and Environmental Research (AER) to Support NOAA Sci-Tech Weather and Climate Science Research Initiative

November 08, 2010 11:10 AM Eastern Time

LEXINGTON, Mass.–(BUSINESS WIRE)–Atmospheric and Environmental Research (AER) announced today that it is a key member of the team led by Riverside Technology, Inc., to deliver wide-ranging scientific and technical (Sci-Tech) services to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). The Riverside-led team, including AER, was recently awarded a five-year contract to provide Sci-Tech expertise across NOAA.


The ARM Broadband Heating Rate Profile Project

Results of Measurement-Model Comparisons Performed at ‘Instantaneous’ Scale

Richard C (NZ)


Radiative Transfer Models:

Atmospheric Profiles
Cloud properties
Aerosol properties
Shortwave surface albedo values


Cloud Resolving Model – Google Search


Cloud Resolving Model – Google Scholar Search

Richard C (NZ)

Cloud Resolving Model Superparameterization – Google Scholar Search


Richard C (NZ)

Climate Models Without a ‘Greenhouse Effect’ Wednesday, October 27, 2010 Several posts have demonstrated that the Earth’s climate can be physically described without any need to invent a ‘greenhouse effect’ caused by ‘heat-trapping’ ‘greenhouse gases’ that ‘back-radiate’ from the colder atmosphere to heat the hotter Earth surface in violation of the 2nd law of thermodynamics. Five published Earth energy budgets which roughly agree and do not incorporate ‘greenhouse gases’ at all were shown in the post Earth Energy Budgets without Greenhouse Gases, including one from the NASA Langley Research Center. A peer-reviewed paper by Ozawa et al published in Reviews of Geophysics also develops an Earth energy budget and climate model that does not incorporate a ‘greenhouse effect’ from ‘greenhouse gases.’ This is in remarkable contrast to the Earth energy budget of Kevin Trenberth used by the IPCC, which claims that ‘greenhouse gases’ heat the Earth by 324 Wm-2 compared to only 168 Wm-2 directly from the Sun! Thus, we have at least 6 published Earth energy budgets stating the contribution to the Earth surface temperature from ‘greenhouse gases’ is zero, compared to the IPCC/Trenberth budget claiming ‘greenhouse gases’ heat the Earth almost… Read more »

Richard C (NZ)

See – “Climate” Climate Model Papers

i.e. Climate Model Papers are not Climate Science Papers

Richard C (NZ)

Accumulation model for the 1950-2011 period

The model can explain most of the rise in temperature since 1950, and more than 70% of the variance with correct phase shift of the 11-year solar cycle

On the Dynamics of Global Temperature (Accumulation Theory of Solar Influence)

David R.B. Stockwell

A straightforward recurrence matrix representation of the atmosphere/surface/deep ocean system, models temperature changes by (1) the size of a forcing, (2) its duration (due to accumulation of heat), and (3) the depth of forcing in the atmosphere/surface/deep ocean system (due to increasing mixing losses and increasing intrinsic gain with depth)

Richard C (NZ)

Butler & Johnston pSCL vs temperature correlation model Comment 115 Bruce of Newcastle: September 4th, 2011 at 1:54 pm Phillip at #102 I find it interesting that the IPCC GCM’s can match the 20th C (in your link), but certainly there are enough degrees of freedom to match almost anything if you tweak them enough. I’ve done quite a lot of modelling both multivariate statistical and process, so I know the limits of the field. The trouble for the IPCC is other modelling approaches can not only model the 20th C but also the full temperature record prior to 1900 AND the last decade, which the IPCC GCM’s have been having so much problem with. In fact you can do so with just two primary variables: previous solar cycle length (a proxy for the combined magnetic and total irradiance effects of the Sun) and a low CO2 climate sensitivity number. It works even better when you add in aspects such as the oceans and volcanos, but just those two will do almost all variance since the start of the instrumental temperature record in 1659. I did this using Butler & Johnston 1996,… Read more »


Computational complexity theory

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

See also the link – bottom of page

Parameterized complexity

Parameterized complexity is a branch of computational complexity theory in computer science that focuses on classifying computational problems according to their inherent difficulty with respect to multiple parameters of the input.

Climate model relevancy.


Numerical Models, Integrated Circuits and Global Warming Theory

The practical experience of numerical modeling in allied fields such as semiconductor process modeling should cause us to question the claimed accuracy for Global Climate Models. The UN’s distortion of historical climate data should further undermine our faith in climate models because such models can only be “tested” against accurate historical data.

In my view, we should adopt the private sector’s practice of placing extremely limited reliance on numerical models for major investment decisions in the absence of confirming test data, that is, climate data which can be easily collected just by waiting.

Richard C (NZ)

See “Economics” we should adopt the private sector’s practice of placing extremely limited reliance on numerical models for major investment decisions


Interesting comments from Richard North on a recent article in the New Yorker on selection bias in science

Richard C (NZ)

Ya gotta love this from NASA:-

“Carbon dioxide and nitric oxide are natural thermostats,explains James Russell of Hampton University, SABER’s principal investigator. “When the upper atmosphere (or ‘thermosphere’) heats up, these molecules try as hard as they can to shed that heat back into space.”

For the three day period, March 8th through 10th, the thermosphere absorbed 26 billion kWh of energy. Infrared radiation from CO2 and NO, the two most efficient coolants in the thermosphere, re-radiated 95% of that total back into space.

From ‘Solar Storm Dumps Gigawatts into Earth’s Upper Atmosphere’

Jim McK

The science is beyond me but in the calculation of Global Warming Potential of minor gases “Radiative Efficiency” is one of the parameters. Numbers universally quoted are
CO2 0.01584
CH4 0.37
NO2 3.1

Any views on the credibility/appropriateness of these parameters?

Richard C (NZ)

Jim, I had a look at RE in the “Methane methane” thread. Remember this:- The Astrophysicists compute “radiative efficiency” simply as per the definition I gave up-thread, that was:- Radiation efficiency: At a given frequency, the ratio of the power radiated to the total power supplied to the radiator. [energy in : energy out] I found myself reading (with an element of disbelief that I was) “DIRECT CALCULATION OF THE RADIATIVE EFFICIENCY OF AN ACCRETION DISK AROUND A BLACK HOLE” But the IPCC’s RE is NOT the conventional radiative efficiency ratio used in Astrophysics. Down-thread, I got this far on it:- Note the exclamation “Ye gads, this is painful” I think I found the provenance of the IPCC’s RE in the next comment here in the paper that Andy dredged up:- RE revisions are detailed in Myhre et al 1998 that are determined by.LBL model, NBM model and BBM model. Also this caution:- We need to be VERY careful with units and state when necessary e.g. Radiative efficiency of CO2 from Chap 6, 6.12.2 is 0.01548 Wm−2 ppmv−1. Radiative efficiency of CH4 from Chap 6, Table 6.7 is 3.7×10−4 Wm−2… Read more »

Richard C (NZ)

Also, don’t forget the RE of WV:-

Calculating the global-warming potential

“A diligent search of sources other than Climate Change 2001 reveals that the radiative efficiency of water vapor is fifty to sixty percent greater than that of CO2.”

Jim McK

Thanks richard,

Yes I got the units sorted some time ago. I have just been accepting that the use of RE is appropriate and accepted science and wanted to know whether thinking has moved on at all.

Will get into those refs over the weekend.

Richard C, you know more about this than I do. Jim does, too! Could you comment when you get a minute on the relative merits of Thayer Watkins’s site Saturation, Nonlinearity and Overlap in the Radiative Efficiencies of Greenhouse Gases and Water Vapor Rules the Greenhouse System at

Also, Geocraft gives water vapour’s relative contribution to the “greenhouse effect” as 95.000% and carbon dioxide’s as 3.618%, which seems to make WV about 26 times more effective than CO2. Which is orders of magnitude away from 60%. What do you think?

Richard C (NZ)

First the Geocraft question:-

Geocraft gives water vapour’s relative contribution to the “greenhouse effect” as 95.000% and carbon dioxide’s as 3.618%, which seems to make WV about 26 times more effective than CO2.

I think this is reasonable given the references for the figures as long as it’s not taken as hard-and-fast (“about” as you say). As numerous experts and laymen (myself) continually point out, this is easily demonstrated using the dry Sahara – humid Singapore example.

Which is orders of magnitude away from 60%. What do you think?

Be careful to make like-for-like comparisons here, I think you might be using radiative efficiency (RE) for your 60% figure as in Watkins’ “the radiative efficiency of water vapor is fifty to sixty percent greater than that of CO2” but Geocraft’s Table 3 is “Relative Contribution to the “Greenhouse Effect””.

Radiative efficiency and relative contribution are two very different concepts. The first is a term in a parameter of the Beer Lambert Law, the second is nominal relative quantities.

Ah. The contribution of each gas is weighted by its relative abundance. Naturally. Thanks.

Richard C (NZ)

Now the Thayer Watkins article. I can’t identify anything untoward where he works through the saturation, nonlinearity and overlap situations. I can’t recall any dispute elsewhere of what he covers either. What he highlights is where the IPCC (IGCC typos in text unless there really is an IGCC I haven’t heard of) constructs get weird and the glaring omissions. That’s in the sections (my numbering):- 1) The Radiative Efficiencies of the Greenhouse Gases, 2) Radiative Forcing and Global Warming Potential And paragraph at bottom of page, 3) Cloudiness So the merits of those 3 sections as I see them (actually IPCC demerits) are:- #1 Omission of H2O (liquid and vapour) from the radiative efficiency table. As Thayer puts it:- “It is incredible how the scientific works on global warming can leave H2O entirely out of the picture“ #2 GWP is a weird construct that sets CO2 to 1 and all others relative to it. This presupposes that the workings for CO2 are rock solid because if it’s out, so are all the others. Andy is bothered with it (GWP) because he has not found how methane gets set to 23 x CO2. That… Read more »

Richard C (NZ)

I’ve just read Myhre et al again and it ONLY deals with radiative forcing (RF) revisions. It does NOT deal with radiative efficiency (RE), I had my wires crossed thinking there was something in there about RE. Neither does Myhre go into GWP at all. Since this puts us back at square one I suggest looking at Climate Change 2001: The Third Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Table 6.7, p. 388 because that is the source of the GWP for 100 years table in the Thayer Watkins article here:- There should be references in TAR p.388 or thereabouts for the workings of the GWP values. Can’t find page 388 but 6. Radiative Forcing of Climate Change 6.12 Global Warming Potentials is a good start:- The GWP has been defined as the ratio of the time-integrated radiative forcing from the instantaneous release of 1 kg of a trace substance relative to that of 1 kg of a reference gas (IPCC, l990): where TH is the time horizon over which the calculation is considered, ax is the radiative efficiency due to a unit increase in atmospheric abundance of the… Read more »

Richard C (NZ)

Should be:-

“….back to SAR [and WMO (l999)] in combination with sources “in this section and in the headers and footnotes to the tables” “

Richard C (NZ)

“WMO 1999” from the only reference stating the full title I can find (couldn’t even get to it at the WMO website) is:-

WMO Report No. 44, “Scientific Assessment of Stratospheric Ozone”, WMO Global Ozone Research and Monitoring Project, 1999

Found here at The Alliance for Responsible Atmospheric Policy Worth browsing through this report.

About the Alliance Focus is HCFCs and HFCs and the Membership List seems to be all the big industry players.

WMO 1999 is no use for our purposes so can discard and look at SAR.

Richard C (NZ)

SAR refers to the book: IPCC, 1994: Climate Change 1994. Radiative Forcing of Climate Change and an Evaluation of the IPCC IS92 Emissions Scenarios.

TAR WGI have copied from page 215 the screed I posted from 6.12 Global Warming Potentials . That begins:-

“The GWP has been defined as the ratio of the time-integrated radiative forcing from the instantaneous release of 1 kg of a trace substance relative to that of 1 kg of a reference gas (IPCC, l990):”

“IPCC 1990” is FAR so I should have gone there in the first instance. Chapter 2 of FAR has 2.2.7 A Global Warming Potential Concept for Trace Gases on page 58 text.and pdf.

This has all the references we need but another day for this, there’s only so much IPCC guff I can take at a time.

Jim McK

Hi Richard,

Attached is the latest version of my replication of the IPCC GWP numbers

Richard C (NZ)

I get Not Found Error 404 Jim.

Jim McK

Hi Richard & Andy, It is difficult blogging with an excel which is the easiest way to deal with this but here goes Andy, this is how I believe IPCC calculate GWP for methane of 23 Inputs to the calculation are • Molecular mass of Methane (16) • Molecular mass of CO2 (44) • Radiative Efficiency of Methane (0.37) – IPCC • Radiative Efficiency of CO2 (0.01584) – IPCC • An arbitrary choice of time horizon (100 yrs) – IPCC (IPCC) • Lifetime of CO2 in atmosphere 150 yrs – IPCC • Half life of Methane (7.25 yrs) • Numerous adjustments as per IPCC The calculation is (RE CH4/Mass CH4) x Decay function of CH4, divided by the same calc for CO2. The Decay functions (in excel form) are calculated as: “Decay function = –(lifetime)x(EXP(-horizon/lifetime)-1).” This formula was from a teaching model left by mistake on Wikipedia since removed. Steady State or Burden Life – Half life of Methane in troposphere 7.25 years Pulse Adjustment 1 + 40% (IPCC/TEAC page 140) The primary calculations for GWP were performed in the late 1990,s when there had been a decade of rapid increase of methane.… Read more »


Thanks Jim. I have bookmarked this and will come back to it when I get time.
I think your figure of 6.4 for GWP is close to that derived by Wilson Flood who calculated it at 7.3

Jim McK

Hi Andy,

Dr Flood’s number of 7.3 came from simply dividing the headline number of 20 by the mass difference of 2.75. It was pointed out to me by a NIWA scientist who looked at my calcs that while we tend to drop the units in GWP calcs, as they cancel out, Radiative Efficiency is apparently calculated in mass terms so it is not correct to remove mass from the calculation. (see above)

Richard C (NZ)

“Radiative Efficiency is apparently calculated in mass terms so it is not correct to remove mass from the calculation” No don’t agree with this, there’s another reason not to drop RE and that is that in TAR equation 6.2 for GWP(x) found in 6.12 Global Warming Potentials 6.12.1 Introduction, ax is the radiative efficiency due to a unit increase in atmospheric abundance of the substance in question (i.e., Wm-2 kg-1) and ar is the reference. RE (ax) with units (Wm-2 kg-1) is peculiar to climate science and the reason that IPCC REs can ONLY be used for GWP calculations. The parameter a is the product of two terms. One is the concentration ρ of the absorber and the other is a characteristic of the absorber α, called its radiative efficiency. Except that climate science does not calculate a simple energy in to energy out unit-less efficiency ratio as any other discipline would e.g. astrophysics, radio or mechanical engineering, they even use a different symbol for efficiency. For example, Thermal Efficiency: (η) = the simple ratio of Output / Input In this paper, Cherubini et al you can see in Equation… Read more »

Richard C (NZ)

Guys, I urge you to read FAR WGI Chapter 2, Radiative Forcing of Climate, page 58, 2.2.7 A Global Warming Potential Concept for Trace Gases The term “radiative efficiency” does NOT occur. What is referred to in TAR, Wiki etc as “radiative efficiency” (α) is merely “instantaneous radiative forcing” (a) in FAR. This tallies with my assessment that αCO2 = ΔF CO2. and that (α) has NOTHING to do with the conventional concept of efficiency (η). The FAR GWP expression on page 58 is similar to TAR 6.2 except for the description of terms, quoting:- “……where a1 is the instantaneous radiative forcing due to a unit increase in the concentration of trace gas, 1, c1 is concentration of the trace gas, 1, remaining at lime, t, after its release and n is the number of years over which the calculation is performed The corresponding values for carbon dioxide are in the denominator” No “radiative efficiency”in there. I think we can forget about the unconventional “radiative efficiency” along with it’s phony symbol (α) being anything more than just the same old “radiative forcing” with a different name. We still have to accept the… Read more »

Richard C (NZ)

Acknowledged too Jim. I’ve only been searching the provenance and development of the methodology so until I’ve read FAR and it’s references linked above that everything leads back to, I can only comment from limited background.

I’m a bit confused, you add 3 “indirect” effects to the “direct” effect to arrive at the “direct” GWP of 23 as tabled in TAR:-

6.12.2 Direct GWPs

Table 6.7: Direct Global Warming Potentials

I realize that indirect effects are detailed in TAR but why (if I’ve got this right) do the IPCC term GWPs that are indirect effect adjusted as direct GWPs? Seems to me that 23 is Direct + Indirect 1 + Indirect 2 + Indirect 3 i.e. a Cumulative Indirect Effect Adjusted GWP.

Jim McK

My interpretation is that Table 6.7 as it applies to CH4 and NO2 includes direct and indirect influences and not just direct as shown in the header. If this was not the case IPCC would be screaming from the roof tops

With inputs of 3.7 x 10-4 and adjusted lifetime of 12.0 years the GWP calculates to about 11 slightly different from above.

Jim McK

Hi Richard C,

I am getting a bit lost with the arguement around RE and mass.

What I have been focusing on is replicating the IPCC calculation as per the formula above as I have not seen this published before and everyone has been bandingly around all sorts of numbers and arguements.

Once that is accepted there is a separate debate to be had around its reasonableness.

Richard C (NZ)

I’m a bit lost with the GWP formula.

Is your formula a simplification, rearrangement or alternative to the GWP(x) 6.2 formula from TAR?

GWP(x) 6.2 here

Where TH is the time horizon over which the calculation is considered, ax is the radiative efficiency due to a unit increase in atmospheric abundance of the substance in question (i.e., Wm-2 kg-1), [x(t)] is the time-dependent decay in abundance of the instantaneous release of the substance, and the corresponding quantities for the reference gas are in the denominator.

No mass and integration 0 – TH. That does not look like anything that can be rearranged to what you have:-

RE CH4/Mass CH4) x Decay function of CH4, divided by the same calc for CO2

Richard C (NZ)
Jim McK

Yes the terms direct and indirect are possibly confusing. It is more that the number was developed in stages

Basically I think the initial group manipulated the time in atmosphere for 7.25 yrs to 12.83 years as above and produced the GWP of 11.3.

I then think that the formula was essentially locked away. In the form I found it in a US University Chemistry course it was considerably less approachable that the unbundled version above.

Later ‘Researchers” then took the GWP number and competed in the TAR over hypothesising further corrections they could make to the GWP number without revisting the basic calculation.

Sounds crazy but there are the numbers.

Jim McK

Hi Richard C

Its a re- arrangement – the Decay Function is my term, defined above – which brings in “decay in abundance” as variuously defined for each gas and chosen TH. Mass is there

Richard C (NZ)

Yes Jim, mass is in your formula but it’s not in IPCC TAR GWP(x) 6.2.

Also 6.2 is an integration with respect to time (dt) in both numerator and denominator but yours is not. Decay functions occur in both yours and 6.2 but are included in the integrations of 6.2.(numerator and denominator) whereas yours are cumulative adjustments to an initial calculation.


I think what you have is an approximation of 6.2 or alternative calculation that returns the same values by some quirk but I don’t see how it can be a rearrangement.

Richard C (NZ)

The above comment is irrelevant now that I’ve solved the mystery here

Jim McK

Richard, think you are testing me.

The TAR was written by a committee as a summary document and is full of inconsistencies and various views on the adjustments required. I doubt very much that you could replicate a GWP calculation solely from the Tar – indeed that is why no one outside IPCC has done so.

I agree that the cummulative adjustments to the initial calculation are not science just IPCC politics but the alternative would have been to create an improbably long atmospheric life time for CH4 (27 years).

Happy to provide the original model from Chemistry Dept Hope University MI I unbundled if you are interested. The calculation above also works fine for NO2 so this is not a co-incidence.

Richard C (NZ)

That “The calculation above also works fine for NO2 so this is not a co-incidence” is what has got me flummoxed.

I need a better explanation for the differences between your formula and IPCC TAR Equation 6.2 that I’ve identified here

I’m not testing you Jim, I’m testing the equations for GWP (yours vs the IPCCs) one against the other and the provenance of both. Although FAR Chapter 2 gives some references to early attempts at defining a concept of GWP, the provenance of the expression the IPCC uses is FAR WGI Chapter 2. The following people came up with it:-

AJ. Apling; J.P. Blanchet; R.J. Charlson; D. Crommelynck; H. Grassl; N. Husson;
GJ. Jenkins; I. Karol; M.D. King; V. Ramanathan; H. Rodhe; G-Y. Shi; G. Thomas;
W-C. Wang; T.M.L. Wigley; T. Yamanouchi

I cannot determine the provenance of your formula to the same degree even though it seems to come up with the same values – this is really curious.

Andy if you see this, can you explain why these two different mathematical expressions return the same values.

Richard C (NZ)

OK I’ve tracked down the provenance of your model Jim and the reason for the two different equations returning the same values becomes clear (see below). Here’s the paper:- Greenhouse Warming Potentials from the Infrared Spectroscopy of Atmospheric Gases Matthew J. Elrod Department of Chemistry, Hope College, Holland, MI 49423 J. Chem. Educ., 1999, 76 (12), p 1702 DOI: 10.1021/ed076p1702 Publication Date (Web): December 1, 1999 Abstract The greenhouse warming potential is a relative measure of the capacity of a specific chemical species to trap infrared radiation as heat in the Earth’s atmosphere, and is a scale that has been used to establish regulatory strategies for the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions. A model is described that allows a straightforward, spreadsheet-based determination of greenhouse warming potentials from the infrared spectra of atmospheric gases. On the basis of the numerical results of the model, students are able to investigate the molecular properties that are characteristic of greenhouse gases and thus are able to understand the rationale behind the recent agreement by the world’s industrialized nations to reduce certain greenhouse gas emissions. The paper is here:- Elrod states the IPCC FAR GWP equation… Read more »

Richard C (NZ)

The direct link to Elrod’s model from his paper is

Excel, Version 7.0

Richard C (NZ)

Jim this is wrong

“……the cummulative adjustments to the initial calculation are not science just IPCC politics”

You are NOT using the IPCC GWP expression. The IPCC GWP expression here does NOT make “cumulative adjustments to the initial calculation”.

It is your formula that does that Jim, not the IPCC’s.

Richard C (NZ)
Jim McK

Hi Richard,

Yes I thought over night I should point out the use of EXP being a standard excel function (exponential) used in my calc.

So where have we got to. Are you happy with the model above?

If you set up a working spreadsheet it becomes obvious that there had to be post calculation adjustments.

Richard C (NZ)

Jim you could have saved me a great amount of time and angst simply by linking to (as I have done):- A) Elrod’s paper where everything is explained, and B) The spreadsheet model. Please don’t lead me on a wild goose chase like this ever again when you could easily have shortened the process considerably by A and B – life is too short. Yes I am satisfied with the model because now I can see its basis in Elrod’s paper (mass), it’s provenance (IPCC FAR via Seinfeld et al), the formula and why it was different to TAR 6.2, modifications and simplifications to it by Elrod, and the parameters. The decay adjustments are documented in TAR so that’s where I’ll go for those. I’m not set up for Excel at the moment (long story, I’ll get it back one day) but I did load the model into Google Docs spreadsheet to have a look. I couldn’t use it as I would Excel but I could see what it is all about. I’m more interested in the historical development and evolution of GWP to be honest and my discovery that αCO2 = ΔF… Read more »

Jim McK

Richard C

“Please don’t lead me on a wild goose chase like this ever again when you could easily have shortened the process considerably by A and B – life is too short.”

Well I beg your pardon -that was certainly not my intention. I posted the spread sheet model to Google docs which referenced Elrod but you were not able to pick it. I wrongly assumed the excel format I gave would be self explainatory.

Incidentally I have been trying to get this reviewed for about 2 years so thanks for making the effort and confirming you are happy with the model. I will put the working excel version through to Richard T.

Richard C (NZ)

Caveats being:-

The GWP per-mass basis in Elrod’s paper and model.

Elrod’s GWP equation 3 provenance (IPCC FAR via Seinfeld et al 1998).

Elrod’s GWP equation 4 per-mass basis and why it was different to TAR 6.2 per-molecule basis (modifications to TAR 6.2/Elrod 3 by Elrod for Elrod 4)

Simplifications to Elrod 4 by Elrod.for his spreadsheet model.

The whole caboodle (GWPs) still all hinges on (are relative too) the initial values for CO2 (set at 1) and the accuracy of CO2 forcing (and therefore “efficiency”) determination (note RF revisions and therefore RE revisions in Myhre et al 1998, and 1998b I think).

Richard C (NZ)

More caveats this time from Wikipedia wrt the GWP(x) expression The radiative efficiencies ax and ar are not necessarily constant over time. While the absorption of infrared radiation by many greenhouse gases varies linearly with their abundance, a few important ones display non-linear behaviour for current and likely future abundances (e.g., CO2, CH4, and N2O). For those gases, the relative radiative forcing will depend upon abundance and hence upon the future scenario adopted. Since all GWP calculations are a comparison to CO2 which is non-linear, all GWP values are affected. Assuming otherwise as is done above will lead to lower GWPs for other gases than a more detailed approach would. Possibly why TAR WGI were considering a replacement for GWPs Also, where RF “CAPACITY” fits into GWP from the same Wiki article:- GWP is based on a number of factors, including the radiative efficiency (infrared-absorbing ability) [actually radiative forcing “capacity” below] of each gas relative to that of carbon dioxide, as well as the decay rate of each gas (the amount removed from the atmosphere over a given number of years) relative to that of carbon dioxide.[3] The radiative forcing capacity… Read more »

Richard C (NZ)

“I propose RFC” for radiative forcing capacity.

Something like IRaa for “infrared absorbing ability” would be a better descriptive perhaps, just as a mental aid and to define what’s being talked about in discussion.

Anything is better than using RF for everything.

Jim McK

Thats good enough for me.

At least we now have a simple spreadsheet model that can easily produce a number and we can examine the spurious adjustments made to get to the number 23.

I agree with you whole heartedly that the whole caboodle of GWP’s is flawed but while it is still recognised by governments it needs attention.

McKinlay GWP model

Jim McKinlay has sent me version 4 of his GWP model spreadsheet and asks me to make it available here. I’m very pleased to do so.

Anybody interested can download the model here from our Downloads folder.

Now also available from the sidebar.

Richard C (NZ)

Isn’t it the Elrod model?

Also I get “Not found” at the link above.and at the sidebar.

Jim McK

I agree, however I am pretty sure that Dr Elrod will not appreciate this rearrangement of his model being used to show up IPCC manipulation. Your call Richard T.

Richard C (NZ)

Just a matter of stating that Jim’s model is an adaption of Matthew J. Elrod’s “Greenhouse Warming Potential Model.” and citing this paper that documents it:-

Greenhouse Warming Potentials from the Infrared Spectroscopy of Atmospheric Gases

Matthew J. Elrod
Department of Chemistry, Hope College, Holland, MI 49423
J. Chem. Educ., 1999, 76 (12), p 1702
DOI: 10.1021/ed076p1702
Publication Date (Web): December 1, 1999

McKinlay GWP model

Let me try this again.

Jim McKinlay has sent me version 4 of his GWP model spreadsheet and asks me to make it available here. I’m very pleased to do so. The file is now in the right place, and my apologies for the inconvenient 404 errors.

Readers can download Jim’s latest model from the sidebar.

Jim’s model is an adaptation of Matthew J. Elrod’s “Greenhouse Warming Potential Model” from Greenhouse Warming Potentials from the Infrared Spectroscopy of Atmospheric Gases, Matthew J. Elrod, J. Chem. Educ., 1999, 76 (12), p 1702. DOI: 10.1021/ed076p1702. Publication Date (Web): December 1, 1999.

Thanks for your help and advice with this, Jim and RC. Let me know if the citation needs correcting.

Richard C (NZ)

Bonza RT. The citation’s from the source so I don’t see how there can be any problem and the download links work fine.

Richard C (NZ)

I’m looking at GWP-modelling-v-4 via Google Docs Jim, so if there’s another sheet other than “Methane 100 yrs” that Docs hasn’t given me can you let me know please.

I’ll have to look up the rationale for cumulative adjustments because that’s what cranks up the number, but as of now I haven’t got a clue about it.

From my background, alarm bells always go off when I see anything cumulative (as in the NZT7).

Jim McK

Hi Richard,

I had models with different time horizons for testing but removed them as they a just confusing and IPCC has adopted 100years.

In the lower table (adjustments removed) you will find that you need to put a half life of 27 years for methane (rather than 7) to get to a GWP of 23. Hence the need to use post calc adjustments.

The adjustments described in notes above in some cases are averages of the range of possible numbers quoted as Tar 6 doesn’t exactly say the number adopted.

The main problem is the contrivances around a pulse of methane throwing out the natural balance of OH radicals and therefore lengthening its life. And the adjustment is made twice- we can see that by the use of 12.0 in table 6.7 as discussed earlier. Now methane is more or less steady state this has to be corrected.

Richard C (NZ)

OK I’ve got it all then, thanks Jim. It will take me some time to catch up with your level of understanding of the adjustments because I keep going off on missions (see below) but you’ve given me a head start for what to look for when I do actually get around to the IPCC process in detail. I’ve only just started looking beyond v4 as received but I see the major effects in the 2 calcs:- Pulse => GWP => GWP (mass) Steady => GWP => GWP (mass) including the need to use half life 27 to get GWP 23. I set Radiative Efficiency CO2 to the AR4 value of 0.00001413 (CH4 is unchanged at 0.00037, Elrod used 0.000011 for CO2) and get GWP CH4 25.8 vs 25 AR4. There’s been a ton of revisions since Myhre et al and TAR e.g. from AR4:- Since the TAR, radiative efficiencies have been reviewed by Montzka et al. (2003) and Velders et al. (2005). Gohar et al. (2004) and Forster et al. (2005) investigated HFC compounds, with up to 40% differences from earlier published results. Based on a variety of radiative transfer codes, they… Read more »

Richard C (NZ)

Received Elrod Model (unbundled).xls by email, thanks guys. It’s in Dropbox here:-

It loads into Google Docs spreadsheet no problem as did the former (bundled) ITS GWP Data so I’m still in the game.

However, in Elrods paper, the model link is to GWP.xls so we have:-

ITS GWP Data.xls => Elrod Model (unbundled).xls

But there’s also,


It is GWP.xls that I cannot load into Docs and I will have to re-install Excel for. The internet address for GWP.xls is:- (Excel, Version 7.0).

Or (Mathcad,Version 6.0+)

Question is: what is the difference between GWP.xls and ITS GWP Data.xls ?

Until I get Excel back up I don’t know but if you guys can make a comparison via Excel it would speed up the process.

ITS GWP Data.xls is in Dropbox here:-

Richard C (NZ)

For some reason the blog wont hyperlink the full Elrod Model (unbundled).xls Dropbox address but if you append “.xls” in the browser address box you should be able to get to it (I can).

Richard C (NZ)

For the record and for anyone that stumbles on the preceding comments, the 3 model files are:-

gwp.xls – this is Matthew Elrod’s “Greenhouse Warming Potential Model”

Elrod Model (unbundled).xls – this is Jim McKinlay’s enhanced and extended interpretation (see the red box ” replicating cf3ch2f ”) of gwp.xls as per Elrod’s aims in his documenting paper linked up-thread and accessible here:-

ITS GWP Data.xls – this is a bare-bones version of gwp.xls and particularly useless – ignore it.

Richard C (NZ)

The 4th GWP model titled “McKinlay GWP model” is:-

GWP-modelling-v-4.xls – this is Jim McKinlay’s very much more useful multipurpose model compiled in a format that demonstrates the sequence of GWP computation that Elrod’s model does not clearly and simply do.

There are 2 sections:-



STEADY STATE MODEL – IPCC adjustments removed

Both sections demonstrate how an initial GWP is massively boosted by subsequent adjustments.

As accessed, the model will have TAR values e.g Radiative Efficiency CO2 0.01584 but any user can access the latest IPCC values in the most recent Assessment Report and adjust accordingly.

Jim McK

Hi Richard C,

No don’t seem to be able to but If you can see the red box ” replicating cf3ch2f ” which is the unbundling thats fine. Not sure anyone else would be particularly interested.

Richard C (NZ)

Did you append “,xls” as per my following comment Jim?

Anyway, I’ve got Excel back up on my system (even tried getting an old version of Mathcad running but couldn’t) and I see the red box ” replicating cf3ch2f ”

What you’ve done Jim, is fulfilled Elrod’s objective. In his paper he describes how the model is a learning tool for students to fill in the necessary data and in the process, learn a great deal.

By your doing so you’re way ahead of the rest of us (well me anyway but I’m learning too).


New paper confirms findings of Lindzen & Spencer of very low climate sensitivity to CO2 A paper under review for Earth System Dynamics uses a novel technique based on satellite data and surface air temperatures to find that global warming due to increased CO2 is is much less than claimed by the IPCC. According to the author, the findings confirm those of Spencer & Braswell and Lindzen & Choi that a doubling of CO2 levels would only lead to an increase in top of the atmosphere temperature of 0.67°C, or global surface temperature of about 0.18°C, instead of the alleged 3°C claimed by IPCC computer models. The observations indicate a climate feedback parameter of 5.5 Wm−2 K−1, which is in very close agreement to that found by Spencer and Braswell (2010) of 6 Wm−2 K−1, as well as that found by Lindzen and Choi (2011). A climate feedback parameter of 5.5 Wm−2 K−1 corresponds to global warming at the surface of only [1 Wm-2]/[5.5 Wm−2 K−1] = 0.18 °C per doubling of CO2 levels [or 3.7/5.5 = 0.67°C at the top of the atmosphere], far less than the 3°C global warming claimed by… Read more »


The Rob Wilson thread on Bishop Hill is interesting

Rob Wilson is a climate scientist who dared to crticise Mann and is now getting blasted by Mann on Twitter

Richard C (NZ)

I liked David Rose’s response:

“The new climate orthodoxy: if you question the work of Mike Mann, you must be a “denier”. At least it has the virtue of simplicity.

Richard C (NZ)

‘The ocean is broken’ Nothing could have prepared Ivan Macfadyen for the devastation all around him as he sailed the Pacific. […] They told us that this was just a small fraction of a day’s by-catch. That they were only interested in tuna and everything else was rubbish. It was all killed, all dumped. They just trawled that reef day and night and stripped it of every living thing.” […] ”After we left Japan it felt as if the ocean itself was dead,” Macfadyen says. ”We saw one whale, sort of rolling helplessly on the surface with what looked like a big tumour on its head. I’ve done a lot of miles on the ocean in my life and I’m used to seeing turtles, dolphins, sharks and big flurries of feeding birds. But this time, for 3000 nautical miles, there was nothing alive to be seen.” But garbage was everywhere. ”Part of it was the aftermath of the tsunami that hit Japan a couple of years ago. The wave came in over the land, picked up an unbelievable load of stuff and carried it out to sea. And it’s still out there, everywhere… Read more »

A fascinating dialogue is developing amongst knowledgeable scientists regards residence time of C14 CO2,,,, (Be sure to read the comments),

Richard C (NZ)

Good for a giggle. ‘Climate change: The case of the missing heat’ Sixteen years into the mysterious ‘global-warming hiatus’, scientists are piecing together an explanation. * Jeff Tollefson, 15 January 2014, Nature | News Feature # # # First they allude to an alternative explanation for the IPCC’s 1976 and 1998 anthro warming period”, Blowing hot and cold “An analysis of historical data buttressed these [NCAR’s} conclusions, showing that the cool phase of the PDO coincided with a few decades of cooler temperatures after the Second World War (see ‘The Pacific’s global reach’), and that the warm phase lined up with the sharp spike seen in global temperatures between 1976 and 1998 (ref. 4).” Then it’s back to GHGs again for post 1998. Heated debate “That opens the door, he [Mark Cane, Columbia Univ.] says, to the possibility that warming from greenhouse gases is driving La Niña-like conditions [post 1998] and could continue to do so in the future, helping to suppress global warming. “If all of that is true, it’s a negative feedback, and if we don’t capture it in our models they will overstate the warming,” he says.” Can’t wait… Read more »


Finally some serious questions being asked by some serious climate scientists at the American Physical Society in an open and public forum. I thoroughly encourage everyone to read this:

About time these question were asked, and we all know the ramifications the answers will have.

Magoo, this is a spectacular development. I’m elevating your comment and link to a post so it’s more visible and hope to have time for more comments on it soon. Thank you!

Richard C (NZ)

Hansen et al (2005) have an estimate for planetary oceanic thermal inertia (as do others in the literature). Here’s a synopsis for the record. The article, and Hansen et al, make a crazy miss-attribution but the point is the lag time between planetary energy input change and atmospheric temperature response: Mostly citing the above-linked Science study by Hansen et al Earth’s thermal climate inertia is often quoted as being ’40 years’ [“10 -100 years” – Trenberth]. The study [Hansen et al 2005 – see link in article] says something quite different though. It offers a confidence range between 25 and 50 years – with 37.5 years as most likely value. >”a confidence range between 25 and 50 years – with 37.5 years as most likely value” I think this is a very realistic estimate, it is longer than some others e.g. Abdussamatov’s 20 yr ocean-only and 14+/-6 land+ocean, and certainly a lot longer than “time constant” experts from other fields (think Electrical Engineers and David Evans N-D Solar Model series – many heated arguments over the oceanic time constant). For example, solar change occurred circa 2005 and is continuing. Using Hansen et… Read more »